Gunny376 Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 As we all know? Divorce can be a pretty rough business, but its not as rough as it once was in Moldavia. This was a principality of what today is part of Rumania. There was no alimony, no support payments, no separate maintenance, no child support, no legal fees, and no court costs. Alexandru Lapuseanu, the ruler of the place frm 1546 to 1568, simplified the situation greatly He simply imposed the death penality on anybody who even started divorce proccedings! :laugh: Think you can't get along? Can't make your marriage work? Think a damn~again! Source: "Boyd's Book of Odd Facts" Signet Books 1
threebyfate Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 Gunny, that's not even funny. If that were the case, I'd never get married and not because of fear of consequences but because coercive whimsical laws like this are disturbing. More likely, I'd redomicile as fast as my little feet could run away.
Author Gunny376 Posted August 11, 2012 Author Posted August 11, 2012 Gunny, that's not even funny. If that were the case, I'd never get married and not because of fear of consequences but because coercive whimsical laws like this are disturbing. More likely, I'd redomicile as fast as my little feet could run away. You and I both! I WOULDN'T BE GOING! I'd be GONE! 2
TaraMaiden Posted August 11, 2012 Posted August 11, 2012 Yeah, but fer krissakes, this was in the 16th century - the deal for women globally was none too positive then.... and even up to the 19th Century, it was completely dismissed as possible that women could even be lesbians or have a sex drive. Queen Victoria refused to believe such facts - and she had 9 kids....! so while such news might be shocking in this day and age, for the 16th century it was no big deal. Try focussing on female genital mutilation, or the treatment of Muslim women in Saudi Arabia, who live under such ridiculous premises as "If women are allowed to drive, it will cause homosexuality"..... see where your soapbox rant gets you then, Gunny.....
Radu Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) As we all know? Divorce can be a pretty rough business, but its not as rough as it once was in Moldavia. This was a principality of what today is part of Rumania. There was no alimony, no support payments, no separate maintenance, no child support, no legal fees, and no court costs. Alexandru Lapuseanu, the ruler of the place frm 1546 to 1568, simplified the situation greatly He simply imposed the death penality on anybody who even started divorce proccedings! :laugh: Think you can't get along? Can't make your marriage work? Think a damn~again! Source: "Boyd's Book of Odd Facts" Signet Books First of all he ruled twice, first from 1552-1561 and 1562-1568, not as king but as Prince. There were actually 3 principalities, Valacchia Transylvania and Moldovia. About half of the old principality of Moldavia is now known as Moldavia the country, stolen by the USSR before WW2 and at the end of WW2 immediately colonized by massive numbers of russians. The Moldavians, some of them were sent to the Gulags. The system is a light form of South African Apartheid with the russians as the general ruling class even though they don't make up most of the country's population. The Principality at the time was Christian Orthodox. That Law most likely referred to the nobels [boyars], more so than their wives so it can be interpreted as 'death to anyone who wants to change their wives'. Queen Victoria on the other hand was Anglican, an offshot of the Catholic Church with some inspirations from Lutherans. Up to about the 17-18th Century there was no denying of what was known about women, and they were seen as different from men [sexually] but not inferior, it was the legacy of the Renaissance. 18th Century is where the legacy of today's women comes from, and what some feminists are pissed off about. There are countries today [western countries] who still consider that female ejaculation doesn't happen and there can only be pee coming out from there [Australia]. And TM, Saudi Arabia is an US strategic ally, so it's more likely that you will see female rights in Iran faster than in SA. As for circumcision, the basic form of female circumcision [stage Ia] involves removing the clitoral hood, leaving the clitoris exposed and thereby with time letting it harden. This is identical with male circumcision ... funny how the latter is ok. Edited August 12, 2012 by Radu
dreamingoftigers Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Quickly about male circumcision..... It is going out of style. Many of the "infection" avoidance theories are a total myth. I'm glad that it is. I think it is a form of mutilation. My husband isn't cut and I am glad.
Author Gunny376 Posted August 12, 2012 Author Posted August 12, 2012 First of all he ruled twice, first from 1552-1561 and 1562-1568, not as king but as Prince. There were actually 3 principalities, Valacchia Transylvania and Moldovia. About half of the old principality of Moldavia is now known as Moldavia the country, stolen by the USSR before WW2 and at the end of WW2 immediately colonized by massive numbers of russians. The Moldavians, some of them were sent to the Gulags. The system is a light form of South African Apartheid with the russians as the general ruling class even though they don't make up most of the country's population. The Principality at the time was Christian Orthodox. That Law most likely referred to the nobels [boyars], more so than their wives so it can be interpreted as 'death to anyone who wants to change their wives'. Queen Victoria on the other hand was Anglican, an offshot of the Catholic Church with some inspirations from Lutherans. Up to about the 17-18th Century there was no denying of what was known about women, and they were seen as different from men [sexually] but not inferior, it was the legacy of the Renaissance. 18th Century is where the legacy of today's women comes from, and what some feminists are pissed off about. There are countries today [western countries] who still consider that female ejaculation doesn't happen and there can only be pee coming out from there [Australia]. And TM, Saudi Arabia is an US strategic ally, so it's more likely that you will see female rights in Iran faster than in SA. As for circumcision, the basic form of female circumcision [stage Ia] involves removing the clitoral hood, leaving the clitoris exposed and thereby with time letting it harden. This is identical with male circumcision ... funny how the latter is ok. Me? Myself and I? I love to learn, I learn studying ~ I love knowledge! I consider myself a true scholar ~ in that I pursue knowledge and wisdom no matter and regardless of its source. That can be learned in a classroom, a book, a college, a university, from smeone who has a college degree, a PhD, ........................ Yet it can be learned from a homeless person, a chlld, a babe, .................from the mouth of children. The most valuable lessons I've learned in Life have been from the "less formally educated" 2
Author Gunny376 Posted August 12, 2012 Author Posted August 12, 2012 Yeah, but fer krissakes, this was in the 16th century - the deal for women globally was none too positive then.... and even up to the 19th Century, it was completely dismissed as possible that women could even be lesbians or have a sex drive. Queen Victoria refused to believe such facts - and she had 9 kids....! so while such news might be shocking in this day and age, for the 16th century it was no big deal. Try focussing on female genital mutilation, or the treatment of Muslim women in Saudi Arabia, who live under such ridiculous premises as "If women are allowed to drive, it will cause homosexuality"..... see where your soapbox rant gets you then, Gunny..... Wasn't ranting Tara ~ just love History and Triva! 1
Radu Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Victorian Society was lovely in it's massive contradictions. You have Queen Victoria which saw sex as a chore, and gave the tone for the nobility, but underneath it all the perversion was ... WOW. Men were seen as good, considerate husbands if they didn't want sex often with their wives ... mostly because of the mortality rate when giving birth. You have a form of legalised prostitution which towards the end of the century involved medical checkups. You have a silent understanding for homosexuality between men, outside of a few [Oscar Wilde] they really didn't hunt them down. You have sexologists like Havelock Ellis which was a virgin by the time he married at 32 to an open lesbian woman, and was impotent up to 60, and only started having sex when he realised that the sight of a woman peeing turned him on like crazy. Most boys who were sent off to boarding schools had messed around with bisexuality. And then the novels like 'My Secret Life' by Walter ... that thing is huge.
Author Gunny376 Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 Victorian Society was lovely in it's massive contradictions. You have Queen Victoria which saw sex as a chore, and gave the tone for the nobility, but underneath it all the perversion was ... WOW. Men were seen as good, considerate husbands if they didn't want sex often with their wives ... mostly because of the mortality rate when giving birth. You have a form of legalised prostitution which towards the end of the century involved medical checkups. You have a silent understanding for homosexuality between men, outside of a few [Oscar Wilde] they really didn't hunt them down. You have sexologists like Havelock Ellis which was a virgin by the time he married at 32 to an open lesbian woman, and was impotent up to 60, and only started having sex when he realised that the sight of a woman peeing turned him on like crazy. Most boys who were sent off to boarding schools had messed around with bisexuality. And then the novels like 'My Secret Life' by Walter ... that thing is huge. Yea I know! To para-phrase Mark Twain ~ "For someone to be literate and not read? Is the same as someone who is illiterate!"
Recommended Posts