cmpmal: I take it you've overcome or at least learned to subdue some sort of preoccupation with porn.

If it's too painful or awkward I understand; but if you're able - would you tell us a little about the situation and how you succeeded in managing it.

If you can't post, would you email pynchme@yahoo.com

A long personal interaction won't happen - I am just interested in gaining knowledge of how people handle these issues,

Many thanks,
pynch

Partimeparent, you may well be right in saying that most child abuse happens in homes where there are step-fathers present, as opposed to natural fathers.

What I don't understand is what you are getting at as far as a solution goes?

Are you suggesting unhappy, adulterous or abusive couples stay together for the sake of the children?
Are you suggesting that previously non-abusive men or women becomes abusive if they move in with new partners and their children?

Are you suggesting there could ever be a world where all couples got on and stayed together along with their natural children?

What about all the people that lose their partners through death?
Tough luck for them aye?

Wouldn't that also condemn separated or divorced parents like yourself to a lonely life without new partners?

suzeonline:
"Partimeparent, you may well be right in saying that most child abuse happens in homes where there are step-fathers present, as opposed to natural fathers. What I don't understand is what you are getting at as far as a solution goes? Are you suggesting unhappy, adulterous or abusive couples stay together for the sake of the children?

No. But the safest child is a child who lives with BOTH natural parents - even if they are in TWO houses. Shared parenting should be the holy-grail of child protection, as there is a second loving parent keeping an eye out for any signs of abuse, neglect or simply un-happiness.

And incresing rates of shared parenting decreases divorce rates... since neither parent gets to keep everything - So the profit-motive for divorce is removed. Remember three-quarters of divorces are initiated by the mother (Who is pretty sure she'll keep everything, kids, house, 80% of assets, 50% of his after-tax income as "Child support")

Yes, Shared parenting won't always work, but it should be encouraged.

Until Howards reforms to the divorce laws, 97.5% of kids whose parents fought for them in court, lost one of their parents (Official Divorce/Family Court records). Changes are being prepared now by Rudd for a roll-back of the modest improvements, and more children will lose parents. More children will be put at risk.

Remember there are Divorce court CUSTODY disputes, not TAKE THE CHILD AWAY disputes.

The greatest love of all is a parents love for their child.
So sole custody is the greatest crime.

Partimeparent, I see where you are coming from, but I am sure you are aware of many instances where shared parenting is not in the best interests of the children?

If the Rudd government are thinking of rolling back some of the earlier Family Court reforms, they must have very good reasons.

And please don't start ranting about the rabid feminists out there just waiting for the chance to take all children away from all men!
The governments consist of mostly men, so I can't see any feminist agenda being allowed to flourish really.

So that leaves data of some sort. Could it be that child safety has not improved since the 50/50 shared parenting law came in?
Could it simply mean that many very angry ex-partners out there are just hell-bent on exacting revenge on their ex-partners, that having equal custody made little difference to how they treated their children and ex-partners?

No doubt, you will fill me in on the details.

partTimeParent: <"And incresing rates of shared parenting decreases divorce rates... since neither parent gets to keep everything - So the profit-motive for divorce is removed. Remember three-quarters of divorces are initiated by the mother (Who is pretty sure she'll keep everything, kids, house, 80% of assets, 50% of his after-tax income as "Child support")">

Oh puhleeze - have you any proof that women receive that much "profit"?

(The only stats I have ever seen related to after divorce financial status shows that women and children live in relative poverty; while the male goes forward with his career etc.).

Also, are you saying that you believe that women have a plan to get married and have children just to screw some bloke over ?

Sounds like sour egos to me. I suggest that some men just can't face the fact that a woman would rather be alone than with them.

Also, you seem to never consider that maybe relationships break down because of all sorts of reasons like drug and alcohol use; infidelity; gambling and the like.

What sort of a person needs the partner to be deprived of the means for independent survival, to force them to stay. What sort of person insists that someone who doesn't want them should stay?

If a fellow is a genuine good bloke; a some woman is too stupid or immoral to appreciate love, loyalty and kindness, then he's well rid of her isn't he?

Suzie my impression was that Labor opposed the reforms at the time and if they are rolling back changes it has more to do with philosophy than child protection.

The majority of politicians being male does not stop them showing a lack of concern for other men or children. Nor does it stop them taking a paternalistic view of women.

There are certainly cases where shared care is not workable but if both parents want the care of their children then those situations should be dealt with on their merits rather than on a gendered basis. The old system was pretty much if shared care could not be agreed to (or could be made unworkable) mum got the care except in the most extreme of situations. It was a system built around gendered stereotypes, in my view based on paternalistic assumptions about roles in the family.

My impression is that a lot of feminist support for it was the sticking up for women aspect. In other ways it was contradictory to a lot of feminist effort - a gendered approach to child residency after seperation reinforces the idea of the womans place being as primary carer of children and the male as financial provider.

R0bert