Do FSU women consider marriage to be a contract or a covenant?

[mendeleyev]

BeeFarmer, one of the sad effects of the Soviet period was the stepladder marriage. A permit was needed to live in certain cities, to have certain jobs, and in some cases to attend certain universities. This led to the oft common practice of marriages of convenience. If you had a beautiful daughter but lived in the country, you might actively seek out a spouse for her who was a "step up" in situation. Instead of her being wed to a plain farm boy over the hill, you might arrange for her to marry a boy who already had propiska, meaning that he had papers to live in Moscow, Leningrad or some larger city with a good university and better jobs.

Often city dwellers had internal passports, but in farm villages and some factory towns, residents never received an internal passport for their entire lives. It was a way to keep folk, and their children, where they were as a labour pool. That included parents and their kids--those kids, no matter how gifted, were often assigned a life of hard labour. Thus, finding someone with legal residence in a place of opportunity was in some cases the only way to give your child a chance to do something different with their lives.

Sometimes money was exchanged and the understanding was that many of these marriages were solely for the purpose of allowing one young person to move up the ladder. Divorce was often understood from the beginning.  Sadly, that is the Soviet legacy of marriage.

You are going to have to work hard, and look right, to pick the needle out of the haystack in finding a girl who has not been conditioned by that mentality. They are there, but you must look smart and be willing to move on if conditions are not right.

[pitbull]

Do you believe a marriage being a contract, and children a covenant, to be cultural or biological?
  However, in women, the levels of oxytocin are reduced the more sexual partners they have.  The more sexual partners they have had, the more difficult it is for the woman to pair bond with the man.

I believe this is the basic survival of the species mechanism.
Is there any serious research that supports this oxytocin/multiple partner theory? Sounds like garbage.

Actually, my question alluded to some FSU women having the mentality that if a man beats her, it means he loves her.

http://dhsprogram.com/topics/gender-Corner/ukraine-dhs-key-indicators.cfm says that 11% of Ukrainian men say that it is justifiable to beat a woman for one of these things: burning food, arguing with him, going out without telling him, neglecting children, or refusing to have sex with him.

According to Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE), a formal network of women’s NGOs in Europe, 27% of Ukrainian women have experienced violence in childhood and 33% of women since adulthood, according to a survey published in 2010.
http://www.newsweek.com/crisis-ukraine-leads-spike-domestic-violence-324441

That would suggest that the men who beat women beat 3 women. (11% of men, and 33% of women)
When 1/3 of women in a society have experienced domestic violence, that suggests that domestic violence is accepted by society.  That is why I asked about men beating women.  While the women would prefer not to be beaten (and 3% of Ukrainian women said beatings were justifiable) they may silently accept it as something that is a regular part of life.

In my personal opinion, if a woman is that troublesome that she needs beaten...why would you ever stay involved with her to begin with?  If some guy didn't know she was so troublesome, he clearly never got to know her before getting married.

Domestic violence does happen.  Used to, police looked the other way.  Now they are starting to get more involved.  You tend to find it more in areas of low class people, and often uneducated.  (Low class does not refer to finances.  You can find wealthy people with no class.)

Unfortunately, violence against women is the sad reality everywhere in the world, more in some countries than others. In FSU, police often look the other way or say it is family matters to resolve when a woman is being abused.
As in the US, this mentality (physical violence against a woman is normal in marriage) is more prevalent among the uneducated lower class.
It is not accepted in my social circle neither in FSU nor in the US though.

[BC]

Unfortunately, violence against women is the sad reality everywhere in the world, more in some countries than others. In FSU, police often look the other way or say it is family matters to resolve when a woman is being abused.
As in the US, this mentality (physical violence against a woman is normal in marriage) is more prevalent among the uneducated lower class.
It is not accepted in my social circle neither in FSU nor in the US though.

Yes, unfortunately such abuse crosses all borders and involves all levels of society.  No country is immune. I do see though that such in the US and some other countries is nowadays much less tolerated. I refer to the last couple of decades and I do hope that FSI us following suit.

[BillyB]

I do believe I have a responsibility to publicly expose guys who are being disrespectful towards women.

What else are your responsibilities to the public? Do you call the cops when you see someone speed or jaywalk? Most guys you say are disrespectful towards women have women. Show us why women prefer to flock to you.

[msmobyone]

I do not consider my marriage to be a covenant, in fact I'd be ashamed if it were. It is a sacrament.

 

[Slumba]

Slumba, you are a liar.  Marriage as my parents or grandparents conceived of it, STILL EXISTS. 
The reason you don't want to admit that it exists is because you failed to achieve it, and admitting that it exists would force you to change your paradigm and admit that you failed.  It is easier for you to claim that it does not exist, rather than admitting your own personal failure.

If people approach relationships the way our parents or grandparents approached relationships, they can still find marriages like parents and grandparents had.

How many people approach marriage with their only sexual partner being the person they marry?  (25% of women, and 17% of men claim their only sexual partner is the person they married)  Studies say if your only sexual partner is the person you married, your marriage success rate is anywhere from 80%-95%.

It's sad and unfortunate that so many people fall victims to their own egos.  They believe that if they are accomplished or some kind of an expert in one area, that makes them an expert in all things.

And ... it is clear you didn't even go to the site I suggested, and read even 1 word of it.

You still want to hold onto your cherished delusions.

You are not teachable. Not by me or any FSUW either.


It's sad and unfortunate that so many people fall victims to their own egos. 

^^^^ This is why you continue to fail.

Concerning multiple partners and the risk of divorce, there are multiple pieces of data out there with multiple interpretations.  None of them are perfect; most likely an infographic like this is what you are talking about:

[Bee Farmer]

I do not consider my marriage to be a covenant, in fact I'd be ashamed if it were. It is a sacrament.

This does not make sense Mendy.  You are conflating two separate, irrelevant issues, and treating them as the same thing.

A marriage ceremony is a sacrament.  (A sacrament is a religious ritual.)
A marriage relationship between spouses is either a contract or a covenant.

As an aside - it was not until the 13th century the Catholic church considered the marriage ceremony to be a sacrament.  (I don't know the history of it being a sacrament by the Orthodox church.)  Personally, I would argue that if you can be divorced, then marriage could not be considered a sacrament.  You can't undo a prior sacrament.  Can you undo prior taking communion?  Can you undo a baptism?

It doesn't matter if you are married in a church or a civil ceremony or a sacrament or whatever - none of these ceremonies will make people love each other more, or be more loyal or committed.  Those things must be in the people's hearts.  It's either there or it's not.

Sometimes money was exchanged and the understanding was that many of these marriages were solely for the purpose of allowing one young person to move up the ladder. Divorce was often understood from the beginning.  Sadly, that is the Soviet legacy of marriage.

You are going to have to work hard, and look right, to pick the needle out of the haystack in finding a girl who has not been conditioned by that mentality. They are there, but you must look smart and be willing to move on if conditions are not right.

This view of the marriage relationship treats it like a contract.  It is not treated as  a matter of the heart, but as a matter of convenience.

This was what I was asking about - the cultural mentality.

[Bee Farmer]

Is there any serious research that supports this oxytocin/multiple partner theory? Sounds like garbage.

Pitbull, I did some digging trying to find the studies.  I think I tracked down the original 'source' reference, but I had to use the internet archives.  It all goes back to an article that referenced a study here.  http://web.archive.org/web/20040825143420/http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=344

In women, a small preliminary study showed that being in a stable, positive relationship was associated with more responsive elevations of oxytocin blood levels to pleasant relationship memories. Oxytocin levels were unchanged during recall of negative emotional experiences. On the other hand, women with relationships characterized by anxiety, had flat responses to positive memories, and lower oxytocin levels with negative memories. This suggests that previous relationship experiences can alter “sexual bonding” by altering the release of the biochemical “superglue.” If the relationship history is sufficiently adverse, this study shows that women will lose their ability to bond. (2) In addition, studies reveal that estrogen enhances the oxytocin response. This makes females capable of more intense bonding, as well as more susceptible to significant injuries from broken bonds. (3)

The complex interplay of many of the newer anti-depressants, like Prozac and Paxil, are known to cause significant sexual side effects (decreased sensation, delayed orgasm, loss of libido). Science has shown that oxytocin can reverse these effects. (4)

Perhaps the most interesting finding is the evidence that suggests that oxytocin inhibits the development of tolerance in opiate receptors in the brain. (5) The “Wow!” of sex is partially created by endorphins that excite opiate receptors in the brain, the same receptors artificially stimulated by some drugs. As the relationship matures, fewer endorphins are released. In the case of drugs, higher dosages are needed, as time goes on, to get the same “wow.” It is fascinating to find that if the sexual relationship is well bonded, the oxytocin response helps maintain the “wow” even though fewer endorphins are released! This would “keep love alive” in long-term relationships between an oxytocin-bonded couple. Conversely, these findings suggest a rationale for the inability of some people to stay bonded, even in seemingly “good” relationships. People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual. Because, just as in heroin addiction, when the receptors become accustomed to a certain level of endorphins, in the absence of oxytocin, the person involved will experience “sex withdrawal” and will need to move on to a “new and more exciting” environment, that is, a new sex playmate. (6)

I agree with you - it's not a very definitive study, although I don't know that I would call it garbage.
Without a doubt there is correlation, but correlation is not causation.

[Bee Farmer]

Unfortunately, violence against women is the sad reality everywhere in the world, more in some countries than others. In FSU, police often look the other way or say it is family matters to resolve when a woman is being abused.
As in the US, this mentality (physical violence against a woman is normal in marriage) is more prevalent among the uneducated lower class.
It is not accepted in my social circle neither in FSU nor in the US though.

Physical violence is not accepted in my social circle either, but it does sometimes happen behind closed doors in the community.

What is more common and prevalent is emotional abuse of partners.  It's common for partners to be negative and tear each other down.  Finding relationships where people are positive and supportive of each other are much harder to find.

[Bee Farmer]

What else are your responsibilities to the public? Do you call the cops when you see someone speed or jaywalk?

I believe my responsibilities to the public are to treat others the way I want to be treated, and to not treat others in a way I would not want to be treated.

I believe there are only 2 rules people should live by in life.  Do what you say you are going to do, and do not aggress against others.

I do not concern myself with people who speed or jaywalk because those rules are against actions that do not involve other people.  I believe such rules are unconstitutional.  I do not believe I should tell other people how to live their life if their conduct does not affect anyone else.

Most guys you say are disrespectful towards women have women. Show us why women prefer to flock to you.

Some women like being abused.  I simply look at the quality and character of the women who are with abusive guys, and I am thankful every day that I am not with a woman like that.

Garbage attracts flies.  You falsely assume I would want women like that flocking to me.  I don't need women flocking to me to validate me as a man.  I am secure in who I am.  I don't suffer from an inferiority complex.

[Bee Farmer]

And ... it is clear you didn't even go to the site I suggested, and read even 1 word of it.

Slumba, do you make baseless accusations against your wife too?

Actually, I did look at the link you provided.  I glanced at it, and didn't see anything relevant to the discussion.

You still want to hold onto your cherished delusions.

And it is easier for you to claim someone else has 'delusions' than for you to admit your own failure.  The reason you never had a marriage like that, is not because those kinds of marriages don't exist anymore Slumba.   The only reason you didn't get a marriage like that...is you.

Concerning multiple partners and the risk of divorce, there are multiple pieces of data out there with multiple interpretations.  None of them are perfect; most likely an infographic like this is what you are talking about:

I'm familiar with a couple of those, but not all of them.  I'm also a little familiar with the studies that info was based upon.

Perfection is an unreachable ideal.  That does not mean we should try to see how low we are willing to settle for.  It means we should strive towards the ideal as much as possible.

[jone]

Bee Farmer,

I'm simply curious.  This gal that you had a relationship with for 4.5 years, did you have sex with her?

[BillyB]

I believe my responsibilities to the public are to treat others the way I want to be treated, and to not treat others in a way I would not want to be treated.

Many posters here believes in the same thing. Notice how we attacked you after you attacked us? Here's what I would have said in your situation if I wanted more gender equal or women only responses; "Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to write how your wives view the situation. I hope more women would join us in this thread as I greatly value their views on this issue." Instead you wanted to do things the hard way.

[Anotherkiwi]

I believe my responsibilities to the public are to treat others the way I want to be treated, and to not treat others in a way I would not want to be treated.

That's fine, and I don't think too many people would disagree.  However, the way you treat others on this forum doesn't reflect that opinion in any way.  You come on here pontificating wildly about various people and their relationships (including mine), without having the faintest clue about their actions, or what reasons were behind whatever they did.  If your quoted statement is true, then you obviously want us all to flame you in exactly the same way.  You are full of sanctimonious nonsense, and have absolutely no clue just how hurtful some of your comments are.  The fact that many of those comments are totally without foundation shows that your moral compass is in need of major repair.

I believe there are only 2 rules people should live by in life.  Do what you say you are going to do, and do not aggress against others.

It's unfortunate that you can't live by your own rules.

I do not concern myself with people who speed or jaywalk because those rules are against actions that do not involve other people.  I believe such rules are unconstitutional.  I do not believe I should tell other people how to live their life if their conduct does not affect anyone else.

So people who kill others because their car was speeding and crashed, or who were killed because they jaywalked in front of a bus, didn't involve other people?  How do you square your last statement with that?

[jone]

What I am curious to know is how Bee Keeper resolves making love to a woman who is not his wife.  He alludes to a relationship that he had with a woman in his adult life for 4.5 years, yet will not disclose whether they are intimate.

I think he will not relay this information because if he was intimate, then all his arguments go right out the window.  What is the difference between having a woman as your lover and having a woman as your wife?

(I know the difference, but in a religious, zero tolerance mind like Bee Keeper's it is difficult to know how he resolves this.)

[BillyB]

No BS BF. Are you still using AnastasiaDate? Based on your posts here and in other threads, you're a heavily religious guy who doesn't tolerate flaws in people but that agency you been using has the most flaws and I wouldn't doubt they've robbed you when you communicated with women and again when you used their services during your last visit to the FSU. No matter how hot and sexy their girls are, lots of shenanigans going on there. I hope you directed more anger towards ADate after your last visit than the anger you've shown here.

[Faux Pas]

That's fine, and I don't think too many people would disagree.  However, the way you treat others on this forum doesn't reflect that opinion in any way.  You come on here pontificating wildly about various people and their relationships (including mine), without having the faintest clue about their actions, or what reasons were behind whatever they did.  If your quoted statement is true, then you obviously want us all to flame you in exactly the same way.  You are full of sanctimonious nonsense, and have absolutely no clue just how hurtful some of your comments are.  The fact that many of those comments are totally without foundation shows that your moral compass is in need of major repair.

It's unfortunate that you can't live by your own rules.

So people who kill others because their car was speeding and crashed, or who were killed because they jaywalked in front of a bus, didn't involve other people?  How do you square your last statement with that?

 

More commonly referred to as a hypocrite

[Miquel Westano]

Garbage attracts flies.  You falsely assume I would want women like that flocking to me. 

A woman with emotional needs that allow her to be abused, is not automatically garbage.  Some people have a need to be loved that is so powerful they allow themselves to be victimized.  That doesn't make them garbage.  It makes them victims.  Also, it doesn't make the abuser any less of a monster. 

I don't suffer from an inferiority complex.

I don't think anyone on here ever suspected that. 

What I can't figure out though is where all your arrogance comes from?  You are not married, never have been and it doesn't sound like you ever will be.  Yet you smugly dish out advice non stop like you; have mastered the art of marriage, long distance relationships and raising family.

I would love to see a post from anyone who thought your problem was an inferiority complex.

[Bee Farmer]

Bee Farmer,

I'm simply curious.  This gal that you had a relationship with for 4.5 years, did you have sex with her?

That's a question you would need to ask the lady.  And whatever answer she gives you, I won't call her a liar.

But knowing her as well as I do, and what little I know about you, I can safely say there is about a 99.999% chance you would never be able to earn her confidence enough for her to discuss her sexual history with you.

Notice how we attacked you after you attacked us?

Actually, what I notice is that when someone disagrees with you, you feel attacked.

Here's what I would have said in your situation if I wanted more gender equal or women only responses; "Thank you gentlemen for taking the time to write how your wives view the situation. I hope more women would join us in this thread as I greatly value their views on this issue." Instead you wanted to do things the hard way.

I didn't say those things because I believe it is wrong to lie.  I don't appreciate the guy's opinions.

    I believe there are only 2 rules people should live by in life.  Do what you say you are going to do, and do not aggress against others.


It's unfortunate that you can't live by your own rules.

Perhaps it depends on your definition of "aggress".

So people who kill others because their car was speeding and crashed, or who were killed because they jaywalked in front of a bus, didn't involve other people?  How do you square your last statement with that?

If someone wrecks their car and kills someone else, and it was their fault, they should be held accountable.  But until they actually injure someone, I don't have a problem with them driving fast.

I don't understand your example of jaywalking in front of a bus.  The jaywalker's estate should be held liable to pay for damages to the bus, if that is what you are getting at.

I think he will not relay this information because if he was intimate, then all his arguments go right out the window.

Not necessarily.  I've said that ideally the woman is a virgin, or has had very few sexual partners.

What is the difference between having a woman as your lover and having a woman as your wife?

It depends if you pay her to leave when you are done.  lol

In all seriousness, my FFA teacher in high school made the comment that he thought if folks were getting married, and the girl was pregnant, instead of saying "I do" they should say "I did".

I know the difference, but in a religious, zero tolerance mind like Bee Keeper's it is difficult to know how he resolves this.

What I find interesting is that I am accused of being religious.  While I did go to church when I was a kid, and I am familiar with the Bible, I've never attended church as an adult. 

Based on your posts here and in other threads, you're a heavily religious guy who doesn't tolerate flaws in people

If I'm a heavily religious guy, why don't I attend church?

What you fail to understand is that you believe that anyone who believes something a church teaches, believes it for the same reasons.

I can recognize the value in honesty, virginity, integrity, etc. without needing some religious leader to tell me what to believe.

I hope you directed more anger towards ADate after your last visit than the anger you've shown here.

I didn't show any anger to AnastasiaDate, but they kindly refunded me all the money I had spent communicating with the lady.  I just stood my ground.

    Garbage attracts flies.  You falsely assume I would want women like that flocking to me.


A woman with emotional needs that allow her to be abused, is not automatically garbage.  Some people have a need to be loved that is so powerful they allow themselves to be victimized.  That doesn't make them garbage.  It makes them victims. 

And I think that anyone with half a brain would have understood that in my comment, I was referring to those kinds of women as flies, and the junk guys who attracted them were the garbage.

Garbage and flies are both undesirable partners for marriage.

I don't think anyone on here ever suspected that.

 

Wake up.  Are you unable to recognize that the person that was directed towards has a severe inferiority complex?

What I can't figure out though is where all your arrogance comes from? 

You confuse self-confidence with arrogance.

[jone]

What a fricking joke.  Unless you can stand there and tell us you're a virgin, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue.  Your response to my inquiry "Did you have sex with your 4.5 year GF" was a total dodge.  As if we knew this woman to ask if she had sex with you.  I wasn't asking her.  I was asking you.  And you inferred, by responding, that you would be betraying trust with her.  None of us know your real name on the forum and we certainly don't know the woman. 

Your ideas of stilted relationships is silly.  And when you are asked a direct question, you evade it because you know what a hypocrite it makes you. 

The simple covenant that you make with a woman when you have sex with her is the same that you would make to a wife (by your standards).  So, if you are not a virgin, you have violated the covenants that you so actively defend. 

Your standards are high for everyone but yourself.

[BillyB]

I don't appreciate the guy's opinions.

The feeling is mutual. People here don't appreciate you. You're a very unlikable guy but you can prove us wrong by showing us you found a woman that is willing to spend the rest of her life with you.

I didn't show any anger to AnastasiaDate, but they kindly refunded me all the money I had spent communicating with the lady.  I just stood my ground.

You've been looking for love in all the wrong places. You didn't say you got scammed in your trip report so I guess you woke up after your trip to Ukraine. You can't find sincere women if you don't know where they're located at.

[Anotherkiwi]

I believe there are only 2 rules people should live by in life.  Do what you say you are going to do, and do not aggress against others.

It's unfortunate that you can't live by your own rules.

Perhaps it depends on your definition of "aggress".

I had honestly never seen "aggress" used as a verb until your original post, so I assumed that it was an Americanism and looked it up.  The definition that I found seems to quite neatly match the way that you are always countering anything and everything that other posters write.  You don't EVER seem to accept that other people may be right, and that you could be wrong.  It must be wonderful to be so smug and self-satisfied that everything in the world of Bee Farmer is perfect, and that any problems in the real world are no concern of yours.

I do not concern myself with people who speed or jaywalk because those rules are against actions that do not involve other people.  I believe such rules are unconstitutional.  I do not believe I should tell other people how to live their life if their conduct does not affect anyone else.

So people who kill others because their car was speeding and crashed, or who were killed because they jaywalked in front of a bus, didn't involve other people?  How do you square your last statement with that?

If someone wrecks their car and kills someone else, and it was their fault, they should be held accountable.  But until they actually injure someone, I don't have a problem with them driving fast.

Do you not understand the concept that fast driving by one person may lead to another causing injury or death because they had to avoid the speeding car in what became an unsafe way?  Or would you hold the second driver wholly liable, even though a third party (the speeding driver) was the major contributory factor to the crash?  For those of us who've had to deal with circumstances like this, your attitude is sickening.

I don't understand your example of jaywalking in front of a bus.  The jaywalker's estate should be held liable to pay for damages to the bus, if that is what you are getting at.

Don't be ridiculous - of course I'm not worried about the damage to the bus.  What I AM worried about is the psychological (and likely physical) injury to the bus driver and passengers, and anyone else who witnessed the death.  if you can't figure that out you're even more of a lost cause than I had suspected.

[Bee Farmer]

Unless you can stand there and tell us you're a virgin, you have absolutely no credibility on this issue.

Would you mind elaborating on that, jone?  It makes no sense.

Your response to my inquiry "Did you have sex with your 4.5 year GF" was a total dodge. As if we knew this woman to ask if she had sex with you.  I wasn't asking her.  I was asking you.  And you inferred, by responding, that you would be betraying trust with her. 

Jone, I'm bright enough to realize that you already made up your mind, and you wouldn't believe me no matter what I said.  Maybe if you asked the girl, you would believe here.  (However, I will say that knowing her as I do, and what little I know of you, I can say with near certainty that you are not the quality of person who could earn her trust so that she would talk to you about her sexual past, or lack thereof.)

Besides, a gentleman never talks about his sexual encounters.  He always leaves it up to women to disclose things like that.

None of us know your real name on the forum and we certainly don't know the woman.

That is irrelevant.

And when you are asked a direct question, you evade it because you know what a hypocrite it makes you.

I did not answer what you are not privileged to know.  Try being a better person.

How am I a hypocrite?  I've never married (or dated) a woman who is divorced or has kids.  I've never married or had kids.  I've never pursued a relationship with a girl if I knew she had several prior sexual partners.  (And if I found out she had several prior partners, I immediately stopped pursuing her.)
How am I a hypocrite?  I am living my life by the standards I speak.  I believe folks should have a limited number of prior sexual partners (virginity is ideal) and I do not believe in divorce or remarriage (I can handle remarriage if their spouse died.) and I do not believe folks should marry someone else if there are kids.
I believe that people should choose wisely before marrying, but once they are married they should stay together for better or for worse.  If the marriage does fall apart, I believe they should either reconcile or remain single.

The simple covenant that you make with a woman when you have sex with her is the same that you would make to a wife (by your standards). 

Would you please explain that?  What covenants are made?  What promises are made in both situations?  It makes no sense to me, as I believe the obligations are different.
You have an obligation to support any child and mother if a pregnancy happens with a lover, but simply because something is an obligation does not make it a covenant.  With that said, I do not believe folks should enter into a sexual relationship in haste.  It should be done very cautiously, and with great consideration.

So, if you are not a virgin, you have violated the covenants that you so actively defend. 

What covenant has been violated?  What promise has been violated?

Your standards are high for everyone but yourself.

What standard do I hold for others that I do not also hold for myself?

You're a very unlikable guy but you can prove us wrong by showing us you found a woman that is willing to spend the rest of her life with you.

Billy, it would take a man with an inferiority complex to believe that he needed to prove anything to you, and only a person who had an inferiority complex would suggest that others prove anything to them.  (Besides, anyone who is divorced has proven that a woman was NOT willing to spend their life with them.  There are no second chances for that.)

I had honestly never seen "aggress" used as a verb until your original post, so I assumed that it was an Americanism and looked it up.  The definition that I found seems to quite neatly match the way that you are always countering anything and everything that other posters write.  You don't EVER seem to accept that other people may be right, and that you could be wrong.  It must be wonderful to be so smug and self-satisfied that everything in the world of Bee Farmer is perfect, and that any problems in the real world are no concern of yours.

Not aggressing against others does not prevent someone from defending against others aggression.

Do you not understand the concept that fast driving by one person may lead to another causing injury or death because they had to avoid the speeding car in what became an unsafe way? 

It has the potential to cause injury.  Shooting a gun has the potential to cause injury or death.  Knives have the potential to cause injury or death.  But potential is not enough.  There must be imminent danger to others.  Simply driving fast does not necessarily create an imminent danger to others.  (I recall that car accidents can be fatal as low as 12 miles per hour - do you advocate an 11 MPH speed restriction to keep people safe?)

Part of the price of freedom and liberty is that people have the opportunity and potential to cause injury to others.

Or would you hold the second driver wholly liable, even though a third party (the speeding driver) was the major contributory factor to the crash?

If someone's driving causes another accident (regardless of the speed) they should be held responsible for their actions.

What I AM worried about is the psychological (and likely physical) injury to the bus driver and passengers, and anyone else who witnessed the death.

What psychological injury?  Witnessing something like that is incredibly psychologically HEALTHY for other people.  It teaches them that there are consequences for actions, and bad decisions can have very costly consequences.

[BillyB]

Billy, it would take a man with an inferiority complex to believe that he needed to prove anything to you, and only a person who had an inferiority complex would suggest that others prove anything to them.

If you're going to label people, at least prove to us what label you got. So far we're in the right to label you as a man that is highly undesirable until you show us you can get a woman to commit to you.

(Besides, anyone who is divorced has proven that a woman was NOT willing to spend their life with them.  There are no second chances for that.)

There you go again. Thinking it's all the man's fault and it's the woman that initiated the divorce.

You're getting older but the average virgin isn't getting older. There are very few 40 year old virgins out there since you don't want to marry a woman half your age. Every day you're getting older and what you want become less attainable. You're either going to have to live without sex the rest of your life or break one of your rules.

[jone]

Bee Farmer reminds me of the evangelical pastors who spend their lives at the pulpit preaching against loose morals while at the same time having sex with prostitutes.