Bill would forbid divorcing parents in Massachusetts from having sex in home

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Boston Magazine has a really good story about why this isn't actually a story. It's by David Bernstein, who is about as liberal as they get. Anyway. Here's the key graph:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[angus]

Massachusetts must have recently become part of Alabama.

Does Alabama have such a law?  The divorce rate in Alabama is about twice that of Massachusetts, although the ease of getting a divorce is similar in both states.  In fact, Alabama has one of the highest per capita annual divorce rates in this country and it has many divorced legislators.  I'm surprised that it would have such a law.

[nclib]

Incidentally, when I saw the thread title my thought was "They're trying to ban the divorcing couple from having sex with each other?  Why?"

Same here. Wondering what the point of that would be.

[nclib]

As strongly as I believe in sexual and relationship freedom, there's something to be said about how it would impact the child(ren) to have another adult in the picture so soon after the parents split.

[angus]

Incidentally, when I saw the thread title my thought was "They're trying to ban the divorcing couple from having sex with each other?  Why?"

Same here. Wondering what the point of that would be.

I didn't read it that way.  I read it more like you can't bring home other partners. 

Like, you know how when you break up with your girlfriend, but you still have a few months on the lease and your name is still on it?  This has happened to me in my younger years.  Typically, neither of us would have enough money to just move out on the spot, so there was this awkward broken-up-but-still-sharing-the-same-bed phase.  Mostly you sort of agree, informally and subtly, but seriously, not to bring home any shagmeat from bars and such till you're split.  Of course, this creates an awkward situation, because you're still in your prime years and going for weeks on end without any trim can be stifling.  Generally, what I found is that we'd start horning up on each other, but not as often as before breaking up, and it would never be as natural as before.  Still, respecting each others' need for dignity, we'd abstain from bringing home any strange from the bars.

I'm certainly not saying a law is needed--That's way too nanny state--but as a matter of decency it's good personal familial policy, imho. 

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Massachusetts must have recently become part of Alabama.

Does Alabama have such a law?  The divorce rate in Alabama is about twice that of Massachusetts, although the ease of getting a divorce is similar in both states.  In fact, Alabama has one of the highest per capita annual divorce rates in this country and it has many divorced legislators.  I'm surprised that it would have such a law.

I don't know if it does, but I'd expect a more socially conservative state to support a measure like this.

But it won't be going anywhere, of course.

[angus]

Massachusetts must have recently become part of Alabama.

Does Alabama have such a law?  The divorce rate in Alabama is about twice that of Massachusetts, although the ease of getting a divorce is similar in both states.  In fact, Alabama has one of the highest per capita annual divorce rates in this country and it has many divorced legislators.  I'm surprised that it would have such a law.

I don't know if it does, but I'd expect a more socially conservative state to support a measure like this.

But it won't be going anywhere, of course.

hmm.  Strange.  I always associate the over-reaching nanny-state mentality with progressivism.  Different stereotypes we have, I suppose.  In any case, I agree that it's too weird to pass the lege.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Massachusetts must have recently become part of Alabama.

Does Alabama have such a law?  The divorce rate in Alabama is about twice that of Massachusetts, although the ease of getting a divorce is similar in both states.  In fact, Alabama has one of the highest per capita annual divorce rates in this country and it has many divorced legislators.  I'm surprised that it would have such a law.

I don't know if it does, but I'd expect a more socially conservative state to support a measure like this.

But it won't be going anywhere, of course.

hmm.  Strange.  I always associate the over-reaching nanny-state mentality with progressivism.  Different stereotypes we have, I suppose.  In any case, I agree that it's too weird to pass the lege.

It all depends.  Progressives tend to favor sexual liberation and reproductive freedoms while taking a more restrictive approach to food and guns.  With conservatives, it tends to be reverse.  That's all generalization, though.

[angus]

It all depends.  Progressives tend to favor sexual liberation and reproductive freedoms...
That's all generalization, though.

For women they do, of course, but let a man act like a man and the get their tight little panties in a wad.  Yours are probably so knotted right now that it must be terribly uncomfortable.

That's all generalization, though.  

[angus]

Hey Scott, in all seriousness, are we reading this bill the same way?  Or are you reading it like TF and NCLib?  I can't imagine any lege, the holier-than-thou nanny kind, or the gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', Love-it-or-leave-it kind, to seriously consider any bill that's crafted the way TF and NCLib read it.  Not that I'd want them to seriously consider it the way I read it either, but at least that has some grounding in reality, imho.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hey Scott, in all seriousness, are we reading this bill the same way?  Or are you reading it like TF and NCLib?  I can't imagine any lege, the holier-than-thou nanny kind, or the gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', Love-it-or-leave-it kind, to seriously consider any bill that's crafted the way TF and NCLib read it.  Not that I'd want them to seriously consider it the way I read it either, but at least that has some grounding in reality, imho.

I read the thread title that way, not the bill once I saw the quoted portion in the OP.

[nclib]

Hey Scott, in all seriousness, are we reading this bill the same way?  Or are you reading it like TF and NCLib?  I can't imagine any lege, the holier-than-thou nanny kind, or the gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', Love-it-or-leave-it kind, to seriously consider any bill that's crafted the way TF and NCLib read it.  Not that I'd want them to seriously consider it the way I read it either, but at least that has some grounding in reality, imho.

I read the thread title that way, not the bill once I saw the quoted portion in the OP.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

BTW, what are the R-VA avatars referring to?

[Badger]

Boston Magazine has a really good story about why this isn't actually a story. It's by David Bernstein, who is about as liberal as they get. Anyway. Here's the key graph:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Folks, please re-read this article snippet. This is simply the work of extraordinary direct democracy meeting an 83 year old misogynist coot.

[Sol]

Hey Scott, in all seriousness, are we reading this bill the same way?  Or are you reading it like TF and NCLib?  I can't imagine any lege, the holier-than-thou nanny kind, or the gun-totin', knuckle-draggin', Love-it-or-leave-it kind, to seriously consider any bill that's crafted the way TF and NCLib read it.  Not that I'd want them to seriously consider it the way I read it either, but at least that has some grounding in reality, imho.

I read the thread title that way, not the bill once I saw the quoted portion in the OP.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

BTW, what are the R-VA avatars referring to?

Barfbag/Derick/Fartboy's banning.