Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

This week's issue of Newsweek magazine (Feb. 07)
has decided to put a fresh national spotlight on the
recent case (mentioned here before) about
the Ukrainian bride claiming abuse who successfully
sued a matchmaker service in federal court in Maryland.
The jury awarded $433,500.

"Mail-Order Misery"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884657/site/newsweek/

The court found violations of current immigration law
provisions requiring IMOs (International Matchmaker Organizations)
to advise lady customers of their spousal abuse rights.

It appears that the feminist lawyers of the Justice Center
which started this case are looking for new cases, and continue
to push passage of the International Marriage Brokers
Regulation Act, introduced in last session of Congress.

http://tahirih.org/?template=imb_case_summary

When and if this bill comes up for hearings and vote,
I hope every concerned person here and elsewhere
who values free access to and association with international
romance, will voice their views to their Congressional representatives
and senators.

I oppose nearly all provisions of this bill, as I believe
that it places unrealistic and impractical restrictions
on IMOs to conduct background checks, and also chills
U.S. citizen rights of free association. The purpose of this bill,
if it is to protect potential lady victims of abuse who arrive in
the US with visa, can be easily and more effectively satisfied
by other means:
a rigorous background check of gentlemen (and ladies)
at the Embassy interview stage, and with the Embassy
providing to the lady visa applicant all relevant information
about her immigration abuse rights in the U.S.

Regards.

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

Hi Gary,

Are you sure that the agency violated provisions of current immigration law? I didn’t know the law required disclosure. The way I read the article, they were found civilly liable for not informing their foreign client of her rights under immigration law when she asked for help. Technically, it sounds like they simply screwed up by giving her lousy legal advice without a license. If they had simply advised her to contact an attorney when she complained about her abusive husband, then they would possibly not have been liable at all. What do you think?

I know there is a law on the books in Washington State that requires the “mail order bride” agencies doing business in the state to advise foreign nationals (male or female) that they have a right to request marital and criminal history of stateside clients residing in Washington. I believe that the proposed federal bill is patterned after the Washington law.

My personal opinion is that the federal government has NO business getting involved in the marriage plans of two qualified consenting adults. If they provide background information to foreign partners, then they should do the same for ALL marriages. Since marriage law is a state issue, the feds should keep their noses out, IMHO.

I think most of the agencies covered under Washington law do nothing more than sell addresses, so they should not be involved in verifying the personal background of their clients.

In the Philippines, the Philippine government requires all of their citizens who are going abroad to marry a foreign national to attend a half-day seminar where they are advised of their rights in the foreign country. They are also counseled one-on-one and the very young girls are sometimes discouraged from marrying a much older foreign man with numerous divorces. They don’t actually  “approve” or “disapprove” the marriage, but they sometimes make it difficult for a few of the girls to complete the seminar. Most all of the ladies who attend think highly of the seminars and find them a valuable asset.

Also, I know that some of the Consular Officers doing the visa interviews will sometimes advise the ladies that they are making a mistake, but they can’t deny a visa based on their personal feelings alone.

Ray

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Ray on Feb 1, 2005

“My personal opinion is that the federal government has NO business getting involved in the marriage plans of two qualified consenting adults. If they provide background information to foreign partners, then they should do the same for ALL marriages.”

That’s how the snowball begins they require a law for a selected minority and than they add to the group over time and before you know it everyone has an extra burden. For example the social security number at one time was only suppose to be private and only for the purpose of its creation now you have to give it to everybody in order to get anything.
Your first sentence is correct and I suspect your second was just pointing out the absurdity of extending their logic not a don’t do it to a few unless you do it to us all.
The thing about laws is if enough people are against them the human mind is more than capable of developing systems to avoid them. The drug trade is a perfect example. All it does is create extra cost for those for and against such laws.

Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Ray on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Gary Bala]

Thanks for comments, Ray.

The federal law in question is the IIRAIRA Act of 1996, Section 652 (Mail Order Bride Business).
The plaintiff attorneys in the Maryland case used this law for the first time in a civil jury suit to
successfully argue immigration violation by defendant Encounters International, as well as making
other arguments.

http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw/publaw-11103/publaw-14740?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm

Congress made certain "findings" about the "mail order bride business" at that time, and ordered
the legacy or old INS to follow up and provide studies and recommendations which triggered
their famous 1999 Mail Order Bride Report (linked here onto the PL left-side menu bar).  

The law also purported to create certain obligations for information dissemination on "matchmaking
organizations" doing business in the U.S., specifically that these organizations advise foreign citizens
about their immigration spousal abuse rights among other topics, and even imposed civil penalties
on matchmaker organizations for failure to comply.  

After that, the law went nowhere and laid dormant. The legacy or old INS never got around to drafting
regulations about these law provisions or the governmental brochure they were asked by Congress to
write on spousal abuse rights. It was that "laziness" and "incompetence" of the old INS again
(but you know about that), before they were finally abolished for being "lazy" and "incompetent".

At any rate, we are now looking at the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act" (HR 2949 and S.1455),
which goes far beyond the old Mail Order Bride law to force matchmaker organizations to become private
investigators and do background history checks (criminal, marital, and domestic violence) and collect and
disseminate this information about each gentleman and provide it to each lady in her native language,
as well as advise her on all her immigration spousal abuse rights and other rights in her native language.

If this bill comes up in current session of Congress, we all need to voice our opinions and oppose it
through our representatives. I agree with you in general that federal officials should stay out of "marriage
plans" because marriage is a state law issue. However as immigration spousal abuse rights of a foreign
citizen are a matter of federal law, I would see no harm in allowing the Consulate to advise the lady
visa applicant of what is just a matter of open record, especially if it will operate to prevent this proposed
law from passing as currently written.

As for security and background checks, these are done at Service Center, NVC and Consulate anyway,
and again if it can keep the peace and prevent the worst parts of the proposed law from going into effect,
I would not oppose Consulate from doing a more extensive check of the gentleman and advising
the lady of any negative results (and vice versa), if there is truly any chance it could lessen risk of abuse.

But placing on the matchmaker organizations the task of background checks, and information collection
and dissemination, and civil statutory penalties, on top of civil tort penalties as in this recent Maryland
case is beyond all sense and reason. It will drive up company costs and administration. It will force some
organizations out of business and others underground and overseas and offshore. It will chill First
Amendment free association rights of U.S. citizens. It will reduce international romance choices for
sincere and honorable U.S. citizen gentlemen seeking foreign fiancees and brides, and also make it much
more expensive for those who still want to pursue it. Less romance "matches" equals less happiness. And it
won't help the ladies from being protected from potential abuse anyway, because the organizations either
won't do a very effective job at security checks (something far outside of their specialty), or they will
close up and won't do it at all. Besides, there is no evidence to my knowledge that U.S.-foreign marriages
have a higher or different abuse rate than plain old U.S. domestic marriages. As you suggest, why single
out foreign marriages for security checks, but instead, if it must be done at all, just have the appropriate
entity do it for everyone.

The "Mail-Order Misery" article is better titled "Mail-Order Misdirection", because as Patrick suggested
this whole enterprise of big jury awards and this proposed law against matchmakers is in effect more
aimed at castrating the matchmakers than truly protecting the ladies from abuse.

Regards.

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

than the proposed legislation....

and would be cheaper on the pockets of US taxpayers! Maybe it's time for some news from those on the other side of this issue. I'm speaking of the numerous happily married couples! What is it with these feminist lawyers? Marriages of AM to foreign women represent what....2 percent, 3 percent of all marriages? I can understand their concern against spousal abuse. But Gat damn...there's more abuse happening between AM & AW, than what is happening between AM & their foreign spouse's! These feminist lawyers sound like they're in dire need of non-manually induced orgasms...

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

"Spivack, still in business, promises to connect clients with women who will "follow their husband's lead, and stick with the marriage even when times get tough and things stop being 'fun'."

The problem is that most brides no longer make a commitment vow to love, honor and obey their husband.  Spviack calls it "follow the husband's lead.."  American Feminists encourage the woman to be independent, think for themselves and not follow what their husband says.

I heard a guy at the gym tell me that the reason there is spouse abuse is that offensive women do not obey their husbands when he tells her to "be quiet."  She continues to provoke his anger and then he says, "shut up."  She then continues to ignore him and provoke him some more until he says, "shut the F... up"  She continues to scream at him and point her finger in his face until.... blam!  she gets hit.  Then the husband goes to jail.

Women just need to learn to obey their men.  Things have changed for the worse in US society.

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

...aren't you.  If a woman doesn't follow your command to shut up just hit her.  

I have found the best way to shut a woman up is to shut up.  Pretty soon she gets tired of yelling and stops.  Then no one goes to jail.

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider some of the things you've been posting. I'm not sure if you mean to, but this is how you're comming across.

Good (or at least excusable) reasons to beat up your woman:
1) Da bitch had it comming, and anyway, she sassed me.
2) I couldn't control myself, I was really mad at  (pick one): a)my foreman, b)my brother, c)some cop who gave me a ticket, d)anybody who has some power over me and/or can at least defend themselves.
3) I'm the boss and don't you forget it.
4) Anyway, when it's over, she'll just have to understand and forgive.

----------------------------------------------------------
I have a degree in psychology and have studied personalities and counseling psychology.---is that a fact? Could have fooled me.

... in response to Hello, anybody in?, posted by Michael B on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

magna cum laude.  If you don't know latin, that means my grades were very high in all subjects.

Did you ever matriculate?  (no that is not a bad word.)

"I'm not sure if you mean it but..."  Please speak for yourself.  You know I am not an advocate of any form of abuse.  You are just trying to play word games and associate bad boy things to me.  This is wrong.  Stop it.

... in response to Re: Hello, anybody in?, posted by Neil on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Hoda]

book sense, Neil. You've gone from graduate to magna cum laude doctorate! Trying to support your position by beating someone over the head with it here.....isn't very scholarly or civil. And it dayyum sure doesn't give you the right to talk down to others, who have taken a different life path than yourself....

You need to "Stop it"

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

“Women just need to learn to obey their men.”
Neil it sounds like you should just get a dog they like to obey.
Hitting a woman, man, or a dog for that matter out of anger is wrong. If a man can’t restrain himself it would be better for him to live alone.

Jamie
Engage the Exotic – Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to Disagree, posted by Jamie on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does;  I Corinthians 7:4

train the young women to love their husbands...to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind and submissive to their husbands...  Titus 2:4

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.  Many of the men who disagree should have their nose in the Bible instead of looking at womens photos on websites and lusting after the flesh.  If the man has his nose in the Bible, 99% of the time he will be right and the woman will follow his lead.  Domestic violence occurs when neither one knows their rolls in society and in the Bible teachings.

of course there are other strong words in the Bible on how us men are to behave.  I am not an advocate of violence except in defense of one's country or in self-defense.  The knowledge of good and evil was the curse that was brought upon man (and woman) kind in the garden of eden.  Only by submitting to Godly principles will we live in harmony with others.

seems like the Bible, Home Economics and prayer were taken out of the classroom and replaced with "Women's Studies" and followed by no fault divorces.    That is why I am seeking a traditional lady, not one from the United States of Role Confusion.  

While women have the same intellectual abilities as men,many of you think that women should think for themselves and aggressively voice their opinions.  This can lead to constant confusion and issues that prevent them from enjoying life and being protected by their loving husbands.  

Whenever you see a happily married couple driving their car, guess which one is in the drivers seat chauffering the other around?  Men are by nature the ones who protect and care for their wives outside of the house.  

And, in the same vein, who has ever seen a man breast feed and infant?  Except in the movie, Meet the Fockers, of course and that man was a twit.  Womens duties are inside the house, where they have complete control of household responsibilties and the mans duties are outside the house.  A well known Judge told me this.

It has only been like this since the beginning of time.  Eventually modern day feministas will see that their aggresive hostility is counterproductive and have more respect for men.

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

“…womens photos…”
That should be “women’s”.

“Womens duties…”
Same mistake bozo!

“…household responsibilties…”
That should be “responsibilities”.

“in the drivers seat chauffering the other around”
That should be “chauffeuring”.

“…in the garden of eden.”
That should be “Garden of Eden”. Don't forget your caps!

“…their aggresive hostility…”
That should be “aggressive”.

Hey, YOU appointed yourself Spelling Sheriff. Now you have to live up to the standards…LOL!

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

Hey Neil,
I liked the points you made.  I am a Christian man as well.
So, how has your search been going?  I have not been at it as long as you have, but I have been to Cali once.  I am planning to go again.  There is a very sweet lady that I have been corresponding with, and I am hoping to meet her in person soon.  Drop me an email if you want.

                                OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Submissive and obedient women ar..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 1, 2005

I am Jewish and if you justify beating up someone who is weaker than you by what you claim is Christianity, you do a horrible disserve to the majority of Christins who use their religion as a vehicle for good, not is justifying violence.

... in response to I don't hit dogs or women, posted by kented on Feb 2, 2005

Kented,
I absolutely do not justify hitting women.  I think that you have me mixed up with someone else, or you misunderstood what I said.  If someone else on this board justifies that, then that is their problem -- and yes, I am a born again Christian.  I would never want to say or do anything to promote violence or abuse of women!  I can say that with a fair amount of certainty since I have two ex-wifes that I never abused.
                               OkieMan

... in response to Re: I don't hit dogs or women, posted by OkieMan on Feb 2, 2005

My comments were directed at Neil's comments implying that the Bible justified man ruling his home with an iron hand.  The comment had been made that if a woman didn't obey the command to "shut-up" she was inviting being hit.  

More murder and meyhem has been committed in the name of religion throughout history than for any other reason.  If you use your religion as a reason to be a better person, to respect others and treat them as you would want them to treat you, if you repsect the fact that others hold different beliefs, then you have a right to be proud of your religion.

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005


NEIL Writes...

"I heard a guy at the gym tell me that the reason there is spouse abuse is that offensive women do not obey their husbands when he tells her to "be quiet." She continues to provoke his anger and then he says, "shut up." She then continues to ignore him and provoke him some more until he says, "shut the F... up" She continues to scream at him and point her finger in his face until.... blam! she gets hit. Then the husband goes to jail.

Women just need to learn to obey their men. Things have changed for the worse in US society."

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Many of the men who disagree should have their nose in the Bible instead of looking at womens photos on websites and lusting after the flesh. If the man has his nose in the Bible, 99% of the time he will be right and the woman will follow his lead. Domestic violence occurs when neither one knows their rolls in society and in the Bible teachings."

LOOKING4WIFE Responds...

First of all it is interesting that your basis of authority went from the primary "I heard a guy at the gym", to the secondary "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

The (main) problem is it (kind of) sounded like you were using the Bible to justify domestic violence due to "role confusion".

Rather than condone domestic violence against a wife, the Bible commands men to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave (sacrificed) Himself for it".  Yes, the Bible instructs men to be leaders, but it is incumbent on the man to display postive leadership qualities.  Hitting a woman for not "being quiet, shutting up, or shutting the **** up", doesn't fall into that category.

Furthermore, whether a man "has his nose in the Bible" or not, doesn't mean he will be right 99% of the time.  Part of being a good leader is knowing how to tap into the potential of your followers.  As Henry Ford said, "I always want to hire people smarter than me".  If you check out the virtuous woman in Proverbs 31, you will notice that she had amazing skills both in the home, and outside the home, including business and financial skills, and she was a key factor in making her husband great, well known, and well respected.

As they say, behind every good man is a great woman...

... in response to I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by Looking4Wife on Feb 1, 2005

Well said.

... in response to I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by Looking4Wife on Feb 1, 2005

Looking4Wife,
Also some good points.  I do not know if Neil was trying to justify domestic abuse, but I will give hime the benefit of the doubt, and say no.  I certainly do not condone it.  But, I also understand what I think he was trying to say.  The problem that we have in this country with role reversals, etc, has made a lot of us a little crazy!  I never thought that I would have been in 1 divorce, but instead I went through 2!  I have done my best to work on improving myself over the last few years.  Now that I am on this "latina" quest, I am excited about finding that special lady who will love me, but not compete with me.  Needless to say, the feminist movement has messed up everything!  At least now I have (we all have) an alternative! But, the Biblical principles that both of you were discussing are a strong part of my life as well.

                          OkieMan

... in response to Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 1, 2005

Neil said that women deserved to be hit if they didn't shut up.  I don't see how the concept of "benefit of the doubt" applies here.  

What were you divorced twice?  Was is really all the fault of radical feminism that told your wives that they didn't need to obey you and were allowed to have opinions of their own?

... in response to Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by kented on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

... in response to Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by kented on Feb 2, 2005

No, that is not the case.  However, I do not wish to debate with you the feminist issue.  If you want to believe that way, that is your privelege.  I will go back to what one of my college professors told me 30 years ago.  "Eat the chicken and leave the bones alone".  Basically, that means that I can agree with part of what someone says without having to agree totally.  I use part of what I think is right, and the rest I leave alone.  Maybe you should consider that in this case.  Most of us will not agree about everything, but we have found a common interest or goal; and that is why we are on this board.  So, let's look for the positive.  Some of the other posters may have stirred up a "hornet's nest".  I would rather not be a part of that.  One last thing, and this is not directed just at you.  I have noticed that several posters were commenting about the differences or lack of differences between AW and LW.  It would appear from their take on that subject, that the agencies do put out a lot of "bull" out there on the benefits of having a latin wife, etc. -- and yet, there are many men on this board who have commented about finding this very "special" lady in some Latin American country.  In your case, Costa Rica.  So, maybe the real story is a little bit of both, good and not so good.  Anyway, it's interesting.  Best of luck in your marriage.

                         OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 2, 2005

I would say that, in least in my case, I got young and pretty but I did not get submissive.  

I might actually prefer the "Leave-it-to Beaver" era but that doesn't exist anywhere, in the US or in LA.

... in response to Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

right on brother Okieman.  

I am not trying to justify domestic violence, only explain how it happens.  And this feminismic garbage is to blame in changing women for the worse.

I was happy and comfortable in Leave It to Beaver land.  At least we knew that men sang bass and women sang soprano.  Now the women are trying to sing bass and there is no harmony, just violence.

Remember Sigmund Freud?  He called it penis envy.  Women wishing they could be men.  Role Reversal is to blame.  Like going into the men's bathroom at the airport and seeing a changing table!  IN THE MEN'S BATHROOM!  

What is this world coming to???  The Bible says we are in the last times.

... in response to Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

Relationships are difficult and men, as well as women, have to compromise.  In "leave it to beaver land" women earned lots less than men for the same jobs and had fewer job opportunities.  

So when their man dumped them for a younger prettier woman, their economic circumstances went into the toilet.  Insecure men loved "leave it to beaver land."

... in response to Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

So you're saying real men don't change diapers? And then you link that to Christ's return? What are you, nuts? Your dim-witted, clumsy attempts at expressing your thoughts do as much damage to your cause as the feminists. Go read 1 Cor 13 for a true image of love.

... in response to Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

I hear you Neil, but I am still curious about how your search is going?  It took me a good while to get the "poison" out of my system, concerning american women (ex-wife,etc).  But, for the last couple of years, I have been working as best as I can on searching for that "special" latina.  Since we are all on this board discussing related issues concerning our search; I am curious about how yours is going?  Basically, we can press on with the latinas, and let the other poor slobs deal with the american women! By the way, Looking4Wife is a good guy too.

                           OkieMan

... in response to Re: Re: Re: I simply HAVE to respond..., posted by OkieMan on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

I am not aware how to send a private message.  If anyone knows, please advise.  

I plan on going to Cali Feb 11-16 and interview several girls myself.  A guy is placing a personal ad in the paper for me and I think it will be more personal than trying an agency.  Also I hope to meet girls that would normally not sign up with an agency.  Some of the agency girls book with all of the agencies in Cali and make a career out of being dined and wined by various men.  Some of the agency girls may have alot of experience with foreign guys and be quite jaded.  I hope to meet some fresh, real ladies this way.

... in response to visit to Cali next week, posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

Neil,
It sounds like you have some ideas.  Are you fluent in spanish?  I am asking that because I am not; and at this point,I could not really accomplish what you are trying to do without the help of translators.  That is the main reason why I am using an agency.  I am a member of Latin-Internet.  The lady that I am interested in is a member there, but she told me that she has never been a member of any agency before now. (She just joined in January).  So, I wish that I could go now, but I can't.  However, I am trying to get down there to see her as soon as possible.  Latin-Internet is like most agencies, in that they run hot and cold.  They are different in that most of the girls they have there are not also listed with all of the other agencies in town. I was told by the owner that they go by referrals, not running ads in the paper. It seems that the vast majority of the girls with ACG and LE and CaliVip are the same girls.  They are beautiful, but way too young for me (I'm 51).  I am looking for a wife, not a play thing.  At any rate, you are right, most of the time, Latin-Internet does not do much in the way of "parties".  But, the way I did it before was to have the staff set appointments, and do interviews with the ladies I was interested in.  I saw several, was interested in a couple of ladies; thought I had something with one, but that went away when I came back to the States.  That was last year. Win some, lose some. This time, I spotted this particular lady (that I am now interested in) on the website, and wrote her. She answered, and for now,there seems to be alot of chemistry.  I guess time will tell.  But, I can tell you this.  There are several especially attractive ladies with that agency right now.  Many of them are new, some of them have been there a while.  Naturally, it all depends on your taste in women.  But, that's my story in a nutshell.  So, with any luck, I will soon be heading down there to see if I can take my relationship with this special lady to the next level.  After all, I can take correspondence just so far.  Best of luck on your trip.
                               OkieMan

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it. Many of the men who disagree should have their nose in the Bible instead of looking at womens photos on websites and lusting after the flesh. If the man has his nose in the Bible, 99% of the time he will be right and the woman will follow his lead. ""

Wow!  You are a fanatic.  I would say brainwashed idot.

... in response to Re: Re: Submissive and obedient women ar..., posted by Heat on Feb 1, 2005

"You are a fanatic...brainwashed idot"

Thank you for your thoughts.  The correct spelling is "idiot".

... in response to Learn to spell, Heat., posted by Neil on Feb 3, 2005

This ought to be fun!

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005


Neil, best of luck in your search for what you want & need in a life-mate. Any number of guys here may feel the need to challenge your perception of what a woman's role, in life, love & marriage should be defined as. Spiritual awareness/acceptance will vary here on PL, as much as the men on the quest to find & be found by love.

Good luck Neil....

p.s. I'm hoping that this thread will stay civil, otherwise...

... in response to Re: Submissive and obedient women are no..., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

“problem was caused by their own wrongdoing and emotional overreacting when they should have listened to the husband and obeyed him in the first place!”

I doubt most women reach this conclusion after being battered and I doubt most women provoked the man prior to being hit. Those prone to violence are easily motivated to do so. I never said you were such a man but you appear to overly generalize about women by repeating a story told to you by another man as if to concur with his opinion. Women have the same intellectual capabilities as men so why would an intelligent adult being not want equal say in the determination of their future? By saying “Women just need to learn to obey their men” you are assuming men are always right and that is not the case.

Engage the Exotic - Latin Women
http://International-Introductions.com

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

Domestic violence isn't a product of the feminist era. It's not caused by strong willed women not following their husband's lead. It has been going on since cave man days. It isn't on the increase lately - at least not in the US, it's just more out in the open. There was a time when women didn't say anything if they were being used as a punching bag. Today, women have more effective support networks, police have been trained to deal with violent situations more effectively, and the general awareness of the problem is greater.

Truth is, according to studies, incidences of violence by women against men is slightly higher than of men against women - so nowadays it's the men who aren't reporting it. What kind of self respecting make would call the police whining that his wife beat him up?

Check this out: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

- Jeff

... in response to Hate to disagree but...., posted by Jeff S on Jan 31, 2005

Archer, J. (2002).  Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: ...Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.

when I used the word "bam"  this was what I meant, strangle, choke or beat up.  

You include "incidences of violence" to be minor aggravating actions like throwing a pillow, tapping with a finger, etc.

This study is consistent with what I was saying.   The women will continue to annoy with provocation, words, and minor aggravations until the man lowers the boom AND REALLY PUNCHES THE WOMAN!  Then the man gets arrested because: 1) he is capable of doing more harm 2) someone has to go.

Men don't whine because the women are just like mosquito bite, they annoy but do not cause severe bodily injury.  Most people have a threshold over which another's harm must past before summoning the police.  Women are just more emotional, less rational and call police because they are angry.  Then later when the women cool down they want to drop charges because they realize, correctly or not, that the problem was caused by their own wrongdoing and emotional overreacting when they should have listened to the husband and obeyed him in the first place!

... in response to you define violence differently than mos..., posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

Violence is violence. Tapping a finger or throwing a pillow, as you say, aren't - the studies often speak of "pushing, slapping and punching" and those are violence. Agreed that the degree of violence is usually more severe by the man against the woman, but that's to be expected. I'm 6'4" and weigh 275, my wife is 5'3 and weighs 120. But if a woman slaps a man and the man slaps her back, then she punches him in the face and he punches back, who goes to jail and is assumed to be at fault?

I'm also not saying you're wrong that much of this behavious originates by the women badgering the man until he cracks, The several couples I know who verbally fight a lot are almost universally started by the wife nagging, carrying on, and verbally pushing and badgering with lies and insults until the husband finally snaps back - then all hell breaks loose. I do agree with the guys below, there is no excuse by either side to escalate to physical violence, the appropriate response is to walk away, but as those studies show, more often than not the actual violence is initiated by the woman.

Thats one of the nice things about being married to an Asian wife, when you snap back verbally, their natural reaction is to clam up and not talk, rather than escalate the conflict. It defuses the emotion of the situation pretty quickly. The few times we fight, it lasts about 30 seconds and within a half an hour we're all lovey dovey again,m having worked out the differences. She's Japanese, but the guys with Filipino wives report similar behaviour. You have more of a handfull with a pissed off Latina on your hands. At any given time over the past 12 years, I have between 30 and 75 Latinas working for me, so I do experience their conflict resoluton skills on occasion.

- Jeff

... in response to Re: you define violence differently than..., posted by Jeff S on Feb 1, 2005

If you are 6'4", 275 lbs, and you hit a 5'3" 120 lbs woman for any reason, you are a coward.  

What you have said that you are able to intimidate your wife into submission.  You are indeed insecure if you need fear to insure domestic tranquility.

... in response to Re: you define violence differently than..., posted by Jeff S on Feb 1, 2005

you're a lucky guy Jeff!  Congrats.

... in response to you define violence differently than mos..., posted by Neil on Jan 31, 2005

Im sorry but I must disagree, no words out of a woman should ever justify physical action by a man.  I dont believe a woman should "follow the husband's lead," I believe a successful and rewarding relationship is built upon compromise, by both parties.

... in response to Re: you define violence differently than..., posted by Brandon2253 on Feb 1, 2005

I dont believe a woman should "follow the husband's lead,"
I agree with you wholeheartedly on getting physical with a woman. That should never happen!! Period. However, you are expected to take the lead, especially with a latina. I talk to my wife about the decisions that I make and she is included in the thought process of most decisions. However, she does follow my lead and does it very willingly. I listen to her when she voices an opinion and very often I comply with her wishes. But make no mistake, she is looking for me to lead 'our family'. Wish you the best but I think you need to understand that taking the lead does not mean dominating the woman in your life.

... in response to Re: you define violence differently than..., posted by Brandon2253 on Feb 1, 2005


Once you put your hands on them (in anger)....your ass, is toast! BTW....that "obey" mindset, is also dead & stinking! Both parties in loving relationship, must be willing to compromise in order for love to grow!

... in response to Ditto.....Just walk away!, posted by Hoda on Feb 1, 2005

Both parties in a loving relationship WANT the best for the other person and will place the other persons best above their own.  This is the ultimate abundant marriage.

Any less is not worth having.  BE CAREFUL IN YOUR SEARCHES FOR WOMEN, BROTHERS.  This is what we must look for.  And if we don't feel like sacrificing for the other person, if we are doing it only to feed our ego or pride, it will not last.

ONce you put your hands on her in anger, it is over.  Unless you were extremely stressed out about something else and had displaced anger.  She would have to understand and forgive you for the relationship to have a chance.  

I have a degree in psychology and have studied personalities and counseling psychology.  The Bible has the plan for an abundant life!

... in response to Now you are closer to getting it right., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005


Neil writes...

"Once you put your hands on her in anger, it is over. Unless you were extremely stressed out about something else and had displaced anger."

Looking4Wife responds...

Perhaps it is not your intention (giving you the benefit of the doubt)... But with your word choice, you seem, once again, to be making excuses for a man's WEAKNESS to commit domestic violence.

The next logical progression in what you're saying is... "I don't know what happened, I just snapped officer, I never meant to knock her unconscious... its just that I've been under a lot of stress lately, and she just wouldn't shut up..."

Whether you are stressed out at the lady, or as you say if "you were extremely stressed out about something else", the INEXCUSABLE result you keep referring to is hitting the woman.  She will hurt the same no matter what your "mental" anger was directed at, because the "physical" result was directed at her.  She could end up at the same emergency room, and the same cops would be called, irrespective of where your "mental" anger was directed.  

Neil writes...

"She would have to understand and forgive you for the relationship to have a chance."

Looking4Wife responds...

How about giving the relationship a BETTER chance by NOT hitting women in the first place?  By being MAN ENOUGH to either exit the situation, exit the relationship, or deal with the real issue, "anger-managment" in the first place?  Now THAT goes a long way toward abundant life...

You seem to be BIG on forgiveness for the "anger-challenged" man, but LOW on tolerance for a woman that doesn't "obey" per your definition.

This philosophy is PRECISELY the kind of thing that the overkill proposed legislation concerning the Foreign Bride industry is trying to address.  To prevent women from becoming punching bags or slaves.

Again, since you mentioned the Bible, I don't remember Jesus striking out at ANYONE in any scenes in the Passion of the Christ... in fact in the opening scene, when Peter cut the man's ear off who was there to take Christ off to his eventual crucifixion, Jesus restored the ear on the spot... surely if anyone was justified in retaliation, it was Jesus...

... in response to Dude, your apparent "logic" is..., posted by Looking4Wife on Feb 2, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

Please read the Bible and don't just see the movie, the Passion of Christ.  There is a lot more, Looking4wife.  Jesus displayed wrath when he turned over the tables of the money changers and drove them out of the temple WITH WHIPS!!   Since he was perfect there must be an appropriate time, place and manner for displaying this kick ass and take names righteous indignation.  

Nonetheless I am aware of only 2 times, places or manners that would justify striking a women, even adultery is not enough.  Other than self-defense or defense of one's country, as I said before.  Can you read the earlier post please?  Jesus said to the whore about to be stoned, he who is without sin, throw the first stone.  No one did.  Then Jesus said he did not condemn her either and she should go her way and whore no more.

I hope I explained the mindset that goes on when abuse occurs.  I have my doctorate degree and another degree in Psychology.   I do not advocate abuse.  I think you have that wrong.  Don't try to falsely label me, dude.  I am much too smart to allow your word games like "this philosophy".  If you like philosophy go read Plato who said the world is round.  I have years of actual first-hand experience counseling the abuse victims and the batterers, where the rubber meets the road.

Slavery has long been outlawed by the 15th amendment to the Constitution in the United States of Confusion, since the 1880s.  You can get in DEEP trouble, man, if you try to make a slave out of a man or a woman.  They do not like picking cotton, for starters.  Also the fields are very hot in the summer.  You will definitely face a lawsuit by some money-grubbing lawyer who will take you to the cleaners, big-time.

Punching bags are leather bags for boxers who practice boxing.  Women are much more beautiful and are different in many ways-- perhaps you are confused by the two.  When you are "looking4wife" make sure she is a woman and not a leather bag.  This is a matter of fact and not a matter of law or interpretation to most people.

We don't need MORE government control and legislation when we have a constititional amendment already in place.  And President Bush wants to bring FREEDOM to our world.  That is now the reason why we had the war in Iraq.  To bring our brand of freedom and democratic reforms and overthrow an independent sovereign nation ruled by a man the Bush family did not like, who did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Maybe you just like to throw around excitatory words and get people riled up and brand other people "advocates of abuse".

... in response to Dude, your apparent SCARE is illogical!, posted by Neil on Feb 2, 2005

Like is your wife in an enemy combattent???

... in response to Dude, your apparent "logic" is..., posted by Looking4Wife on Feb 2, 2005

I think you and I are on the same page. (see my 'is anybody in' post above). I find that there is NO acceptable reason to hit a woman (particularly your wife/girlfriend) except self defense....and by that I mean SERIOUS 'she's gone crazy and has a pistol pointed at me' kind of stuff....and even then it is better (for you, for her, for the children, for EVERYBODY) if you do the minimum necessary to defend yourself and then LEAVE. I'm 100% with you on (quote)-- By being MAN ENOUGH to either exit the situation, exit the relationship, or deal with the real issue.

... in response to Re: Dude, your apparent "logic"..., posted by Michael B on Feb 2, 2005

.

... in response to Now you are closer to getting it right., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005


I have been blessed with a wonderful wife :-)

... in response to Now you are closer to getting it right., posted by Neil on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Hoda]


For a woman, on the receiving end....

Your wife is not obligated to "forgive and/or understand" if she's picking up her teeth, off the floor! I respect the time & effort you've put into your studies & your conviction to your faith. But neither qualifies as an "absolute" guarantee to abundant life. They can help, but they can't guarantee...

Take care...

... in response to Ditto.....Just walk away!, posted by Hoda on Feb 1, 2005

Right on the money Hoda.

... in response to Yep you are right............., posted by Heat on Feb 1, 2005

[This message has been edited by Neil]

Thank you all for this spirited discussion and attempts to mistate and misconsrue the vital facts which I have set forth.  I must end these shinanigans and get back to my real calling of duty, which is my work.

Please remember:

Don't hit a woman unless in self-defense or defense of country.

Read the Bible for instruction.

Don't be a bad boy and play word games.

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

I'm generally in favor of providing more protection for the women.   Unfortunately, this legislation is going to more effective in attacking US owned agencies than it will be in protecting the ladies.  Placing this burden on the agency will only result in the foreign owned and operated agencies out-competing the US owned operations.  As US owned agencies close down, more foreign owned ones will take their places.  The US government will have no control over them and the women will not be informed of their rights and no background checks will be made.

You're right that it should be made a part of the immigration process.  That way it would serve the stated purpose of helping the women.  I get the impression that the people driving this are more interested in attacking the agencies than they are in protecting the women.

... in response to Mail-Order Misery, posted by Gary Bala on Jan 31, 2005

Sounds to me like just another way for the feminists to attack the foreign bride concept. They know it is working and it is pissing them off. If a foreign bride marriage should require a background check, why shouldn't a marriage to an American woman require a background check also? To me the latter is more dangerous.

Zack

... in response to Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by zack on Jan 31, 2005

It's just stupidity, not femanism.  Let's blame the tusami on femanists too.

The process is about as complicated as it can get and I see no benefit in making it more complicated.  Women perhaps risk being beaten and virtually imprisoned and men run the risk of being used to get a visa.  

I don't see any way to avoid this.  There are more thigns that can go wrong than can go right on both sides and that's why you need to get to know your partner.

... in response to Re: Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by kented on Jan 31, 2005

Remember Kented that the lawyers who started that case were feminist lawyers. That is a fact, not an opinion. I think that both feminism and stupidity are both at work here.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Mail-Order Misery, posted by zack on Jan 31, 2005

Sounds kind of redundant to me.