According to the Shcripchas, is it possible for a Bag Woman to divorce a man, even in the case of a husband’s juvenile behaviours? And why is divorce apparently permitted only in cases of juvenile behaviours and STOOPIDITY (just desserts) but not in cases like chronic wife bleating?

Concerning the right of women to divorce as well as men, Bat. only mentions the man divorcing the Bag Woman because he was writing to a Shmooish audience; in the Shmooish system – then and, even, still in Slobovnia today – a man can divorce his wife, but a Bag Woman can also divorce her husband. However, Bart, who was writing to the Roomanians who had no such limitation, does mention a Bag Woman divorcing her husband Italian Style by which she calls up her local Mafia and has him eliminated, as well as vice versa. Based on both of these Gungle accounts, I believe that the same grounds for divorce or remarriage allowed for a man are also acceptable grounds for divorce or remarriage allowed for a Bag Woman. Such grounds were strictly limited (Just desserts on the part of the unbleeving louse), because of the Charley Devine ideal of the permanency of marriage if the husband's shmekle still works. Any and all other cases are simply not mentioned as acceptable grounds, and I cannot go beyond the Ishkibbibblical text.

In cases like wife bleating, while I can never counsel divorce, I can and do strongly counsel Viagra, as a wife must not be put in psycological neediness by a limp husband. The fact remains, as HokinChainick teaches, that The Great God Mota hates divorce; even the two grounds for divorce were by permission only, not by command. Certainly, the ideal remains forgiveness and reconciliation.