Sexless and Loveless Marriages

'ALIMONY' IS LEGAL TERRORISM TOO!

Also Read :

en.wikipedia.com

Topics : 1.) Men's Rights
2.) Misandry

Pastor’s Advice for Better Marriage: More Sex

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/24sex.html?em

Re: # 24; parthaab bhai

I agree ... this thing has got completely out of hand ... and it'd appear not just in the west

http://spoonfeedin.blogspot.com/2008/11/india-estranged-wife-entitled-to.html

In one of the most sadist judgements against male rights, the Indian Supreme Court has opined that husbands should provide not only of his divorced wife's medical expenses, but even provide her a house of equal value to the one he
lives in!

This new ruling is as startling as it is UNETHICAL in this age of INCREASING divorces, for two reasons :
Firstly WOMEN are known to initiate divorce in more than 70% of the cases in the USA [1].
And second, combined now with the TEMPTATION of living a grand life post divorce, the wife's responsibility for happiness within the marriage will be diminished further. Womens groups will definitely celebrate this bonanza, and
misuse this, as in western nations, as a further ENCOURAGEMENT to divorce.

This ruling, will encourage MORE women to seek divorce, and will make more men wary of marriage ( and increasing risk of divorce ) in the future.

Coming just after the Men's Day on the 19th, this ruling might harass more men in the future, due to increasing divorce rates. The male now has to earn for the sake of a woman who probably HATES him more than anyone else in the world! This paradox seems to have escaped the inventors of the concept of 'alimony' though!

The ORIGIN of alimony can be traced back to the ecclesiastical courts in England,[2] at a time when 'DOWRY' was in practice. "Because the husband was the property owner, and the wife depended upon him to provide for her sustenance, the English ecclesiastical courts, consistently ruled that the husband had the duty to provide for the wife after divorce. Even though the courts in America continued that tradition, there were some critical distinctions between American society and society in England. England, at that time, only granted divorces "a mensa et thoro," while the American courts granted absolute divorces."

The first reported LEGAL case of alimony in Nevada involved a wife, in a divorce action in the late 19th century, who petitioned the court for alimony pendente lite. This award at that time was considered money for attorney's fees. One year later, in 1867, the court expanded the concept of alimony pendente lite to assist the wife with travel expenses of witnesses. As the years went by the Nevada Supreme Court opinions reflected what the court, at that time, believed to be the purpose of alimony. As one reads the court opinions, it is apparent that the purpose changed from time to time and those changes reflected society.The first recorded alimony was as recently as in 1867 in evada. More recently some awards have been unbelievably large.

"No compensation" divorce is more gender neutral, and does NOT favour the break-up of marriages [4]. The judiciary however, likes to involve itself in kitchen politics, since this is a big source of revenue for itself. But putting
further pressure on men to remain in the marriage through anti-male laws ( IPC 498a, DV, etc.), while encouraging women to leave it, is immoral. One of men's rights primary concerns, is about the practice of alimony being exploited by feminist authors for financial gain [5]

Misandry has itself been redefined by this complete and despicable ruling, negating men's sensitivities and human rights. The awareness of the dangers of marriage must be brought about, to the young men of marriageable age.

Wake Up, Males! Wake Up!

[1]http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51210
[2]http ://www.divorcenet.com/states/nevada/alimony_weakest_link
[3]http://edition.cnn. com/2008/SHOWBIZ/03/17/mccartney.mills/index.html
[4]http://www.abolish-alimony .org/
[5]http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&id=3j2B-uXW6RwC&dq=alimo ny+divorce&prin\
tsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=PpicWQC8Ff&sig= GlBHY_KdUwk-mCXt9PC8QwI6QYo&sa=X&o\
i=book_result&resnum=6&ct=r esult#PPP1,M1

Dr Sohail Sahib. A good and educational writeup. Thanks. From a married person’s perspective (at least form my own prospect) Sex is an overrated affair. Yes, in the beginning it is important, but after about 10 years of marriage, it takes a back seat. Way back. After 20 years of a very strong marriage, we get more pleasure out of watering plants than rocking the Qasbah. Doesn’t mean that our relationship is not as strong as it was 20 years ago. In reality it has grown stronger. Sex in the beginning is good, just as learning to ride a bicycle is good, or learning to drive a car is good. After 20 years you will be just as happy to sit in the backseat and let someone else drive the car. Not to make light of the importance of sex in a relationship, but most relationships that end in separation have reasons other than sex. I like your 3 R as reasons for playing bed boogie. I have my own, and I call them Kulharee’s 3 Es:

E…excitement (when you are happy)
E…when have an erection
E… enticement (when you know that you it will reward you with an additional concert ticket this Christmas)

I read in a girlie magazine that there are lots of medical/scientific reasons/benefits to having sex, such as it reduces stress, reduces tension, helps losing weight, helps fight depression, etc. These are all great reasons to have sex, but to me it should be had when one feels like having it and when both partners are in a mood, otherwise it is just like eating a leftover falafel.

dr sohail sahib,

... check out this polyamory thing that SR is talking about ..... i think that is the way to go, although i am not sure about sharing a bed with three or four other people - it could get a little crowded ..... but it is intriguing

#16, #17

Dr Sohail's response reminds me of a rather popular song from the seventies. I think it was Mary McGregor who sang "Torn between two lovers, Feeling like a fool, Loving both of you, Is breaking all the rules".

Normally my retrievals are pretty quick, but for some reason I cannot recall anything equivalent - or even related to the topic - from Urdu. May be because the language caters to the traditional ethos, so there may not be anything to recall, at least from the "popular" brand of Urdu poetry.

One thing is for sure, we are soon going to see the masadis jump into these interacts and trash all comers even remotely seem to talk of western liberal ideas.

regards ...

I am not sure but then it has to be written in the contract or should be clear to both the parties. I would not like my partner to sleep with someone else and i think its part of human nature to be possessive but then again it all depends on cultural conditioning.

Pastor exhorts married couples to have more sex

GRAPEVINE, Texas: And on the seventh day, there was no rest for married couples. A week after the Reverend Ed Young challenged husbands and wives among his flock of 20,000 to strengthen their unions through Seven Days of Sex, his advice was - keep it going.

"Today we're beginning this 'sexperiment,' seven days of sex," he said, with his characteristic mix of humor, showmanship and Scripture.

"How to move from whining about the economy to whoopee!"

"If you've said, 'I do,' do it," he said. As for single people, "I don't know, try eating chocolate cake," he said.

The sex-starved marriage has been the topic of at least two recent books, "365 Nights" and "Just Do It." But Young's call from the pulpit gave the discussion an added charge.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/america/church.php

Re: # 15
dear jang...may be that was the case before human beings discovered contraceptive pill...now they can have sex for three reasons...i call them 3 Rs
R....for recreation
R....for relationship...love
R...for reproduction
sincerely
sohail

Re: # 16
dear paradox...i agree that spouses should respect the promise they made to each other and end the marriage if they want to sleep with other people. but from your response i am not sure whether you feel a human being can only love one person at a time. do you think human beings can or cannot love more than one human being at the same time? sincerely sohail

Re: # 14
Doc
I think fairness is very important in any relationship. If a person feel the need to have sex outside the marriage contract then that person should first get out of that contract and then have sex but its important to play by the term of the contract if its still binding. I dont think its possible to keep loving you married spouse while having sex with someone else.

wtf? i thought marriage is a contract to make babies and have security and sex is a lubricant used to keep things going and resolve issues in a mysterious manner.

Re: # 12
dear zafar...i agree with you and SR. i sometimes wonder about the differences in Eastern and Western marriages. My general impression is that in the West many sexless couples separate, for them platonic love is not enough or they have affairs so that they can have love in marriage and sex outside the marriage. what do you think?
sincerely
sohail

Re: # 8
dear SR...i agree with you that we came from caves and are heading towards the stars...we have to overcome the social, religious and cultural conditioning to be fully liberated and hopefully the next generations will be more liberated than the previous ones. i hope we progress and not regress.i always enjoy your comments...
sincerely
sohail

Doc,
An insightful article but I also agree with SR that" A 'sex-less' marriage does not also have to be a 'loveless' one. There can be plenty of love without sex, just as there can be plenty of sex without love."
Take care
Zafar