Sunday, March 28, 2010

Women Are Like Hand Grenades, by Happy Ghost


Happy Ghost was a regular on DGM 2.0. Since DGM was discontinued, he's become a member of the new, MGTOW forum. It was on there that HG posted THIS beauty...


I attended my pal's kid's birthday party today. One of my pal's friends was there, and he has a new girl. They mentioned to this chick that I'm a ghost... didn't use the word, but described the idea. She immediately started questioning me... why?

I mentioned that marriage is a bad risk. She trotted out the "not all girls are like that" line, which I nicely handled with the hand grenade analogy (here's a box of hand grenades, choose one you think is a dud, then hold it and pull the pin and see if you were right or not). There's no way to know WHAT kind of girl you have until you're committed and it's too late to avoid being destroyed. Therefore, there can be women who are "not like that", but unfortunately it's irrelevant. Not all hand grenades are "like that" (meaning they explode), and there ARE duds... but because the duds can look just like the live ones, you'd have to be crazy to pick one and commit to finding out.

She rolled her eyes and basically said that if you don't know the girl by THEN (marriage time), then you're clueless. I replied that women can be master actresses, and you can only get to know the "real them" if they allow you to see it before the wedding, which many do not. And girls acting good look identical, in all respects, to girls who are REALLY good. So, there's just no way to know until it's too late.

I then explained that Marriage 2.0 is far different from Marriage 1.0 (and yes, I did use the numbers, maybe their usage will spread), and that in Marriage 2.0, the woman holds almost all the cards, and the guy holds almost none.

She immediately trotted out the "bitter" shaming tactic, but she did it subtly. "Were you married before?" I said no. "Were you in a relationship that went bad?" I again said no. "Then how do you know all this?" I smiled and said, "By observing all my male friends suffering and being destroyed because of this, and by reading all the changes in marriage and divorce laws over the last 40 years, straight out of the law books, and by watching precedent be set in courtrooms. I learned by observing, instead of by personal experience, thank god."

Silence. "They're not all like that" was blown out of the water. So was "you're just bitter". She had nothing much left in her arsenal.

Then she inquired how long I've been like this, and indicated that surely it's not a sustainable choice. Then my friends told her how long it's been since I dated or had a relationship... which is many, many years now. I grinned right at her, smoking a big cigar, drinking a microbrew, and looking happy as hell with myself and my life. Not sustainable, my ass, dearie.

This seemed to really freak her out. She mentioned how she had a female friend who couldn't find a good man, and complained about it all the time... a single mother! I stayed quiet on that one (didn't want to get too confrontational, after all).

What really seemed to spook her is that her boyfriend was sitting right next to her when I said all this, absorbing this unique perspective of mine (he already knew about me, but she probably didn't know he knew). I'm sure she wasn't too happy with me speaking such ideas with him sitting there, because I'll bet she's going to try to get his head in the marriage noose soon.

That was fun. She asked if I'd ever consider dating and getting married, and I told her that if the social and legal systems reverted to how they used to be in the 1950's and before, when a man had a fair chance at a good marriage and the laws were much more equal, only then would I consider it. Returning to the hand grenade analogy, I said that back then, unwittingly choosing a live one that looked like a dud might've gotten you a badly bruised hand, but today, it destroys you. I then said that I was quite sure that fairness would never be restored in my lifetime, therefore I will simply not participate, and many other men won't, either.

She didn't have a lot to say after that. It was pretty beautiful.

If more of them hear this, while their girlfriends (and perhaps they themselves) are whining about not being able to find a man, perhaps they'll put two and two together.


That's a good analogy, isn't it? A live hand grenade and a dud look exactly alike one another, but you cannot differentiate them without doing damage to yourself. Women are the same way; the bad ones look the same as the good ones do, act like they do, talk like they do, etc. From where we men sit, how can we tell them apart? Well, that's easy; since 99.999999% of the women out there are feminazi skanks, one can operate under the assumption that ALL women are bad, and he'll probably be right! The few women who aren't like that got snapped up years ago, so it's pointless to look for one. Until next time...


Irlandes on Child Support Laws in the USSA


I was reading some posts over on the DGM forum, because I hadn't been there in a while. My time is limited, and I'm a moderator over on Mancoat. Therefore, I spend most of my time on Mancoat. Still, I like to visit HB and DGM when I can. Anyway, Irlandes had this EXCELLENT post on child support in modern Amerika. He discusses what it means, and it means slavery for men. If the definition of slavery is compulsory labor for somene else's economic benefit, then we truly do have slavery in Amerika today. Read this, and remember-DO NOT GET MARRIED!


Here is some training on child support law for Valerie, and perhaps for her dad.

Child support laws are based on the legal requirement for all parents to support their children. If you or your dad don't know this, get a good Law Review. I did.

Sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work like that. And, it works so unlike that, that child support law is essentially slavery in the US.

Here is why.

A married man can make decisions on how to spend money. If he gives his wife money for the kids, he can demand proof the money was spent on the kids, and he can decide what to pay for. Child support payers cannot do this, nor do women have to prove the money was spent on the kids.

No, it's worse than that. She can openly and proudly admit she uses the money on herself or on children that are not his, and he has no legal recourse. Thus, legally, child support is alimony, and if the mother wishes to use it on the kids, she can. Likewise, if she tells the kids they have to get a job to buy their own clothes for school, she can, and can spend the money on Victoria's Secret, and he has no recourse.

Next, a married man, if he loses his job, the family has to cut back to try to get by. The married man is not responsible for toys and cell phones and gas money for kid's cars when he is unemployed. And, cutting back means he has less debt when he does find work. No new bicycles for now. No trips to Aruba now. If necessary, no candy bars for now. No new shoes. No new clothes. Shop at Salvation Army Thrift shop.

A child support payer gets no relief for being unemployed. The bill goes on with interest in some states, even while he is lying in the hospital with both legs cut off with a chain saw. The married man has no accumulated debt.

A married man can choose not to pay for his kids college education. It matters not that most folks do. A married man has a choice. He can say he is tired of supporting the kid who now is an adult. He can say he does not approve of the kid's behavior and thinks it's good for him to earn his way, or get a job. Or, he can say he has been working too hard and at his age, he wants to cut back on hours worked, or move to a different job that he would like to try, but which will make less money. Or, he can say he doesn't believe in college.

Or, also he can say he simply doesn't want to pay for college, and no one can do a thing to him.

I know this personally, because when my daughter finished high school I told her I was not going to help her unless she absolutely needed it. She had to work and pay her own way. She did, and finished her college degree in 1991 with no debt as well as no help from me.

So, this is a case where child support laws do not merely reflect the obligation of all parents to support their kids.

I knew a cop who was divorced, and since he had to pay considerable child support, took a second job to try to make a decent income after c/s. His ex- immediately took him back to court, to receive her share of his second job. So, he took a third job to try to have a substantial income. She took him back to court and the court ordered a part of that second job to be paid as c/s

After a year or so, he was exhausted from 80 or 90 hour weeks, and wanted to cut back those two jobs. Nope the judge told him. You cannot reduce your income voluntarily, or better said, you can increase your income voluntarily, in which case your c/s payments go up, but no matter what, you cannot cut back your child support payments once they have gone up.

A married man can change jobs as he wishes. He can move his family to a cheaper place to get by on less money when he voluntarily changes to a lower paying job. He can also reduce his hours if he wants, with no explanation to anyone.

If a married man becomes unemployed, and falls behind on goodies for the kids, he does not have to repay it later when he goes to work. That is, he can cut back and they have to accept it. Child support payments based on school trips and luxuries and new bicycles that kids of unemployed dads have to forego, for a child support payer become a blood debt, and there is no relief ever.

Gosh, how could I forget the big one? The basis of child support payments is that all parents are obliged to support their kids. But, millions of women sit on their fat rear ends, make no attempt to support their kids at all, while the taxpayers give her lots of money in cash and benefits, then tell the father he not only must support those kids, but must pay the taxpayers back for their payments to Ms. Lazy Arse. And, toss him in jail if he loses his job and can't keep up.

Wait. There' s more. No mentally healthy married man will deliberately neglect one of his kids while buying luxuries for another. Yet, child support laws do not make provisions for a man to support his new kids while he owes child support for the older ones. In fact, not even necessities for newer kids.

How about Mommy? Um, she can split her income between all her kids. She can use his child support money for kids that aren't even his. If custodial mothers were treated like c/s payers, she would have to put new kids by other men in unheated rooms, and feed them nothing, with his c/s money.

Another big one I forgot. If a married man is unemployed and accumulates a big debt, he can file bankruptcy, and in many cases today, he will perhaps still be required to pay what he can, based on his income. Child support payers get no relief at all. There are a lot of men who had periods of unemployment, and fell behind due to failure to reduce their orders. Today, in their 60's and beyond, just the accumulated interest is all that can be taken out of their income, they will be forced to pay unto death. That would never happen to a married man.

Child support is slavery in the US.


Fellas, that is reason ENOUGH to avoid women and marriage! Don't do it! For that matter, don't cohabit, either; cohabiting women, thanks to changes in the law, are being given the same 'rights' as married women. Translation: now, your live-in girlfriend can fuck you over the same as if she were married to you!

Whatever you do, Gentlemen, do NOT sire children! Do not have sex with women, because having sex means that there's a chance she can have a baby; that's a byproduct of sex, remember? For that matter, don't be on women's radar, period; avoid ANY AND ALL ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY INTERACTIONS WITH WOMEN! I can't emphasize that enough! Why? Give me a minute, and I'll explain...

A woman can have sex. She can get knocked up by her bad boy lover. Then, knowing that her boyfriend, Lenny the Meth Chemist, doesn't have a legitimate, documented income stream, she'll put YOUR name down as the father. Guess what?! The state's going to come after YOU for the money! Thanks to 'welfare reform', a woman applying for benefits must put down the father's name, so the state can take the money out of his ass.
They don't care if they get the wrong guy, either; they just want their money, and they want it now. Well, if a woman doesn't know who you are, then your name won't come to mind when she's filling out the welfare forms. She'll put some other sucker's name down. That sucks for him, but your whole objective here is to remain unscathed by the system; you can best do that by staying off women's radar screens.

I'd like to thank Irlandes for sharing his thoughts on DGM. He's been around, and he knows what's what. Remember guys, if you're thinking of getting married, DON'T! Read this post repeatedly until you get it through your thick heads that: 1) you don't get married to a woman; 2) you don't live with them; 3) don't have sex with them; 4) do NOT, under any circimstances, have children with her; and 5) don't be visible to women at all! Let them do their thing, and you do yours. Let some other schlub be her victim, not you. Have a good day now...


Don't Cohabit, by Eternal Bachelor


This is the one Eternal Bachelor classic I've been looking for! I was copying from the .pdf file I have of his old blog, but that was a pain in the ass; for many reasons, it was a huge PITA. Now that I have bookmarked the URL to his archives, it's a lot easier to find, read, and copy his old posts. Yes, I have a link on my list, so you can visit this precious, valuable resource for yourself.

Anyway, I've been sick the last couple of days, so I've been staying in. I've been drinking lots of hot tea with NATURAL honey; I'm talkin' about the REAL stuff straight from the hive! There is something in the natural honey that's almost miraculous in its healing power. One, my bad knees are hardly sore or stiff anymore; I can actually think about lacing up my skates, and indulge in a passion that I thought I'd have to leave forever. Secondly, when I fall ill with a cold, the natural honey helps heal me quicker and better than ANY medicine ever had-all without a doctor's visit and the associated copays-yeah, Baby!

So, if you're wondering about my increased, above normal output of posts, that's why. I simply haven't been able to do much else. That's okay though; I've had the time to find posts that spoke to me, and share them with my readers. Eternal Bachelor's original blog was chock full of great posts, and I think that my boys would not only enjoy them, but benefit from them too.

This post here is about how cohabitation, aka shacking up or living together without the 'benefit' of marriage (gag!), will no longer protect a man and his assets. You see, over in Britain they've passed laws allowing women to take a man to the cleaners WITHOUT being married; IOW, the preventative measure that men have taken to avoid getting butt fucked in divorce court will no longer work, because live-in girlfriends now have the SAME RIGHTS AS WIVES! Did you get that? Do you understand the enormity of this development?

But MarkyMark, that's Britain, not America. That may be true, but there are some small details you overlooked. One, the English speaking countries share common traditions and laws; what happens in one will often happen in another English speaking country. Two, because men are boycotting marriage in ever greater numbers, the divorce industry has to find another revenue stream; they have to find a way to screw men out of their money. What to do? Well, you expand the laws, of course; you write them to apply to unmarried people as well. What does this all mean? Look for these laws to arrive on American shores in the near future; either that, or a key court case will be adjudicated in such a way as to allow this sort of thing. Without further ado, here's another EB classic...


Don’t co-habit

16 October 2006
Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down
Britain’s two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.
Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.
There was no doubt that this would go through. Women are whining that few men will marry, meaning it’s harder for them to orchestrate a legal theft of a man’s property and future earnings, and when women whine, governments swiftly act. Plus the family lawyers are panicking as their revenue falls.
Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes - expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years - would further undermine the institution of marriage.
Plus it’ll undermine co-habiting of course. This is what happened in Australia when they introduced similar laws; co-habitation has plummeted and more than a quarter of women are living alone or with parents, and moaning about it the whole time. “Boo-hoo, men are afraid of being financially raped…I mean, er, committment and intimacy.” The same thing will happen here.
The important thing is that as many men are made aware of this law as possible to save them from foolishly letting a woman move in and thinking that, so long as they don’t marry, they’ll be okay. They need to konw that that’s not the case.
But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years - and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.
I wonder whether these politicians are actually aware of the fact that the dropping marriage rates are because men are avoiding the risk of financial ruin, and that we’ll avoid co-habiting as well now, but are just deliberately refusing to acknowledge this, or are they genuinely that thick that they don’t realise.
Oh well, sensible men could see this coming a few years off and have avoided co-habitation as well as marriage, whilst other men will have booted their girlfriends out. More men will follow. A few women may enrich themselves with this law if they’ve lived with a boyfriend for more than two-years, but most women will lose out and face a future of living alone. So will us men, of course, but we can handle that. We kinda prefer it anyway. Women, on the other hand, seem to freak out at the idea of growing old without anyone. Plus us men, even in our forties and beyond, can go out and score with a younger woman for a quick fling, whilst women past forty generally can’t, and will struggle to do so past thirty in many cases. That’s assuming they’ll be happy with just being used for sex, which many don’t seem to be. Oh dear. Tough shit. They should have thought about that before supporting - or, at the very least, not speaking out against - all these divorce and co-habitation laws.
Financially supporting a cohabiting partner is not a legal duty, while each married partner has a legal duty to support the other, including after a split.
In other words:
Financially supporting a cohabiting girlfriend is not a legal duty, while husband has a legal duty to support his wife, including after a split.
Seriously, why do they even bother with this gender-neutral language? Oh yeah, it’s so us men might think there’s some chance we’ll get a fair hearing and some justice when Big Mother government gets involved in private relationships when they end.
Unmarried fathers also have no automatic rights or duties to their children, unlike in marriage.
And what automatic rights to our children do we have in marriage? Fuck all. Maybe visitation, bu that’s neither automatic, good enough or even enforced. We have duties - i.e. to provide mummy/child support - but not rights.
Miss Harman revealed that Government actuaries forecast that by 2031, 7.6 million people will cohabit and less than 20 million people will be married. ‘Cohabiting couples will constitute more than a third of the total,’ she said.
Wrong. The cohabitation rate will plummet as fast as marriage has. There’ll still be men foolish enough to cohabit, just as there’ll be men foolish enough to marry, but more and more will wake up and avoid both.
Settlements designed to give couples a ‘clean break’ would be favoured. A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.
With “a man’s children”?! WTF? So now children are our’s then? Strange how they’re women’s when it comes to custody, or who gets the final (and only) say in aborting them, but when it comes to supporting them, they’re a man’s, and he must pay to support their mother…I mean, them. Also, what about a girlfriend who steals a man’s children by ditching him on a whim? Oh, wait, I guess she’ll still be counted as being “left on her own” and will get the house and a nice big lump sum of his cash.
Couples are also likely to be given the chance to sign an opt-out from the laws, though these could be overruled by the courts.
Typical. Opt-outs need to be signed by both the man and woman, and women ain’t gonna sign them, and if they do, the court can just throw it out like they do pre-nuptials. So make sure every man about to cohabit knows about this. Too many guys get married with pre-nups thinking they’re legally binding when they’re not. We don’t want more of our brothers foolishly thinking the same thing about opt-outs.
One dissenting voice makes a sensible point:
‘The inevitable result will be more people living alone. We already have one of the largest proportions of one-person households.’
A woman in the comments section echoes this:
Far from being desperate to have the same ‘rights’ as married couples, when people realise that cohabiting means signing away your property,they will just stop living together.
Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too. The more laws introduced to make it easier for women to take our assets, the more we’ll avoid them. Even just having consensual sex with one who happens to have had a drink - or later claims in court she had had a drink - will soon make you guilty of rape by default and thus eligible for a long prison sentence.
Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come. Oh well, their problem, not ours.
posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:30 PM
At 6:07 PM, Loki on the run said…
When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.
These young males organize into groups and start causing trouble and generating violence …
Women and children often get hurt and die in such violence …
Sometimes you have to be careful how you bend and twist the rules that a society has developed over time …
At 6:41 PM, ColdHammer said…
I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.” No wonder marriage rates continue to plummet down to nothingness when its all for nothing in the end. Why get raped? What’s the whole point?
What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage. Of course, men know! Men always will counter-attack! Every time! Men will always adapt to the situation and time it will be by staying single which results in more women living alone for the rest of their lives.
Just look at the article’s COMMENTS section - men of all types stating, NO, announcing their claim to bachelorhood! It’s funny how the gov’t has failed to stop meddling into peoples’ relationships and personal affairs is long overdue.
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous said…
You analyzed the consequences well, let be say some words about it.
When men avoid marriage and cohabit more frequently, obviously children may be born.
At the moment fathers pay and have no rights to those children, but at least they retain their property.
From a conservative point of view, the fact that usually the mother will leave the house poses a problem: she is not married, she lacks protection.
Marriage used to protect the interests of both wife and husband. The husband was sure to have a caring wife, who did her duty, brought up his children and did the housework. The wife had a husband who worked and got money.
This system serves the interest of father, mother and children best and we know that many women do not want to work even so they could do it.
Divorce laws have destroyed the sense of duty of women, thus men avoid marriage.
From a conservative point of view a pregnant woman should marry and remain married her whole life.
This simple solution is not practised, instead they decide that cohabiting equals marriage.
They do not see, that the problem with marriage is the lack of sense of duty of women and security of a man’s interest.
They try to transform cohabiting into marriage, not seeing that marriage itself is destroyed and the root of the problem.
What will be the consequences?
Despite divorce laws many men still marry, because most do not know the law, they believe in justice and fidelity.
For this reason there are still many men who do marry.
Cohabitation ist not regarded as a commitment by men. Young men will warn each other quickly not to cohabit too long.
The “Cohabitation-Strike” will come much faster than the marriage strike.
And together with the cohabitation Strike the awareness of the injustices in marriage will grow and it will enhance the marriage strike, too.
The legislation heightens the burden on men’s shoulders so much, that the system itself strikes back.
These are those ugly things men have to endure:
“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”
Duncan, you are so used to it, you did not comment it: she will keep his house.
The girlfriend keeps his house. In this case she has children, but of course the same applies if she does not have any children.
This is gross discrimination of men: why does she have the children, why does she have the house and not he?
We get used to it and the system will not bear itself for long.
It ist typical: a law (divorce) is introduced that seems fanciful in the beginning. Women are still treated as victims and as someone who needs protection, so they get alimony.
Then people avoid marriage and its pitfalls, because they realise that divorce laws promote divorce.
Then cohabitation increases and needs to be treated as divorce.
Now hopefully it will accelerate and soon, less people will cohabit.
New laws will be introduced until it becomes obvious that the divorce itself is the root of the problem.
Sadly I doubt that people will make divorce illegal fast enough and marriage mandatory for all pregnant women.
Even in this case, one problem will remain: women who do not work or do not get enough children in comparison to a man who works his whole life.
One thing is sure: people will stop cohabiting and will stop marriage faster.
It might not raise the awareness of flagrant discrimination during divorce in the media and legislation but it will certainly raise it among men.
At 7:41 PM, Hutch said…
Duncan Idaho, brings the bare knuckles truth to your doorstep, but why does government insist on making fighting and stealing so rewarding to couples? (and now gays too).
If you could get, say half of what the typical court orders stated, then couples would have the incentive to make relationships work and not the otherway around!
I am writing from my mountain cabin, where my expenses are low, and thank-god, I own this place. Sure I have no running water electricity etc.., but I have distanced myself from the femimatrix which wants to financially ass-rape me every second of the day. In five minutes I will be working on my storage shed, preparing my roof. This shed is where I will put all my tools and important things that I have managed to hang on to since the femimatrix took away my family, two years ago.
Thanks to Duncan Idaho, he Ought to be the next Prime Minister.
At 7:42 PM, Anonymous said…
The loneliness is not just a female problem. They need children and want a husband to stop working, but men, too, wish a caring wife who works dutifully and wish children.
The problem is much bigger.
The whole malaise is just due to the legalization of divorce. It makes marriage unsafe and unpredictable.
At 7:48 PM, Anonymous said…
At the moment so many men are unaware of the dangers of marriage and children born to non married men.
They are unaware they laugh at men like me.
And then some get divorced and are surprised, they say they could not believe it, they did not know. But then it is too late.
Many men take marriage as a lifelong commitment, women can opt out and they know it or learn it fast.
Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.
Some people will still think that it is just to take away, pension, money, children and house (!) of a man, so that his girlfriend gets all, but these people will become a powerless minority.
At 8:19 PM, nevo said…
I’m glad you brought up this subject.
Earlier today I was reading about “Breach of Promise” as suggested by one blogger.
I think I understood it correctly. If a man/woman break or bail out (use as appropiate), from this engagement, either party has a claim for compensation, which can extend to personal property.
In real terms it means that nobody has to go through the marriage charade to be able to have a claim on someone else property.
If the British government already has a law addressing unmarried couples, why on earth they bother with it?
Unless, they want to make sure of maximizing the havoc they want to create in a presently stable unmarried families.
Maximizing the effectiveness of the gold-digger’s charter by exacerbating the greedness in a break-up, more or less guarantee a country of single households in the future.
With the “Civil Partnership 2004″ Law, no one can afford even to have a lodger without a legal contract. Lest he’ll or she’ll be sued for his property claiming breakdown of their relationship when they leave.
The unending insanity of the modern politician will turn present society into a lone anthood colonies.
At 9:39 PM, Mamonaku187 said…
Men will avoid cohabiting like the plague.
Not to mention all the wimmin who will be at risk, being single and living alone.
With the way these relationship laws are going, a woman will be lucky to have any form of long term commitment in her lifetime.
But as you said, their problem, not ours.
At 9:41 PM, Anonymous said…
ColdHammer said…
I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.”
What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage.
Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.
At 11:16 PM, Anonymous said…
On a personal level, i recently told my girlfriend that i didn’t want to buy a house together so she bought her own. We still had a relationship until i told her that i would never marry, have children or live with a woman because of the potential problems i could face if it all goes wrong.
I’m single again!!!
Would i rather be in a relationship…yes. Would she like to settle down, have a home with a husband and have children….yes.
It’s not likely to happen and as much as she resents me for it, it’s the government and feminism that has created this situation. It was ignorance that allowed me to get married, its knowledge that keeps me single.
Womens Aid have been going into schools to preach about domestic violence. Could you mens rights activists please go into schools and teach boys about the fate that awaits them?
At 12:04 AM, mfsob said…
This just goes to show - women are stupid. They’re the ones pushing this load of bullshit, and once cohabitation laws have made a beachhead in jolly old England, it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …
But then - they reap what they sow, and what an interesting crop it is going to be!
At 12:24 AM, Anonymous said…
The Government wants to breed white Brits out.
You heard me right boys. They want whites, and those minorities who are Westernized, to be bred out by 1.0 per female birth rates.
If you have 100 people on an island, 50 men and 50 women, and they all couple up and have one kid apiece………………thats just 50 children in the next generation.
If the kids do it again…….25
If they 25 do it again……..12.5
100 makes 50
50 makes 25
25 makes 12.5
This math works in the millions.
The pinko/Godless/commie/Western Civilization government of England and the overclass HATE intelligent Westerners, and are trying to put enmity between the sexes to get you guys to breed yourselves out over the next 50-70 years. You must explain this to your women over there. That its all an ugly plot to destroy the British race and hand the Island over to a multi-culti menagerie led by the elite like the wage-slaves they will be.
These laws are EVIL. Evil people who hate the British have devised them. I hope you lads resist as best you can, but whatever you do………………explain to women patiently and in writing exactly what the consequences will be in 40 years or so when they are REALLY outnumbered by the Muslims.
Good luck
At 12:28 AM, Anonymous said…
One possible solution I am thinking of is to only cohabit/marry a woman who is richer than me.
If the woman can bring assets and income to the table, it could be the woman taking the financial risk by getting married.
I know a lot of woman have worthless degrees (women’s studies and other such shit), and their “pink collar” jobs.
But there are plenty of women, at least that I know of, who have real degrees and decent careers.
So maybe us bachelors should become like women: demand that potential mates have a certain amount of wealth.
At 12:43 AM, Playboy said…
RE: “Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.”
True. A guy who let his girlfriend move-in and then ended up in court when they broke-up is going to get a small taste of what divorce is like and likely will be less inclined to make that mistake again.
Then again, even wealthy men seen to dumb to figure it out after several divorces… how many wives have Trump and Hefner had?
At 3:35 AM, Anonymous said…
There is going to be a whole new Extortion Industry cropping up out of this.
What is cohabiting? If she sleeps over 4 nights a week, but still gets her mail at her place is she cohabiting? The courts might rule yes.
Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.
This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.
Sounds like you can’t even let them in your residence at any time else they will claim they were living there and describe the interior of your residence to “prove it”. May even find a way around that if they never set foot in your residence, but claim to have lived there they will insist the male changed the interior decoration after they broke up thereby “proving” her argument of cohabitation without a shred of proof.
The only way I can see around that is to never paint, recarpet, or otherwise improve the inside of your residence. That way if the little dear insists she lived with you, concocts some phony description of your residence since her description won’t match your residence it will be impossible for cupcake to assert that you remodeled to “defraud her” because you will still have the same 10 year old carpet, furniture, and unpainted walls. It’s very hard to remodel something to make it look rundown.
This also gets into the whole art of asset protection. For example, list your address as living with your parents, but have a condo or other residence owned by a corporation or trust where your name does not show up. If she claims she slept with you she would have to convince the court that your mother allowed some tramp to sleep with her son under the parent’s roof. Would pit female against female in the courtroom. Not very pretty. Hiss! Hiss!
At 7:47 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…
Anonymous 9:41 PM said… “Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.”
If they bring in a “penis” tax then I want a rebate!
Mines only 2 inches long, at least thats what feminists keep telling me anyway.
At 8:13 AM, Captain Zarmband said…
Have you thought about the government’s real agenda here. They know that the more divorce laws they pass the less men marry and they also know that this will apply to cohabitation once these new laws are passed. I sure that this is the whole point. This government has overseen an explosion in the number of single-mothers since they took office. Fewer and fewer children are being raised in the traditional family (i.e. husband and wife) and more are born into chaotic, single-mother households which are dependent on state support. These people are easily controllable by the government, since they are totally dependent on state benefits. The result is that the government is increasing its influence and power as fewer families are independent. When you get down to it these laws are all about the government controlling people’s lives.
At 9:27 AM, Thunderchild said…
You should ‘de-construct’ the embedded rape article too. You would have a field day !
At 9:34 AM, Thunderchild said…
To Nevo
Apologies Nevo, deeper investigation indicated that ‘Breach of Promise’ was abolished in an obscure clause of an Act of Parliament in 1970. It appears, however, with this set of rights that the concept has returned - with a vengeance !
At 12:15 PM, evil woman said…
1 - Get a pre-nup
2 - Alway use a condom
That should stop things getting out of hand. It’s easy!
At 12:56 PM, Anonymous said…
RE: “Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.”
That is true. At the moment legislators wish to achieve protection of mothers.
But mothers should be married and forced to honour the marriage.
This law does not just apply to cohabiting couple with children but to all of them.
Let’s compare it to false rape accusations: in most of the cases people believe the woman, because she ist weaker and needs protection.
Will most judges believe that a woman was cohabiting?
Certainly there is good chance.
Still it should be difficult for a woman to claim cohabitation if she still owns a home of her own.
What strikes me, is that she gets the house. It is argued that cohabiting couples buying a house together should have rights to it.
But this has always been so: if a group of people buy an asset, the asset is divided depending on the money that was brought in.
Certainly this law aims at women, the single mother that gets the children and the house is mentioned as if it was the normal case.
Certainly the child birth rate will fall even deeper.
Most people learn through experience:
a divorced man usually has children and is old.
A cohabiting man is young and without children. He will learn and tell his friends fast of the dangers of cohabiting and subsequently of marriage.
Discussions will go like this: “Why aren’t you living with your girlfriend in a house?”
“Don’t you know the new laws on cohabitation?”
“What new laws?”
“She gets your house, if you let her in.”
Some guys might use the looser bond between non-cohabiting couples for their own good through getting the girlfriend, but most good friends will hear and listen and take care of themselves.
And some will begin to talk of marriage because both begin to resemble strongly.
So young men will know the injustices of marriage in younger years.
It is sad, they do not want to abolish the main problem: divorce.
Divorce needs to be made illegal, because it is a breach of contract.
Divorce laws and benefits for people who do not want to work, for single mothers etc. make the birth rate plummet.
The effect of divorce laws is obvious: men get robbed of their assets, women do not get as many children as in long lasting marriages.
Social benefits make people lazy and take one major incentive for children: children guaranteed protection in old age.
Take away benefits, take away divorce and see marriage rate and birth rate climbing.
To avoid married women who do not get children and live off the husbands money it is necessary to make it her duty to work on her own or become pregnant.
One pregnancy is not enough, like the man who works until retirement she, too, would have to get more children.
I wouldn’t stand it to work full time and see my wife with just one child and not working on her own.
At 1:34 PM, MS said…
“Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too.”
Then it’ll be a woman we dated for a couple of months, then ones we dated for a month, then ones we went for a few dates with and before you know it, the whole thing starts to look an awful lot like prostitution.
If the feminists continue this bs much longer, I can see it getting to a point where large numbers of guys become so pissed off they either emigrate or join with the Muslims and vote for Sharia …or both. Just desserts indeed!
At 2:38 PM, HAWKEYE said…
yes! we have had these laws in Australia for some time now and yes! all the things you predict have come to pass,however one thing that did come out of it that is not mentioned is that pre nups became legally binding .
At 2:43 PM, HAWKEYE said…
anonymous 11.16pm
i hope you went her for your 1/2 of her house
At 3:17 PM, Anonymous said…
This new law is a victory for men. It’s proof that the marriage strike is working. The divorce courts and lawyers are starting to panic as more men refuse to expose themselves to the scam they have turned marriage into. Now they have to cast their nets out a little farther each time to catch more unsuspecting men. This law will be the followed by more acts of legislative desperation along with increased howling that all men are evil for refusing to cooperate in their own destruction. This going to be so much fun to watch.
At 4:31 PM, byrdeye said…
Why can’t we just keep relationships and financial mergers SEPARATE?!!!
They are NOT synonymous! And what happens if you room with a male friend for 2 years - he gets half too? WTF?!
Most women these days are lying opportunists - so the LAST thing we need is yet another golddigga law that rapes men over the coals! EFF THIS! EFF YOU BIG MAMA!!!
At 4:45 PM, Davout said…
loki on the run said:
“When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.”
On a related tangent, India and China are going to be great test cases to analyze how countries adapt to accommodate lots of unmarried men.
At 5:56 PM, Anonymous said…
Let me think a bit. What could we do to improve the situation of women?
Take a woman who is dating a guy. Isn’t the date a reason to expect his support?
Didn’t she stopped her career?
She hopes to get married, so if he does not he disappoints her.
The guy is abusing her patience. And so on.
They won’t make a law defining cohabitation as just dating.
But maybe they could make a tax for men to fight “inequalities”.
At 7:39 PM, Viking said…
“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”
I’m calling bulls&!# on this one. If there are no kids involved, maybe he won’t get hit with an alimony like payment, maybe he will just be lucky enough to only loose his house and all his savings. On the other hand if there are kids he is going to be paying at least child support, in addition to all the above.
“it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …”
It is already here if you count the common law marriage laws of a lot of states. Here in Texas all you have to do is be living together and present yourself as married to an outsider in some way. Example, if, after moving your girlfriend in, early that week, she introduces you to a friend, at a party that weekend, as her husband and you simply shrug an mumble, like most guys do in an awkward situation, and don’t directly challenge the claim, your married. That’s it. Done. Technically there is a third part. There has to be at least a verbal agreement between you and her that you are married but of course the “presenting yourself as married” acts as evidence for that agreement. Another way you can “present yourselves” is if she signs anything using your her first name and your last and, again, you don’t dispute it as soon as you find out. Of course it could be tricky to prove that you didn’t know about it. Also putting any bills in both names or giving her access to any of your bank accounts. Even setting up a shared “food fund”.
Pretty soon just speaking to a single woman in public is go to be enough to make you married.
Be strong, stay single.
At 8:09 PM, Viking said…
“This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.”
It just dawned on my why they would favor a single payout. If a woman gets remarried she looses her alimony. What is the equivalent when you are just living together. It doesn’t do her any good to get a $1000 a month if she is going to loose it as soon as she shacks up with someone else. But if you get a lump sum you can move on to your next victem right away and not loose a cent. And here the polits are trying to convince the guys that this is a good thing, a way of limiting the damage. Bullsh!#
Be Strong, Stay Single!
At 8:28 PM, Viking said…
evil woman said…
1 - Get a pre-nup - easily overruled and completely useless if you do have kids.
2 - Alway use a condom - sometimes fail and she can still cry rape.
Be Strong, Stay Single!
At 8:51 PM, pete said…
Both women and men are going to be very lonely in decades to come. Its time to start pushing men to overcome society’s view that men hanging out together is gay while women hanging out together is empowering.
The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure, even if it is about manly things that a woman would not be interested in. So you have boys bribing females to attend LAN parties with attention, money and alcohol - all in order to not appear to be a “loser”.
Its very telling that a geeky girl is placed on a pedestal by most guys (who are “normal” and thus geeky) while no girl wants to have anything to do with a nerdy boy.
At 10:17 PM, Viking said…
“The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure”
A party on Friday or Saturday night, sure, it would be the same. A party on Sunday afternoon or Monday night during football season, not at all. Unfortunately football season doesn’t last all year. I am seeing a lot more lan or console gameing nights though. Still mostly just among the nerds. The non-nerds? More common to work on something together, like putting up a shed or rebuilding a car engine. I try to do a bit of both to keep a balance though lately I have been wasting a lot of time in the World of Warcraft.
After three years in an absolutely miserable marriage and not even making it out with so much as a TV let alone a computer, I have only in the last month gotten a new computer to call my own and not an office laptop loner. For the first time in 4 and half years I am playing one of the MMO and man they have come a long way. I use to feel like I was wasting the opportunity to find a nice girl to settle down with and start a family. You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world. I just done feel guilty anymore. I have no desire to marry again and I don’t even want to take a chance with dating and getting accused of something. I am single and celibate and that’s just fine. I do what I enjoy when I want too. Maybe the money ain’t real but at least that slinky looking dark elf isn’t going to take it all when she is ready to move on. :)
At 12:10 AM, Youngbuck said…
Hey Viking, some of the best times in my life were at LAN parties fragging away at UT2K4. It ain’t just nerds man, although I am one.
I’m just happy to be able to do what I want, when I want. A friend of mine wanted to get the PS3, but his girlfriend found out it was $600 and said she forbids him from spending his money on it. He’s not even supposed to hang out with me and the rest of us, because we are a bad influence, according to her.
That’s what happens when you cohabitate with a woman, they control your life and takeover your stuff. His 24″ widescreen lcd monitor? Gone. It was too wide for her. Oh, keep in mind, this is a girl that buys $800 designer purses, but she forbids him from spending his own money on what he wants.
If this is happiness, I want no part of it.
At 1:18 PM, NYMOM said…
I think the approach England is taking is very very fair.
An earlier article regarding this clearly stated it was mainly going to be used to level the playing field for live-in couples with children. AND that two people living together with no kids, both working, even if one was making less then the other wouldn’t really be impacted under the law. Unless one half of the live-in couple could show where they left their job to help the other person’s career in some way.
Men brought this upon themselves by insisting never-married men be given the same rights to children as married ones, once paternity is established. So you know what: this is womens’ response. That we will then be given the same rights as wives to your financial assets…as two can play that game.
In spite of all your complaining, millions of never-married men have custody of children…here in the US they comprise 30% of the custodial fathers pool…and I assume, since England is very similar to the US, that it’s the same thing there…
So you shot yourselves in the foot by trying to get more advantage for men then you deserve and this is the result.
I’m going to put a post on my blog this weekend celebrating this victory as an example of the state leveling the playing field finally after allowing greedy men to run amuck in society for decades…
People finally got fed up with their brothers all working the system as usual, and, btw, it was probably other men who were mainly fed up with you and took these steps…as most of your legislative bodies (again just like the US) are probably composed of men. So don’t kid yourself that this was just women doing this…
Again, good.
At 1:25 PM, NYMOM said…
“Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come…”
Somehow I doubt that.
I actually found that my dog (deceased about two years now) was a far better, loyal, friendlier and more trusting companion to me then my ex-husband…
So you see, you are very easily replaced.
At 3:03 PM, Anonymous said…
You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world.
Of course that’s the whole point. The “real world”, at least that co-opted by the Gynosphere is a fraud. You’re sold a bill of goods and enticed to marry a “nice girl” (***Oxymoron Alert***) then after 30 days of gestation her inner demon is released. At least in virtual worlds you can find enjoyment absent in the Gynosphere. Why venture into areas where everyone is set up to fuck you over? Where is the possible shred of logic in that??
At 5:47 PM, Pete Patriarch said…
I guess nymom has never heard of child support, which DOES give women a license to breed on someone else’s dime.
Anyway, your colors are showing - you think that anything men do to somewhat equalize the playing field is somehow “seeking advantage.”
You’re a hypocrite, a liar and a proper cunt, and I can safely say that you are cut from the same cloth as your feminist sisters.
At 6:37 PM, Anonymous said…
“NYMOM blabbed…”
I thought you promised to crawl back into your dumpster??
At 9:51 PM, voodoojock said…
Shit, the only way you’re going to get the Walmart Walrus to leave is if you threaten to post her personal information and relevant information in a public forum. She’s piss and moan to the contrary, alas, she isn’t a legal scholar, but a two-bit coffee-pot jockey at a university in New York.
Men brought this upon themselves? Guess you never heard of Helen Gurley Brown, who (after taking the helm of Cosmopolitan Magazine in the mid-60’s) espoused the virtues of the pill, free love, and using your sexuality to obtain the things you want in life. All under the guise of ‘femininity’ I might add.
Go on, Walrus, keep thinking it. We’ll keep posting evidence to the contrary. Unlike you, however, men are fixers, and while the question of who started it is debatable, there shall be no question of who’s going to finish it: Men.
At 12:31 AM, HAWKEYE said…
i must admit i feel sorry for wymon like nymom,
they have been brainwashed by the feminists lies,
the poor dears cant see the grave they are making for themselves ,
we try to warn them but thet are just to far gone .
At 11:31 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…
Oh, heavens, NY Mom. I’m sure men (have) been replaced in your life. But, remember if they actually CATCH you having carnal relations with your dog, you will probably be arrested- for cruelty to animals if nothing else.
At 12:56 AM, NYMOM said…
Christopher in Oregon:
You really are a useless idiot…
At 8:53 AM, Anonymous said…
This is not really anon..the gov’t already know everything that goes online!
Point 1..yes this is a ’state-ist’ agenda to control procreation, production and everything else too..(control=feminista,anti-male stooges)
It will, eventually, self limit…other countries will soon need to capitalise on ‘old’ values and encourage intelligent ‘real’ males-and aware females, of course, to migrate to there.
Point 2..No such thing as pre-nup in UK.
Point 3…condoms split (or ‘perish’ the thought)can be sabotaged.
‘Fem’ birth control suspect..too tempting a scenario under these rules!
Wake up girls -we men may be soft hearted to self destruction…but not ALL eternally stupid !!
I’m an old ‘git’ now..learned the hard way…..and sorry for future men and women of good intention -including my kids.
At 6:27 AM, Anonymous said…
NYMOM I feel sorry for the Dog. Heck, at least we can leave, animals dont have that option. I live next door to a feminist who used to yell and scream at her husband on a daily bases. So he left the biatch and she did the same thing as the troll here did. She got a dog. Now instead of yelling at her husband she yells at this little dog. A MALE dog obviously as a female wouldn’t do it for her. Tiny thing gets shamed, berated and generally serves as her witless companion so that she can feel “empowered” I should call animal cruelty. I guess they’d be out here in a moment. You see, you can torment men, but not animals in this country. She makes me SICK as do all there kind. IT always puts on the “sweet me” voice when IT needs the lawn cut or something fixed, SCREW her. Like I am too dumb to hear It’s vile and nasty mouth the rest of the time?
I am a powerful feminist woman. “Until” something goes wrong that I cant handle, which generally means “everything”
FOOTNOTE: When the Chinese or Russians or whatever army comes and they WILL eventually come as they have throughout our ENTIRE history! I’ll watch these sniveling fembots trying to rally the men to fight them and it will be tough SHIT sweetness. Go service them like the WHORES that you have become and you might live. I on the other hand will be welcoming them KNOWING that we are being LIBERATED from our western prisons. DONT fall for it guys, what is left to DEFEND in a matriarchy? The Wimmins rights and privileges and the ELITES way of life: nothing more. OH; They WILL be nice and act all weak and feminine until the threat has been neutralized, then the same plate of warm shit will be served up for us to eat again. SAD SHORT SIGHTED CREATURES THAT THEY ARE!

How Women Think, from Mik3_D


Mik3_D on Mancoat found this on another forum he frequents.  I thought it was something that my boys ought to see too.


1. Feminism requires you to talk about “equality” for both sexes but some sexes are more equal than others.

2. God could be a womyn, but the devil is most certainly a man.

3. We’re equal to men, and this makes us morally superior to them.

4. We are equally capable of doing anything a man can do and men can’t do anything right.

5. We must scorn behavior which is associated with stereotypical masculinity while whooping with praise when the same behavior is exhibited by womyn.

6. We must demand that womyn be allowed into military combat because we’re equally capable of smashing-in the faces of vicious terrorists. But we also laugh at the idea that a husband could be the victim of a wife’s physical abuse because everyone knows that women are never violent.

7. We seek to stop “violence against womyn” but girl-on-girl violence and lesbians who batter their partners don’t bother us quite as much.

8. We attack the gender-stereotypes that portray womyn negatively as we gleefully embrace the ones that portray womyn positively. It’s customary to invert this rule for “you-know-who”.

9. Helping womyn succeed is not nearly as satisfying as seeing men fail.

10. “Power” in the hands of men is always destructive, selfish, tyrannical and harmful. This same “Power” in the hands of womyn is always democratic, nurturing, honest, good for the environment and good for humanity.

11. Men of quality support womyn’s equality but womyn never have to do anything to prove that they are “of quality”.

12. Finally, us feminists are absolutely not anti-male and that’s why we rarely have any positive things to say about those penis-having bastards.

13. Women are just as good at everything as men are, except for things at which women are better.

14. We feminists are equal to men, and that gives us the elevated authority to pass judgment upon them.

15. If you’re not female then your opinion doesn’t count, you sexist bastard.

16. Any criticism of feminism is a form of Hate-Speech. A feminist’s own speech is allowed to be as hateful as she wants it to be.

17. If somebody has the temerity to criticize the behavior of feminists, you should dismissively sneer that they’re attacking “strawfeminists”– absurdist caricatures who don’t exist. Feel free to resume your usual attacks on strawpatriarchs every day of the week.

18. The only feminist you are officially allowed to criticize is Valerie Solanas. That’s because a feminist has to literally advocate the extermination of half the planet before the rest of us start to wonder if she’s got a screw loose.

19. You have 10,000 years of grudges to seek vengeance for in your single lifetime.

20. Collective guilt and collective punishment are anathema to a society which fulfills the feminist goal of treating people as individuals, which is why us feminists must constantly intimate the collective guilt of men and suggest that they need collective punishment.

21. You must demand that a father shoulder half of any effort to raise “his” children as you simultaneously demand that a mother be granted automatic sole custody of “her” children after divorce.

22. Whether or not you feel “offended” is the central principle to how the world should be re-organized.

23. A feminist must say “Patriarchy” at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy” you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize.

24. As a feminist, you are opposed to the spread of stereotypes. But don’t let that stop you from constantly stereotyping men as being an over-privileged class of dimwitted exploiters who always get everything they want.

25. Ovaries good, testicles bad.

26. We believe every woman should have unrestricted access to any kind of abortion, no questions asked. We also believe that abortion should be tightly restricted in China to prevent millions of potential girls from being robbed of their lives.

27. We feminists must demand aristocratic levels of deference while never behaving with aristocratic levels of gentility.

28. We must grouse continuously about traditionalist expectations of women while we conveniently forget to pay half the check on our dinner-dates.

29. Men avoid us because we’re too gosh-darned smart.

30. If a man works 60 hours a week to support a wife who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.

31. If a woman works 60 hours a week to support a husband who cooks and cleans, the man is a lazy shit who exploits his wife.

32. If the majority of women do not call themselves feminists, the root problem lies with the majority of women and not with feminism.

33. We demand respect for all women and their diversity. That is why we dismiss, infantilize, mock or denigrate stay-at-home moms, traditionalist women, pro-life women, Republican women, Catholic women, Protestant women, Mormon women, Orthodox Jewish women, Muslim women who don’t object to hijab standards, Hindu women who don’t object to dowries, women who care about their weight, women who wear cosmetics, female researchers who study innate behavioral sex-differences, women who look forward to marriage, women who warn about giving birth after the age of 40, sorority sisters, cheerleaders, girls who like playing with dolls and any other woman who doesn’t slavishly dance to our tune. Except for them, we demand respect for ALL women and their diversity!

34. Falsely accusing a man of rape is a great way of raising his consciousness.

35. If a teacher were to beat black boys more than white boys, we’d excoriate him for hateful discrimination. If the same teacher beat only boys, that’d be fine.


That about nails it.  Until next time...


Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Don't Marry Essay: Why Marriage Has Become a Bad Business Decision for Men


This is originally from the Don't Marry essay. This is GOOD stuff that belongs in the MGTOW Survival Guide...


Why Marriage Has Become a Bad Business Decision for Men

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what they may be getting into when they marry a Western Woman. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them to communicate frankly their concerns and expectations regarding marriage with their potential spouses. The secondary aim of this essay is to enlighten women to a few of the reasons why increasingly larger numbers of successful, eligible, unmarried men, who would otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

Society typically paints a negative stereotype of men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry.

They are labeled as either:

A) Womanisers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.

The cost of proclaiming your undying love

In University, in professional sports, in politics, in the workplace; women have the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Contrary to commonly believed feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given that they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as the men do. Despite this reality, many women come into marriage with very few assets, and often are saddled with substantial quantities of debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. Don’t believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age that you know who subscribe to financial services magazines or newspapers. A significant number of 20-something and 30-something women spend all of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes and accessories. Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts.

When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack and fix the mess she may have made of her finances. Men are forced to spend their hard-earned savings, or take out an usurious loan, on a diamond ring. Women justify this relatively recent, mid-20th Century ritual, which was spawned by a brilliant 1940’s mass-brainwashing campaign launched by DeBeers, by insisting that a man wants to buy her a diamond and that it makes him proud to be able to proclaim his love and affection towards her in this fashion. Granted there are some men who may be inclined to declare their commitment to a life-long partner in this way, but there are plenty of men whom seek a lifelong partnership and commitment who have no interest in buying diamonds. What choice do these men have? None! To many young men, the ring, catered wedding, and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel is an unwelcome land mine on their journey towards adult financial stability and independence. To add insult to injury, he is now locked into a lifetime of insurance payments for this grossly overpriced jewelry. Contrary to popularly held belief diamonds are not rare at all, but instead are common and inexpensive. Their high price is due to their supply having been artificially manipulated. Some men are more concerned with realising their dream of owning a home and becoming financially stable enough to begin a family and responsibly provide for their welfare. Men worry about these matters, because, ultimately, it becomes their sole responsibility.

The purchase of the diamond ring is a predictor of things to come. Immediately after buying it, the man may be rewarded with bridal demands to finance all or part of a lavish wedding, depending upon the size of his bank account and the ambitions of his fiancée. The average costs of today’s Western Weddings frequently exceed that of a house down payment or, in certain parts of the world, the entire cost of the house itself. If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched right out from underneath him. Many men may object to spending such a large sum of money on what is basically a very expensive one-day, four-hour party. He also will be spending a year of his life planning it, when he could use the same time to further his career or education. However, what a man wants is really not of any concern anymore at this point in the proceedings. His wants, desires, hopes and dreams are ignored almost in their entirety. Her opinions regarding the wedding are frequently non-negotiable. A wedding is no longer an event that is equally for the bride and groom. As many of today’s Bridezilla’s will gleefully remind you, “Today is MY day!”. This gives her licence to become selfish, irresponsible, demanding and childlike. A man who balks at spending his entire life savings, or shouldering a five-figure debt load, for the ring, catered wedding and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel, can and will be labeled as a selfish cheapskate or not a “Real Man”. If a woman leaves such a man for him suggesting that they try to keep their costs under control, she would have the full support of everyone around her as she dumped him.

“She can do better”, “Clearly, he doesn’t love her”, “He doesn’t deserve her”, and similar sentiments will be muttered in quiet circles just out of his earshot. This is a sign of her good self-esteem and healthy self-image, and a sign that she won’t settle for anything less. She is the poster girl for the Modern, Independent Woman.

Imagine if a man demanded equal treatment and asked that she buy him a new bass boat, and a two-week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of marriage. This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day. Modern Western Marriage is supposedly an equal partnership, isn’t it?

The injustices go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If he can afford to carry the entire familial financial burden, the woman may now elect to stop working entirely. She will often make this decision regardless of how he may feel about it. The day she stops working is the day that all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets tossed onto his shoulders. If the woman has racked up substantial credit card debts, these are now his payments to make; if the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these become his responsibility; if she owes an enormous sum on her luxury car note, it is up to him to pay it off. Irony of ironies is that he is now paying for her degree and she isn’t even working anymore! Can he object? Can he say: “No Honey, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew that you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, he cannot. The payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself, not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home. If he even suggested that she return to work to pay off some of her own debt load, he opens himself to criticisms of being an unsupportive husband and bad father who is endangering the welfare of his children. Now the noose tightens and the responsible husband compensates for the mother’s freewheeling and irresponsible past, and begins slowly to pay off her old debts. In the most twisted turn of events yet, the debt he is paying off may often be on credit cards used to finance Vacations, Hotel Rooms and Christmas gifts shared with previous husbands, boyfriends, fiancés and lovers. Caveat Emptor! This is the reward for today’s man who works hard, makes sacrifices, plans ahead, and invests wisely. By getting married to the typical Modern, Western Woman, the man is certainly susceptible to being railroaded into this situation, because it is completely acceptable within today’s gender roles and societal norms.

Marriage can mean career slavery

Anyone who says, “Slavery is dead” clearly has not contemplated the predicament of the average Western Husband, where a good paycheck can mean career slavery. Merriam-Webster’s English Dictionary defines slavery as “…(T)he state of a person who is a chattel (an item of tangible movable or immovable property) of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the man who has been left holding the financial bag finds his options very limited. He may find himself working in a career that he hates, for abusive and exploitative management, excessively long hours, in a position that is physically dangerous or demanding, in an organisation that has no growth potential, far away from home. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any positive, meaningful change in his own life. He may have been harbouring delusions that once his wife was able to return to work, he would be able to gain some flexibility to rectify some of the shortcomings in his own career. Perhaps changing careers or accepting a lower salary at a different firm in exchange for better hours, a shorter commute, or more fulfilling work. Nevertheless, the distinct reality is that he will continue to shoulder the financial responsibilities of his family alone. His reward for working hard and getting ahead is to become trapped into his career, and become a specialised beast of burden to an emotionally and financially dependent family. Does it really pay to work hard anymore and apply oneself to his full potential?

If she stops working, she may never work again.

There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the prospective husband on frequently unseen risks he is taking on when he agrees to accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage.

Every parent will agree that staying home with children is backbreaking and often mind-numbing labour. Many new fathers may concede that it is much easier to go to work than to stay at home with several children. However, the greatest imbalance in efforts and contributions to a marriage can manifest once all of the children are of school age. The house is now empty from 8am-3pm. The wife has 7 hours to herself while the kids are at school and the husband is at work. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to “kick back” and take it easy. The good, supportive husband, however, has worked those same years, has done his 50/50 of the housework, and is still working just as hard to support the family once the kids are in school. His workload has not diminished, and it may have even increased as her expectations rise. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.

What motivation does the modern wife have to return to work? Very little. For several years now, the man’s salary has been enough to live on. Otherwise, she would have been working to make ends meet. Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. The wife can hide behind many different excuses in order not to work, despite having little to do from 8am-3pm. Among the commonest are:

“I’m busy with the housework”
It is easy to exaggerate the labours of daily housework. Yet how long does it take to throw clothes or dishes into the washer, and remove them later? Vacuuming can be done in 1 hour a week. Grocery shopping is another hour per week. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour. Does all of this add up to 7 hours a day? The lie that housework is hard, time-consuming drudgery is no longer as persuasive as it may have been in the past, because in an age of later marriage, many men are already experienced in cooking, cleaning, and general housekeeping and know that it doesn’t take that much effort or time. Humourously, not every stay-at-home-wife even performs all of these duties.

“I can’t find a job”
She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she “temporarily” stops working. Hopefully now they will, and can make a more informed decision. Many wives may use this as a convenient scapegoat to stop looking for any job at all. The next section describes how this can be used against him in the event of divorce.

“It doesn’t pay for me to work”
In the short run, the expenses of returning to work such as gas, lunch, clothes and day care may not make it worthwhile for her to return to the workforce. This may be true, but does that justify her playing tennis, drinking lattes and ‘catching up with her friends’ while her husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted to thoroughly and comprehensively think through this issue. Initially, the cost to benefits ratio may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts and over time the return on investment will improve. More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon and window-shopping for new window treatments. Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.

It should be duly noted that some working wives view their salary as “personal spending money”, and still expect the man to pay all or most of the bills. Western Women are often heard to claim that, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is ours.”

Even more unfair double standards that favour wives

If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth. He is a selfish jerk that has jeopardised the family unit, done his ‘thinking with his little head’, and disrespected his wife and children. However, when the woman cheats, she’s portrayed as the victim of an insensitive and inattentive husband. “Poor thing, he ignores her. It is for her empowerment, to boost her ego. She deserves it after bearing and rearing his children.” It’s good for her self-esteem. Worse, her cheating is portrayed as the man’s fault. If he works long hours to provide for her and the children, he works too much. If he is tired at the end of the day from 13 hours of manual labour, then he doesn’t compliment her as much as she wants. Into this vacuum of conflicting expectations steps the first man who “makes me feel like a Real Woman again…”. You read that correctly; the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and car payments and is working double shifts to pay for the consumer goods she demanded to have is now considered a negligent and emotionally abusive husband. The man who may be working two jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered a candidate for Domestic Violence.

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did, or more often, didn’t do, to drive her into the arms of another man.

When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

When a woman cheats, the reaction will be; “Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband couldn’t get the job done in the bedroom”.

When a man cheats, no one ever stops to think; “Oh poor fellow, his wife was horrible in bed.”

Let’s not forget what happens if a man were to leave his wife for a younger woman. This will become fodder at the coffee shop for months. It is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. The possibility that his wife was of a generation of women who were taught to hate men and that younger women do not, that she was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or grossly overweight, or an incompetent mother, are rarely considered and are often totally ignored. The myth is that the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. Never mind if she is a better match for him and a more supportive, nurturing mate.

If a man insists on a Pre-Nup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a Pre-Nup was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a Pre-Nup, she is being fiscally responsible, sensible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a Pre-Nup, she has just shown her hand. Best to leave now.) Why is it that a woman can refuse a Pre-Nup, and it is accepted by society? In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the usual reaction towards Pre-Nups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a Pre-Nup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with the signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage licence? Nothing more than a legal contract entered into between the man, woman and local and state government authorities. A woman does not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the assets a man has accumulated as well as half of everything he earns in the future, and obligates him to support her in perpetuity in the event of a breakup. Why aren’t men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, place setting selection, floral arrangements, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

Initially, Pre-Nups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularised in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were “out for their money”. Until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1848, under English Common Law, a woman’s property, upon marriage, was usually transferred to her husband.

“Stupid, Irresponsible” Men
Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch any TV commercial or sitcom and see how they portray men as idiots, dolts, or well intentioned, if bumbling, buffoons. If women were portrayed in commercials in the same fashion, “Women’s Organisations” would have a fit. If it weren’t for their wives in these shows and ads the men would be lost “animals”, unable to feed themselves or perform even the simplest of tasks. Other commercials make it appear that men act without thinking, only responding in an impulsive and irrational manner, and that the wife is the brains of the family. Even many women will agree that women often are the ones who act upon emotions and make judgments solely based up on emotional attachments and not logic or reason. Almost every “couples budgeting” article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man’s childish spending, when in truth it is usually the woman who cannot control her expenditures.

Job Loss
If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is completely and totally justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position? He would be vilified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. He is no longer a ‘good provider’. When is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household and kids while the wife is working, he may be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for with each passing year! No matter what role the man plays, he loses!

Traditional Roles
It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand that a man make a certain salary, drive a certain car, live in a certain part of the city, have a certain job, have the ‘right’ manners, talk a certain way, walk a certain way, behave a certain way, have a degree from the ‘right’ University and dress in a stylish fashion, to be deemed “marriage material” and be able to provide her with the stability she feels she deserves. If a man demands his wife do the cooking and cleaning, he can now be labeled old fashioned and sexist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially, just as he does, he may be criticised as an inadequate provider. If a man insists that his wife honor the conjugal requirements of the marriage contract, he can and will be accused of sexual abuse, sexual assault or rape.

To add insult to injury, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they then go out and hire as many nannies, cooks, gardeners and pool boys as their husband can afford. Many Western Wives stay at home and hire someone else to rear the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard-earned money is squandered?

The concept of the pampered wife is a relatively new one. Most of Western Civilisation was primarily an agricultural economy even up until the 1920’s and 1930’s. Western Wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950’s that the first generation of Western Wives, first in The States and later in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in The States, and later Europe and the other English Speaking Nations, and the rise of Feminism. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.


43% of Western Marriages end in divorce, and 70% to 93% of these divorces are initiated by women.

All men should consult a legal professional before marrying, and understand the implications of divorce, because the chances are 1-in-3 that they will participate in one whether they like it, want it, inititate it or not.

Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during and prior to a marriage are subject to division. It has become, simply put. a licence to steal. Even if the woman has not worked in years, and has spent the intervening decade(s) shopping and lunching from 8am-3pm, she is entitled to half, or more, of everything the man worked for during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever agree to a job contract that stipulated that in the event of separation that one party would have to return 50% of the gross amount of everything in the pay packet? No one in his or her right mind would knowingly sign such an agreement. Yet Western Men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity each time they sign their marriage contract!

“Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce”. In theory this is true, in practice it is not. If funds from an account are commingled or combined, it can become marital property. How do funds become commingled, or mixed? If even the smallest sum from a prior account is spent towards the marriage, all of that account will now be considered marital property. Buy your child a lollipop from your own account, and a good lawyer will take one-half of it for your ex-wife when you divorce. If a woman moves into a home the man owned prior to the marriage, it is not safe from divorce. If she so much as hangs up a sheet of wallpaper, puts up draperies, paints a wall, or installs a light fixture, the home is now classified as joint marital property, and is now subject to equal division. Worse actually, the man can be ejected from the home if she makes a false claim of domestic violence, physical abuse, verbal abuse or child abuse. Where is the equality and fairness?

Note: “Equal Division” is also somewhat of a misnomer. Often, she can get upwards of 70% – 90% of the assets, while the man gets the majority of the debts! She gets all of the benefits, he gets all of the responsibilities. This, of course, is just and right and is his reward for working so hard all of those years. He can afford it; she can’t because she was not working.

If you pamper your wife, it can be used against you

Imagine that in the spirit of generosity and kindness that you gave a beggar a hot meal. A generous act, indeed. Now imagine your reaction if that same beggar sues you in court. He is petitioning the judge to have you keep providing him with the food that you gave him willingly, freely, out of a big heart. The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man meals, indefinitely, forever, because he has become accustomed to eating those meals! This is categorically absurd, yet this happens to Western Men in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, what you get is the privilege of being legally forced to pay her bills forever!

After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before the kids came along, many of these same women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man’s generosity and dedication to his own career that enables her to walk away from her own career. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work long and grueling hours in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, the property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, Internet bill and electric bill. He also pays for her car, gas money, clothes, and vacations.

As one final slap in the face, the man may be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife to have the luxury of staying at home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure and relaxation that is afforded to her by her man’s hard work. In the event of divorce, he will be legally obligated to support her for years or decades to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her, forever! History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. Western Women often “play” at work and career for a few years after University, and then when they near 30 or grow tired of the workplace they seek out a man to “take her away from all of this”, whatever “all of this” may be. In fact her desire to leave the world of work may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place. But now, in her eyes, and definitely her lawyers eyes, she “gave up” her career for her man and his kids. She is now “owed” all of her “lost income”. His gift of leisure and support to her has now become twisted and is viewed as her sacrifice! Another way in which the situation is turned against him is that he will be characterised as being threatened by her having her own career, and that he forced her to quit her “lucrative career” and stay home with the children. Her lawyer will now attempt to convince the judge that he wanted to “oppress” his wife and “keep her down”. Truthfully now, how many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living? Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman’s advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a financial liability.

Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is “She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle”. A husband’s reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely, forever. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves you for another man! Yet, imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner, or regular conjugal visits. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and sharing her bed with him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!

The ultimate insult, however, comes when the man loses half or more of his life’s assets even when she has decided to leave him. Yes, a wife can unilaterally decide to kick a man out of his own home, and have the courts force him to continue paying the bills, while she is sleeping with her new boyfriend in the very house the husband worked so long and hard to buy! She can, and often does, spend her alimony check on gifts for her new boyfriend or lover! How is it that the legal system supports a woman who feels entitled to this?

The risks are clear, yet what exactly are men getting out of marriage? Many times, the reasons men get married are unfounded.

Many of the traditional reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

“I won’t die alone”
Wrong. The simple fact is that one spouse WILL die alone. Visit the hospital and go to the terminally ill or cardiac departments. Few people have the time to sit with an ill relative all day and all night. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren’t having the same thoughts as you are. You’re contemplating your mortality, while they’re wondering what food the hospital cafeteria offers. In the end, even with a loving and supportive family, most of us will leave this world alone, unless you both die simultaneously in an accident of some kind. Your spouse may die fifteen years before you, or you may be in the hospital for your last year. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

“I won’t grow old alone”
Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 or 70. Many married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. Now they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half or more of their life’s assets, losing half their retirement and pension funds, and being assessed alimony payments. Experiencing financial devastation from one divorce often may preclude a man from ever marrying again. This is a common observation of many middle-aged Western Women. Q: “Where are all the men?”. A: “He is broke from the divorce settlement, alimony and child support payments.” Thus these women don’t find him marriable, and he grows old alone and poor.

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies only one destiny; that of a solitary monk in a cave, a shunned loner. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you cannot continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. A bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, because most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person who gives back nothing in emotion, affection or support. Young men in their 20’s and 30’s should be more aware of the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

“I’ll get regular sex”
Not from Modern, Western Women. Access to regular sex is the oldest and the most frequently cited reason to marry. Many men now know that Modern, Western Women frequently stop having sex after just a short time of being married. There are plenty of “sexless” marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids, or the sex may be as infrequent as once a year or once every six months, or the wife may only have sex when she wants the husband to buy her something, take her somewhere, or remodel the house. Read the honest opinions of married men on the Internet. Most Western, Married Men will have more sex with their Western Wives in the first six months of their marriage than they will in the next 40 years. Lastly, it remains to be seen whether sex with one exclusive partner for forty years or more is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. In many Western Nations, the wife is no longer required to have sex with her husband. She can deny him at any time, for any length of time. She can, if she wishes, deny him sex forever and there is nothing that he can do about it. In fact, if he insists that she honor her end of the marriage contract by being available for sexual relations, he can and will be accused of, charged with, and arrested for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault or Rape.

Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

“I’ll have someone to cook and clean for me”
Not necessarily. While a Modern, Western Woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves the man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children, while the wife gets to play at being a housekeeper. Today’s woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties because she is not working, he will often be labeled sexist, abusive or controlling, even if he is doing his “traditional role” of paying all the bills, providing for his family, and performing the traditional manly duties of vehicle repairs, maintaining the lawn and house upkeep.

“I have to be married to have kids”
Not anymore. Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at the government center in order to be fertilised by your sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. You do not need to be married to own a dream home together. It is ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than divorced parents or married parents who are ineffective, inattentive or incompetent.

-Having a lifelong, faithful, committed relationship has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Owning a beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Rearing healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Building a family and life together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Growing old together has nothing to do with being “married”.

In fact, recent changes in cohabitation, partner and marriage law have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalised separation process that usually requires the talents of an attorney.

You do need to be married in order to throw an extravagant four-hour party, and share the same last name.

You do need to be married in order to involve the state and government in your romantic affairs.

You do need to be married in order give away half of everything you own.

Besides that, marriage does nothing more than introduce lawyers and social workers into your life. These are people that otherwise would have nothing to do with your life or your relationship.

Men need to stop and ask themselves:

“Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world? What is the benefit to me to get married?”

It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight on her unilateral whim.

Marriage was originally created as a way for families to merge land, property, political power and influence; perhaps people should return to viewing it as just that and nothing more. The rest of it is fake modern TV Fantasy and Tabloid Gossip and Hype polluting the minds of today’s impressionable youth, and a way to keep the multi-billion-per-year wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should be to ask oneself: “How excited am I for us to merge our finances and assets?” When all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. Spend a day in divorce court, and you’ll see exactly what is real and tangible and lasting about marriage. You’ll see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Bouquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that is coming to them and more! The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes. “For better or for worse…”

The Western Divorce rate is 43%. It is higher in some parts of the world such as California, Great Britain and Australia. In Japan the recent change in pension law may have many pensioners out on the street. In India new changes to dowry law have men being threatened by their wives. Consider the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay; Men who don’t want to lose 50%, women who know they can’t support themselves alone. Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these “forced marriages”, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity, no sex, or sleeping in separate beds or separate rooms. I estimate the percentage of happy and monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture, investment or loan? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday through marriage.


Read and learn, Grasshopper; read and learn...