From: kgorman@star-trek.bbn.com (Karen Gorman)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Commitment--The C-word?
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:50:33 GMT
Reply-To: kgorman@BBN.COM (Karen Gorman)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: archive.bbn.com


In article <1992Aug19.134728.25390@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>
>Well here again is the issue of choice.  If after marriage a person choses
>to not contribute income to the household, that's a choice.


It's a choice that should be discussed and decided upon BEFORE marriage, or at
very least, thought about before marriage.


>In my opinion
>it's a selfish lazy choice.  Nobody but a really insecure individual with lots
>of problems would chose to live off another person and expect the situation
>to work out well.


Depends on the situation, but again it should be discussed/decided upon 
before marriage.


>Right now I wear all the hats in my home - I'm the parent, the provider, the
>keeper-of-house, the cook, the car-owner-and-maintainer, the insurance
>provider, and the homeowner.  I have no spouse. 

I'm sure it isn't easy...

> Were I to chose one and
>find that he did not want to bring income into the home - just, say, stay
>home and watch the kids and keep house, he would find his ass out of my
>life real quick.


Obviously, your mind is made up ahead of the commitment/marriage, and in my
opinion this is the best way to handle the situation.  Of course things 
happen in life that may change the orginal plan (e.g. sickness, layoffs ect)
that can't be planned for.


> If I were to willfully provide him sole financial support
>for a bunch of years knowing that he was not inclined to hold down a job,
>I'd be making a choice - a really STUPID one but it's still a choice, and
>with it would go some really big risks.
>
>It would be the same for a man in my position.  You marry someone who does
>not intend to contribute to the family income, she becomes dependent
>on you and as the years pass she will be that much more removed from the
>work environment and that less likely to want to return to it.  If you
>got into this situation voluntarily, you should realize that if one day you
>decide not to be married to her anymore you're at least partly responsible
>for helping her trot off on her own and get established in another lifestyle.


Fine, but what about the woman who sets out to deliberately get pregnant just
for this reason (oh no not that thread again, and it does happen and still 
does), and the guy does the *honorable* thing and marries her for the sake of
the child.  What if they live a life of courtesey and nothing more until the
child is raised.  I say boot her ass out into the street...it's where she
belongs for pulling a stunt like that in the first place.  The pregnant routine
before marriage should be discouraged at all costs...it's not right for
everyone involved, except the potential mother who sees it as a means to an end.
There is a difference between failed birth control and willful deciet during a 
tender moment.


>It would be like me taking in a mutt off the street and allowing him to live
>in my home and feed and provide for him and then decide that it's not
>working out and kick him out - he'd be defenseless and would probably starve.
>It would be my moral responsibility to find him another home.


I have more compassion for four legged mutts..they don't deliberately try to
screw people.


>But it wouldn't be my responsibility forever.


I'd take care of the dog until it died.



Karen

Kg@bbn.com