Message
It means your kid doesn't want to be a lawyer, so I'd encourage it.
A few things:

1. For the most part, men do not cheat because of low self-esteem, "entitlement" (whatever that means, exactly), ego, or "mental illness" (lol). These are explanations women make up because they don't understand men. Men cheat, or want to cheat, because the vast majority of them find sexual variety pleasing in and of itself. You know how you'd probably end up bored with your favorite food if you had to eat it three meals a day, every day? This is exactly the same idea. Yes, I am aware that this impulse also exists in women, but it doesn't seem to be *nearly* as strong.

2. Many men who cheat are nonetheless good fathers, brothers, sons, friends, employees, even good husbands in every other way. If male infidelity were driven by some kind of underlying personality disorder, that wouldn't be the case.

3. Men do differ. A few find it easy to be faithful. Some find it damn near impossible, even with the best of intentions.

4. Surveys consistently indicate that there are a lot of people (of both sexes) who refrain from having affairs only because they worry about the potential consequences. I guess reasonable people can disagree about this, but I don't see any difference, morally, between actually cheating and staying faithful only because you're worried about getting caught.
In my case? It says that I had unacknowledged (or poorly understood) family of origin issues. It says that I didn't see a healthy relationship modeled. It says that nobody ever gave me advice and that I was too proud to ask for it. It says that I was too soft-headed and made the decision with my heart rather than with my head (sorry, but marriage is a partnership, not a whirlwind romance and the head should get a veto). It says that I was too cowardly to leave once I realized that I had made a mistake.

It says that I'm human, not that there's something fundamentally wrong with me.
The title of this thread is the most DCUM thing I've ever read.
In a situation like Sweden's, when the backlash finally comes, it's unlikely to be delivered with the surgical precision and careful attention to just desserts that someone sitting behind a computer eight thousand miles away would like to see. This is one of those things that those of us who oppose mass immigration understand and that everyone else in the western world seems to have forgotten. If you read what the OP has said in this thread, it's obvious that he's not condoning the beating of innocent children, so let's stop pretending that that's the issue here. The issue is that when radically different groups of people are forced into close proximity, violence usually ensues. Anyone who claims to want to understand root causes needs to understand this: stabbings and bludgeonings in formerly safe streets were the foreseeable and inevitable consequence of the decision to allow an unprecedented wave of mass migration into Europe. Unfortunately for everyone, the beatings will continue until sanity returns.
Agree - it should be one person, one vote across the board. Just abolish the Senate; the UK does fine with an effectively unicameral legislature.
Go to: