In-Reply-To: <199512280154.RAA01859@iway1.iw.net>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.


On Wed, 27 Dec 1995 msmithbe@iway1.iw.net wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Dec 1995, Rex Ballard  
> wrote:
> >Actually, it wasn't.  I was paying them "Day Care" money, 
> (snip)>take the tax deduction, and Jerry would go to jail 
> (making me real 
> >popular with my Ex).  I have to keep quiet.  Unless of 
> So you made a choice.  A "nice guy" choice.  

I made a choice based on the knowledge that the consequences of "turning 
him in" would have resulted in my children being under the exclusive 
supervision of a potentially abusive mother who has made 3 trips to 
psychiatric facilities (including one trip to the state psychiatric 
hospital in Pueblo).  I would then have to prove to social services, (by 
paying their investigators $30,000 for a suitability check) that I was a 
fit father.  Meanwhile, there were members of Jerry's family who were 
willing to fight to get custody of my children (backed by a network of 
clergy and social services workes placed through their church).

> >I hope your new husband shows that kind of love to you.
> Barry writes me little love notes on scrap pieces of paper 
> all the time.  His latest is "Top ten reasons why I love the 
> Dixie girl".  

Your husband has learned the secret to a long and happy marriage.  What 
magic do you do to keep him?

> >When you propose solutions on the public forum,>do you 
> reccomend that everyone go back to the farms?  
> 
> What I am talking about is rejection of an appearence-based 
> society.  Does a baby need a $45 outfit?  Do I have to be 
> ashamed my car has some rust?  Do I need $25 for toner, when 
> I can use Witch hazel?  Do I need a job with a title or can 
> I just be a clerk?  I was suffocated by having to answer for 
> what I did for a living, where I lived, what I drove, what I 
> wore, etc.  Our obsession with stuff is overwhelming and 
> unnecessary! It lends itself to working long hours and we 
> can't enjoy any of it!  

Don't let the Madison Avenue folks hear that, it's heresy :-).
Everyone has self-esteem issues, it's part of the design of a human 
being.  I used to make my own soaps and astringents (I was in theater and 
had to deal with grease-paint).  It was amazing how effective a little 
ivory dishwashing liquid and a little rubbing alcohol was at not only 
cleaning the skin, but completely wiping out my acne.

> >If your first husband could earn a comfortable living, and 
> still be home >with you 80 hours/week, wouldn't that be nice 
> 
> My first husband.  He beat me alot, so I guess, no.  

Pick a husband.  Pre-school age children require a great deal of care.  
Once they start school, there are many ways to have a family life and 
still work 40 hours/week.  My father was always home by 5:00 and we were 
together from then until bed-time (9:00).  Then my parents would spend 
time with each other until about 11:00.  Dad was a little cranky in the 
morning, but he'd be cheerful at night.

> >what should men's >roles be?  What should their 
> responsibilities be?  What should their >rights be?
> 
> The same as a woman's.  People should be able to fullfill 
> the roles that they feel most comfortable with.  

Too often, men are excluded from certain roles.  There were people who 
thought I was some sort of pervert for changing my son's diapers.  I 
helped get changing tables into Men's rooms in 1984.  Other men thought 
it was wierd when I would exchange baby-care information with the other 
women and my wife would be in with them talking about hunting and fishing.
I just had no interest in hunting, fishing, football, or drinking.  I was 
intensely interested in being a good parent.

> Ideally, children of divorce should go with the parent who 
> has been the most nurturing and attentive to their needs.  
> It isn't enough to be the one who can provide for their 
> monetary needs.

Unfortunately this is the very scenario used to set up the justification 
for economic slavery.  There is no imperitive for the nurturing parent to 
find other ways to "make up the slack".  When financial providers are 
given primary custody, they often have to start out by hiring someone.  
Very quickly though, they are looking for someone who can be part of the 
family.  This is because the financial provider *must* find a nurturer.

The converse is rarely true.  The nurturing parent is actually 
discouraged from finding a nurturer.  She can get child-support, if that 
doesn't come, she can get government assistance, and if that doesn't 
work, she can get aid from charities.  Of course, there are usually strings 
attached.  She can't get remarried, which means she is encouraged to get 
involved with men who do not want the commitment of a marriage.  Of 
course they don't want commitment of ANY kind.

Living in the country, in a community which believed "folks should be 
married", you were encouraged to date responsible men and get married.  
In the city, therapists, social workers, and other "experts" consider 
marriage and "Relationships" to be the bane of society and personal 
recovery.  Even the religeous orgnizations look askance at a woman 
seeking a second husband as an "adultress".

> The nurturer should have the children 
> physically most of the time and the provider liberal 
> visitation.  50/50 arrangements are too hard on the 
> children. Unfortunately, two problems arise: How do you 
> prove which parent is the more nurturing?  
Notice the use of the turm "nurturing" vs. "commitment".  Often, in a 
marriage, a father will work long hours, turn over 99% of his paycheck to 
provide for the kids, eat peanut butter sandwiches from home, drive a 
rust-bucket to work, and buy his work clothes from the Salvation Army to 
make sure that his children want for nothing.  The mother will stay home, 
spend most of her time watching television or shopping, and loses her 
temper if her child interrupts her while she's on the phone with one of 
her girl-friends.

When the divorce proceedings begin, the mother sees that she will not be 
going to the mall much longer if she doesn't get child-support, and lots 
of it.  In a custody battle, it takes little effort to "clean up the act" 
for an investigator.  It's even possible to hire a maid to clean up the 
house ($40-50) and pull out one of those reserve outfits bought at the 
fire-sale and pretend it's brand-new.

Inevitably, the estranged father discovers that he cannot make the full 
support payments in time.  Mom "lets it slide" a few times, then turns 
him over to her lawyer to have his wages garnished.  The father finds it 
more difficult to get a job (employers take a dim view of any garnisment).
Eventually, he has to get work "off the books" to have enough to pay his 
own rent, but he keeps making the payments.

Which parent has demonstrated the most commitment?

The flip side is the father who spends almost everything he makes on 
drugs and prostitutes, gives his wife an "allowance" about as much as he 
tips the waitress at his favorite bar, and throws her out, with the kid, 
because they make too much noise.  The mother, often works "on the sly", 
crawling out of bet at 3:00 AM to do handwork to make enough to buy the 
kids a pair of shoes.

The reality is that both universes occur in this world.  Laws designed to 
protect the mother in the latter situation can be used to unjustly 
impoverish or even kill the father in the first situation.  The word 
"nurturing" dismisses any form of commitment that is not consistent with 
the "maternal" role.

I have probably demonstrated 100 times more commitment to my children 
than my wive and her husband together.  On the other hand, they spend 
"quality time" with the kids, which makes them better qualified as 
parents, even if they do take turns checking into hospitals and psych 
wards.

> Also, any plan 
> one proposes is dependent on people being mature, 
> responsible adults.  If they were that, they'd not be 
> getting a divorce in the first place.

Not necessarily.  Most people get divorced because of fundamental 
differences in goals and values related to finances, lifestyles, and 
sexuality.  It boils down to two adults, falling in love with people who 
resemble their "fantasy partner".  Most of the marriage is spent trying 
to fit each other into their "molds", and trying (often galliantly) to 
fit into the mold of their partner's creation.

Our society discourages open discussion of values, goals, ambitions, and 
sexuality.  Women want to know what kind of car he drives.  Men want to 
know if he has great physical attributes.  The problem is that Coke 
dealers drive Jaguars and Prostitutes know how to create a great show.  
Meanwhile, hard working, responsible men are likely to drive an economy 
car.  Loving, caring women who may love sex within the structure of a 
resonsible monogomous relationship are likely to wear blue-jeans and 
sweat-shirts in public.

> So the answer, then, to teach people do develop healthy 
> relationships.  But if you've ever had any psychology, you 
> realize that esteem is heavily dependent on a nurturing and 
> healthy childhood.  No matter what is done in school and the 
> media, the fact remains that according to most research 
> esteem develops according to what happens in the home.

Correction, the structures designed within the school system are actually 
designed to prevent healthy esteem.  A room full of 30 8 year-olds is 
much easier to control when they feel they are puny and unimportant 
compared to the "Teacher/God".  Control freaks often consider 
manipulating a room full of intimidated children to be the ultimate in 
job satisfaction.  The ultimate masters are Atheletic coaches who can 
keep 97 teen-agers motionless for 20 minutes with a look and a whistle.

If you had great self-esteem, you wouldn't need 5 tubes of tooth-paste 
(especially the whitener that shreds your enamel to make your smile 
"bright") and a different deoderant and frangrance for each day of the 
week.  You wouldn't need the new car.  You would be able to live in a 
"low rent" district.  You could bring your own lunch.  You wouldn't need 
a health club.  You might not even want to watch TV.

> So 
> which comes first, the chicken or the egg?  The healthy 
> child that becomes a healthy adult or the healthy adult to 
> raise the healthy child?

Actually, try this...  Training adults to behave and become healthy 
adults.  Programs such as the Forum, Life-spring, Focus on the Family, 
and the Mormon Church, offer programs that transform selfish children in 
large bodies into responsible productive adults.

> >The average man is responsible for 80% of the child support 
> 
> As I've stated before, I'm amazed at child support awards.  
> It just doesn't take that much to raise a child.  Even 

It doesn't, but most states now beleive that a child should be able to 
live in the manner in which it has become accustomed, even if that means 
footing all of the mother's expenses in the process.  It's just Alimony 
that isn't tax deductable, and doesn't go away when you get married.

> assuming that the child will go to college the NCP should be 
> able to bank that money and prove that it has been banked 
> for the future.  I think $300 was reasonable, but I would 
> have been happy with $100.  

Have you told the Judge and CSS that you would have been happy with 
$100?  See how much of a difference it makes.  They would still go after 
him for as much as they can get.

> That's all I need to provide for 
> clothing, school supplies, medical needs, and put some in an 
> annuity for college.  If I had to pay child care, I'd need 
> more, of course, but only until they were in school.  

The problem is that most states expect the NCP to also pay the rent, food 
(including the CPs), utilities, and general houshold expenses.  The 
standard formula compares actual household expenses against a minimum 
"scale", the greater amount is used.  Then the income of each parent is 
compared and each parent is expected to contribut their "share".  Since 
the CP rarely makes more than 20%,  the NCP has to pay for 80% of the 
household expenses.

If she has been planning the divorce for more than a year - the mother can
work a minimum wage job for 20 hours/week and look like she legitimately
makes 10%.  My ex had been planning our divorce for 3 years.  She made 
sure that the kids were in day-care, she worked 20 hours/week at minimum 
wage, she had us move into a large house, and she racked up $4000 in 
"child-care" related debts.  I ended up with the courts expecting me to 
pay 95% of the children's household expenses.  She even coerced me into 
moving out of New York because refusal to have sex is grounds for a 
reduction in child-support.

> The "feminist ideal family" has the father leaving by >the 
> time the children are school-age so that mother can 
> establish herself >in the workplace. 
> 
> As a feminist, I have to say I've never heard the idea that 
> this is only the way it should be.  There are some radicals 
> out there, but feminists subscribe to many different models: 
> socio/biological, pscho/analyitical, social learning...there 
> are many different schools of thought on gender.  

In the feminist agenda, a strong father-figure in the household would 
pollute the children's minds with patriarchial notions.  For a child to 
be able to fully actualize the feminist ideal, she would have to be 
protected from the "male-dominiated" thinking of the father.

There are several matriarchies which are referred to as models, 
including cultures in polynesia and the Amazon river.  The amazons kept 
males as slaves, milked the men like cows (by hand), and killed them in 
ritual sacrifice after a number of "milkings".  Male infants were killed 
at birth.  In the mesa villages of the southwest, men were thrown out of 
their wive's homes, and forbidden to live in a house of their own.  If 
you didn't hunt, you would die in the winter (winters in southwestern
Colorado were lethal).

> What I'm saying is that I don't doubt that you've run into 
> that opinion.  I know it's out there.  

I said before that I was a male feminist (the paternal-slavery issue is 
one of the few concepts at which I am in conflict).  This opinion, though 
expressed in much more euphemistic terms, and with much more diplomacy, 
is fundamental to the feminist (as opposed to the asexist) ideal.

> done a lot of "reading" on all the "studies" and 
> "statistics" and haven't seriously studied any of the social 
> sciences.  I'm speaking of radicals, not of you.  

Many of the most radical feminists base their positions on personal 
experiences.  This is justified by the fact that Freud's observations of 
female sexuality was based on his personal experiences and observations 
-- of prostitutes (he didn't even consult his own wife).

> >It probably wouldn't take much to get his consent.  
> Especially since >you'll be paying the premiums.
> My only way of contacting him is by calling his sister, who 
> will call his brother, who will visit him. I'm not allowed 
> to have his address or that of his brother. 

Sounds like very reliable communication :-),  do you even have the 
option of calling off CSS if he lets your husband adopt them?
You will probably never get back child support.  He would probably go to 
jail first.  I'm sure he has his own version of the story (something you 
did or didn't do).

> >In my situation, my ex would withold sex, I eventually 
> >witheld time. 
> Well, I don't think you had a "home base".  It's a den where 
> each can relax and have their needs met.  Not just the 
> obvious needs, either.  My husband always has cold feet.  He 
> knows that if he comes home, I'll sit on them and warm them. 

I often tried to create that, but Leslie wanted no part of that.  She 
didn't even want to go on a date with me.

> >It's beginning to make sense now.  He could impress all his 
> male friends >because he married a stripper - 
> Well, it sure didn't impress their wives.  Some of them 
> still won't let their kids play with mine.  No, I wasn't a 
> stripper. I was an underwriter's assistant.  Exciting, huh?

He wanted to create the fantasy that he was married to a stripper.  He 
probably thought he wanted to be married to a stripper.  What matters 
here is the reality "in which he was living".  This has very little to do 
with any physical reality.

> which proved he was a big "stud".  He was >willing to play 
> the "responsible husband", but something changed (you 
> I was a mother when he met me.  I had an 18-month-old, 
> remember?  No, he wanted to take care of someone.  He saw me 
> there, my fatherless son, and he wanted to be the big man 
> guy.  He was always helping strangers.  Once I married him, 
> though, he lost interest.

Unfortunately, I know the type.

In his reality, he was a big-hearted man helping out an unfortunate woman,
who showed her gratitude by sicking "the Law" on him.  In addition, he is
justifiably paranoid.  If you had his address, you would have to turn him in. 
If you turn him in he would end up in jail (for contempt of court). 

> >Nearly every male is expected to work 40 hours/week.  Most 
> females are >expected to work that much too.  It's part of 
> being an adult.  
> 
> Only in the last couple hundred years has working meant long 
> hours away from home.
Actually, the middle class, or merchant class, has always worked away 
from the home.  The difference is that instead of being the 5% minority, they 
are now the 95% majority.  Even if you could get people back on the 
farms, the inefficiences of the family farm would result in mass 
starvation.  Russia and China have enough land to feed 10 times their 
populations, but they depend on the inefficiencies so much that the 
general population starves.

> There are those who say that much of the divorce rate may 
> have to do with the >possiblity that we have too much free 
> time.  
> 
> Or more to the point, what we do with our free time.  I used 
> to hate football, but I learned to like it because he loves 
> to watch it and that way we can talk about it.  We cook 
> together. Sure, we watch a lot of TV together, but we also 
> do the grocery shopping together.  We even get our hair done 
> together.  He's my bud.  

You have grown up.  Just as he has learned to keep love alive by writing 
"10 reasons I love the dixie girl", you have learned what he likes, and 
learned to validate his needs.  Keep it up, you'll be celebrating your 
Golden Anniversery together.

> >Where did you meet him?  What was your life-style?  What 
> did you like to >do together?  When you got pregnant, did 
> you stop "partying"?
> 
> Touche.  I met my second husband at his work.  When we were 
> dating went clubbing a lot.  I was renting a couple of rooms 
> at my parent's house, (free babysitting for my baby).  We 
> stopped going to nightclubs when we moved in together.  We 
> didn't have any money to go clubbing with.  

I am now convinced that the only place worse to meet a man than in a bar, 
is at an A.A. meeting (only about 1 in 30 ever get more than a year of 
continous sobriety).  I've been to bars, maybe ten times in 15 years.  I 
usually spot the incredibly well-dressed woman -- with the wedding ring, 
but I don't make a move (I'm not into adultry).  By the end of the night, 
she has this blank stare, can't even make up her mind to throw up, and 
has to be carried (arms AND legs) to the car of someone who will let her 
flop on his bed.

I got involved with a woman who had been sober about six months.  I moved 
into a spare bedroom and discovered that I was only her "house-mate" 
(someone who would pay 80% of the rent).  She fell in love with a 
succession of men who would dump her (she had a nasty temper), and then 
she would end up drunk, wanting affection and affirmation (but no sex) 
from me.  I moved out.  Thank god I didn't marry her.

> >> I know that now.  My 3rd husband is one of those "boring" 
> 
> I gave some very serious thought as to what decisions I had 
> made in life to get me to where I was--on welfare (the first 
> in my family to be thus) and three kids by two different 
> husbands.  I didn't think any decent man would ever want me 
> under those circumstances.  

Actually, only a decent man would want to take on that level of 
responsibility.  Unfortunately, decent men also end up stuck with 
child-support payments that they actually do their best to pay.

> >Congratulations.  I'm one of those "too nice" guys too.  
> Most of us "nice >guys" are the ones who end up being paid 
> up on our child support
> 
> My nice husband didn't want to cause trouble for his kids.  
> He and his ex were separated, and he had them while she 
> finished her stint in the army.  They had agreed that they 
> would stay seperated so that she could send him a dependents 
> allotment for the kids.  As her time ended he realized what 
> might happen and so he tried to serve her with divorce 
> papers.  She'd invoked the Soldiers and Sailors relief act. 
I'm not sure what that is?

> He used the dependent allotment to help pay for the two br 
> apartment he and the kids had, and it ended abruptly after 
> the kids went to stay with her for the summer.  Then she 
> just kept them, and filed for divorce.  He lost his 
> apartment.  He had to live in his mother's basement for a 
> while.  On that basis she said the children should live with 
> her, because he had lost his home.

This is the very thing the "fathers" list is trying to stop.  If she had 
been a man and tried that, she would have been jailed for kidnapping the 
children, the kidnapping would have been used against him to not only get 
custody but also to revoke visitation.  Bottom line - in divorce, the 
only way a male can "win" is if the mother is convicted of a felony 
between the time she files the papers, and the time the custody hearing 
is held.  Even if he gets custody, she will be expected to pay nominal 
child support.  I knew one woman who made $30,000/year and was paying 
$50/month in child support.  A man would have paid a minimum of $600/year.
She was a drug addict, an alcoholic, and had battered the children, but 
she had been clean over a year by the time the hearing was held.

> I would have kicked and 
> screamed and made an awful fuss, because I'm not so nice.  

If you were a man and you'd kicked and screamed, they would have slapped 
you with a restraining order, supervised visitation (limited to 3 hours 
every 2 weeks), and a $200/month surcharge to cover the costs of 
enforcing the order.

> But he is, and it happened to him.

He is also painfully aware of the realities of the divorce and custody 
system in this country.

> He has become much more 
> assertive since he's known me.  I started doing boosting him 
> the way I had boosted myself.  People used to take 
> advantange of him something awful.   

The main difference between a "nice guy" and a jerk is not that he can't 
stand up for himself, it's that he chooses his battles and tactics 
carefully.  I can do much more "damage" by letting someone "kill 
themselves" than by trying to kill them.

> >What would happen if women married "nice guys" the first 
> time and left >the slimeballs to the hustlers? :-).
> 
> They'd complain about how bored they were, like my sister 
> does.  People want what they haven't got.

How long has your sister been married to her husband.  Does she complain 
around you, or around people who want her to have a happy marriage.  My 
mom used to go to these "coffee clutches" were the women would complain 
about their husbands.  Only one had a truly abusive husband, the rest 
just complained to get their share of attention.  Mom stopped going to 
those "gossip parties" and started spending more time at the church.

My parents were divorced for 4 years.  During this period, my father was an
alcoholic, had stolen money from the church, and had been suggestive with my
sister during his drunks.  He sobered up, paid back the church, apologized to
my sister, and kept his child support paid, even adding extras when mom came
up short.  After 4 years, they started meeting for coffee, then dating, then
negotiating the terms for their remarriage.  They each have their own
checking accounts, he has a low credit limit, and they pay all joint expenses
first, out of a joint checking account which requires both signatures to
process a check.  My father set that up so that he could never blame mom 
for his financial problems.  They celebrated their 12th anniversery in 
November and will celebrate their 42nd anniversery in April.

> He really wants to run 
> his own restaurant.  His family has a history of running 
> restaurants.  He's a great cook.

I'm a great cook too.  Are you supporting him in fulfilling that goal?
What would it take?

> >At least you offered.  It's too bad you can't offer him 
> amnesty for back >child-support 

> It would be my choice to pursue him.  He only owes the state 
> of SD $600.  He owes ME over $13,000.  We will probably do 
> the adoption thing.  He'll bitch and complain and make me 
> out to be the bad guy, but I think he'll secretly be 
> relieved.  My children will be Smiths.

Sure, he owes you money.  Is it worth the aggrivation?  Is it worth 
risking his retaliation against your current husband?  Is it worth losing 
your kids?  Is it worth killing Jerry?  Is it worth sending Jerry to jail 
(where he would be raped and beaten by the inmates)?

If you could have a happy life with your current husband, get on with 
your life, start a nice little restaurant that turns a few hundred 
dollars a day, and be able to spend some extra time together, would it be 
worth it?

> possibility.  I let her know I was a transvestite 

> Well, there's part of your problem.  You have probably got 
> some self-esteem issues you need to work on.  I know because 
> I'm bisexual.  I always had this feeling of being seperate. 
>  Of being apart.  I went through several years of feeling 
> dirty.

Actually, I have done so much "processing" it's almost disgusting.  By 
the time I met Leslie, I had been in therapy for several years, had been 
in A.A. for 3 years, had been a Deacon and an Elder in the Presbyterian 
Church, and had a degree in theater.  I will admit, I was worried that 
she might "freak out and run away", but I was not willing to be deceptive 
about that part of our relationship.

Ironically, she acted like it was O.K.  She bought me clothes, we went 
shopping together, and she would dress up for me.  She actually liked my 
"feminine gentleness".  Her current husband is "femme" as well, he just 
has all of his hair (everywhere but his face cheeks).  I didn't know 
until 12 years later that it was "an act".   It was only when she had 
already decided to get the divorce that she started threatening to expose 
me at work and in court.  In Colorado Springs, most of the Family Court 
judges are members of the Assemblies of God church (who provides an ample 
pool of volunteers for phone campaigns and support).  Most of the Social 
Services workers are either A of G, Nazerine, or Church of Christ.  All 
of them would fry a "queen" like me.  As it was, I did lose my job (I 
found better job in Denver - 80 miles away).

> I never told my first two husbands, and it's a good 
> thing because they would have used it against me.  I was 
> faithful to my husbands; I always have been.  

I was faithful to my wife.  Even if that meant as much as 3 years of 
consecutive celebacy and chastity.  Jesuit Priests get more than I did 
from 1982 to 1990.

> Sex is handball.  It's a pasttime. If you're lucky, you find 
> someone you can live with and play handball with for the 
> rest of your life, but sex isn't love and love isn't sex.  

Sex isn't love.  But deliberately arousing your mate, encouraging him to 
initiate, and abusively saying "I hope you don't think I'm going to have 
sex with you...I have no interest whatsoever, just to get the real pain 
going.  That isn't love.  Sex without love is a bit empty and shallow.  
Love where sex is "disgusting" is incredibly painful.  If I didn't love 
her, I wouldn't have stayed.

> You can be wildly attracted to people but that doesn't mean 
> you have to nail them;

I am very aware of that.  In fact, it takes an open declaration of intent 
to have sex, a clear definition of boundries and expectations, and a 
series of agreements to stay in communication before I will even consider 
having sex with a woman (I won't even consider having sex with a man).

I married this woman.  After 2 years of marriage, she tied me up, put the
condom back on the headboard, and told me I was going to be a father.  I was
dressed up, tied up, gagged, and blindfolded.  I protested but she just held
my head still and rode me to the inevitable orgasm.  I tried to not come, do
you know how useful that is?  When she confirmed she was pregnant, she
refused to have sex for the next 3 years (but kept teasing me as described
above). 

When my daughter was conceived, she spent 2 days getting me "ready" taking me
shopping, stopping to look at high-heeled shoes, lingerie, and short Juniors
outfits.  I went to a meeting and came home to Leslie dressed to kill.  She
said yes but "no foreplay, no dressing, just do it"  and if I didn't like it
"she might be this horny in March" (6 months later).  Many years later, she
told my sister and several of her girl-friends that she had used litmus paper
and a thermometer to determine the exact time for best chance of conception. 
It worked.  I'm paying child support for two children, conceived against
astronomical odds.  One boy (conceived out of a rape), and one girl 
(practally milked out of me).

> most people don't realize that, and  
> don't find it out until they've hurt the ones who love them 
> and themselves.  

I had taken unreasonable measures to make sure that no one got hurt.  I 
had taken unreasonable measures to honor my commitments.  I had been 
unreasonable about honoring the marriage.  I had even been unreasonable 
about NOT pursuing "skirts", making sure that we really knew each other 
first (We dated for 3 months before we had sex).

> If you're raised with a Judeo-Christian 
> attitude, everything that isn't missionary style male-female 
> is ugly and deviant. 
I grew up United Presbyterian.  We're a bit more flexible.  In fact, we 
had gay Elders in our church.  We were expected to be responsible about 
our sexuality.  I promised my father that I wouldn't have sex with a 
woman unless I was willing to spend the rest of my life with her.

> Nobody wants to talk about sex without giggling.  

Thank the MPAA censors for this.  If a woman shows up naked in an "R" 
rated film, she will be die some grizzly death before the movie is over.
(Message: naked women deserve to be killed)

> Women have a big problem with accepting deviancy in their men
Actually men and women each have their own variations of deviancy.  Women 
can be even kinkier than men in certain ways.  The issue is more one of 
compatibility.  If I can indulge your kinks, and you can indulge my 
kinks, then we're just "slightly kinky".  If I can't indulge your kink, 
and/or you can't indulge mine, then at least one of us is a "pervert".

Men discover their sexuality by the time they are four years old and are 
repressed shortly after they begin expressing it.  They don't know what's 
wrong, so whatever they liked, they assume is "wrong".  Every man 
considers himself to be a bit "perverted".  It's O.K. to look at totally 
naked women, but it is not O.K. to wear satin clothing.

Women actually discover their sexuality much younger, often in infancy 
(girl babies can manipulate the crease in their diapers).  Since the 
expression is much more subtle, more prolonged, and more "discreet", the
repression centers around the sexual act itself.  It's O.K. to "feel 
good" by crossing your skirted, stockinged legs and rocking the free leg, 
it's not O.K. to look at a man's penus.

> men hope their women are a little deviant 

Mostly, men hope that their little "extras" won't be offensive.  That 
"extra" can be anything from not taking a shower to a "cheerleaders 
uniform" to wanting the woman to take complete control.

> and EVERYONE makes fun of masturbating.

Men are discouraged from masturbating - largely because it is 
detectable.  When junior is leaving "jism" in his jocky shorts, It't time 
for the old man to have that "little talk" with him.  The big concern is 
that he might get some girl pregnant.  It just happens to be triggered by
the byproducts of masturbation.

Women often don't learn to masturbate themselves to orgasm until after 
they've already had sex.  In any event, they learn sensual practices like 
"pillow humping", "riding the horsey" (couch backs, sofa arms...), and
straddling their boyfriend's knee while kissing.  All of these have much 
more impact on a girl or woman wearing thin tights, pantyhose, or 
stockings, than they have on a boy who spends most of his life in thick 
canvas jeans and thick cotton underwear, all designed to minimize is 
sensuality. It's only when they learn to bring themselves to orgasm that 
they associate masturbation with sex.

The other problem is that sexual intercourse provide little or no 
clitoral stimulation.  Since Freud, clitoral stimulation was considered 
unneccessary for "mature" orgasms.  It is only since Masters and Johnson 
and Shere Hite, that modern culture has considered clitoral stimulation 
important to orgasm.

Even the whole relationship toward female orgaszm varies.  The talmud 
describes methods to improve the likelihood of a boy-child which will 
probably result in an orgasm if followed.  The methods for having a girl 
are very different (slam-bam-thank-you-mam).  No wonder mothers often 
hate their daughters.

> >so I proposed.  
> 
> Of couse you did, dear.  You were enslaved by someone who 
> had accepted your quirks.

Actually, I was enslaved by someone who didn't accept my quirks.  She 
appeared to accept, but there were a whole series of demands that 
followed this "revelation".  When she was streight and said "not 
interested, ever", I encouraged her to find find a more suitable 
partner.  She still wants me to find a wife.

> >My biggest problem in relationships is "letting go".  I 
> bond with a woman 
> 
> Yes, that was for me, too.  Couldn't it be that you've 
> merely found a good friend?  Just because the sex isn't 
> there why can't there be a relationship?  Kind of a bisexual 
> viewpoint, but everyone is potentially my lover and thus, 
> everyone is potentially my friend.

I have literally THOUSANDS of good friends, most of whom are are women 
(occupational hazard of being a "Gender Bender").  I went to school with 
900 women and 25 guys (and was a virgin the whole time).  I was a "Kelly 
Girl" (keypunch operator for Kelly Services), and helped out in the 
kitchen at church functions.

> >Both.  I have found that good girls can be very abusive in 
> their >righteousness.  
> You aren't going to meet a woman who's your "Bud" in church. 
>  Church-going women take a dim view of cross-dressing.

Actually, Church-going women publicly take a dim view of any form of sexual
expression.  There is always the young "nympomaniac" who wants to rebel
against her strict upbringing by seducing every man in sight, especially the
"good boys" who aren't interested.  Generally, Church is a great place for
women who feel ashamed of their bodies and their sexuality to "spread the
message".  Ever notice the food at a church social?  Sex is a mortal sin,
gluttony is just "good clean fun".  The girls who don't end up wearing
"pup-tents" usually gag themselves between courses (bulemia is really
popular). 

> Regards,

> Misty Smith-Beringer
> (See.  All feminists aren't bad.)

I never thought they were.  There are just areas where "due process" has 
been circumvented in the name of expediency.  The Jews in Auchwitz 
weren't even given the courtesy of an "expediant" hearing.

	Rex Ballard


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Fri Dec 29 09:24:50 1995
Status: O
X-Status: 
Newsgroups: alt.self-improve