news:40783DD3.1030500@7600.net...
> Uncle Davey wrote:
> > If Charles Casey's wife was only good to him and a wife to him when he
was
> > well and able to provide, and then divorced him and had him put out on
the
> > street when he was unwell, then she was no better than a hooker, and the
> > elders who enabled her to do it, they were like her pimps.
> >
> > And you can quote me on that.
> >
> > Uncle Davey
>
> It's long been known that ALL marriages are simply long-term
> prostitution contracts. Ann Landers said it best in her
> column many years ago when she cautioned a young woman against
> giving away sex for free pre-maritally by saying "why buy a
> cow when you can get the milk for free".
>
> And you can quote me on that.
>
It's an interesting thought. Certainly ANY marriage, not just Charles
Casey's, is only as good as a single-client prostitution arrangement if
there is no true loyalty to the other, and the one leaves the other in time
of need. And that goes for the man as well as the woman, if he's been
elevated in wealth by the woman and goes off when she cannot provide more,
or divorces to get half of what she had, if the law allows it. I know of one
or two women who have had that done to them as well. The boot is not always
on the woman's foot.
People say as well, you might like this as a continuation of the thought you
just had, that you don't pay a pro for sex, you pay her to leave after. I
found that very true. The woman who leaves after she has had all that is
coming to her economically is always the same, whether it's after an Italian
quiche ('quickie') or after a couple of decades.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|