🚀 go-pugleaf

Carol Ann Hemingway wrote:

> In <34425F38.BB6FDC48@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> Alan Davis
> <adavis@seas.gwu.edu.NOSPAM> writes:
> >
> >
> (edit)
> >
> >Male and female submit to each other.
>
>             -------
>             Men submit to god; the woman to her husband.
>             ---------

It has been proven to you that your claimis not true, yet you continue
your mindless mantra.
Your claim is quite flaky.

> >This does not mean subservience, it means service.
>
>             ---------
>             Gender aparthied service.
>             ----------

It has been proven to you that your claimis not true, yet you continue
your mindless mantra.Your claim is quite flaky.

> >It's the same 100-100 percent discussion we had before.
> >50-50 relationships don't work, because they are
> >selfish.
>
>         -------
>         That's fine;  I don't mind 100-100, just so my roles
>         aren't prescribed.
>         ----------

"Roles" are prescribed, to a certain degree,but are not as you say.  PKers
and their wives
believe marriage is a sacred partnership.  You
just think it's a business relationship.

> >Relationships in which each respects the other
> >100 percent of the time do work, they are based on
> >love and service to each other.
>
>             -------
>             Fine, as long as my roles aren't defined I don't
>             mind mutual service.
>             ---------

> >The husband and wife promise to love, honor, and cherish.
> >"Submit" means to give in, to give and take, to sometimes
> >say "OK, I'll do it your way."
>
>             ----------
>             So fine;  I'll submit to _god_; the man can
>             submit to me...his wife.
>             -----------------

You really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

>  It also means to contribute>100 percent of ones effort to the health
> and hapiness>of the family.
>
>             ----------
>             That's simply not possible...realistically.  One must
>             also contribute to one's employers, one's frineds, etc.
>             Nice thought tho.
>             ---------------------------

One must find a balance among them all.  A spousewho spends too much time
in service to an employer
will find that the family relationship suffers-all too
common, eh?

> ><snip>
> >
> >> >I said nothing of the sort.  I suggest that  a mind set in which a
> >> partner>bales when the going gets>tough is a breach of promise.
> >>
> >>             -----------
> >>             It really depends upon the promise, and the actions
> >>             of the parties.  Each case is unique;  that's why
> >>             those who CLAIM a breach of promise have to go to
> >>             court to see if it realy was one, and that's only
>                where fault is at issue.
> >>
> >>                 Lefty
> >
> >And that is also why a partnership that does
> >not include a real promise is destined to break
> >up.
>
>             ---------
>             I agree with that;  those who only say "I do" when they
>             mean "I do, for now" are doomed to break up. That simply
>             doesn't explain the inequity of PK.
>

And you have only guessed that it is so.
It is not, yet you continue your mindless mantra
making up myths.

--
Al Davis ***** A Displaced Cub Fan in DC ***** adavis@seas.gwu.edu
I like two teams:  The Cubs and whoever is playing the Mets
Vote Santo into the Hall of Fame!
Let's play two!