# Karen Straughan - Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?



## poida

Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go? - YouTube

Hi Guys and Gals, 
The search for reasons why my spouse cheated on me has led me to some interesting observations about men and women in society, and what the current value of men is in society to women.
I stumbled across Karen Straughan on youtube and whilst not everybody will agree with her perspectives, they resonated so strongly with me that I wanted to share them with you. She has a whole host of vids, but this one struck a chord.
What do you think?


----------



## Emptyshelldad

I for one won't marry again. The governments role in forcing a man or women to have to stay in a relationship or suffer unknown enforced consequences of losing your income, your assets, your business, your freedom, and when you can see your children; all of this has made it a losing equation to men specifically to consider getting married. 

I see the problem of men not knowing what their role is and just watching as their lady runs rough shot over them, and it's a very sad sight. Society in the us has allowed this come to this point for many reason in this video expounds upon. 

Guys, take a thirty min break to listen to this lady, I'm so glad I did. I subscribed cause she speaks fairly without any feminist nonsense bias.


----------



## bigtone128

I would remarry. If the person was right. Sure. I live my life without the dictates of others' expectations. I will say though most men I talk to say they will not re-marry but I think given the right set of circumstances they would. Now I will say this - the right woman appears to be fewer and far between for me. I do not know if I am being more selective or if women have changed - but I find fewer I would be willing to marry.


----------



## SadandAngry

At this point, were I to divorce and separate, not only would I be extremely averse to marriage, I wouldn't even want to cohabitate! The risk vs reward is so far out of balance, it's absurd


----------



## LongWalk

The rules have changed. At one time marriage was a lifetime commitment. Divorce stats suggest that it is a flip of the coin. Just because 50 percent of marriage last until one part dies does not mean those marriages are happy. Probably some of them are antagonistic or hostile at the end. Of course there are probably some divorced couples who are friends and lovers after divorce, too.

The deal with marriage was:

1) monogamy, but we know cheating is high;
2) paternity, but now there is DNA testing which is more certain than words or promises;
3) financial benefits, which remain as long one doesn't divorce;
4) cooperation in raising children, this benefit still exists and is statisically good for kids;
5) sex, plenty of TAM threads suggest sex is not certain for either men or women;
6) love, plenty of TAM thread suggest that love dies before a marriage is over.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

LongWalk said:


> The rules have changed. At one time marriage was a lifetime commitment. Divorce stats suggest that it is a flip of the coin. Just because 50 percent of marriage last until one part dies does not mean those marriages are happy. Probably some of them are antagonistic or hostile at the end. Of course there are probably some divorced couples who are friends and lovers after divorce, too.
> 
> The deal with marriage was:
> 
> 1) monogamy, but we know cheating is high;
> 2) paternity, but now there is DNA testing which is more certain than words or promises;
> 3) financial benefits, which remain as long one doesn't divorce;
> 4) cooperation in raising children, this benefit still exists and is statisically good for kids;
> 5) sex, plenty of TAM threads suggest sex is not certain for either men or women;
> 6) love, plenty of TAM thread suggest that love dies before a marriage is over.


I'm going to advise that you utilize some caution whenever you use TAM threads as true representations of your average marriages out in the real world. Quite a few TAM threads have unique issues that you will normally not see in typical marriages in the real world - like BPD, Narcissists, sex abuse, spouses raised in broken homes, etc. I'm not saying you don't run across people like that in life, but not 1 out of every 3 or 4 people like you see on TAM.


----------



## Married but Happy

I married again, but it was optional for us both, and we'd lived together for 7 years before deciding. I simply found someone about whom I had no reservations or concerns, who stood the test of time - of all the women I met or dated, no others were without some deterring issues.


----------



## bigtone128

I am a romantic at heart - I cannot help myself. For me the risk is worth the reward. I think that is what life is all about. Even my former marriage was worth it...many good years, two beautiful boys, do it again in a heart beat. Even her, she was a good woman for many years...something about relationships and the female nature I like. Call me crazy


----------



## Hoosier

People ask me when I am getting married again. My reply, "when the lead sniper on Seal Team Six misses!" Have them on retainer with instructions that if I ever start walking down the isle, Head Shot!


----------



## Chaparral

LongWalk said:


> The rules have changed. At one time marriage was a lifetime commitment. Divorce stats suggest that it is a flip of the coin. Just because 50 percent of marriage last until one part dies does not mean those marriages are happy. Probably some of them are antagonistic or hostile at the end. Of course there are probably some divorced couples who are friends and lovers after divorce, too.
> 
> The deal with marriage was:
> 
> 1) monogamy, but we know cheating is high;
> 2) paternity, but now there is DNA testing which is more certain than words or promises;
> 3) financial benefits, which remain as long one doesn't divorce;
> 4) cooperation in raising children, this benefit still exists and is statisically good for kids;
> 5) sex, plenty of TAM threads suggest sex is not certain for either men or women;
> 6) love, plenty of TAM thread suggest that love dies before a marriage is over.


Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. However, no where near fifty percent of the people that get married get a divorce. The percentage of failed marriages is skewed by the folks with multiple divorces.

For first timers the divorce rate is somewhere between 30 and 40%. Even second marriages have a high success rate. At least this is what I heard on a radio program the other day.

Bad news gets exaggerated by the media because that's what they believe sells.

If someone can find the real stats I would like to see them.

Having said that, many factors, including no fault divorce, alimony, child support and wives filing 80% of divorces is not conducive to marriage.

I even wonder about that stat. It seems 80% turns up way too often in marriage stats.


----------



## spanz

well yeah, just read some of the poor men on here who are married forever and get laid twice a year, and its somehow all their fault. I especially like the stories where the woman was a foxy vixen _when they were dating_, and then put on 50 pounds and shut down all sex the minute they were married.

At the least, a guy has to insure his potential spouse is sexually and emotionally a match. All this HD LD stuff...you need at least a fair match in that. AND you really need to find some way to figure out if she is in it for the long haul, or is just looking for a meal ticket. 

No wonder guys are shrieking and running away in droves!!!:rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans

I admit to not having watched the Youtube because it's 25 minutes long and that is a long time but



Emptyshelldad said:


> I for one won't marry again.



This is how I feel. Granted, I know they say, "never say never" but I have done it and it has zero appeal to me.




Hoosier said:


> People ask me when I am getting married again. *My reply, "when the lead sniper on Seal Team Six misses!" * Have them on retainer with instructions that if I ever start walking down the isle, Head Shot!


:rofl: 

So funny! I told my secretary something similar. "If you ever hear me saying I met someone and am getting married" please please strap me down and chuck a very large stapler at my head.

No, thanks.

I've been saying for a bit now "I just need to find someone who doesn't want to marry me as much as I don't want to marry them." My ideal relationship is finding a partner who I'm compatible with, have a good sex life with, can cuddle with, and live in separate homes.


----------



## weightlifter

Overall I believe she is correct.

The part from roughly 4:00 to 7:00 about women rating 80% of men as below average to divorce to alimony is nothing new but sort of a lot of valid points in one place.

Its only going to get worse. With 60% of degrees going to women now. Sounds like its only 10% off but remember this is 1.5 times more than men who are not typically the ones who take career breaks to raise children. More and more women are going to chase a narrower and narrower pool of college educated males... Throw in that female infidelity increases when comparative male income decreases...

tick tick tick tick that is a demographic time bomb counting down.


----------



## bigtone128

I will repeat - marriage is worth it. I am sure if many of us look at the moments in our relationships - there were many happy moments. Truth is I loved her. And know I can love someone again. Part of what I loved about relationships is NOT all the good stuff but the idiosyncrasies that makes each one of us special. That comes out when you live together...I refuse to let a disastrous event define my life or future relationships or even that relationship. Cripes, it is the good stuff in life....sorry. I am past my hurt, I guess. Moment in time. Reminds me of U2 song "Stuck in a moment" ..

U2 - Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of - YouTube


----------



## lifeistooshort

I'm not sure my husband was that anxious to remarry, until I told him that I wanted marriage and if he didn't I understood but I would keep my options open. Then he jumped on the train, heck he even planned most of the wedding. Now he says he doesn't know why he waited so long to marry me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk

The fact that men are supposed to ask women tells you something. Women desire marriage but men have to pay for an expensive ring to claim them. Go figure.


----------



## hawx20

Emptyshelldad said:


> I for one won't marry again. The governments role in forcing a man or women to have to stay in a relationship or suffer unknown enforced consequences of losing your income, your assets, your business, your freedom, and when you can see your children; all of this has made it a losing equation to men specifically to consider getting married.


I am in R with my WW now, but if we divorce, I will never even consider getting married again. Its not worth it. The games dont stop, the lies dont stop, and people are unable to keep their word and their vows. Whats the point?

Plus, what you said, the courts are already decided against me because I am a man. Even though my wife broke our vows, had sex with another man, showed no concern for her husband or childrens well being.....some judge will decide for her to have custody just because she has a vagina. Thats bull. I did everything right, she did so much wrong, and I will be punished in court.

I have a buddy who doesnt want children but his gf is pressuring him into marriage. I told him dont do it. After seeing what happened to me, he is strongly considering my advice. Marriage just isnt worth it because very few people value their vows. The ones that do usually end up on the short end of the stick.


----------



## lostmyreligion

W and I were talking over a bottle of wine one night and she started waxing on about how special I was and how much she loved me and that she didn't know what she'd do if something happened to me and whether she'd even begin to be able to start dating again and...and..,. 

Blah blah.

She then asked me what I'd do if something happened to her. She was looking for a reciprocal raft of compliments but more importantly, trying to assess if I'd swept crap under the rug. 

I was still reeling from and trying to learn how to cope (sans CWI) with the reality of who she really was and what she was capable of in the context of our relationship.

Moreover I'd seen many of my friends - hell even my brother - go through the same as me in their marriages, or worse.

In what I now know was the beginning of my 180, I turned, looked at her and said quietly "I've spent a huge chunk of my adult life supporting you, your dreams and our family. In return, you've kicked the emotional sh!te out of me. I'm tired and getting too old to take this kind of beating again. I've got two hands for relief and if I got desperate for a woman's company, I'd just rent." 

Bit of a mood killer and I certainly didn't get laid that night.

4 years later, I ended up in hospital for 11 days with a pulmonary embolism. I didn't have life insurance. It scared the hell out of her because she realized just how dependant she was on me.

A year ago I initiated the same conversation. Asked her what she'd do if something like that happened to me again and I didn't make it. She said "I'd marry someone wealthy"

My response to the question remains the same as before.


----------



## GTdad

I've been married 30 years. When I first came to TAM, my perception was that my marriage was in serious trouble. From what I learned here, I worked on my end of things and now things are better, although I still have concerns. I'll stay married for the rest of my life if I can, but damn, it can be kind of exhausting at times.

I just can't see putting forth this kind of effort for another woman. Except maybe JellyBeans.


----------



## hawx20

I see the benefit in being married to my wife, the mother of my children. If it doesnt work out, I see no benefit of marrying anyone else.

What does marriage do now a days? It doesnt promise you anything other than how bad things will get if it goes bad. Seriously, whats the difference between a wife and a girlfriend? A piece of paper?


----------



## WorkingOnMe

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm not sure my husband was that anxious to remarry, until I told him that I wanted marriage and if he didn't I understood but I would keep my options open. Then he jumped on the train, heck he even planned most of the wedding. Now he says he doesn't know why he waited so long to marry me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



And you feel no guilt over your obvious pressure and manipulation? Just like she says in the video, men's desires don't matter at all as long as women get what they want when they want it.


----------



## Deejo

I have watched a lot of 'Girl Writes What?'

Not a lot of middle ground with her. People love her or hate her ... particularly based on their gender.

She has been posted here before, particulalry her 'Nice Guy' piece.



poida said:


> Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go? - YouTube
> 
> Hi Guys and Gals,
> The search for reasons why my spouse cheated on me has led me to some interesting observations about men and women in society, and what the current value of men is in society to women.
> I stumbled across Karen Straughan on youtube and whilst not everybody will agree with her perspectives, they resonated so strongly with me that I wanted to share them with you. She has a whole host of vids, but this one struck a chord.
> What do you think?


----------



## lifeistooshort

WorkingOnMe said:


> And you feel no guilt over your obvious pressure and manipulation? Just like she says in the video, men's desires don't matter at all as long as women get what they want when they want it.


Yeah, I feel tremendous guilt for having the nerve to speak up for what I want. Poor men are entitled to have a relationship in any form that works for them, and women would do well to accept that.
Nobody pressured him into anything; he was free to walk if what he wanted didn't mesh with what I wanted. We see that all the time here: hubby wants lots of sex and wife doesn't, and he's told to let her know that he wants sex or he'll walk. Perhaps all such men should feel guilty for pushing what they want regardless of how their wives feel? Ridiculous. If everyone was clearer about what they wanted there would be more happy marriages/ relationships. If you don't want marriage find someone that agrees with you. It's not your right to have a relationship with the person of your choice completely on your terms.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 86857

There was a very big European study on marriage some years ago: 
50% divorce. 
25% stay together for financial or religious reasons. 
12.5% stay for other reasons.
That leaves 12.5%. 

The conclusion was that only 1 in 8 marriages are genuinely happy.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

lifeistooshort said:


> It's not your right to have a relationship with the person of your choice completely on your terms.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Right. Like telling your partner you'll keep your options open if he doesn't marry you. But in the end you got what you wanted so it's all good.


----------



## lifeistooshort

WorkingOnMe said:


> Right. Like telling your partner you'll keep your options open if he doesn't marry you. But in the end you got what you wanted so it's all good.


Come back when you've gotten rid of the victim chip on your shoulder. How's that working for you anyway? You sound quite bitter and miserable. Clearly you haven't worked on you enough.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MSP

Since my wife and I recently reconciled and are doing very well, I'm unlikely to remarry. That is, unless I become a polygamist. Of course, there are some rather large consequences that come with that choice. The punishment for multiple wives is multiple wives.


----------



## Plan 9 from OS

WorkingOnMe said:


> Right. Like telling your partner you'll keep your options open if he doesn't marry you. But in the end you got what you wanted so it's all good.


I'm curious about your last two posts. I think it cuts both ways tbh. You have a right to demand a stronger commitment and someone else has a right to avoid marriage. IDK, sounds like the typical dating scene to me...


----------



## Ceegee

Marriage?

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, had it ripped off my back. 

I like JB's idea.


----------



## illwill

Id get married again, and handle it the same way.

Deep love. But no co-depency. Oh, and a post nup. 

Men are kind of screwed if they are cheated on, and decide to divorce.

Its a set up and the game is fixed.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Well, if women consider 80% of men below average as far as desirability then they'll create their own hell. The top 20% most desirable men will have the pick of the litter and it won't ever end, and most women will end up unhappy because they'll see themselves as settling for less if they settle at all.

The irony is that women who don't have such high standards or who care about other things in a man will probably end up with much happier love lives and they will be appreciated much more by men.


----------



## Simon Phoenix

No. Never. Not in a million years would I even consider marrying again. I wouldn't even seriously date, much less move someone into my place. My ability to trust someone to that extent went by the boards when my stbx decided to ride her high school sweetheart like a bronco. The fact that she was able to do that while I'm forced to leave the home, live on 60% of my paycheck, while being dictated to when or if I could see my kids is wayyyyyy too much a burden to bear again. I no longer have the capacity to open my heart up like that without thinking about when the other shoe will drop. 

And I don't know about the rest of you but the spontaneity, desire, lust, and passion quickly disappears in a relationship after marrying. Try getting away for an extended weekend with wifey after having a kid or two. There are easier negotiating sessions in Congress than trying to get her mind on something other than the kids, her girlfriends, or her parents. They say that good marriages require compromise but I call major BS on that. To me, compromise is being able to afford a new BMW or a Benz and settling for a used Ford Probe for the same price. 

Marriage today is a scam for men, plain and simple. Once married, she becomes the boss, along with her muscle, known as the state. She can have an affair and you will still be forced to pay her alimony. There's a reason why women initiate divorce so often. Many have that fantasy of getting married and all the attention it brings them but rarely thinks of life after they come back from the honeymoon. Many realize that hubby doesn't have the $$$ for her to quit her job and stay home, among other things. And in time, she grows fonder of past lovers and blasts from the past because she never had to live with them. She never had to wash his clothes or clear up after his boys come over to watch the game. She never had to watch those guys spend the weekend working on the car or tweaking their fantasy football rosters. All she remembers of those other guys are long nights of passion in Key West or hot episodes in the stairwell of her office building. The only redeeming quality she thinks of when it comes to hubby is his ability to pay down her student loans or take care of the kids while she's gone with the girls for the weekend. 

So count me out. Good luck to you hopeless romantics out there. You'll need it...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Emptyshelldad

> A year ago I initiated the same conversation. Asked her what she'd do if something like that happened to me again and I didn't make it. She said "I'd marry someone wealthy"


And I'm sure she is taking into account how many wealthy men are just dying to find a middle aged divorcee or widow to replace all the young attractive model like hotties that throw themselves at wealthy men all the time. 

Ha! Welcome to la la land, population, primarily female.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Simon Phoenix said:


> No. Never. Not in a million years would I even consider marrying again. I wouldn't even seriously date, much less move someone into my place. My ability to trust someone to that extent went by the boards when my stbx decided to ride her high school sweetheart like a bronco. The fact that she was able to do that while I'm forced to leave the home, live on 60% of my paycheck, while being dictated to when or if I could see my kids is wayyyyyy too much a burden to bear again. I no longer have the capacity to open my heart up like that without thinking about when the other shoe will drop.
> 
> 
> 
> And I don't know about the rest of you but the spontaneity, desire, lust, and passion quickly disappears in a relationship after marrying. Try getting away for an extended weekend with wifey after having a kid or two. There are easier negotiating sessions in Congress than trying to get her mind on something other than the kids, her girlfriends, or her parents. They say that good marriages require compromise but I call major BS on that. To me, compromise is being able to afford a new BMX or a Benz and settling for a used Ford Probe for the same price.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage today is a scam for men, plain and simple. Once married, she becomes the boss, along with her muscle, known as the state. She can have an affair and you will still be forced to pay her alimony. There's a reason why women initiate divorce so often. Many have that fantasy of getting married and all the attention it brings them but rarely thinks of life after they come back from the honeymoon. Many realize that hubby doesn't have the $$$ for her to quit her job and stay home, among other things. And in time, she grows fonder of past lovers and blasts from the past because she never had to live with them. She never had to wash his clothes or clear up after his boys come over to watch the game. She never had to watch those guys spend the weekend working on the car or tweaking their fantasy football rosters. All she remembers of those other guys are long nights of passion in Key West or hot episodes in the stairwell of her office building. The only redeeming quality she thinks of when it comes to hubby is his ability to pay down her student loans or take care of the kids while she's gone with the girls for the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> So count me out. Good luck to you hopeless romantics out there. You'll need it...
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Dennis Miller quality rant! :thumbsup:


----------



## Emptyshelldad

And thus far no one has been able to show me or tell us any "benefit" that marriage has over cohabitation. I mean other than the fairy tale aspect, or some would argue the religious aspect. Though I'm also a huge believer that Jesus would not approve of the way the government is being in charge of marriage And divorce, so the religious argument would be hard for me as well. Though I would potentially go through a marriage ceremony so long as there were no legal ramifications for such action. 

There are just too many ways that men stand to lose from this modern day marriage that I don't see how it's better for them to marry then to just stay committed even living together, without the paperwork. 

And to the woman who claims her "husband" could have just walked away, I agree, he has a choice and he should have exercised that choice by leaving any person who puts an ultimatum on a relationship saying either we marry or I'm done. 

That would tell me that I mean less to her, than her desire to marry. In which case if the idea of marrying is more important to her than being with the perfect person for her in all other ways, this would seem a marriage doomed to either fail or have one or both parties unhappy with their decision in the end.


----------



## 86857

I'm so sad to hear about all you Dads out there who got betrayed, kicked out of your home and then told when you could and couldn't see your children. It's nothing short of cruel. 

At least in my country they are doing something about it. Now when couples divorce it's automatically 50% custody which also means less Child Support needs to be paid because it's very much tied to the amount of time the kids spend with each parent. 

Try not to judge all of us women so harshly. We're not all like that. 

I would say of the women that I know, 1 in 10 are as you describe: status driven, husbands working like dogs to buy bigger and bigger houses, cars, holidays, don't have a college education or career themselves BUT are almost always VERY attractive physically and spend a lot of time in the gym keeping it that way - in general not the type I would even bother saying hello to. I have no time for them and they give all of us a bad name. When they divorce they take NO prisoners and don't mind using their kids as footballs when it comes to getting the biggest share of the assets they can. Ugh!

PS Cohabitation? where I live, after 2 years of living together your legal rights become the same as if you were married - it's called de-facto. The construct of marriage will always be with us because of children who should ideally be brought into a secure and happy home. Doesn't always work out like that & boy do I know it!!!


----------



## weightlifter

I got a kick of the tabloid headline about the bachelor.

"Why he will never settle for one woman"

The captain obvious answer: Because he does not have to. He gets propositioned 5 times a week.


----------



## Graywolf2

This is by the same woman and is great:


Look out! It's a Nice Guy! DESTROY HIM!!11! - YouTube


----------



## bigtone128

Funny here is a thought I had today about this alpha male theory - my ex met me and I was an alpha male and she was drawn to me and over years she continually worked to get me to see she was right most of the time and over time I did - but by doing so, she became less attractive to me and lost respect for me....ironic is it not. I find this is a common pattern in relationships.


----------



## Dyokemm

" I do not know if I am being more selective or if women have changed - but I find fewer I would be willing to marry."

bigtone.

I think that your experience has just opened your eyes to what has always been true.

I think we have been socially conditioned to an extent to always put women on a pedestal of sorts.

I can't remember what specifically opened my own eyes to this... I do know it was after the serious gf I had that actually cheated (the only time I know it happened with my R's), but I know that at some point I began to realize that women are NOT the innocent, non=players, basically 'good' stereotype I was raised to view them as.

I do not view them as any more deceptive, disloyal, or 'evil' (for lack of a better term) than any man is, but I no longer view them as inherently 'better'.

They are simply no better than us men. There is NO PEDESTAL and those of us raised as I was were essentially believing in a false view of reality.

I guess my point is that women have ALWAYS been this way. Most of us men were just raised to see them differently.


----------



## bryanp

Do you know why married men die earlier than single men?..............................It is because they want to


----------



## 86857

Well chaps, I'm a writer - not famous - still have the day job. Sigh! Anyway, some years ago I wrote a piece called "The Sisterhood - Are You Kidding Me?".

For those of you too young to remember, the 'sisterhood' was a term used in the 1970s when feminism took hold. BTW I never did burn my bra - there used to be protests in parks where women would burn their bras, I was in my first year in university and I thought that particular action was rather foolish! 

But, I was very much in favour of feminism in the way I saw it. For me it was the same as the concept of justice. If I do the same job as a man, then I should get the same pay. In those days women on average got paid 20 or 30% less than their male counterparts for doing the same work. In fact in some industries it persists today, Equally it was VERY hard for women to get promoted - for instance become a judge after a long and illustrious career as a barrister. I could go on about the true injustices that existed. 

Years later, I thought about what 'the sisterhood' had become because the term was still bandied around. With my own eyes, I have seen women stab each other in the back in the workplace, I've been stabbed a few times myself LOL . Some female politicians where I live scare me because they are so hard-assed, especially when it comes to social justice - health care and the like. Crikey! 

And when it comes to romance? Sheesh! You chaps do know don't you that if my H had an A, there's a good chance that it would be with my best friend. :slap: I haven't been a victim of that but I know at least 5 women who have. I have worked in a male profession all my life and sometimes the guys forget that I'm there. I've heard them on occasion comment on a friend's hot wife but they have quickly added that they would never 'cut another man's lunch'. With romance my own experience is that men are more loyal to their guy friends in this matter than women are to their girlfriends. I could be wrong. On all other counts I agree. Women are just the same as men. For every b&stard, there's a b*tch waiting around the corner. Scsue the terminology - blush.  

I should add that I know some women in their late twenties early thirties, smart professionals I suppose you would call them and I have heard them say, with my OWN EARS that they wouldn't even think of dating a guy who wasn't worth a million dollars. Made me sad really. Romance for them anyway is gone. 

No we're not all the touchy, feely, soft people you might have been raised to believe. *We're just the same as men!*

My piece ended with: "Are you kidding me? The sisterhood is dead and gone, and to be honest I'm not even sure it ever existed". 

There you have it chaps. I'm ready for a hail of bullets because I sure got one when I wrote that piece. 

ETA: I just remembered I was a victim of the romance thing - in a small way. A year or so after my divorce a gf & I met a guy socially & used to bump into him. She kept telling me he was interested in me and he did seem to engage me in conversation more than others in the group. One night we were at a party and he was there. She said excitedly, he's here - he'll probably make a move on you. I circulated and chatted to various people and at one stage noticed that my gf was deep in conversation with him but didn't think anything of it. I then played a song or two on the guitar - someone had brought one along and afterwards I looked up to see her sitting in a corner with him have a big snogging session. "She's going to swallow his head" I thought. I feared for the poor man. 

Anyway, y'all have a good day!:smcowboy:


----------



## brokeneric

No marriage for me again, ever.


----------



## weightlifter

********** said:


> I should add that I know some women in their late twenties early thirties, smart professionals I suppose you would call them and I have heard them say, with my OWN EARS that they wouldn't even think of dating a guy who wasn't worth a million dollars. Made me sad really. Romance for them anyway is gone.


And the pool of male millionaires not:
1) Happily bedding the line of (hopefully) single females, these men have zero desire to settle for one vagina when they get 200 vaginas a year AND get to leave the seat up and throw their underwear on the floor without protest. 
Never could figure out how come women could never figure out how a toilet seat works. :scratchhead: #throwbomb and run!
2) Millionaires who married before they made it. Where while they know the woman in his life, probably saw his potential, she still took a chance on him when he was nobody.

You are Aussie right?
Does Australia have a HUGE demographic problem coming up in the fact that women getting degrees outnumber men 1.5 to 1?! Again women chasing a shrinking pool of prime males.


----------



## 86857

weightlifter said:


> You are Aussie right?
> Does Australia have a HUGE demographic problem coming up in the fact that women getting degrees outnumber men 1.5 to 1?! Again women chasing a shrinking pool of prime males.


I'm not an Aussie WL but I live here at the moment. 

To be honest I don't know if that demographic problem exists here. Certainly I know that now, far more girls get into university than boys which would suggest that it does. 

I will get back to you on that.


----------



## lisab0105

Omg, it took everything I had to watch that trash all the way through. Talk about someone desperate for throngs of male approval while bashing us mid - thirties females chalk full a "baggage".


----------



## richie33

Same feeling millions of men got who got stuck ever watching Oprah.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Emptyshelldad said:


> And thus far no one has been able to show me or tell us any "benefit" that marriage has over cohabitation. I mean other than the fairy tale aspect, or some would argue the religious aspect. Though I'm also a huge believer that Jesus would not approve of the way the government is being in charge of marriage And divorce, so the religious argument would be hard for me as well. Though I would potentially go through a marriage ceremony so long as there were no legal ramifications for such action.
> 
> There are just too many ways that men stand to lose from this modern day marriage that I don't see how it's better for them to marry then to just stay committed even living together, without the paperwork.
> 
> And to the woman who claims her "husband" could have just walked away, I agree, he has a choice and he should have exercised that choice by leaving any person who puts an ultimatum on a relationship saying either we marry or I'm done.
> 
> That would tell me that I mean less to her, than her desire to marry. In which case if the idea of marrying is more important to her than being with the perfect person for her in all other ways, this would seem a marriage doomed to either fail or have one or both parties unhappy with their decision in the end.



I'll try to explain my motivation as to why I wasn't willing to cohabitate. I am deeply offended by the insinuation of a number of men that somehow men are doing us a big fat favor to marry us; the implication is that they bring much more to the table and are thus somehow risking more. I love my husband deeply, and wanted to be his wife, but there is certainly a business aspect to this as so many men are fond of pointing out. In my case, this is a second marriage for both of us and neither of us wanted more kids, so child support is a moot point. But the fact is that I have quite a good career and bring my own income and assets to the marriage, so cohabitating can become very messy. For example; my husband bought our house right before we got married with the intent of us living here together. So if we simply cohabitate it's his house; fine, except that I'm paying just as many bills as him, so why should he benefit by owning a house and building equity but I don't? Since we're married I don't feel the need to bean count over who paid for what (and I pay for plenty) because legally his is mine and mine is his, but if we weren't married there'd be a lot more bean counting. It's very risky to mix funds, assets, and especially debts with someone you aren't married to and judges do not like trying to split assets between non married as it's tough to track down what's his and hers. 

How does he benefit you ask? My husband's standard of living went up when he married me because his household income almost doubled; I make almost as much as him and soon I will make more because of differences in our fields, and as I'm younger I have a lot more good working years than he does. We share chores, so before he'd come home after a long day and have to make dinner; now it's often made. He knows that if he loses his job he's not on his own, I've got his back. When he retires before me, and he will because he's older, he still gets to benefit from my ever increasing income. I also do a lot of investing that he doesn't know anything about; clarification: he knows I invest, he just doesn't know anything about investing himself. If we weren't married I might not be as willing to share a lot of what I have because I'd have no legal protection. If we divorce what's it going to cost him? There's no alimony applicable here, we don't have kids together, and he'd still be better off financially for having been married to me even after we split assets. I get this might not apply if you marry someone that has significantly less that you, I'm just offering my own experience. I would've been fine with a prenup, but we chose not to go that route.

Even if my first marriage, which did have kids and he does pay child support, I'd tell you my ex still walked out in much better financial shape then when he came in. He had nothing but a bunch of debt when he married me; he left the marriage with assets, a paid for car (courtesy of my investing skills), nice furniture, investments in his name, and half a house which he later bought off of me for quite a good price. True he does pay child support but overall he's in much better shape; and his career progressed quite nicely while mine stalled while I stayed at home with our kids. I had to start over with very little while his career and retirement was going very well. FYI, I waived my right to his retirement. True he does see the kids less but he was never that interested in actually parenting anyway. Once, our younger son needed to go to the hospital and he called me, met me at the hospital with son, dropped him off, and left me to deal with it, so you can see how interested in dealing with the tougher parts of parenting he was. So you see that even in this case getting married benefited him.

I personally hardly know anyone that's married to a millionaire or cares if they ever meet one; I know one person that is married to a millionaire but they married at 18 and he wasn't when they married. She had no idea what he'd become, and they've been married over 30 years now. To his credit he hasn't traded her in for a younger model either, so kudos to both of them. I myself only wanted a guy that was gainfully employed in something that paid more than 8$/hr because I don't want to support someone else, but at the same time I don't expect a man to support me. You commented about someone that wanted marriage so bad that they were willing to drop someone that's a good match, but I could just as easily turn that around and ask why marriage is such a big deal if you think you're with the right person and it means a lot to them. It's just another disagreement you have to work out as a couple. Once again, it goes back to the idea that you bring so much more to the table and thus are risking more. Perhaps some men should spend a little more time evaluating aspects of a potential partner beyond how hot she is and how good in bed she is, then you might get a better partner where you wouldn't be risking nearly as much.


----------



## MSP

weightlifter said:


> Does Australia have a HUGE demographic problem coming up in the fact that women getting degrees outnumber men 1.5 to 1?! Again women chasing a shrinking pool of prime males.


I spent most of my life there and when I was at university there were ten scholarships available and not one of them was open to white males. You had to be a female to get any of them (other than a couple for aborigines/Torres Strait islanders). The female dean was interviewed about this apparent unfairness and she laughed and basically said that guys could go jump. 

It really sucks there. It's so bad. In some ways it's worse than the USA when it comes to men getting screwed over.


----------



## MovingAhead

lisab0105 said:


> Omg, it took everything I had to watch that trash all the way through. Talk about someone desperate for throngs of male approval while bashing us mid - thirties females chalk full a "baggage".


The point of the article that I enjoyed is the fact and it really is a fact is that most women don't give a damn what the man wants. They want what they want and don't stop to think what the man wants. That is just plain truth in the women I see today.

They want to take a man who they want and to plug him into their mold of what they want from him and to fix him a bit. 

Yeah, I'm not doing that.


----------



## MovingAhead

Lifeistooshort, your story is <.0001% here

My wife cheated -

I had to sell the only home the kids knew
I could only see my kids 50% of the time
I had to give her half of my 401k
She was a SaHM and did not work at all, her choice so I was screwed in court, because she cheated.

There was no justice in that. It was how the court saw things. Marriage crippled me and it is actually harming our kids.

The college fund, well that is just child support now and I can't pay for college. How great is that?

Courts are predisposed to women. I can testify to how I got the shaft by a woman Master. That was utter bunk.

So why should I ever get married again after being screwed over by a wife who decided to cheat?

I may. If I find the right woman, I may, but I will definitely have a pre-nup.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

"I should add that I know some women in their late twenties early thirties, smart professionals I suppose you would call them and I have heard them say, with my OWN EARS that they wouldn't even think of dating a guy who wasn't worth a million dollars. Made me sad really. Romance for them anyway is gone. "

And these women think that millionaire men grow on trees and that they'll choose them over a 100 other women they can bed after 2 martinis?

I have a friend who's more than pretty well off. Women like the ones you describe are precisely the kind that he "pumps and dumps," as he says. No way in hell does he want to get hooked up with one of them. He drives a real nice BMW, affectionately named the pu$$y wagon, because when he wants some, he drives around in that.

The only woman he'd even think of marrying would be one as rich and successful as he is, so he says.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MovingAhead said:


> Lifeistooshort, your story is <.0001% here
> 
> My wife cheated -
> 
> I had to sell the only home the kids knew
> I could only see my kids 50% of the time
> I had to give her half of my 401k
> She was a SaHM and did not work at all, her choice so I was screwed in court, because she cheated.
> 
> There was no justice in that. It was how the court saw things. Marriage crippled me and it is actually harming our kids.
> 
> The college fund, well that is just child support now and I can't pay for college. How great is that?
> 
> Courts are predisposed to women. I can testify to how I got the shaft by a woman Master. That was utter bunk.
> 
> So why should I ever get married again after being screwed over by a wife who decided to cheat?
> 
> I may. If I find the right woman, I may, but I will definitely have a pre-nup.


I get that, and I'm sorry that happened. I think men should take a little more responsibility here though; not for cheating of course, so just remove the cheating for a moment. What if she had simply decided she didn't want to be married to you anymore? The issue here is that you have a stay at home spouse, and if you go along with that you do so with the understanding that everything you make is half theirs. If they decide to split for any reason, half your 401K is gone. Sucks, but that's the price you pay for having a stay at home spouse and is why this should always be a joint decision. Stay at home spouses allow a working spouses career to progress and typically lighten the working spouse's load, but you don't get that for free. If you don't want to assume the risk don't go along with a stay at home spouse, because in the end why they left you doesn't matter because assets are half theirs to do with as they please. If your wife simply refused to go back to work after you made clear that her staying at home was unacceptable, that would have been the time to walk. I get the argument that the cheating spouse is rewarded for being a jerk, but the flip side of what you call being rewarded for bad behavior is that you can't penalize someone for deciding they don't want to be married to you anymore, regardless of the reason. The fact is that the marital assets are still half theirs, and it's hard for me to believe that most stay at homes spouses that cheat and leave really end up better off. You know the other person typically doesn't work out. I do think that alimony should be completely phased out, and when it is employed it should be for a limited amount of time to get the stay at home on their feet and that's it. Child support is what it is, and you'd have to pay it for kids whether you get married or not. Though I do think that when 50/50 is possible that should be phased out as well, but there are difficulties there because you could well have a parent that simply refuses to pay for things they "feel" the kid doesn't need. My ex has argued with me over whether the boys need braces, which they clearly do. He just doesn't want to pay, but because he pays child support I don't have to have this argument.

I've said before that I think anyone that supports a stay at home spouse is out of their mind precisely because of risks like this, but I've gotten hammered by stay at home spouses. I'm not disputing the value of stay at home parents, I'm just saying that in my view it isn't worth the risk. But for those who feel differently, well that's their decision to make. Having done some time at home I certainly know how tough that job is; it just needs to be a joint decision with full understanding of the risks on both sides.

In the future, as you are evaluating potential partners, look for one that works and takes her work seriously. Plenty of women are like me and just want a partner to share life with, not one to take advantage of. Notice how guys on this board are almost universally told to find someone younger and hotter? Absolutely no mention of finding a good woman with a job, or a good woman that wants a partner. Nope, younger and hotter so someone's bruised ego can get a boost. Then they're b!tching about gold diggers. Thus my comment about men considering something besides hotness and bedroom skills.

I truly hope you find a good woman to be a partner


----------



## lisab0105

MovingAhead said:


> The point of the article that I enjoyed is the fact and it really is a fact is that most women don't give a damn what the man wants. They want what they want and don't stop to think what the man wants. That is just plain truth in the women I see today.
> 
> They want to take a man who they want and to plug him into their mold of what they want from him and to fix him a bit.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not doing that.


You have no idea what the general population of women are like. You got ****ed over by one and choose to base your opinion on the rest of us in the same light. It is RIDICULOUSLY narrow minded.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tdwal

A marriage is a wonderful institution, who wants to live in an institution?
Groucho Marks.


----------



## Nostromo

MovingAhead said:


> Lifeistooshort, your story is <.0001% here
> 
> My wife cheated -
> 
> I had to sell the only home the kids knew
> I could only see my kids 50% of the time
> I had to give her half of my 401k
> She was a SaHM and did not work at all, her choice so I was screwed in court, because she cheated.
> 
> There was no justice in that. It was how the court saw things. Marriage crippled me and it is actually harming our kids.
> 
> The college fund, well that is just child support now and I can't pay for college. How great is that?
> 
> Courts are predisposed to women. I can testify to how I got the shaft by a woman Master. That was utter bunk.
> 
> So why should I ever get married again after being screwed over by a wife who decided to cheat?
> 
> I may. If I find the right woman, I may, but I will definitely have a pre-nup.



"Social engineering" at it's worst. I hate our justice system sometimes.


----------



## 2galsmom

I don't find men not marrying to be a "problem."

It would have done me wonders if the one I was with had not gotten married.

What you do not see on TAM or elsewhere on the Internet as a mass presence are the people who do have a traditional marriage and it works. They do exist and moreover the 50% divorce rate is not true. FInd the TRUE statistics, who is tracking them? In fact it is very difficult to calculate the divorce rate as it varies by age. All you can do is look at the total of divorces for the year based on court records, each of those marriages took place different years of of people of different ages.

The divorce statistics thrown around are not reliable.

Personally I will never marry again, that is my choice, but had I made a video about the problems with men and why marriages do not work I would not have gotten away with it. This woman seems to, yet another double standard.

There was one study done where 20% of the men interviewed did not really want to get married on their wedding day, they were just going along with the women, well gentlemen, you own that mistake. 

Don't blame the woman, and next time, don't get married.


----------



## lisab0105

2ntnuf said:


> I do not mean to drop a bomb and run.
> 
> This is so curious to me. I cannot understand. I hope one of you ladies will help.
> 
> Why are you defending marriage so vehemently for all women? Why is it so important to all women? Women have, pretty much the same chances as men, for the most part. I mean, we have a woman here writing she makes the same and soon more than her husband. That's great. Why get married? Why so in favor of sharing finances and, "things"? If each has his/her own, what's the difference? I'm not coming out against marriage.
> 
> I'm actually quite curious because of the posts. I don't see any big deal. If you are single, you can do whatever you want without ever having to make sure it's okay with your spouse. You can eat, sleep, go to work, out for fun, or whatever, and no one has a right to say anything, as long as what you are doing is legal. I don't get it?
> 
> Why is that less desirable than sharing assets, liabilities, insurance, cars, work, household chores, etc.? Why is that less desirable than making sure the seat is down on the toilet and making sure you share your feelings and ideas? You have more freedom and can experience a much wider range of things to do when you are single and have friends. I've never experienced as much as a married person, as I did when I was single. The down side is, when you get old, you are alone.
> 
> The thing is, after menopause hits, you can find a woman for a friend and you can each sign a prenup or whatever you want to call it, and each keep what you have, but still have a companion. I'm talking when a man is in his sixties or older; at least fifties anyway. You'll bot have similar life experiences. All or most of the crap that everyone complains about will be gone, and there is much less chance that either will seek a divorce. It's just companionship and a little sex. At that point in life, most don't care for much more than a companion anyway. Most just want a good friend to live with and have help. That's when it would be good to be married. That's when two truly need each other. Men and women can marry a long-time friend who has been there for them. Love can be grown between the two, enough that they will be satisfied with life. Maybe I'm way off base here, but I don't think so. Not if we are talking what is logically best.



See and to me, there is nothing remote interesting about the single life you describe. I have never been married, just LTR...I hope that I meet someone who I trust and trusts me enough to make that giant leap with. Creating a bond with another person, and sharing life with them...getting the privilege of calling them my husband, that is a good life to me. I look forward to it. 

As for some of KS other points, I just don't want to make another post...
For the record, I am a single mom with 2 children by two different fathers  and I receive child support from one of them. I make a middle class closer to lower class salary and I rent and will probably have to rent for a very long time. I understand that according to this idiot broad making these videos, that I am probably in the undesirable category, but she and any other stuck up @ssclown that wants to think lower of someone in my situation with my kind of "baggage" can kiss my grits.:moon: 

Your (general public) baggage is no better than mine. I am a single mom because I was d*cked over like so many here.


----------



## Jasel

Never married and dont plan on it. Thats me though.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Yeah, I get what your saying. I've been around the block talking with women years ago. It's the same now, as then. Nothing really changes in that respect. It has to have something to do with responsibility. 

I do not see you as someone of less worth. I see you as being in a niche that will require a higher quality man. It is possible. I've seen it happen before. Those stereotypes you are talking of are falling away. I would, if you could, collect child support from the other bio-father as well. That will help you. It shows you are taking responsibility for the children which are not a new man's children. It makes you more attractive in a sense. Physically, I've seen your picture. At least I think that was you in your avatar, at one time. You've got nothing to worry about in the looks department. Your personality is attractive also. I've read some of your posts. You have quite a bit going for you. Don't count yourself out, please. 





lisab0105 said:


> See and to me, there is nothing remote interesting about the single life you describe. I have never been married, just LTR...I hope that I meet someone who I trust and trusts me enough to make that giant leap with. Creating a bond with another person, and sharing life with them...getting the privilege of calling them my husband, that is a good life to me. I look forward to it.
> 
> As for some of KS other points, I just don't want to make another post...
> For the record, I am a single mom with 2 children by two different fathers  and I receive child support from one of them. I make a middle class closer to lower class salary and I rent and will probably have to rent for a very long time. I understand that according to this idiot broad making these videos, that I am probably in the undesirable category, but she and any other stuck up @ssclown that wants to think lower of someone in my situation with my kind of "baggage" can kiss my grits.:moon:
> 
> Your (general public) baggage is no better than mine. I am a single mom because I was d*cked over like so many here.


----------



## lifeistooshort

2ntnuf, I assume you were talking about me with the same income comment. Is it your intent to suggest that the reason a woman might want to get married is to take financial advantage of a man, thus why would I want to do it? I hope not. Look, I don't care who gets married and who doesn't, that's everybody's right to decide. I got b!tched out here because I had the blanking nerve to make clear what I wanted; somehow that translates to nobody cares what men want. What is really implied by this attitude is that men should be able to have a relationship on their terms with the person of their choosing. Not so, I can decide whether things are working for me and my hb can decide the same thing. If you don't want to get married then don't. Whether you like your freedom, you think you can do better, you think you bring a ton to the table, whatever, don't get married if it's not what you want.

I think marriage, to some degree, represents a certain amount of security to a lot of women. I don't understand the issue with that; certainly women are expected to understand a mans biological need for sex (and according to some men lots of porn), but our need for security is poo poo'd because it may not suit some men. A man that refuses marriage, imo, is one that wants to keep one foot out the door, just in case. But like I said, that's only my opinion and you're free to ignore it and make your own decisions. I'm not interested in a friend, I want passion and a fully committed life partner, but that's just me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2galsmom

But it isn't the job of men to make women happy!

THAT is the problem. That is the point!

Nor is it the job of women to make men happy.

A woman's self esteem, her comfort with sex, is all UP TO HER.

The "problem" with marriage is that people go in expecting things from it, on both sides. People will not listen to divorced people, oh you are jaded, well, we have wisdom. So many people glorify a LTR because of "perceived" benefits.

Go into a relationship and NOT expect it to give you happiness, NOT expect it to give your financial stability or upward mobility, do NOT expect a person to put up with whatever low level of behavior you dish out and you will BE HAPPY.

Lisab - marriage is not the be all end all, get someone who doesn't want to be your life partner and it is living hell. IT IS OKAY NOT TO GET MARRIED. A divorce is the most painful thing many people report experiencing, beating out a death of loved one.

Society has evolved faster than people and marriage. How we look at marriage is changing, like it or not. If you are truly interested in exploring the evolution of marriage and not trying to shove of modern relationships into traditional molds I suggest looking at 

3 Questions To Ask Yourself Before You Enter A Relationship


It explores expectations, we bring expectations to the marriage as "women" right and wrong, men do the same thing. If you want to get married, ask What is the marriage for?

A partner in old age? Don't need marriage for that.
To love someone unconditionally? Don't need marriage for that.
To have great sex? Don't need marriage for that.
To be a faithful? Marriage doesn't guarantee that. Don't need marriage for that.
Finances? Don't need marriage for that and if you do BEWARE.
To save someone and feel good about yourself? NEVER a good idea.
To continue to be with someone who serves your ego? Don't need marriage for that.
To please God. You can please God without marriage.

etc. etc.

I don't agree with everything Karen says and I think she needs better staging than her distracting kitchen but if you want to marry and have it work, you need to think differently than a marriage contract binding another person and bending them to the will of what you THINK a marriage should be.


----------



## 2ntnuf

lifeistooshort said:


> 2ntnuf, I assume you were talking about me with the same income comment. *Is it your intent to suggest that the reason a woman might want to get married is to take financial advantage of a man,* thus why would I want to do it? I hope not. Look, I don't care who gets married and who doesn't, that's everybody's right to decide. I got b!tched out here because I had the blanking nerve to make clear what I wanted; somehow that translates to nobody cares what men want. What is really implied by this attitude is that men should be able to have a relationship on their terms with the person of their choosing. Not so, I can decide whether things are working for me and my hb can decide the same thing. If you don't want to get married then don't. Whether you like your freedom, you think you can do better, you think you bring a ton to the table, whatever, don't get married if it's not what you want.
> 
> I think marriage, to some degree, represents a certain amount of security to a lot of women. I don't understand the issue with that; certainly women are expected to understand a mans biological need for sex (and according to some men lots of porn), but our need for security is poo poo'd because it may not suit some men. A man that refuses marriage, imo, is one that wants to keep one foot out the door, just in case. But like I said, that's only my opinion and you're free to ignore it and make your own decisions. I'm not interested in a friend, I want passion and a fully committed life partner, but that's just me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No. I didn't read the rest and won't. Sorry, that's my arrogant nature or the fact that I feel like I was just disrespected, depending on your point of view.


----------



## lifeistooshort

2ntnuf said:


> No. I didn't read the rest and won't. Sorry, that's my arrogant nature or the fact that I feel like I was just disrespected, depending on your point of view.



Well I'm sorry you feel that way, it wasn't intended. Your loss.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lisab0105

2galsmom said:


> But it isn't the job of men to make women happy!
> 
> THAT is the problem. That is the point!
> 
> Nor is it the job of women to make men happy.
> 
> A woman's self esteem, her comfort with sex, is all UP TO HER.
> 
> The "problem" with marriage is that people go in expecting things from it, on both sides. People will not listen to divorced people, oh you are jaded, well, we have wisdom. So many people glorify a LTR because of "perceived" benefits.
> 
> Go into a relationship and NOT expect it to give you happiness, NOT expect it to give your financial stability or upward mobility, do NOT expect a person to put up with whatever low level of behavior you dish out and you will BE HAPPY.
> 
> *Lisab - marriage is not the be all end all, get someone who doesn't want to be your life partner and it is living hell. IT IS OKAY NOT TO GET MARRIED. A divorce is the most painful thing many people report experiencing, beating out a death of loved one.*
> 
> Society has evolved faster than people and marriage. How we look at marriage is changing, like it or not. If you are truly interested in exploring the evolution of marriage and not trying to shove of modern relationships into traditional molds I suggest looking at
> 
> 3 Questions To Ask Yourself Before You Enter A Relationship
> 
> 
> It explores expectations, we bring expectations to the marriage as "women" right and wrong, men do the same thing. If you want to get married, ask What is the marriage for?
> 
> A partner in old age? Don't need marriage for that.
> To love someone unconditionally? Don't need marriage for that.
> To have great sex? Don't need marriage for that.
> To be a faithful? Marriage doesn't guarantee that. Don't need marriage for that.
> Finances? Don't need marriage for that and if you do BEWARE.
> To save someone and feel good about yourself? NEVER a good idea.
> To continue to be with someone who serves your ego? Don't need marriage for that.
> To please God. You can please God without marriage.
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> I don't agree with everything Karen says and I think she needs better staging than her distracting kitchen but if you want to marry and have it work, you need to think differently than a marriage contract binding another person and bending them to the will of what you THINK a marriage should be.


2gals, I know it is okay not to get married. I am 35. I have been in 3 ltr, in all 3 I cohabited with them. One ended because he died, the other ended after 9 years there just wasn't any love there and he wasn't nice to me and the 3rd cheated and physically hurt me. A LTR ending hurts the same as someone getting divorced, they are just a little cheaper. 

I just happen to think it is still a lovely tradition as long the two people doing it are right for each other and prepared to take the leap of faith. IF it is meant to happen for me with the right guy, I welcome it with open arms and without reservation.


----------



## lisab0105

I do want to add just one more thing...I can count on two hands how many time I have read a guy on TAM talk about dating, and saying that when they meet a woman in her thirties and forties who has never been married or is divorced they wonder what is wrong with her. :wtf::bsflag:

So on one hand you have men saying Marriage isn't necessary, on the other hand you have some of those same men insinuating there must be something wrong with us if someone doesn't want to be or stay married to us?!!? WTF is that? Honestly, this place is full of double speak and contradictory BS, it is f'cking annoying.


----------



## 2ntnuf

lisab0105 said:


> I do want to add just one more thing...I can count on two hands how many time I have read a guy on TAM talk about dating, and saying that when they meet a woman in her thirties and forties who has never been married or is divorced they wonder what is wrong with her. :wtf::bsflag:
> 
> So on one hand you have men saying Marriage isn't necessary, on the other hand you have some of those same men insinuating there must be something wrong with us if someone doesn't want to be or stay married to us?!!? WTF is that? Honestly, this place is full of double speak and contradictory BS, it is f'cking annoying.


I think, what you aren't considering is, there are different ways of thinking. For example: Some men and women consider it a wonderful idea to have as many partners as a person can. It enhances their value. I don't disagree with how they believe. I don't, however, hold that to be true. I believe it's better to have serious, long-term relationships. Some believe that's bad because it means the persons are not suitable since they have been tested and failed. 

Truly at issue is this. We all need to find someone that is most compatible with us. We are ever changing beings that have individual thoughts unlike any other human being. That is the gist of it. Sometimes, I say things I will not do or cannot do myself, but see value in. It's just being an open-minded person. 

I think, if you think marriage is the best route to happiness, don't go looking for it with a guy that has been single all his life if you haven't. It's as simple as he does not think the same way you do, and never ever will. Never. He can't nor can she, in the opposite scenario. It makes perfect sense that we want what we don't have. We think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence we can't see through, even when we are single. The saying applies to singles and married, looking to be unfaithful or leave a marriage for someone else. We don't know all the little things that make the other life less attractive because they don't want us to know those weaknesses. In some cases of, I wish I didn't do that, these folks know, misery loves company. They want others to know their misery, so they don't feel so alone. They want others to be fooled like they were, into believing something that is not right for them. You have to be careful and decide your own paths. Know thy self. Then, you have a better chance at finding someone who will be similar to you. You will also know what you want and don't want.


----------



## lostmyreligion

lifeistooshort said:


> Yeah, I feel tremendous guilt for having the nerve to speak up for what I want. Poor men are entitled to have a relationship in any form that works for them, and women would do well to accept that.
> Nobody pressured him into anything; he was free to walk if what he wanted didn't mesh with what I wanted. We see that all the time here: hubby wants lots of sex and wife doesn't, and he's told to let her know that he wants sex or he'll walk. Perhaps all such men should feel guilty for pushing what they want regardless of how their wives feel? Ridiculous. If everyone was clearer about what they wanted there would be more happy marriages/ relationships. If you don't want marriage find someone that agrees with you. It's not your right to have a relationship with the person of your choice completely on your terms.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It was all bombs and rockets, oxytocin and endorphins when I met my wife. From bar to her bedroom in three hours flat. True lust at first sight.

At the same time I met my oldest (step)daughter. She was 2 1/2 yrs old. In the time that it took to pick her up from the babysitter's to getting her into her bed and making sure she was asleep, I was head over heels, truly in love with the child. In less than a week I was wrapped firmly around her little finger and that's where I remain happily parked 20 yrs later.

One night about a month after we'd met and in between rounds in the sack, W and I were having a smoke on the back stoop. She got quiet and said "I really enjoy screwing you."
I replied enthusiastically "Yeah, me too!!"
She looked me hard in the eye and said "The problem is my daughter is starting to get attached to you. I need to know where this is going and what you want out of this relationship. If it's just about the sex then we should leave it here. I don't want her to get hurt if she starts calling you 'daddy' - and then this flames out and you leave."

In that moment I realized that she placed her childs welfare above her own want's and desires, and I can honestly say it was hugely appealing.

I thought about it for the length of my cigarette and replied " I want more children"
She said "I don't want more children"
I shrugged and said "OK" and we went back in for more.

A week or so later we were back out on the stoop. She said "OK, here's the deal. If I'm going to pop out a kid for you I need three things. We need to get married, I need you to get a steady job, and I want to go to Europe."
At that point in my life, these seemed like pretty far-off goals and really, at that particular moment, all I wanted to do was go back in and get busy again.

So I said "Deal".

Three years later, after we'd been married and gone to Europe for our honeymoon, I came home from my steady job and sat down for dinner. She sat next to me and said "Well if we're going to do this we'd better get at it"
I looked at her confused and said "What the hell are you talking about?"
She said "If we're going to have another kid, I need to have my birth control yanked and we need to start trying."

I had forgotten entirely about our deal. But she hadn't. And because I had held up my end of the bargain she was stepping up to plate to fulfill hers.

We ended up having two more. 

My point to the whole narrative above is that I think you're mostly right Life. I'm in sales and I can honestly say that was the best deal that I've ever made.

That said, I don't think for a moment that I would marry again if all I wanted and expected from it was a forever faithful, loving spouse.


----------



## lifeistooshort

lostmyreligion said:


> It was all bombs and rockets, oxytocin and endorphins when I met my wife. From bar to her bedroom in three hours flat. True lust at first sight.
> 
> At the same time I met my oldest (step)daughter. She was 2 1/2 yrs old. In the time that it took to pick her up from the babysitter's to getting her into her bed and making sure she was asleep, I was head over heels, truly in love with the child. In less than a week I was wrapped firmly around her little finger and that's where I remain happily parked 20 yrs later.
> 
> One night about a month after we'd met and in between rounds in the sack, W and I were having a smoke on the back stoop. She got quiet and said "I really enjoy screwing you."
> I replied enthusiastically "Yeah, me too!!"
> She looked me hard in the eye and said "The problem is my daughter is starting to get attached to you. I need to know where this is going and what you want out of this relationship. If it's just about the sex then we should leave it here. I don't want her to get hurt if she starts calling you 'daddy' - and then this flames out and you leave."
> 
> In that moment I realized that she placed her childs welfare above her own want's and desires, and I can honestly say it was hugely appealing.
> 
> I thought about it for the length of my cigarette and replied " I want more children"
> She said "I don't want more children"
> I shrugged and said "OK" and we went back in for more.
> 
> A week or so later we were back out on the stoop. She said "OK, here's the deal. If I'm going to pop out a kid for you I need three things. We need to get married, I need you to get a steady job, and I want to go to Europe."
> At that point in my life, these seemed like pretty far-off goals and really, at that particular moment, all I wanted to do was go back in and get busy again.
> 
> So I said "Deal".
> 
> Three years later, after we'd been married and gone to Europe for our honeymoon, I came home from my steady job and sat down for dinner. She sat next to me and said "Well if we're going to do this we'd better get at it"
> I looked at her confused and said "What the hell are you talking about?"
> She said "If we're going to have another kid, I need to have my birth control yanked and we need to start trying."
> 
> I had forgotten entirely about our deal. But she hadn't. And because I had held up my end of the bargain she was stepping up to plate to fulfill hers.
> 
> We ended up having two more.
> 
> My point to the whole narrative above is that I think you're mostly right Life. I'm in sales and I can honestly say that was the best deal that I've ever made.
> 
> That said, I don't think for a moment that I would marry again if all I wanted and expected from it was a forever faithful, loving spouse.



That's a lovely story, thank you for sharing it. I didn't mention it but my two boys were two and five at the time we met and they were a big consideration for me as well. The first thing I ever noticed about my hb was that he was hot and I wanted him. I found out later what a great guy he was. I agree that marriage is never a guarantee of love and fidelity, but life seldom comes with any type of guarantee. Except death and taxes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf

lifeistooshort said:


> Yeah, I feel tremendous guilt for having the nerve to speak up for what I want. Poor men are entitled to have a relationship in any form that works for them, and women would do well to accept that.


This is simply bitterness. I do understand bitterness. I am very bitter most times. I try every day to be determined to hide it and force myself to think from a different perspective. It isn't easy. 



lifeistooshort said:


> Nobody pressured him into anything; he was free to walk if what he wanted didn't mesh with what I wanted. We see that all the time here: hubby wants lots of sex and wife doesn't, and he's told to let her know that he wants sex or he'll walk.


It's called stating what you want, just like you talk about. It's just that the person receiving the message, has a different perspective, so they don't hear it the way it was meant. 

By the way, I was the LD in my last marriage. Do you understand my perspective is being forced by me, to change?

Letting you know what is expected, gives you the respect you deserve to allow you to determine what you want to do about the situation. You can choose many different things. You can choose as many as you can think of. You can get help to become aware of more possibilities. By the way, she cheated on me because I was LD. 



lifeistooshort said:


> Perhaps all such men should feel guilty for pushing what they want regardless of how their wives feel? Ridiculous. If everyone was clearer about what they wanted there would be more happy marriages/ relationships. If you don't want marriage find someone that agrees with you. It's not your right to have a relationship with the person of your choice completely on your terms.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Looks like we all agree on that. 



lifeistooshort said:


> 2ntnuf, I assume you were talking about me with the same income comment. Is it your intent to suggest that the reason a woman might want to get married is to take financial advantage of a man, thus why would I want to do it? I hope not. Look, I don't care who gets married and who doesn't, that's everybody's right to decide. I got b!tched out here because I had the blanking nerve to make clear what I wanted; somehow that translates to nobody cares what men want.


What was the tone of your post? Did you explain or assume the ones misunderstanding were oafs and simpletons who would never understand?




lifeistooshort said:


> What is really implied by this attitude is that men should be able to have a relationship on their terms with the person of their choosing. Not so, I can decide whether things are working for me and my hb can decide the same thing. If you don't want to get married then don't. Whether you like your freedom, you think you can do better, you think you bring a ton to the table, whatever, don't get married if it's not what you want.


I bring nothing to the table, but myself, lits. That's why I did not answer and was hurt by your comments. You don't know me. You are assuming that all men think alike. It's as bad as what you accuse men of doing. 

Men and women, looking to be in a relationship should have the right to choose who they want to attempt to find connection with. Each has the right to learn about themselves and choose the best partner for themselves. We aren't talking about a man grabbing a woman by the hair and dragging her away. That's against the law and only fun if they are into Sado/Maso. So, no, I don't think you are correct in your assumptions. I think you are rightly angry and hurt from your last relationship. I think you are not ready to think about what you want in terms of compatibility and acceptance of others because of that hurt. I am sorry you were hurt and felt abandoned and disrespected. I'm sorry you felt controlled and forced to do what you didn't want to do. 

We all have choices. We have to accept that those choices may not be the ideal we think we deserve. Most times, they are not what we truly deserve, they are much less. 



lifeistooshort said:


> I think marriage, to some degree, represents a certain amount of security to a lot of women.


Only to those women, AND, men who have not found that security through their own means and capabilities, talents, education, standing in life. I am one of them who thought I had a little security in my marriage. Does that make it a traditional marriage or more of a new age type marriage, when she makes much more than me and has utilized her talents in a better manner than I have? Do you see why we need to step back away from our own thoughts, sometimes and take a look from a different angle?



lifeistooshort said:


> I don't understand the issue with that; certainly women are expected to understand a mans biological need for sex (and according to some men lots of porn), but our need for security is poo poo'd because it may not suit some men.


It is important for a woman to stand on her own, make the money she can and build a life for herself, before she puts herself into a position of having to play slave to a man. 



lifeistooshort said:


> A man that refuses marriage, imo, is one that wants to keep one foot out the door, just in case. But like I said, that's only my opinion and you're free to ignore it and make your own decisions. I'm not interested in a friend, I want passion and a fully committed life partner, but that's just me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What the heck is a life partner? You can get that from dating the same guy, just one, and living in separate dwellings. You don't have to share all. You can still be committed in the way you state you want, right here. Friends don't have sex. Lovers do. 



lifeistooshort said:


> That's a lovely story, thank you for sharing it. I didn't mention it but my two boys were two and five at the time we met and they were a big consideration for me as well. The first thing I ever noticed about my hb was that he was hot and I wanted him. I found out later what a great guy he was. I agree that marriage is never a guarantee of love and fidelity, but life seldom comes with any type of guarantee. Except death and taxes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Look at how you have revealed what you value. You value a man taking care of you financially and supporting your children in their lives. 

There is nothing wrong with that, if you can find a man that wants to do it. Like I said, they are out there. They are not easy to find and this guy above is a quality man. He saw the need, thought about what he wanted and what he could responsibly handle, and went for it. He's a great guy. They are out there. Go get one!


----------



## DarkHoly

lisab0105 said:


> I do want to add just one more thing...I can count on two hands how many time I have read a guy on TAM talk about dating, and saying that when they meet a woman in her thirties and forties who has never been married or is divorced they wonder what is wrong with her. :wtf::bsflag:
> 
> So on one hand you have men saying Marriage isn't necessary, on the other hand you have some of those same men insinuating there must be something wrong with us if someone doesn't want to be or stay married to us?!!? WTF is that? Honestly, this place is full of double speak and contradictory BS, it is f'cking annoying.


You can't take certain opinions of some, pair them with contrary opinions of others, and then claim that there's a contradiction or double standard. That's like saying that because America has people who are Christians and others who are Buddhists that America is contradicting itself theologically.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Karen Straughan - Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?*



2galsmom said:


> Don't blame the woman, and next time, don't get married.


Looks like everyone is getting their wish ... except women that want to marry wondering where all the good men have gone.


----------



## Counterfit

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm not sure my husband was that anxious to remarry, until I told him that I wanted marriage and if he didn't I understood but I would keep my options open. Then he jumped on the train, heck he even planned most of the wedding. Now he says he doesn't know why he waited so long to marry me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Supply met demand and a transaction occurred. 

In other words by "keeping your options open" you let him know that if you found a higher bidder for the "services you provide" you would "trade up" and take the better deal. This happens billions of times every day from the stock market to back alleys where crack ho give bj's for $5.00.

You provided a service and threatened to remove that service should you get a better offer and you found a sucker to fall for it - he in turn signed a contract which is NOT in his best long-term interest in exchange for keeping the services you provide.

Congratulations on your new found "love"....


----------



## WorkingOnMe

It was a direct threat.


----------



## DarkHoly

Counterfit said:


> Supply met demand and a transaction occurred.
> 
> In other words by "keeping your options open" you let him know that if you found a higher bidder for the "services you provide" you would "trade up" and take the better deal. This happens billions of times every day from the stock market to back alleys where crack ho give bj's for $5.00.
> 
> You provided a service and threatened to remove that service should you get a better offer and you found a sucker to fall for it - he in turn signed a contract which is NOT in his best long-term interest in exchange for keeping the services you provide.
> 
> Congratulations on your new found "love"....


Something about that post made me just a little uncomfortable and you articulated what it was.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Counterfit said:


> Supply met demand and a transaction occurred.
> 
> In other words by "keeping your options open" you let him know that if you found a higher bidder for the "services you provide" you would "trade up" and take the better deal. This happens billions of times every day from the stock market to back alleys where crack ho give bj's for $5.00.
> 
> You provided a service and threatened to remove that service should you get a better offer and you found a sucker to fall for it - he in turn signed a contract which is NOT in his best long-term interest in exchange for keeping the services you provide.
> 
> Congratulations on your new found "love"....



Sorry you're so bitter. We've been together almost 10 years and are pretty darn happy; how's your personal life? I'm sorry the crack ho you wanted wasn't interested.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

There certainly are a lot of nasty, bitter men in here. Big loss to womankind that some of you don't want to get married again. I'll sign off now and go spend time with my loving hubby, who I've been with happily almost 10 years. I think I'll tell him I'm really his bought and paid for ho, he'll get a kick out of that. You all enjoy you awesome personal lives!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

2galsmom said:


> What you do not see on TAM or elsewhere on the Internet as a mass presence are the people who do have a traditional marriage and it works. They do exist and moreover the 50% divorce rate is not true. FInd the TRUE statistics, who is tracking them?


Quite correct. Only 30-33% of first marriages end in divorce. As already pointed out, it's the 3X and 4x crowd who are driving down the average. Unfortunately for society, fewer people are getting married at all and those who do are increasingly from the higher earning/educated segments of society.


----------



## MovingAhead

lisab0105 said:


> You have no idea what the general population of women are like. You got ****ed over by one and choose to base your opinion on the rest of us in the same light. It is RIDICULOUSLY narrow minded.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


First of all you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously you don't. Not even a single clue.

The point of marriage is what? If I wasn't married to her, she would not have had access to my money. Yes she could get child support and alimony, but the things that honestly I worked for that were ripped away from me when we were divorced are what caused me to go broke. So if we just had kids together, the outcome would have been different. I would not have to give her any of my 401k. I would not have had to divvy up the assets like I did. In that respect alone, I was screwed by the fact we got married. Isn't that the point of the thread? Marriage...

You see if it were a bad marriage and she just wanted out, she would have just gotten out and left. She would have left with the clothes on her back and the kids and never looked back. That is not what happened. She decided that the marriage was over. She cheated and it was my fault and I have to pay. That is the truth of things in her eyes... If the marriage was so bad she would have just wanted to start over. That is not what happened. I was absolutely blind sided by everything that happened.

Also I have a great deal of knowledge about the 'general population' of women, at least the available ones. I have dated 29 different women since December and the general population of women are concerned about 'What I can do for them'. That is the absolute truth. I would say 24 out of the 29 women are like that.

They forget they need to bring their half to the table. I can do x for them. What are they willing to do in return? They want me to put all my cards on the table and then choose if they want me. That is the truth of most women. Let me see your cards too so I know if I want you. 

Let me point something out to you Lisa and let me be clear. I do NOT judge people by how other people have treated me. I judge them on their actions.

I am definitely more wary. I am not as open an trusting as I was but I treat everyone based on what they do and how they act.

I am not narrow minded. I know what I want in a woman. I sure as hell don't want someone who is extremely bitter.... just sayin


----------



## DarkHoly

MovingAhead said:


> First of all you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously you don't. Not even a single clue.
> 
> The point of marriage is what? If I wasn't married to her, she would not have had access to my money. Yes she could get child support and alimony, but the things that honestly I worked for that were ripped away from me when we were divorced are what caused me to go broke. So if we just had kids together, the outcome would have been different. I would not have to give her any of my 401k. I would not have had to divvy up the assets like I did. In that respect alone, I was screwed by the fact we got married. Isn't that the point of the thread? Marriage...
> 
> You see if it were a bad marriage and she just wanted out, she would have just gotten out and left. She would have left with the clothes on her back and the kids and never looked back. That is not what happened. She decided that the marriage was over. She cheated and it was my fault and I have to pay. That is the truth of things in her eyes... If the marriage was so bad she would have just wanted to start over. That is not what happened. I was absolutely blind sided by everything that happened.
> 
> Also I have a great deal of knowledge about the 'general population' of women, at least the available ones. I have dated 29 different women since December and the general population of women are concerned about 'What I can do for them'. That is the absolute truth. I would say 24 out of the 29 women are like that.
> 
> They forget they need to bring their half to the table. I can do x for them. What are they willing to do in return? They want me to put all my cards on the table and then choose if they want me. That is the truth of most women. Let me see your cards too so I know if I want you.
> 
> Let me point something out to you Lisa and let me be clear. I do NOT judge people by how other people have treated me. I judge them on their actions.
> 
> I am definitely more wary. I am not as open an trusting as I was but I treat everyone based on what they do and how they act.
> 
> I am not narrow minded. I know what I want in a woman. I sure as hell don't want someone who is extremely bitter.... just sayin


Logically speaking your post is sound. Iron clad. I would add only one caveat-- I don't believe Lisa to be bitter. Hurt and wary, just as many in this section, but I don't interpret it as bitter.


----------



## DarkHoly

FrenchFry said:


> On one hand, who can blame them Lifeistooshort. Some of them have been put through the wringer.
> 
> On the other hand, as you say...who gives a crap? You are married and happy and your husband, despite all the insinuations, decided that marriage was a good thing for him to enter into.
> 
> I guess I don't really care if men don't want to get married. The institution is going through pretty major changes and if it takes a bit of dust settling before it kicks back up again in a different, better form? Yay!
> 
> Until then, enjoy it.  Somehow I found a dude who wanted to be married more than I did. The unicorns, they are real!


They are.


----------



## The Cro-Magnon

lisab0105 said:


> Omg, it took everything I had to watch that trash all the way through. Talk about someone desperate for throngs of male approval while bashing us mid - thirties females chalk full a "baggage".


I really love the way you address the points she makes, and deconstruct/refute them, your counter arguments are really solid, and make me question my nascent red pill understanding of male female relations, and really make me want to get married to, and expose myself utterly, in a very real and legally binding sense, to a woman just like you.


----------



## lisab0105

The Cro-Magnon said:


> I really love the way you address the points she makes, and deconstruct/refute them, your counter arguments are really solid, and make me question my nascent red pill understanding of male female relations, and really make me want to get married to, and expose myself utterly, in a very real and legally binding sense, to a woman just like you.


I don't need to refute her garbage point by point. I was very clear about what I think her agenda is. And for the record, you WOULD be bloody f'cking lucky to have a woman "just like me".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lisab0105

MovingAhead said:


> First of all you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously you don't. Not even a single clue.
> 
> The point of marriage is what? If I wasn't married to her, she would not have had access to my money. Yes she could get child support and alimony, but the things that honestly I worked for that were ripped away from me when we were divorced are what caused me to go broke. So if we just had kids together, the outcome would have been different. I would not have to give her any of my 401k. I would not have had to divvy up the assets like I did. In that respect alone, I was screwed by the fact we got married. Isn't that the point of the thread? Marriage...
> 
> You see if it were a bad marriage and she just wanted out, she would have just gotten out and left. She would have left with the clothes on her back and the kids and never looked back. That is not what happened. She decided that the marriage was over. She cheated and it was my fault and I have to pay. That is the truth of things in her eyes... If the marriage was so bad she would have just wanted to start over. That is not what happened. I was absolutely blind sided by everything that happened.
> 
> Also I have a great deal of knowledge about the 'general population' of women, at least the available ones. I have dated 29 different women since December and the general population of women are concerned about 'What I can do for them'. That is the absolute truth. I would say 24 out of the 29 women are like that.
> 
> They forget they need to bring their half to the table. I can do x for them. What are they willing to do in return? They want me to put all my cards on the table and then choose if they want me. That is the truth of most women. Let me see your cards too so I know if I want you.
> 
> Let me point something out to you Lisa and let me be clear. I do NOT judge people by how other people have treated me. I judge them on their actions.
> 
> I am definitely more wary. I am not as open an trusting as I was but I treat everyone based on what they do and how they act.
> 
> I am not narrow minded. I know what I want in a woman. I sure as hell don't want someone who is extremely bitter.... just sayin


29 women since December and you are convinced that 1. Something was wrong with all of them, not you. 2. You really believe 29 women out of millions and millions gives YOU the inside scoop on how we are, what we think and what we want? You are the one that doesn't have a single freaking clue. I think you just have bad taste in women. 

And I can seriously only laugh at you calling me bitter. This post is full of angry men going on about the treachery that is the female species and marriage, yourself included...and I am bitter??? Give me a break.

Sorry FF, at the risk of getting banned I don't give two big f'cks that these "men" have been hurt. We've all been hurt, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It doesn't give them the right to be @ssholes to the females that aren't tripping over themselves agreeing that marriage and women are bad! bad! bad!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Karen Straughan - Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?*



lisab0105 said:


> 29 women since December and you are convinced that 1. Something was wrong with all of them, not you. 2. You really believe 29 women out of millions and millions gives YOU the inside scoop on how we are, what we think and what we want? You are the one that doesn't have a single freaking clue. I think you just have bad taste in women.
> 
> And I can seriously only laugh at you calling me bitter. This post is full of angry men going on about the treachery that is the female species and marriage, yourself included...and I am bitter??? Give me a break.
> 
> Sorry FF, at the risk of getting banned I don't give two big f'cks that these "men" have been hurt. We've all been hurt, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It doesn't give them the right to be @ssholes to the females that aren't tripping over themselves agreeing that marriage and women are bad! bad! bad!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are aware I hope, that you just did the very thing you are accusing Movingahead of having done. 
I actually reread the thread just to be sure. Several men state what happened in their case, and many of them claimed they wouldn't remarry and why. None of them said 'women are bad'.


----------



## wilderness

lisab0105 said:


> 29 women since December and you are convinced that 1. Something was wrong with all of them, not you. 2. You really believe 29 women out of millions and millions gives YOU the inside scoop on how we are, what we think and what we want? You are the one that doesn't have a single freaking clue. I think you just have bad taste in women.
> 
> And I can seriously only laugh at you calling me bitter. This post is full of angry men going on about the treachery that is the female species and marriage, yourself included...and I am bitter??? Give me a break.
> 
> *Sorry FF, at the risk of getting banned I don't give two big f'cks that these "men" have been hurt. We've all been hurt, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It doesn't give them the right to be @ssholes to the females that aren't tripping over themselves agreeing that marriage and women are bad! bad! bad!*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Women don't lose in divorce and men lose everything. That is the problem. For some reason, just about every single woman that I've ever come across denies this self evident truth. I'm not quite sure why.


----------



## wilderness

FrenchFry said:


> I'll take a nice ass every day, thanks.
> 
> Women probably deny this to you because your anecdotes don't counter their anecdotes wilderness.
> 
> Which is something we all probably should remember.


I don't believe that's true. In this day and age everyone knows men that have lost custody, alimony, and assets in divorce. 

Actually, I believe it's a function of the feminist 'suck it up' philosophy. When men have their lives destroyed, their money stolen from them, and their children kidnapped, they should just suck it up.


----------



## Machiavelli

DarkHoly said:


> They are.



See? Even jackasses can understand the concept of "game."


----------



## Machiavelli

wilderness said:


> Actually, I believe it's a function of the feminist 'suck it up' philosophy. When men have their lives destroyed, their money stolen from them, and their children kidnapped, they should just suck it up.


This is why legal scholars tell us the days of lifetime alimony and full custody to the primarily custodial parent are numbered: more female primary breadwinners and more SAHDs. If the status quo were to continue, women will be making some big payouts in alimony and CS. Therefore, the status quo must end.


----------



## tom67

Machiavelli said:


> See? Even jackasses can understand the concept of "game."


:smthumbup:
What else is there to say.


----------



## wilderness

FrenchFry said:


> I also know women who have lost everything. Divorce sucks, sorry it didn't work out.


I find this hard to believe. Would you care to describe the circumstances surrounding the women that you know that have lost everything?


----------



## lostmyreligion

wilderness said:


> I find this hard to believe. Would you care to describe the circumstances surrounding the women that you know that have lost everything?


I'm genuinely curious as well.


----------



## 2galsmom

Deejo said:


> Looks like everyone is getting their wish ... except women that want to marry wondering where all the good men have gone.


There are women marrying and I agree with lisaB, for some marriage is a wonderful tradition and it works out okay.

I think the issue, as illuminated in this thread, is when you find someone with whom the wonderful tradition fails to work out, so the entire gender is blamed and condemned.

Oh where are the women who are acting like real women, the way women are SUPPOSED to behave, oh where or where have the real men gone, where are the men acting like they are supposed to behave? The way Gone with The Wind says they are or, well some other fictional text or one-sided self help book.

Think like that and any relationship is DOOMED.

Well then, all righty, all men must beat up their wives! I have known SEVERAL abusive men so it must be true then.

I love this thread and I have a whole post written on it that I will post in a week or so for my blog. 

This issue is expectations, you have a penis, I expect this. You have a vagina I expect this. I am right! I expect noble things and you are wrong as you are not delivering noble things and so on and so on.

Yes, MovingAhead, the people who rush to date and date in volume are often interviewing a mate, they are looking to see what the potential mate can do for them. Why are you dating? Why so many women? Is it for the joy of dating or to see if the woman with you at dinner has what you WANT in a woman and thus what she can do for you? You say you know what you want.

It is the same thing.

I can tell you, that you have tone careful about your expectations. If you don't find the a good person, it is better to have no one until a good person comes along and this all takes a lot of time, patience and letting go of obstinate views on what is right/wrong, in other words what is black and white.

I think everyone needs to re-evaluate what "should" be done in a relationship. Once again, it comes down to finding a person of character and integrity, not easy.

LMAO, I was looking for a Unicorn as well, just watch the Charlie and The Unicorn series on YouTube, no thanks. :rofl:

They steal kidneys.


----------



## wilderness

2galsmom said:


> There are women marrying and I agree with lisaB, for some marriage is a wonderful tradition and it works out okay.
> 
> I think the issue, as illuminated in this thread, is when you find someone with whom the wonderful tradition fails to work out, so the entire gender is blamed and condemned.
> 
> Oh where are the women who are acting like real women, the way women are SUPPOSED to behave, oh where or where have the real men gone, where are the men acting like they are supposed to behave? The way Gone with The Wind says they are or, well some other fictional text or one-sided self help book.
> 
> Think like that and any relationship is DOOMED.
> 
> Well then, all righty, all men must beat up their wives! I have known SEVERAL abusive men so it must be true then.
> 
> I love this thread and I have a whole post written on it that I will post in a week or so for my blog.
> 
> This issue is expectations, you have a penis, I expect this. You have a vagina I expect this. I am right! I expect noble things and you are wrong as you are not delivering noble things and so on and so on.
> 
> Yes, MovingAhead, the people who rush to date and date in volume are often interviewing a mate, they are looking to see what the potential mate can do for them. Why are you dating? Why so many women? Is it for the joy of dating or to see if the woman with you at dinner has what you WANT in a woman and thus what she can do for you? You say you know what you want.
> 
> It is the same thing.
> 
> I can tell you, that you have tone careful about your expectations. If you don't find the a good person, it is better to have no one until a good person comes along and this all takes a lot of time, patience and letting go of obstinate views on what is right/wrong, in other words what is black and white.
> 
> I think everyone needs to re-evaluate what "should" be done in a relationship. Once again, it comes down to finding a person of character and integrity, not easy.


I don't think you have the issues correct. I believe the issue is that women stand to gain everything from divorce and lose nothing. Whereas men stand to lose everything and gain nothing. Divorce is _encouraged_ by the system.


----------



## Broken at 20

Very interesting thread. With posts from bitter members of both sexes. Very eye opening. 

I'll also say, I am not going to marry. 

Not because I think all women are shallow, or gold diggers. I would like to believe they aren't. 
But from what I have observed from the general population of women that I see at work, and school, I believe that most women are generally shallow and wanting to know what I bring to the table. What's my potential, then they decide if I am worth their time. 
And I can understand that to some degree. I wouldn't date a girl I am not sexually attracted to, so I can't fault them. 

My reason for not marrying is because I have seen it at its worse. 
My mother was cheated on, and raked over the coals in the divorce. My dad got off free, she got stuck with the bills. 
I also have bastard blood flowing through my veins. Complements of my grandmother, back in a day where marriage was (or I thought it was) considered a sacred institution, and cheating was not condoned. 

If that is not reason enough, I look at the statistics. Which I now understand (thank you college stat)
Now, roughly speaking, 50% of marriages fail. That doesn't make me feel to great about the idea. Of those divorces, roughly 75% are initiated by women. Of the married population, 50-60?% of men cheat, and 40-50% of women cheat. 
That also doesn't include sexless marriages. Stats show somewhere between 10-20% are sexless. 
Plus there is the whole women who cheat and cuckold their husband. That population is believed to be around 1-4%. 

So, if we look at those statistics for 10 married couples:
5 of those marriages will end in divorce. And we can infer that at least another 4-5 will have infidelity problems, but that may or may not be discovered. Of those 5 marriages that end in divorce, we can safely assume at least 3 will be initiated by women. 
Now, of the 5 that survive, that does not include those that are not happy. And I don't know if the sexless marriage stat took divorces that occurred into their computations, so I can't make any assumptions there. Same with the cheating statistics. 
I also don't know any stats on living standards for divorced people, beyond the fact it goes down. And from my pre-law buddies in a few of my classes, they tell me the only people that win in divorce is them. 

But from those stats, marriage looks about as safe as a casino. 
I have a 50% chance of losing it in a divorce. 
And if we take a complete guess, and say 90% of couples that stay married are happy in their marriage, I can safely assume that of the 5 marriages that don't end in divorce, only 4 are happy. Statistically speaking, we can't assume all 5 are happy. 

So, if I get married, I am more likely to get divorced than I am to have a happy marriage. 

Sure, those aren't the happiest statistics and probably a bad way to look at marriage. 
But when my best hope of happiness is roughly 40%, I am not jumping at the idea of marriage.


----------



## wilderness

FrenchFry said:


> Nope. Sorry wilderness, take it as you will.


Just as I suspected.


----------



## 2galsmom

Guess you are right Wilderness, I gained everything, I gained my freedom, my sanity and my life in my divorce. I lost every penny I had, gained his debts where he ran accounts into the red because I could not get my name off of them fast enough legally and now am filing for bankruptcy. I applied for welfare and was denied and the State did NOTHING to help me, hooray, a male victory!

Feel better, probably not right?

I shall overcome this, rebuild my life and be better than before whereas you I guess are powerless over your destiny, and the women have done you in.

If women are so terrible, why lament the system that encourages you to be free of them and why the [email protected] are you even considering dating one again?

I check my facts. I checked the divorce rate. What is spewed here is bitterness over the inability to achieve mythical status and anger over life events.

I am a woman, I know hundreds of women, some are great wives, some give more than they take, some have reciprocal relationships with men and other women are not worth one ounce of time and effort, they are toxic.

You see, some men seek the victim chair as readily as some women and nothing positive ever occurs when you stay seated in the victim chair, ever.

Problems when people seek marriage for SECURITY and fear of not having security, again, review the reasons and what you want out of a marriage, you might see your intentions are not as noble as you believe.


----------



## wilderness

2galsmom said:


> I shall overcome this, rebuild my life and be better than before whereas you I guess are powerless over your destiny, and the women have done you in.
> 
> I.


I am powerless over my _financial _destiny. The state makes sure of that.



> f women are so terrible, why lament the system that encourages you to be free of them and why the [email protected] are you even considering dating one again?


The system does NOT encourage men to be free of women. Actually, the opposite is true. The system _violently forces_ men to be chained to women long after they break their marriage contracts.



> I check my facts. I checked the divorce rate. What is spewed here is bitterness over the inability to achieve mythical status and anger over life events.


I believe this gentleman addresses your accusation better than I ever could: Anger Management |



> I am a woman, I know hundreds of women, some are great wives, some give more than they take, some have reciprocal relationships with men and other women are not worth one ounce of time and effort, they are toxic.


It doesn't matter how great or how poor women are. Women are a protected class in today's world and they have the full force of the violent state right in their corner.


----------



## DarkHoly

I'm sure this will generate much hostility, but this is my two cents. 

The women who don't feel the need to respect men lack that respect because they have a system protecting them. Physically, when you are honest about things, there are very, very, very few women who can physically best or even match a standard male. But the fear this discrepancy naturally generates is dispelled because of government, police, electricity and cell phones. This system allows women to best men in an entirely different way- the social experiment. And they certainly do wage their war. 

There is however one fatal flaw in this structure; it hinges entirely upon the compliance and support of men. It can't happen unless the vast majority of men support it, which they do. This is a separate and equally perplexing phenomenon, one I don't have the patience for today into which to delve. 

I will say this: there is a social hurricane coming. If you don't see that America is imploding you are going to be in for a very rude awakening. When that happens, all the framework for what we call the civilized society, modernism and even feminism itself will vanish. It won't collapse or deteriorate. It will vaporize as if it had never been there because that's how sturdy its pillars are. 

Everyone, including women and especially men will immediately realize the fact that governments, laws, and even rights don't exist. They're as real as the breath from which they were conjured. When that happens life will become once more a "might makes right" centric society, much to the dismay and detriment of the fairer sex. 

One may think we men would derive a sense of vindication. I don't think we would. We prefer to love and cherish women, not beat them into submission.


----------



## Machiavelli

wilderness said:


> It doesn't matter how great or how poor women are. Women are a protected class in today's world and they have the full force of the violent state right in their corner.


For the last 12 presidential elections, all of those after 1960, the number of female voters has outnumbered the number of male voters. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Women outnumber men by 5,000,000 in the United States.


----------



## AnnieAsh

wilderness said:


> I don't think you have the issues correct. I believe the issue is that women stand to gain everything from divorce and lose nothing. Whereas men stand to lose everything and gain nothing. Divorce is _encouraged_ by the system.


My mother lost everything in her divorce from my very scary and abusive stepfather. She had the better credit and when he realized she was leaving him (after he held a knife to her throat for the SECOND time) he very spitefully ran up their credit cards and quit his job. 

She lost her home, income property, and car. He brought meth and crackheads into their home to scare her. I met one. Lovely gentleman by the name of Ice. 

He then played on her deepest fears (someone molesting me) and taunted her by telling her how sexy and desirable I was. He told her that he was going to be my first. He said these things TO ME TOO! I was 20 at the time.

I am very close to my mother and the man BROKE her. I had to check her into the psych ward at the VA. 

Took me a very long time to trust men and understand that my stepfather DOES not represent the vast majority of men. I didn't want to marry either until J and I had been together for a long time. He practically dragged my behind to the altar. The morning of my wedding I remember shaking uncontrollably and her hugging me and reminding me J was NOT anything like my stepfather.


----------



## Deejo

The 'Who gets screwed more in the divorce' argument is a red herring. Its a non-platform.

Everybody gets screwed. Nobody gets everything they want. Basically whomever is more on the ball and financially successful is the person that feels the most impact.

I have seen that affect both genders. But claiming that women "win" and "men" lose in divorce is not a hole we need to go down. 

Suffice to say that the financial and lifestyle impact from divorce that is foisted on many spouses and at this time, a disproportionate number of men, can leave a mark and create some bitterness.


----------



## wilderness

Deejo said:


> I have seen that affect both genders. But claiming that women "win" and "men" lose in divorce is not a hole we need to go down.
> .


I disagree emphatically. Where I live, women win custody close to 100% of the time without extenuating circumstances (woman is drug addict, in jail, etc...). Women are also granted restraining orders 100% of the time they request them, where men are granted them 10-20% of the time. If that is an 'affect' it's a criminal affect.


----------



## maincourse99

_You see if it were a bad marriage and she just wanted out, she would have just gotten out and left. She would have left with the clothes on her back and the kids and never looked back. That is not what happened. She decided that the marriage was over. She cheated and it was my fault and I have to pay. That is the truth of things in her eyes... If the marriage was so bad she would have just wanted to start over. That is not what happened. I was absolutely blind sided by everything that happened._

My exW blindsided me too. Tore me apart with her cheating, left and moved in with OM, who she just kicked out.

But I was lucky. She unilaterally ended it in the worst way possible and felt guilty. Wanted no child support or alimony, or 1/2 of my retirement, let me and D12 stay in the house, and gave me the option of buying her out for a very low price. We have 50/50 custody, but it's been 80/20 me, which is great. 

My heart goes out to you and men like you who get shafted by this ridiculous system. It needs to change.


----------



## maincourse99

_Once again, it comes down to finding a person of character and integrity, not easy._


Bingo.


----------



## wilderness

2galsmom said:


> America is not imploding because people are not behaving the way some people believe they should - again that is the whole point.
> 
> You bring to a relationship expectations of the other person - your expectations may be based on a variety if factors all leading to think you are correct in your expectations - when the other person implodes they are the one with the problem . America now has a problem because it protects women.
> 
> You want a woman to expect and take nothing from you, yet you go on a date with expectations of her, she wants anything in return - well then she is a problem and a symbol of the decline a western civilization.
> 
> Likewise women go out with men, they expect a commitment and security and if men balk at that then they have a problem.
> 
> The problem once again is trying to solve your own problems through dictating another person's actions. You think you a right! Well so does the Taliban and A bunch of other people who have views different from your own - to them you are a problem as well.
> 
> People who enter relationships put of fear of being alone, or out having no financial security or no fidelity in a partner do not tend to make prudent choices in partners, even if they are seeking a LTR and have a the best moral and traditional intentions.
> 
> That is what I got out of this discussion. That and peace that I no longer want a unicorn. They also steal TVs.


Regardless of expectations the full violence and force of the divorce industrial complex is at the disposal of every married woman, at least in my country (USA). Women don't have to worry about the sword of Damacles hanging over their heads. Men do.


----------



## 2ntnuf

My opinion only, is, we must as a society, redefine what marriage means. It is going to be different for each individual considering taking the plunge. It is not for everyone. It is for those who can find commonality in thinking. That includes physical intimacy. 

That is where the problem lies, in my humble opinion. 

As far as the courts are concerned, they don't have the time to sort through all the intricacies of why the marriage failed an place blame based on personal ethics. It is our responsibility to do that before the marriage and work on improving ourselves together. Until we find a potential spouse that has similar awareness and understanding, it is best not to get married. 

I do think the courts are way behind the curve. The system is, in my area, is messed up too. Some of the problem in changing these things is in the law-making process. That is where the feelings and ethics are taken into consideration. That is where it is all hashed out. That is where this needs to be tackled for all to have a so-called fair shake. Nothing in life is fair. I guarantee that. Nothing.


----------



## Nostromo

Machiavelli said:


> This is why legal scholars tell us the days of lifetime alimony and full custody to the primarily custodial parent are numbered: more female primary breadwinners and more SAHDs. If the status quo were to continue, women will be making some big payouts in alimony and CS. Therefore, the status quo must end.



I hope so, but I wont hold my breath. Once the laws are on the books they don't often come off. What politician in this PC climate we live in is gonna champion that cause? He would be crucified in the media.


----------



## lisab0105

I swore I wasn't going to come back in here, but I just can't keep my damn mouth shut. 

Women don't always make out like bandits in divorce. Want to know how I know this? I have been in residential property management since 1998. I rented to every one under the sun including a ton of people coming out of divorce. I was approving and declining women who's husbands had left them, their credit was sh*t, some were filing bankruptcy. Their self-esteem in the toilet, they looked haggard and worn down. The divorce was tearing them apart from the inside out. Some of them weren't awarded their kids because their husband had all the money and the big shot lawyers. I saw it all the time. 

If I had actually married my guy, I would be broke as a joke right now. He stayed home and I supported everyone. If we divorced, I knew I would of had to pay him alimony. When we became engaged I knew that and I accepted it as a possibility, one I hope I wouldn't ever have to live through. Although, I think NJ is an at-fault state, so if he cheated, again...it would be a slightly different story. 

Not all women walk away from a divorce like they just won the goddamned powerball.


----------



## MovingAhead

Ladies,

A few points.

I have NEVER said that women are bad or evil or anything of the sort. I don't believe that in any case. Please re-read anything I have ever posted on here and prove me wrong. There are a few hundred posts.

This goes to dating rule #2: I cannot be held responsible for what you think.

I have said that marriage as it is basically locks you into a financial obligation that you cannot avoid if your wife (or for your ladies) husband decides to be a total schmuck and cheat. If you are the bread winner and they decide to cheat, in a no-fault state like mine, you are screwed.

If we were not married, I would not be obligated to her to the extent that I am. I would be obligated to provide for my children and I have no problem doing that at all.

To Lisa, there are two simple reasons that I dated so many women.

1. Last Christmas was the first time ever I would not have my kids with me. I go to the gym every day I have to hand them over, but on Christmas I could not. I wanted to have some nice memories to get me through the day, so I made them. I made some with my kids and some with beautiful ladies.

2. When I find the right one, I probably will want to be with her till I'm dead, so I went shopping. I found a lot of wonderful ladies. I did not have a single bad date. They were all very nice, but they do want me to put everything out there on the table to see if I'm worth it. I want the same from them. That is the point of the video. The women, the vast majority that I have seen don't give two craps what I want.

There are four I date frequently. I gave no promises because I actually keep my promises. The ones I really like, well I know what I want from them. The thing is they need to know what they want from me. I'm not trying to stick the two wrong puzzle pieces together.

The ones who want me but want to change me... yeah, I'm not doing that. The ones who aren't appreciative, no thanks. The ones who want me to treat them like a princess, not doing it. I'll bring my half, so must they.

I love women. I just am not putting myself through the same situation i.e. marriage unless I protect myself. I thought my EX wife would never have done what she did. You never know.

DarkHoly, Lisa may not be bitter, but she sure is angry. I don't want an angry woman either. I was dating a very nice girl and then she would drink and get mad at me. We are 'friends' but I won't date her. I'm just not interested in that. She was one of the 29. I know I have an extremely low tolerance for crap. I'm ok with that. 

I have never gotten mad or been mean to any woman I have dated. I just don't need angry or bitter in my life. There is just so much to enjoy.

I am all for marriage and reconciliation. Marriage... get a pre-nup!


----------



## MovingAhead

lisab0105 said:


> I swore I wasn't going to come back in here, but I just can't keep my damn mouth shut.
> 
> Women don't always make out like bandits in divorce. Want to know how I know this? I have been in residential property management since 1998. I rented to every one under the sun including a ton of people coming out of divorce. I was approving and declining women who's husbands had left them, their credit was sh*t, some were filing bankruptcy. Their self-esteem in the toilet, they looked haggard and worn down. The divorce was tearing them apart from the inside out. Some of them weren't awarded their kids because their husband had all the money and the big shot lawyers. I saw it all the time.
> 
> If I had actually married my guy, I would be broke as a joke right now. He stayed home and I supported everyone. If we divorced, I knew I would of had to pay him alimony. When we became engaged I knew that and I accepted it as a possibility, one I hope I wouldn't ever have to live through. Although, I think NJ is an at-fault state, so if he cheated, again...it would be a slightly different story.
> 
> Not all women walk away from a divorce like they just won the goddamned powerball.


Lisa, I agree with what you say. A lot of women do get the 'shaft'. I specifically am referencing the women who cheat. I believe the men in here are also referencing the same.

The betrayed really lose a lot. That is my opinion. God bless.


----------



## MovingAhead

With Deejo I agree... Financially the bread winner is screwed.

With Wildnerness I agree... With children, then man is usually 90% or better screwed.

I think these things are mutually exclusive unless you are a male bread winner with kids then you are double screwed! My $.02


----------



## Machiavelli

Nostromo said:


> I hope so, but I wont hold my breath. Once the laws are on the books they don't often come off. What politician in this PC climate we live in is gonna champion that cause? He would be crucified in the media.


"He" won't. Because, elite women will be the drivers behind the change, unless the wheels fall off completely before then, which is a real possibility. Look at how big alimony payments to men are covered in the NYT; when men are the recipients, the women attempt the usual shaming tactics, "he's not a real man." That might have worked 20 years ago, but now the guys just laugh. In the next couple of years, most medical, dental, and law students will be women, if they aren't already. So, it's not hard to see how this is going to go, if the trend continues.

Now, you might say that this situation will only apply to elite women and normal women will be hurt when the gimme store gets closed down, but it won't matter. Women will dance in solidarity to whatever tune the female elites call, just as they have done since Seneca Falls in 1848.


----------



## Jellybeans

GTdad said:


> I just can't see putting forth this kind of effort for another woman. Except maybe JellyBeans.


Aww. Thanks! But I have to ask...why me? 




Ceegee said:


> Marriage?
> 
> Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, had it ripped off my back.
> 
> I like JB's idea.


I'm telling you. It is the ideal of ideals, IMO!



2ntnuf said:


> This is so curious to me. I cannot understand. I hope one of you ladies will help.
> 
> Why are you defending marriage so vehemently for all women? Why is it so important to all women?


Eh, not me. I personally do not get the appeal of marriage. Oh, I understand companionship is nice and all that. But I have zero desire to have the designated contract. No, thanks. And you wouldn't believe how I've been looked at on a date when I've said that; like I am a loon. _"You don't want to get married?" _... _But every woman wants to get married." _

It makes me want to say, "Sorry to disappoint you, sweetheart. "

But with that said, I don't knock it for other people. If people want to get married and do that, then more power to them. You get one life to live so you might as well do the things you want to in it.


----------



## lostmyreligion

lisab0105 said:


> I swore I wasn't going to come back in here, but I just can't keep my damn mouth shut.
> 
> Women don't always make out like bandits in divorce. Want to know how I know this? I have been in residential property management since 1998. I rented to every one under the sun including a ton of people coming out of divorce. I was approving and declining women who's husbands had left them, their credit was sh*t, some were filing bankruptcy. Their self-esteem in the toilet, they looked haggard and worn down. The divorce was tearing them apart from the inside out. Some of them weren't awarded their kids because their husband had all the money and the big shot lawyers. I saw it all the time.
> 
> If I had actually married my guy, I would be broke as a joke right now. He stayed home and I supported everyone. If we divorced, I knew I would of had to pay him alimony. When we became engaged I knew that and I accepted it as a possibility, one I hope I wouldn't ever have to live through. Although, I think NJ is an at-fault state, so if he cheated, again...it would be a slightly different story.
> 
> Not all women walk away from a divorce like they just won the goddamned powerball.


I can only imagine some of what you've seen in that business.

Again, genuine curiosity; was there a particular financial demographic *over*-represented in the nasty cases you describe above?

I ask because my wife's situation was very similar to yours before we met only she did marry him. She had a Fine Arts degree but was working 2 low end jobs to support her husband and new baby. He still kicked her and their child out. He kept what few assets they had, including her car which he apparently (we heard) eventually left on the side of the road dead because he couldn't be bothered to do the upkeep.

This was a big chunk of the reason for her needing to know where our relationship was going before striking the deal I described earlier in the thread. Neither of us had a pot to pi$$ in at the start. She was just scraping by without support from him and was lucky to find someone that would rent to her. She really didn't want to be saddled with another child let alone another deadbeat husband.

As it was, it took over a year for her to be convinced that I wasn't afraid to work and my affection for our oldest daughter wasn't feigned before she asked me to marry her.

Given I was pretty much living in my truck when we met, she was still rolling dice. But the financial end of our marriage has since worked out pretty well. 

Your post reminded me of all this. I can definitely see where it could easily have gone the other way for her or, for that matter, any woman in that situation.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Jellybeans said:


> Aww. Thanks! But I have to ask...why me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you. It is the ideal of ideals, IMO!
> 
> 
> 
> *Eh, not me. I personally do not get the appeal to marriage. Oh, I understand companionship is nice and all that. But I have zero desire to have the designated contract. No, thanks. And you wouldn't believe how I've been looked at on a date when I've said that; like I am a loon. "You don't want to get married?" ... But every woman wants to get married."
> 
> It makes me want to say, "Sorry to disappoint you, sweetheart. "
> 
> But with that said, I don't knock it for other people. If people want to get married and do that, then more power to them. You get one live to live so you might as well do the things you want to in it.*


Thank you, Jelly. Oh, and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! 

It's not that I'm against it. I would have liked to do it again, myself. Logic tells me it's unlikely to happen and be satisfying. That doesn't mean it won't or can't happen. I guarantee, it would take a ton of changes for it to even be likely for me, at my age. 

I guess that question could read snarky. I was just more utterly confused with all that everyone has been through here and what they believe or say they do, how can anyone think marriage is the answer. I do understand that it's best for children. I do understand that married couples tend to have longer lives. I do understand it can be a satisfying adventure. 

After all is said and done, why? Just why? Many want their own money and talk like they don't want to share anything. They talk like they want to be independent. I don't see how that is good for marriages? 

I know I have a ton of work to do on myself. I'm guessing most replies are out of pure emotional turmoil and misunderstanding. I hope so. It doesn't bode well for the institution of marriage. 

Thanks, Jelly.  I hope you have a wonderful day and you have many more happy, fulfilling days and birthdays. 

p.s.: That wasn't all for you. It was a bit of a rant. A bit? :rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans

Hehe, no worries about the "rant" (I didn't really read what you wrote as a rant anyway). And thanks for the well wishes.


----------



## paul72

I'm not a huge fan of the state splitting up peoples money for them...... if you want to get married get married in the church....... forget the state paperwork


----------



## Jellybeans

2galsmom said:


> I hope you go out and have a wonderful birthday Jellybeans.
> 
> *And people are going to keep getting married, it is what people do, and as such, they will keep getting divorced.*
> 
> Cheers.


You're such a romantic, 2gals.

And, thanks. 

Oh and like my friend says, "If you don't want to get a divorce, don't get married."


----------



## MovingAhead

2galsmom said:


> Well MovingAhead, good luck in finding the "right" woman who wants NOTHING from you, has zero expectations and is there just to give and accept you for whatever you think she should have, they do exist for brief periods of time but I do not recommend them for the long haul they too bring their own unique stamp of dysfunction ultimately for not standing up for themselves.
> 
> And why is it okay to say women should not expect ANYTHING from men and yet, not okay to say women do not need men?
> 
> Ah yes, the bicycle and the fish metaphor has returned and I stand by it.
> 
> It is a rhetorical question, don't bother answering, I am truly nor interested in debating it further. Check out tinybuddha.com for ways on how to not let the negativity of a debate bring you into negativity, it is a must read for everyone.
> 
> I hope you go out and have a wonderful birthday Jellybeans.
> 
> And people are going to keep getting married, it is what people do, and as such, they will keep getting divorced.
> 
> Cheers.


Ok, I am not debating with you. I think you may have a problem reading or understanding or comprehension or everything. I don't know how to tactfully say it.

This is rule #2 again: I cannot help what you think. I cannot find the logic in your fluffy bunny and unicorn thinking.

I clearly stated that they all want something from me... *I stated that they also need to bring their half to the table.* Seriously, now I bolded it for you this time in case you missed the first previous several times I have said this. This is the part that most women leave out. This is also the problem that a lot of guys probably do as well.

This was the point of the video. She clearly stated it several times that nobody cares what the man wants.

You parsed what I said, left off the crucial details in that I stated that they have to bring their half to the table and tried to make an argument out of a non sequitur. It is the reductio ad absurdum technique of arguing but you did it poorly.

I'm not even trying to win an argument. I was making a point. I'm not even debating. 

Thanks for the well wishes even in your sarcastic sense. I am taking a very lovely lady to Hawaii for the week. I'll send you a postcard. Last year was a very good year for business. We won a nice trip.

It is right and fine for women to want what they want, but they also have to realize that they have to be what the guy wants as well. I, like most guys don't want to be 'fixed'.

One girl I date is very nice, sweet, part Jewish and soft spoken. She is a gem. Another one that I date has tattoos, piercings, is rough and she is also a gem. Everyone is beautiful in their own way. I appreciate them all. The ones who will share with me instead of taking from me are the ones I am interested in. The other stuff, that is just unimportant details.

The relationship isn't about 1 person. It is about both. My feelings are no more or less important than hers. They are equal. That is the part that gets left out.

Marriage says, it's not equal because now legally one has the other by the short hairs when push comes to shove. The question is why put yourself in that situation when you don't have to?

I hope you have a nice night. 

I won't answer your rhetorical question because if you go back and actually read what I have posted and I mean ever, I have never said either. 

Don't extend your fluffy bunny and unicorn thinking past the meaning of what I say. I actually mean what I say. You don't have to put that through an emotional filter and strain the logic out of it.

I am being a bit insulting and I apologize. Have a wonderful night. God bless.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Machiavelli said:


> "He" won't. Because, elite women will be the drivers behind the change, unless the wheels fall off completely before then, which is a real possibility. Look at how big alimony payments to men are covered in the NYT; when men are the recipients, the women attempt the usual shaming tactics, "he's not a real man." That might have worked 20 years ago, but now the guys just laugh. In the next couple of years, most medical, dental, and law students will be women, if they aren't already. So, it's not hard to see how this is going to go, if the trend continues.
> 
> Now, you might say that this situation will only apply to elite women and normal women will be hurt when the gimme store gets closed down, but it won't matter. Women will dance in solidarity to whatever tune the female elites call, just as they have done since Seneca Falls in 1848.


This is how I see it as well. More women are major breadwinners. They are the ones who will be paying more alimony soon. They will want the laws changed and it will happen.

Male pride is an obstacle in the divorce game that men will have to learn to ignore. And my feeling is that they increasingly will. Why be a 'man' when it means being left poor?

Many states are going to a strictly 50/50 split. With more women being the breadwinners, I also expect the marriage rates to decline among them, because they won't want to risk their financial security. Women generally don't feel the same responsibility to take care of a man the way that men used to feel about taking care of a woman. It is what it is. Men are supposed to be a man, after all, and that means not taking handouts from anyone...it's unmanly. That's not to say women don't care. Of course they do. But why risk your finances if you don't have to? Prenups galore.


----------



## GTdad

Jellybeans said:


> Aww. Thanks! But I have to ask...why me?


Because you're smart, funny, and in the event I lose my mind in this hypothetical relationship and want to get married, you'll tell me "thanks, but no." You'd be saving me from myself.


----------



## wilderness

PreRaphaelite said:


> This is how I see it as well. More women are major breadwinners. They are the ones who will be paying more alimony soon. They will want the laws changed and it will happen.
> 
> Male pride is an obstacle in the divorce game that men will have to learn to ignore. And my feeling is that they increasingly will. Why be a 'man' when it means being left poor?
> 
> Many states are going to a strictly 50/50 split. With more women being the breadwinners, I also expect the marriage rates to decline among them, because they won't want to risk their financial security. Women generally don't feel the same responsibility to take care of a man the way that men used to feel about taking care of a woman. It is what it is. Men are supposed to be a man, after all, and that means not taking handouts from anyone...it's unmanly. That's not to say women don't care. Of course they do. But why risk your finances if you don't have to? Prenups galore.


Call me cynical but I don't see it happening. I think what will most likely happen is that judges and courts will simply award CS, alimony, and asset awards along gender lines, not income lines. Actually, that's already happening now. And a little research 'behind the curtain' reveals that states may _claim_ they are going to 50/50 splits, but in practice it doesn't work that way. The system is so biased it's truly unbelievable.


----------



## Jellybeans

GTdad said:


> Because you're smart, funny, and in the event I lose my mind in this hypothetical relationship and want to get married, *you'll tell me "thanks, but no." Y*ou'd be saving me from myself.


Oh believe you me, I will. :smthumbup:

:rofl:


----------



## Machiavelli

PreRaphaelite said:


> Many states are going to a strictly 50/50 split. With more women being the breadwinners, I also expect the marriage rates to decline among them, because they won't want to risk their financial security.


I'm guessing this is why states which were never under Spanish Law are adopting Community Property statutes. Previously, ComProp states were only in the Southwest, California to Louisiana, and they originally did not have alimony. I found it odd that so many states were adopting both over time, since they were actually two opposing solutions to the same problem.


----------



## wilderness

RE: 50/50 or presumption thereof:

Many a man has heard that judges have 'wide judicial discretion' in the family court system. Read: it's their way of continuing to screw men while simultaneously maintaining the pretense of fairness. There is no such thing in family court.


----------



## 2ntnuf

"The Rules of Court", make it clear in my state, what is legal and what isn't. In the room alone with the master, there are things which can sway decisions and final judgments. There are also factors which make income look less, which are legal, but make the burden much greater on the parent paying child support. These factors are all legal. The master cannot break the law. In many cases, the law was determined as any other, with consideration of many factors, not just facts and figures.


----------



## missthelove2013

Ill NEVER marry again...and I tell every young single guy my story...it aint worth it

there is NOTHING positive I want or need from a woman that I cant get dating...nothing...except for negatives..


----------



## PreRaphaelite

Don't worry dudes, most of us don't fall into the top 20% of those whom women consider desirable enough to marry, so we probably won't have to worry about it.

Oh wait, I'm married....


----------



## 2ntnuf

PreRaphaelite said:


> Don't worry dudes, most of us don't fall into the top 20% of those whom women consider desirable enough to marry, so we probably won't have to worry about it.
> 
> Oh wait, I'm married....


It would be nice though, not to fall into the top 10% of those whom women consider completely undesirable for marriage.  Speaking of myself here.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

2ntnuf said:


> It would be nice though, not to fall into the top 10% of those whom women consider completely undesirable for marriage.  Speaking of myself here.


Use a little marketing. Package yourself as a "bargain basement deal" and some woman somewhere will see your value. Make sure you emphasize that you're a low-maintenance prospect and that you'll never cheat (I mean, what woman would cheat with you anyway? Throw that out there as an honesty ploy.). 

Throw some Bonnie Raitt her way, it'll put her in the right frame of mind.

Bonnie Raitt - Thing Called Love - YouTube


It"ll work, believe me. :smthumbup:


----------



## hookares

Marriage works well for some. The rest end up on boards such as this one.


----------



## Catherine602

There is no real conflict here. Both men and women have the freedom to make a choice and do so. Neither of us need to marry. It's just that women are now able, like men, to make that choice. Moreover, society no longer looks down women who chose to remain single. 

These are the things that the stats don't show: IRL, don't men want to marry as much as women? Many men have a harder time being alone than women and want a relationship with someone who will love them and meet their needs. 

Some women don't want to get married the first or second time or even date. My mother didn't after my father died. she said one was enough although she had more than one man who wanted to date her. 

I think it's normal to have dire predictions with large social evolutionary change. Voting rights, birth control, SS and medicare, to name a few. Its a work in progress that has yet to reach a happy equilibrium for both men and women.


----------



## Battle_Cats

►1912 – Mrs. C. H. Hughston – Suffrage leader

Many an American husband turns over every penny he makes to the woman he marries, receiving back from her a meager allowance for carfare and lunches. Perhaps she runs up extra bills; if she does, he struggles meekly to pay them, and consoles himself with the fact that Mary and the girls look ‘better’n any body in town.’ He breaks down from overwork in his early maturity, and nobody has anything but pity for his family.

[Marguerite Mooers Marshall, “Give Men Rights, Is the Doctrine of Suffragists – No Wife Should Take All of Her Husband’s Wages, Says Mrs. C. A. Hughston. - Wives Ought to Help. – They Should Not Keep Their Earnings Out of the Family Fund.” The World, Evening Edition (N.Y.), Jul. 6,1912, p. 10]


►1927 – Helen Rowland – journalist

“All that the modern girl asks of man is that he treat her with tenderness and chivalry – and the same time permit her to drive the car, run the house, swim the Channel and beat him at golf and tennis.
That he acknowledge her as his economic equal – and then marry her and pay all her bills for the rest of his life.
That he join her in petting parties and take her to night-club orgies – and, at the same time, respect her, love her truly, and regard her kisses as a romantic adventure or a 'sacred' privilege.
… That he permit her to go around almost as barely clothed as a savage and as gaudily decked out as a Hottentot – and at the same time reverently keep on his coat and take off his hat in her presence, as though she were a civilized woman.
That he allow her to make his social rules, choose his friends and censor his clothes – and at the same time think of her as a cute, lovable, little thing to be 'taken care of' – God’s greatest Gift to Man!
That’s positively ALL! And yet, men are becoming so woman-shy, that it is getting harder to lure a man into marriage than it is to get a golfer into church!”

[Helen Rowland, “Why Men Don’t Marry” (“Meditations of A Married Woman,” (column), syndicated, Miami Daily News (Fl.), Jan. 25, 1927, p. 4]

►1927 – Fannie Hurst – writer

Married women “have become parasites and consumers instead of producers, taking no share in their husbands’ burdens, and are worse chattels than their grandmothers,” Miss Hurst said. “The vast army of women seeking divorce are mainly after easy alimony from men they have ceased to love – surely one of the most despicable forms of barter that can exchange human hands.”

[“Two Prominent Women Differ Over Present-Day Wives - Fannie Hurst and Mrs. J.Borden Harriman Take Opposite Views in Magazine War.” syndicated (UP), Dunkirk Evening Observer (N.Y.), Jul. 12, 1927, p. 7]

►1929 – Dorothy Dix – journalist, “the world’s most highly paid woman writer”

I often wonder that the modern woman does not perceive that she is killing the goose that lays the golden egg by her attitude toward men. By which I mean to say that it is women themselves who are destroying the things that they value most in life. It is women’s hands that are tearing to tatters the chiffons of romance and sentiment and idealism in which men have always clothed them. It is women who are stifling tenderness and slaying chivalry in the hearts of men. It is women who are doing away with all the graces and sweetnesses that made charm in the relationship between men and women and that incidentally lured men into matrimony.
For women are making men afraid of them and what they will do to them and that makes men cold and cautious in dealing with the fair sex. Even Romeo watches his step and counts the calories in his sweet talk when he keeps a date with Juliet nowadays.
Women don’t like this. They complain bitterly that there are no impassioned lovers. They say that young men are so afraid they may compromise themselves by their attentions to a girl that ten minutes alter meeting her they serve notice on her that they have no intention of marrying and that even one’s fiance’s letters read like a communication about the state of the stock market instead of being an outpouring of burning affection. …
Worse still, women are keeping men from marrying by demanding so much alimony that it makes matrimony not only a gamble in happiness but the most risky financial speculation they can engage in.
Under the present laws a man can marry a girl who makes no effort in any way to be a good wife. She can refuse to keep house, refuse to bear children She can be lazy, extravagant, high-tempered, nagging and make his life a torment to him, yet she can force him to support her as long as he lives. And, such being the case, it is not strange that prudent men are shying of more and more from the altar.

[Dorothy Dix, “Why Can’t The Modern Woman See That She Is Killing the Goose That Laysthe Golden Eggs When She Places a Commercial Value on Every Endearment a Man Utters, Cries Dorothy Dix,” syndicated, The Bee (Danville, W. Va.), Dec. 6,1929, p. 12]


►1937 – Lois Maddox Miller – journalist

Few people realize how easy it is to have a man thrown into jail for non-payment of money owed. A person who owes as little as $5 may be put behind the bars in New York City even before being tried and found guilty of not paying a debt. …
But let me tell you there’s nothing funny ahead for the man who is escorted to a county jail to serve three months or so just because he is unable to beg, borrow or steal enough money, to satisfy (temporarily, at least) some hysterical or vindictive woman who is his former spouse. If he has a job, he’ll probably lose it; if he has a business, it will probably go to pieces in his absence. He can’t earn any money while he is in jail, so when he is released three months later he will be broke” and jobless, and that Ol’ Debbil Alimony will catch up with him so fast that it is almost a sure-thing bet that his ex-wife will have him back behind the bars in no time.

[Miller, Lois Maddox, “I’m a Slave of His First Wife – Laments This Distracted Woman in a True-Life Drama that Bares One Side of New York’s ‘Alimony Racket,’ in Which Vengeful Wife No. 1 Can, and Often Does, Jail the Man She Loved, Until He is Down and Completely Out,” Billings GazetteMagazine (Montana), Jul. 25, 1937, Magazine Section]

The Unknown History of MISANDRY


----------



## SolidSnake

This is an interesting thread. Great posts by lifeistooshort and 2galsmom. I agree that men should look for a good woman with a strong character rather than just an attractive woman, and that women should favor character over earning potential in a marriage partner. I dislike belief systems which ascribe people lower value as partners based on age, etc. If you want to get married, rock solid character is the most important trait to look for. 

Wilderness, you know I agree with you politically about a lot of things, and about the violence of government. I agree the state should not be a 3rd party in the marriage contract as it currently is. I would not call myself a feminist, I prefer the gender neutral term egalitarian, as in both genders are equally valuable, and one compliments the other. However, I take issue with your position that divorce courts always favor women in 100% of cases, no exceptions. This is an irrational statement, even in light of the fact that the system isn't what we would like it to be. I agree that family courts are biased towards women in general, but its not absolute. I agree with earlier posters that alimony should be phased out or only be temporary.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

PreRaphaelite said:


> Don't worry dudes, most of us don't fall into the top 20% of those whom women consider desirable enough to marry, so we probably won't have to worry about it.
> 
> Oh wait, I'm married....


Actually, the Pareto Principle is even worse than that.


----------



## SolidSnake

Machiavelli said:


> Actually, the Pareto Principle is even worse than that.


I think if you turn this around though, men probably consider only 20% of women suitable for marriage too. 

Its fine to be discriminating, otherwise you might end up with a partner with a sh*tty character. 

More than 20% of people get married through, so I question whether these stats are even true.


----------



## wilderness

SolidSnake said:


> This is an interesting thread. Great posts by lifeistooshort and 2galsmom. I agree that men should look for a good woman with a strong character rather than just an attractive woman, and that women should favor character over earning potential in a marriage partner. I dislike belief systems which ascribe people lower value as partners based on age, etc. If you want to get married, rock solid character is the most important trait to look for.
> 
> Wilderness, you know I agree with you politically about a lot of things, and about the violence of government. I agree the state should not be a 3rd party in the marriage contract as it currently is. I would not call myself a feminist, I prefer the gender neutral term egalitarian, as in both genders are equally valuable, and one compliments the other. *However, I take issue with your position that divorce courts always favor women in 100% of cases, no exceptions.* This is an irrational statement, even in light of the fact that the system isn't what we would like it to be. I agree that family courts are biased towards women in general, but its not absolute. I agree with earlier posters that alimony should be phased out or only be temporary.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not basing my opinion on whim or sentiment. I'm basing it on real life experience. For example, I often watch the hearings for restraining orders at the court near my work. I have NEVER, ever, seen a judge turn down a woman asking for a restraining order. Not even one time. Yet in all my years of watching, I've only seen ONE man obtain a restraining order against a woman. ONE.
I realize this is only one aspect of divorce, but it's the most important aspect. Restraining orders are the lynchpin of favorable divorce settlements for women.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Most people have poor decision making skills.
There really isn't someone for everyone.
Romantic love has only been around for about 400 years.
Marriages were invented when 19 was middle aged.


----------



## SolidSnake

wilderness said:


> I'm not basing my opinion on whim or sentiment. I'm basing it on real life experience. For example, I often watch the hearings for restraining orders at the court near my work. I have NEVER, ever, seen a judge turn down a woman asking for a restraining order. Not even one time. Yet in all my years of watching, I've only seen ONE man obtain a restraining order against a woman. ONE.
> I realize this is only one aspect of divorce, but it's the most important aspect. Restraining orders are the lynchpin of favorable divorce settlements for women.


I don't disagree with this. However there are irresponsible, abusive, or drug addicted women who don't get custody.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

SolidSnake said:


> I don't disagree with this. However there are irresponsible, abusive, or drug addicted women who don't get custody.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh, absolutely. But what happens to the men that can't prove that their wives are drug addicted or abusive? If their stbxws won't negotiate, they get screwed. 
Yes, that's an oversimplification…there are men that don't get screwed. But it takes big dough, luck, and a huge fight.


----------



## SolidSnake

wilderness said:


> Oh, absolutely. But what happens to the men that can't prove that their wives are drug addicted or abusive? If their stbxws won't negotiate, they get screwed.
> Yes, that's an oversimplification…there are men that don't get screwed. But it takes big dough, luck, and a huge fight.


What do you think we can do personally to help change the situation?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Karen Straughan - Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?*



SolidSnake said:


> What do you think we can do personally to help change the situation?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Don't marry crazy.


----------



## wilderness

SolidSnake said:


> What do you think we can do personally to help change the situation?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


To me I think the big thing is to encourage men to fight for what is right at all costs. Also, it's important to give the men the information and tools to fight _smart_. I've been through the system and I've seen the system at work with hundreds of other men. The big thing is that the system does NOT like men fighting it. It's far too expensive, time consuming, and difficult when men fight it. A lot of times it can be embarrassing for those that run the system as well. 

What happens in practice is that there is pressure applied every step of the way in the classic feminist sense- shaming tactics. The first time I got a taste of this when at my very first mediation session. I was asking for 50/50 custody, she was asking for full custody. The mediator began hammering me to basically cave in. My wife's attorney joined in. I couldn't believe it- here I was trying to do the right thing and compromising down to 50/50, and I was being made out to be the unreasonable one. I didn't cave, but I can imagine many men do in the face of that type of pressure. 

Believe me when I tell you that NO ONE in the system recognizes the mans rights as a father to his children. NO ONE. Not the courts. Not the mediators. Not the lawyers. Not the schools. Not the daycare centers. Not the police. As proof, just look at the lack of recourse for men when their wives withhold court ordered parenting time. 

In my opinion in order for this to change a greater percentage of men have to fight harder and smarter.


----------



## SolidSnake

wilderness said:


> To me I think the big thing is to encourage men to fight for what is right at all costs. Also, it's important to give the men the information and tools to fight _smart_. I've been through the system and I've seen the system at work with hundreds of other men. The big thing is that the system does NOT like men fighting it. It's far too expensive, time consuming, and difficult when men fight it. A lot of times it can be embarrassing for those that run the system as well.
> 
> What happens in practice is that there is pressure applied every step of the way in the classic feminist sense- shaming tactics. The first time I got a taste of this when at my very first mediation session. I was asking for 50/50 custody, she was asking for full custody. The mediator began hammering me to basically cave in. My wife's attorney joined in. I couldn't believe it- here I was trying to do the right thing and compromising down to 50/50, and I was being made out to be the unreasonable one. I didn't cave, but I can imagine many men do in the face of that type of pressure.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you that NO ONE in the system recognizes the mans rights as a father to his children. NO ONE. Not the courts. Not the mediators. Not the lawyers. Not the schools. Not the daycare centers. Not the police. As proof, just look at the lack of recourse for men when their wives withhold court ordered parenting time.
> 
> In my opinion in order for this to change a greater percentage of men have to fight harder and smarter.


Ok that sounds reasonable to me. Except the part about shaming being only a feminist tactic...it is a manipulation technique that anyone trying to get the upper hand can use. 

I agree with Deejo that to an extent this situation can be avoided by marrying someone with a good character, but certainly people can change or life can throw you a curve ball.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

SolidSnake said:


> Ok that sounds reasonable to me. Except the part about shaming being only a feminist tactic...it is a technique used by anyone trying to get the upper hand.
> 
> I agree with Deejo that to an extent this situation can be avoided by marrying someone with a good character, but certainly people can change or life can throw you a curve ball.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The problem that I see is that in the event of a divorce, regardless of the character of the individuals involved, there are too many unscrupulous people that encourage the female to exploit the system. That's how you get good people doing bad things-
filing fake restraining orders, putting men out on the street, making false allegations, etc etc...


----------



## SolidSnake

wilderness said:


> The problem that I see is that in the event of a divorce, regardless of the character of the individuals involved, there are too many unscrupulous people that encourage the female to exploit the system. That's how you get good people doing bad things-
> filing fake restraining orders, putting men out on the street, making false allegations, etc etc...


Well, my point is that a person of good character wouldn't choose do that regardless of external influences.
Your character is deffined by what you do, especially under pressure. You actually lack character, ethics, and backbone if you let someone convince you to file a false report. _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MovingAhead

When my court case for custody is finished and done, I will add a lot more on this, but I have to say Wilderness is right.

I had my EX trespass in my house and I have it on video when she was trespassing in my yard, and the female judge I got actually laughed at me in court when I asked for a trespass order against her. There is theory, and there is the real world. They are not the same.


----------



## SolidSnake

MovingAhead said:


> When my court case for custody is finished and done, I will add a lot more on this, but I have to say Wilderness is right.
> 
> I had my EX trespass in my house and I have it on video when she was trespassing in my yard, and the female judge I got actually laughed at me in court when I asked for a trespass order against her. There is theory, and there is the real world. They are not the same.


That's pretty crazy and I'm sorry to hear that. I would never tresspass on anyone's property...I'd be afraid of getting shot!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

This is what I see.

Some women get into relationships and have children with men who have abandoned their children with no question of their suitability for fatherhood or marriage. That makes it socially acceptable to D children along with their mother. 

Moreover, some women who marry men who are supporting their kids financially and emotionally and then may become the evil resentful stepmother are also part of the problem. 

The fathers right movement is directed towards hatred of women. Many men walk away finically, physically and emotionally from their children when they D the mother. 

How many of the posters on this forum have had walk away father's and grow up in a household headed by a finically strained mother? Even those who have experienced it, grouse at supporting their own kids. 

If it is about children then make it about them.


----------



## Numbersixxx

Machiavelli said:


> For the last 12 presidential elections, all of those after 1960, the number of female voters has outnumbered the number of male voters. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Women outnumber men by 5,000,000 in the United States.


And they consistently vote for those that promes more government cheese for them.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

Cath - I disagree re: father's rights movement. it is fight back against what wilderness and other know, men are screwed, on average, in divorce court. 

Divorce does damage everyone, but in general men fair much worse and they don't get fair representation under the law, see the post of tresspss. That judges attitude is common, and she should actually get disbarred for making that statement, but won't.


----------



## naiveonedave

Sixx - which famous person coined the phrase that is similar to this?
"Democracy is great until the masses figure out they can vote themselves stuff from the treasury"


----------



## Catherine602

naiveonedave said:


> Cath - I disagree re: father's rights movement. it is fight back against what wilderness and other know, men are screwed, on average, in divorce court.
> 
> Divorce does damage everyone, but in general men fair much worse and they don't get fair representation under the law, see the post of tresspss. That judges attitude is common, and she should actually get disbarred for making that statement, but won't.


I googled father's rights movement and looked at some of the sites. The main focus is legal strategies to lower child support. There were even links to lawyers specializing in child support issues offering men free consultations. 

Children were mentioned in the mission statement, but strangely, child support was not. 

If the movement is about children, why is so much bandwidth expended on the unfairness of supporting the children they want the rights to?


----------



## Machiavelli

Numbersixxx said:


> And they consistently vote for those that promes more government cheese for them.


Uncle Sam didn't turn into Uncle Sugar for nothing.


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> If the movement is about children, why is so much bandwidth expended on the unfairness of supporting the children they want the rights to?


I think the problem is when child support is actually ex-wife and new boyfriend support, when CS is about lifestyle equalization rather than what is actually needed to feed and clothe the children. Not to mention women who withhold visitation. My W used to supervise the child support section in a suburban Chicago county and she told me it was horrific.


----------



## MovingAhead

Catherine602 said:


> This is what I see.
> 
> Some women get into relationships and have children with men who have abandoned their children with no question of their suitability for fatherhood or marriage. That makes it socially acceptable to D children along with their mother.
> 
> Moreover, some women who marry men who are supporting their kids financially and emotionally and then may become the evil resentful stepmother are also part of the problem.
> 
> The fathers right movement is directed towards hatred of women. Many men walk away finically, physically and emotionally from their children when they D the mother.
> 
> How many of the posters on this forum have had walk away father's and grow up in a household headed by a finically strained mother? Even those who have experienced it, grouse at supporting their own kids.
> 
> If it is about children then make it about them.


This is utter crap Catherine. I don't have any other word for it but it is nonsense in it's rawest form.

There are many guys who do walk away from their children. This is true and I do not disagree.

There are also many women who do the same, but maybe not to the extent of men.

The court system is rigged toward women. It is supposed to be fair but it is not. The father's rights groups fight for father's rights for mothers who.

Will not let their children's fathers see their children. I know of personally a man who was married, whose wife cheated on him, and she had a child out of marriage. They divorced but she would not let the father see his son until he took her to court and had it ordered so.

I walked into court and within 2 minutes, the woman master made up her mind about me and although the case was 2 hours long, she didn't listen past 2 minutes. Judge made up her mind, allowed here-say evidence in, broke all kids of rules, didn't matter. If I didn't have iron clad proof that my EX lied and committed perjury in court it would be bad for me.

My EX not only walked away from me but really from her children and they don't want to be with her. She slammed my oldest face into the snow to a point where he couldn't breathe and yet because she is a female it takes all kind of intervention just to get this looked at. If it were me doing what she did, I'd be locked up or never let see my kids again.

The family court system has been based on women and their mothering for a long time. Things have changed. Women more and more act inappropriately and are bad mothers. Men who are men want what is best for their children, but we have to fight a system geared against us. That is the plain truth.

Equal rights, not only means equal rights for women, minorities, gays, but equal rights for men too.


----------



## MovingAhead

Catherine602 said:


> If the movement is about children, why is so much bandwidth expended on the unfairness of supporting the children they want the rights to?


I pay roughly $2000 per month in child support. I don't have a bed nor do I have any idea how I will be able to pay for college for my 3 boys.

The $2000 is after taxes, so that is roughly $42,857 a year that I pay for child support. My EX was a Sahm. She quit her job to 'raise the children'. She was going to home school everything but that never turned out... I gave her $10,500 in alimony last year. So she effectively received about $60,000 of my salary.

I also pay for all my boys sports which is about $10,000/year. My two oldest play on nationally ranked teams so it's a lot.

So now my Ex has no incentive to get a job equivalent or nearly equivalent to the one she had before we had children. She refuses to work more than 10 minutes from home. Living in the DC area, that is not common. She takes a job being well underpaid to prove she is working. The problem is, my salary covered all of our expenses before, now it does not.

I would appreciate if my EX who has a college degree would work at her pay level and make maybe $40,000 a year so the burden of everything on me would be less.

Her boyfriend takes her to Punta Cana. I take the kids to the local beach. I pay for her to go out and eat every night. This is a fact. I do NOT mind paying a dime for my kids. That is not what child support is really. It is money to be used by the 'other spouse' for whatever they see fit.

If she moves in with her boyfriend, then I would still have to pay the same amount. He makes every but as much as I do and they would have all the money I am giving to her to be used for parties. None of it go to the kids. None of what she gets is being put aside for them.

Believe it or not, when a system is put in place, some people abuse the system. I do not mind paying the same amount of CS, I just wish 1/2 of it would be funneled to a college savings account. It is not.


----------



## TheFlood117

MovingAhead said:


> I pay roughly $2000 per month in child support. I don't have a bed nor do I have any idea how I will be able to pay for college for my 3 boys.
> 
> The $2000 is after taxes, so that is roughly $42,857 a year that I pay for child support. My EX was a Sahm. She quit her job to 'raise the children'. She was going to home school everything but that never turned out... I gave her $10,500 in alimony last year. So she effectively received about $60,000 of my salary.
> 
> I also pay for all my boys sports which is about $10,000/year. My two oldest play on nationally ranked teams so it's a lot.
> 
> 
> So now my Ex has no incentive to get a job equivalent or nearly equivalent to the one she had before we had children. She refuses to work more than 10 minutes from home. Living in the DC area, that is not common. She takes a job being well underpaid to prove she is working. The problem is, my salary covered all of our expenses before, now it does not.
> 
> I would appreciate if my EX who has a college degree would work at her pay level and make maybe $40,000 a year so the burden of everything on me would be less.
> 
> Her boyfriend takes her to Punta Cana. I take the kids to the local beach. I pay for her to go out and eat every night. This is a fact. I do NOT mind paying a dime for my kids. That is not what child support is really. It is money to be used by the 'other spouse' for whatever they see fit.
> 
> If she moves in with her boyfriend, then I would still have to pay the same amount. He makes every but as much as I do and they would have all the money I am giving to her to be used for parties. None of it go to the kids. None of what she gets is being put aside for them.
> 
> Believe it or not, when a system is put in place, some people abuse the system. I do not mind paying the same amount of CS, I just wish 1/2 of it would be funneled to a college savings account. It is not.



See, this is type of sh!t I point to when I say that the game (marriage) is rigged hardcore for the woman and the delicate nature of the female existence, solidified in the "stay at home mommy".

I would NEVER advise any man to marry without a pre-nup, and without the woman working at least. This ain't the 40's. You preach womens lib. Then live it. 

GET OUT AND GET A J.O.B lady. 

My ex wife tried this route. I was like, "nah, you need to work you can work part time but you need a job. End of discussion". 

Then her affair, lol. 

I was a jerk. But your story shows, clearly, that the game is rigged.

I feel for ya bro. Your cash ain't yours. Child support is one thing (and that is outrageous enough IMO) but you gotta love the alimony part, lol. You actually paying for your paying for 3 children. Your two kids and their mommy-the adult child. But she's got the capacity to go out and get banged good but can't get a job. Women of America. And you're right, this ain't an oddity. Just last week one of my close friends who's a money dude- guy pulls about 250k a year, found out wife as been having an affair and is going to leave him, take the kids, take the house and half his stuff. And of course the ho is a stay at home mommy-She too has a degree (on her daddy's dime of course). But she's just playing the numbers. And the game is rigged. So for her, why not? Can't say I wouldn't do the same really. 

Oh no wait, I wouldn't. Cause I'm not a:

1. Ho.
2. Liar and Cheater
3. Lazy, entitled woman

This type of sh!t makes me so angry and also so glad my divorce went the way it did. Good luck bro. 

Yeah, men aren't marrying..... 

Gee, I wonder why.


----------



## Jellybeans

MovingAhead said:


> I pay roughly $2000 per month in child support. I don't have a bed nor do I have any idea how I will be able to pay for college for my 3 boys.
> 
> The $2000 is after taxes, so that is roughly $42,857 a year that I pay for child support. My EX was a Sahm. She quit her job to 'raise the children'. She was going to home school everything but that never turned out... I gave her $10,500 in alimony last year. So she effectively received about $60,000 of my salary.
> I gave her $10,500 in alimony last year. So she effectively received about $60,000 of my salary.
> 
> So now my Ex has no incentive to get a job equivalent or nearly equivalent to the one she had before we had children.
> 
> I would appreciate if my EX who has a college degree would work at her pay level and make maybe $40,000 a year so the burden of everything on me would be less.


UGH. That is annoying! Does she have a full-time job or just works a few hours here and there? After reading that, I can totally understand why you'd never want to remarry. I sure as sh!t wouldn't in your position after having lived that!

I really think that some women who get used to living this way--living off someone else supporting them and then get divorced--get stuck in this mindset that they are never going to work or have their own income income because they can live off their ex-spouse. Maddening.

One of my sorority sisters from college is forever posting stuff on her Facebook about the SAHM thing and about working women and how she doesn't understand "what THEY" (yes she says "they") are doing at the mall when she goes out with her kid (she's a stay at home mom) because "Shouldn't they be at work? Just weird seeing them here." WTF. My bet is she would be like your wife if she is to divorce one day.


----------



## wilderness

Catherine602 said:


> This is what I see.
> 
> *Some women get into relationships and have children with men who have abandoned their children with no question of their suitability for fatherhood or marriage*. That makes it socially acceptable to D children along with their mother.
> 
> Moreover, some women who marry men who are supporting their kids financially and emotionally and then may become the evil resentful stepmother are also part of the problem.
> 
> *The fathers right movement is directed towards hatred of women.* Many men walk away finically, physically and emotionally from their children when they D the mother.
> 
> How many of the posters on this forum have had walk away father's and grow up in a household headed by a finically strained mother? Even those who have experienced it, grouse at supporting their own kids.
> 
> If it is about children then make it about them.


In my opinion this post is straight up feminist misandry. 

The notion that the father's rights movement is about hatred of women is, well, laughable. Feminism _always_ looks to ascribe false motives to men. A good real life example of this is when a man files for a custody modification, he is invariably accused of doing so in order to lower his child support. I have also seen it with men trying to file restraining orders or counter restraining orders. This is particularly infuriating, as women are NEVER questioned on their motives even subsequent to them being revealed. To elaborate, a very typical scenario=

1. Woman files restraining order to get man out of the house.
2. Woman files for and is granted sole use of the house based on the restraining order.
3. It is later revealed that the restraining order was false or filed under false pretenses.
4. Status quo is invoked to prevent the man from returning to his house, despite the fact that _the woman falsely accused the man and perjured herself in the first place._


----------



## wilderness

MovingAhead said:


> I pay roughly $2000 per month in child support. I don't have a bed nor do I have any idea how I will be able to pay for college for my 3 boys.
> 
> The $2000 is after taxes, so that is roughly $42,857 a year that I pay for child support. My EX was a Sahm. She quit her job to 'raise the children'. She was going to home school everything but that never turned out... I gave her $10,500 in alimony last year. So she effectively received about $60,000 of my salary.
> 
> I also pay for all my boys sports which is about $10,000/year. My two oldest play on nationally ranked teams so it's a lot.
> 
> So now my Ex has no incentive to get a job equivalent or nearly equivalent to the one she had before we had children. She refuses to work more than 10 minutes from home. Living in the DC area, that is not common. She takes a job being well underpaid to prove she is working. The problem is, my salary covered all of our expenses before, now it does not.
> 
> I would appreciate if my EX who has a college degree would work at her pay level and make maybe $40,000 a year so the burden of everything on me would be less.
> 
> Her boyfriend takes her to Punta Cana. I take the kids to the local beach. I pay for her to go out and eat every night. This is a fact. I do NOT mind paying a dime for my kids. That is not what child support is really. It is money to be used by the 'other spouse' for whatever they see fit.
> 
> If she moves in with her boyfriend, then I would still have to pay the same amount. He makes every but as much as I do and they would have all the money I am giving to her to be used for parties. None of it go to the kids. None of what she gets is being put aside for them.
> 
> Believe it or not, when a system is put in place, some people abuse the system. I do not mind paying the same amount of CS, I just wish 1/2 of it would be funneled to a college savings account. It is not.


The court takes the position that the parent needs to work and support the children, _as long as that parent is a man_.

Also extremely important to note that the court doesn't care one bit whether the custodial parent (read: the female) let's the other parent see the children. The only remedy is a contempt motion. In order to get anything done about it, it takes the stars lining up. You need tons of money, time, and a judge that's willing to do something about it. I've been divorced for 2 years and in and out of court for contempt and my X has never had to face _any_ consequences for not letting me see my daughter.


----------



## wilderness

Machiavelli said:


> I think the problem is when child support is actually ex-wife and new boyfriend support, when CS is about lifestyle equalization rather than what is actually needed to feed and clothe the children. Not to mention women who withhold visitation. My W used to supervise the child support section in a suburban Chicago county and she told me it was horrific.


There is no such thing as 'child support'. That's just the euphemism they use. What it really is is a man turning over money to a woman that she can use for whatever she wants. There is no requirement for women to use child support money on children.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Ok, so you guys are clearly getting screwed with your alimony and support payments. The real issue is what's the answer? The quick and dirty answer is don't get married, but that doesn't address the real issue; besides, what will you do instead? Live with a sahm? You don't think if that becomes the norm you'll still get sued for support? I guarantee you will. Live with a woman that works? Well if she works you wouldn't have these issues anyway. Don't live with her and have kids, knowing you'll start as a part time father? If you don't want kids by all means stay single, but if you do want kids the real issue needs to be dealt with.

The real issue is the idea of a stay at home parent. I'm in no way suggesting stay at homes aren't valuable, they are (I did it for a few years), but there are risks that nobody considers until things fall apart. When you go along with this you accept that you're now on the hook for her support, and the longer she (or he) stays out of the work force the harder it is to get back in, both because your skills lag and you get used to the lifestyle. It's hysterical when people say "ok, the kids are grown now get a job and support yourself", as if it's that easy.
In fact, the whole idea of the modern stay at home mom and housewife was created by men. In times past, running the house really was a full time job, and a lot of women worked in various capacities to help the family. As modern conveniences changed this, men wanted the little woman at home where she belonged, thus the modern stay at home. The created the scenario where women were completely dependent; but as long as you couldn't divorce that might be ok (unless the guy just walked out, like my good for nothing grandfather). This meant that men could cheat, beat their wives, and behave however they wanted because wifee couldn't go anywhere, but it also meant that he had full financial responsibility.

If you want this to end you must have full financial equality; don't support a stay at home mom unless you're prepared to support her if things don't work out. If you do, set up a prenup outlining how finances will be handled in case of divorce. Kids have to be supported but the idea that men should pay alimony so a woman doesn't have to get a job is ridiculous. I never asked my ex for alimony because I didn't believe that I should be supported by someone else. Once again: I'm not attacking sahm's, so please don't flame me. I'm suggesting that both parties need to set up an agreement regarding how finances and support will be handled, which is very good for both parties. Both parties will have a say and you won't have to worry about what a judge will decide.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> There is no such thing as 'child support'. That's just the euphemism they use. What it really is is a man turning over money to a woman that she can use for whatever she wants. There is no requirement for women to use child support money on children.


Are your children living in the wilderness, foraging for food, drinking rain water, studying by candlelit and walking to school naked? No? Then that money goes to support your children.


----------



## Chris989

therealbrighteyes said:


> are your children living in the wilderness, foraging for food, drinking rain water, studying by candlelit and walking to school naked? No? Then a _*small proportion, determined by somebody that feels entitled to not have to work whilst using an ex husband's labour to fund her lifestyle and date other men of* _ that money goes to support your children.


*
ftfy*


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

The average child support paid here in the United States is $430.00. 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html

Nobody is getting rich or having a "lifestyle" with that. Yes, there certainly are people paying more just as there are people paying less. 
I always thought father's rights groups were about changing the family court system regarding child custody, enforcing visitation and creating stricter penalties for those who abuse the system. That is something I am on board with. The responses here have been largely money motivated though. Many here are helping Catherine prove her point.


----------



## Chris989

When money is involved, people rarely do the right thing. I've seen father's refuse to pay for their kids just to "prove a point" and I've seen women spend the child support on booze and going out and then come back to the ex for the school fees or Christmas money.

I do see court settlements that give a woman the "lifestyle to which she has become accustomed" for the rest of her natural life.

That is simply not right.

I have also seen women constantly and consistently abuse the child access agreements, knowing that it takes £1,000s to get back to the courts to have it enforced - at which point they simply agree with everything that the court asks, knowing it has wasted £1,000s and there is zero recourse for this.

My mother is a feminist that has worked in the family court systems for most of her working life. She is currently studying for her 2nd degree in women's studies. Even she says the court system is biased against men.

I can go on to cite examples of violence and rape committed against men being completely ignored - nay, ridiculed - but even behaving in a manner perceived as threatening with no other witnesses can get a man put away for a night to "cool down".

If you don't accept that there is a problem in Western court systems when it comes to treating men as equals, then I do not believe there is anything to discuss.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are your children living in the wilderness, foraging for food, drinking rain water, studying by candlelit and walking to school naked? No? Then that money goes to support your children.


Factually, the money does not go to support my children (in my case, child). The money goes straight into my XWife's hands. She is free to spend it however she wants to. Ridiculous, really. As a parent of the child I have absolutely 0 say where that money goes. Worse than that, my x isn't even obligated to spend it on my child.


----------



## wilderness

lifeistooshort said:


> Ok, so you guys are clearly getting screwed with your alimony and support payments. The real issue is what's the answer? The quick and dirty answer is don't get married, but that doesn't address the real issue; besides, what will you do instead? Live with a sahm? You don't think if that becomes the norm you'll still get sued for support? I guarantee you will. Live with a woman that works? Well if she works you wouldn't have these issues anyway. Don't live with her and have kids, knowing you'll start as a part time father? If you don't want kids by all means stay single, but if you do want kids the real issue needs to be dealt with.
> 
> The real issue is the idea of a stay at home parent. I'm in no way suggesting stay at homes aren't valuable, they are (I did it for a few years), but there are risks that nobody considers until things fall apart. When you go along with this you accept that you're now on the hook for her support, and the longer she (or he) stays out of the work force the harder it is to get back in, both because your skills lag and you get used to the lifestyle. It's hysterical when people say "ok, the kids are grown now get a job and support yourself", as if it's that easy.
> In fact, the whole idea of the modern stay at home mom and housewife was created by men. In times past, running the house really was a full time job, and a lot of women worked in various capacities to help the family. As modern conveniences changed this, men wanted the little woman at home where she belonged, thus the modern stay at home. The created the scenario where women were completely dependent; but as long as you couldn't divorce that might be ok (unless the guy just walked out, like my good for nothing grandfather). This meant that men could cheat, beat their wives, and behave however they wanted because wifee couldn't go anywhere, but it also meant that he had full financial responsibility.
> 
> If you want this to end you must have full financial equality; don't support a stay at home mom unless you're prepared to support her if things don't work out. If you do, set up a prenup outlining how finances will be handled in case of divorce. Kids have to be supported but the idea that men should pay alimony so a woman doesn't have to get a job is ridiculous. I never asked my ex for alimony because I didn't believe that I should be supported by someone else. Once again: I'm not attacking sahm's, so please don't flame me. I'm suggesting that both parties need to set up an agreement regarding how finances and support will be handled, which is very good for both parties. Both parties will have a say and you won't have to worry about what a judge will decide.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Blame the victim.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I always thought father's rights groups were about changing the family court system regarding child custody, enforcing visitation and creating stricter penalties for those who abuse the system. That is something I am on board with. The responses here have been largely money motivated though. Many here are helping Catherine prove her point.


If you chose to deliberately misinterpret my comment then yes, we have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The average child support paid here in the United States is $430.00.
> 
> https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html
> 
> Nobody is getting rich or having a "lifestyle" with that. Yes, there certainly are people paying more just as there are people paying less.
> I always thought father's rights groups were about changing the family court system regarding child custody, enforcing visitation and creating stricter penalties for those who abuse the system. That is something I am on board with. The responses here have been largely money motivated though. Many here are helping Catherine prove her point.


Those numbers include _everyone_. Meaning those that have a 55/45 split and pay 10$ a month. That study is worthless in the context of this thread. Where I live, man earning $40,000/yr pays 10k/yr plus health insurance. The child support awards of many states (NY, CA, NJ, MA come to mind) are flat out ridiculous.


----------



## Chris989

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If you chose to deliberately misinterpret my comment then yes, we have nothing further to discuss.


I didn't choose to misinterpret your comment. I got it wrong; I am afraid one of my many faults is that I go off on a rant without properly interpreting replies.

Apologies and please do not think my comments were aimed at you or your replies, I just dived in with a rant.


----------



## lifeistooshort

wilderness said:


> Blame the victim.



Wow, you really can't have a discussion beyond men good, women evil. It must suck to be a perpetual victim with no power in your life.
I bet all your viewpoints can be summed up on bumper stickers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Factually, the money does not go to support my children (in my case, child). The money goes straight into my XWife's hands. She is free to spend it however she wants to. Ridiculous, really. As a parent of the child I have absolutely 0 say where that money goes. Worse than that, my x isn't even obligated to spend it on my child.


Again, is your child hungry, homeless and naked? If not, then she is using that money for the benefit of your child. She is actually obligated to spend it on your child. Failure to do so would be child neglect.

With all the issues some men face in family court and the heartaches they go through, they garner tremendous sympathy from me and I agree that changes must be made so both sexes are valued in parenting. What upsets me greatly though is this notion that child support is a lifestyle enhancer for women. It isn't and factual data supports that you are incorrect.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Chris989 said:


> I didn't choose to misinterpret your comment. I got it wrong; I am afraid one of my many faults is that I go off on a rant without properly interpreting replies.
> 
> Apologies and please do not think my comments were aimed at you or your replies, I just dived in with a rant.


Apology accepted. It takes a big person to admit when they made a mistake.


----------



## wilderness

> Again, is your child hungry, homeless and naked? If not, then she is using that money for the benefit of your child. She is actually obligated to spend it on your child. Failure to do so would be child neglect and CPS would come and take the kid. Has that happened?




This is a false dichotomy. Just because my child is not hungry homeless or naked does NOT mean my X (or anyone's X) spends the child support money on the child. She may spend _some_ of the money on the child (though in my case she literally doesn't spend a penny as her parents pay for everything, but that's besides the point), but that doesn't mean she is obligated in anyway to do so. Your offered 'remedy' of CPS, which is the classic feminist comeback, btw, is not a remedy at all. First of all, no non custodial parent wants CPS involved because if the child(ren) are taken, they will be brought to a foster home and NOT to the NCP. What parent wants that? Second, what about the custodial parents that spend the bare minimum on the child and take the rest of the money for party time? What is the remedy for those parents? There isn't one. Actually, it's worse than that. Any mention of accounting of child support money in court will be met with an open admission from those in charge that the custodial parent is NOT required to spend the child support money on the children. Ask me how I know this.



> With all the issues some men face in family court and the heartaches they go through, they garner tremendous sympathy from me. What upsets me greatly though is this notion that child support is a lifestyle enhancer for women. It isn't and factual data supports that you are wrong.[/


Not only is child supporter a lifestyle enhancer for women, it's a lifestyle *KILLER* for men. Run some numbers on the various child support calculaters to see what I mean. It's common, actually it's the norm, for the custodial parent to get more money than the NCP. The custodial parent has the option of working (or in many cases, getting a new man that works), but the NCP is stuck in abject poverty for years.

That's not right, no matter how you spin it!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Those numbers include _everyone_. Meaning those that have a 55/45 split and pay 10$ a month. That study is worthless in the context of this thread. Where I live, man earning $40,000/yr pays 10k/yr plus health insurance. The child support awards of many states (NY, CA, NJ, MA come to mind) are flat out ridiculous.


It isn't worthless. It is the government census report collected over a ten year period but your anecdotal evidence trumps that, right?


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> It isn't worthless. It is the government census report collected over a ten year period but your anecdotal evidence trumps that, right?


I explained the deal with that census report. It is the average, which includes all of the 50/50 and 55/45 parents that pay peanuts in child support. It also includes all the parents that negotiated their own deals outside the purview of the oppressive state. Again, I said those numbers are worthless in the context of this discussion. They are. When a parent earning 40k/yr, a below avg, income by just about any metric, pays 10k/yr in child support, it should be obvious that any study pointing to an average child support award of 450$/mo is garbage.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> I explained the deal with that census report. It is the average, which includes all of the 50/50 and 55/45 parents that pay peanuts in child support. It also includes all the parents that negotiated their own deals outside the purview of the oppressive state. Again, I said those numbers are worthless in the context of this discussion. They are. When a parent earning 40k/yr, a below avg, income by just about any metric, pays 10k/yr in child support, it should be obvious that any study pointing to an average child support award of 450$/mo is garbage.


How is it worthless within the content of this discussion? Child support was a topic started by someone else. I provided factual data and yet that's worthless. I am open to change my mind though so provide your facts.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How is it worthless within the content of this discussion? Child support was a topic started by someone else. I provided factual data and yet that's worthless. I am open to change my mind though so provide your facts.


Because if you plug an average salary into the child support calculater, for any state, you will clearly see that the child support award is going to be almost double what the 'average' says it should be.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Because if you plug an average salary into the child support calculater, for any state, you will clearly see that the child support award is going to be almost double what the 'average' says it should be.


Did you read the survey? They provided the tables that broke down the income, number of children and amounts paid. Yes, many amounts are much higher and many are much lower. It's an average.

I understand you are very hurt and I suspect no matter how much evidence I provide you are unlikely to acknowledge it. If there is any upside to your situation and those of many other men it's that family courts are rapidly changing. More and more men are now asking for joint custody and the courts are recognizing the need of fathers in their childrens lives. They no longer view women as caregivers and men as wallets and that's a good thing. Parenting should be about equality, not gender roles.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Did you read the survey? They provided the tables that broke down the income, number of children and amounts paid. Yes, many amounts are much higher and many are much lower. It's an average.


It's not an average. It's a misleading lie. That 'average' is absolutely no help whatsoever to any man facing the system _in real life._ In real life, judges award what the child support calculator spits out (or more).


----------



## over20

:iagree:


wilderness said:


> This is a false dichotomy. Just because my child is not hungry homeless or naked does NOT mean my X (or anyone's X) spends the child support money on the child. She may spend _some_ of the money on the child (though in my case she literally doesn't spend a penny as her parents pay for everything, but that's besides the point), but that doesn't mean she is obligated in anyway to do so. Your offered 'remedy' of CPS, which is the classic feminist comeback, btw, is not a remedy at all. First of all, no non custodial parent wants CPS involved because if the child(ren) are taken, they will be brought to a foster home and NOT to the NCP. What parent wants that? Second, what about the custodial parents that spend the bare minimum on the child and take the rest of the money for party time? What is the remedy for those parents? There isn't one. Actually, it's worse than that. Any mention of accounting of child support money in court will be met with an open admission from those in charge that the custodial parent is NOT required to spend the child support money on the children. Ask me how I know this.
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is child supporter a lifestyle enhancer for women, it's a lifestyle *KILLER* for men. Run some numbers on the various child support calculaters to see what I mean. It's common, actually it's the norm, for the custodial parent to get more money than the NCP. The custodial parent has the option of working (or in many cases, getting a new man that works), but the NCP is stuck in abject poverty for years.
> 
> That's not right, no matter how you spin it!


I have personally seen this happen to a friend of ours..Until their divorce was final the XW was already living with another man and pregnant. She had her new boyfriends money, still under the husbands health insurance (which paid for the delivery of the baby) and was trying to apply for food stamps, all the while receiving alimony and child support.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are your children living in the wilderness, foraging for food, drinking rain water, studying by candlelit and walking to school naked? No? Then that money goes to support your children.


That is a big maybe. There is some truth in that if it goes to pay bills etc, but that is over generalizing.


----------



## Machiavelli

wilderness said:


> There is no such thing as 'child support'. That's just the euphemism they use. What it really is is a man turning over money to a woman that she can use for whatever she wants. There is no requirement for women to use child support money on children.


Exactly.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Again, is your child hungry, homeless and naked? If not, then she is using that money for the benefit of your child. She is actually obligated to spend it on your child. Failure to do so would be child neglect.
> 
> With all the issues some men face in family court and the heartaches they go through, they garner tremendous sympathy from me and I agree that changes must be made so both sexes are valued in parenting. What upsets me greatly though is this notion that child support is a lifestyle enhancer for women. It isn't and factual data supports that you are incorrect.


This is actually wrong.

In the case where you spend the CS money on bills, housing etc... which encompass the children, yes it in a way goes toward the children.

When you spend the money are lavish parties and pool amenities as a friend of mine's ex wife does, that is not being spent on the children and we all know it.

I had my kids 95% of the time for some months. I still paid EX-W same CS. She had a real nice time eating our, dining, traveling.

Each case is different.

The fact of the matter is the receiver of CS can spend the money on whatever they want. They are not obligated to spend the money on child support. It is the system. It is abused. There is 0 accountability.

Women are not bad, guys are not good, but the sample here are of men who got screwed over by unfaithful wives so the CS system is not really set up to protect OUR children. We fall outside of the system.


----------



## over20

lisab0105 said:


> 29 women since December and you are convinced that 1. Something was wrong with all of them, not you. 2. You really believe 29 women out of millions and millions gives YOU the inside scoop on how we are, what we think and what we want? You are the one that doesn't have a single freaking clue. I think you just have bad taste in women.
> 
> And I can seriously only laugh at you calling me bitter. This post is full of angry men going on about the treachery that is the female species and marriage, yourself included...and I am bitter??? Give me a break.
> 
> Sorry FF, at the risk of getting banned I don't give two big f'cks that these "men" have been hurt. We've all been hurt, otherwise we wouldn't be here. It doesn't give them the right to be @ssholes to the females that aren't tripping over themselves agreeing that marriage and women are bad! bad! bad!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I disagree. This thread is NOT "full of angry men going on about the treachery that is the female species and marriage." It is about men who were deeply in love and risked EVERYTHING for their wife and in the end the husband got screwed. These kinds of stories are not isolated incidents they are growing across the globe. Women have WIC and other state agencies that help them out....What do the men have? Nothing


----------



## doubletrouble

Bitterness in this thread. Some well deserved. 

I was married twice before. Both cheated on me; the first with a married man, the second with a single woman. 

So along comes my current girl. She's the sun and the moon and the stars and I love her and trust her blindly. 

She cheats on me with OM. 

I would have married her, and today I talk as though we're married, but the cheating, complete with her remorse and our R, has stopped the marriage train in its tracks. I think most would call me foolish to do anything else. 

Damn, I'm tired of being told I'm the love of someone's life then being tossed aside. I know it happens on both sides, but I only have this one (male) body to live in, so that's my perspective. Why tie my heart and salary and assets to someone who has proven she can't be 100% faithful? She assures me it will never happen again. Hmmm, OK then, I'll tell her I will never cheat too, and see who scores first. Oh, I lose. 

My historical problem is, most of the women I've loved have screwed me over in one way or another. Am I perfect? Hell yes, of course I am!  But those experiences have changed my level of wisdom.


----------



## over20

I am so sorry for you......


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The average child support paid here in the United States is $430.00.
> 
> https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb12-109.html
> 
> Nobody is getting rich or having a "lifestyle" with that. Yes, there certainly are people paying more just as there are people paying less.
> I always thought father's rights groups were about changing the family court system regarding child custody, enforcing visitation and creating stricter penalties for those who abuse the system. That is something I am on board with. The responses here have been largely money motivated though. Many here are helping Catherine prove her point.


I agree with a lot of what you say. I do. I do not think we are far apart on this. 

The CS system is bad. It is not the amount that concerns me. It is the usage of the money. There is no accountability and many times it gets wasted. I don't have a TV or bed but I pay her $2000/month.

I don't mind, but she sure as hell doesn't live without her amenities. I help pay for them. That just doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## over20

If it was the female with no TV or bed, suffering emotional trauma and dishing out $2000 of her hard earned money to the XH...it would be all over the News.



My own DH has joked with me...."You know if we ever divorced you would be living a lot better than you do now. You would have my child support/alimony, state help and whatever your new man gives you" that's a scary thought


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> In the case where you spend the CS money on bills, housing etc... which encompass the children, yes it in a way goes toward the children.
> 
> When you spend the money are lavish parties and pool amenities as a friend of mine's ex wife does, that is not being spent on the children and we all know it.


Of course there are extremes. I am not suggesting there aren't. Using anecdotal evidence and thus women make out like bandits living high on the hog is simply not true for the vast majority of child support recipients. Child support by and large is not exorbitant and is used for the welfare of the children. That has been my position during this discussion, not that some outrageous circumstances don't exist.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Of course there are extremes. I am not suggesting there aren't. Using anecdotal evidence and thus women make out like bandits living high on the hog is simply not true for the vast majority of child support recipients. Child support by and large is not exorbitant and is used for the welfare of the children. That has been my position during this discussion, not that some outrageous circumstances don't exist.


I agree with you. I just happen to be the corner case. I think CS with adultery involved really adds insult to injury for most of us who were betrayed.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> The CS system is bad. It is not the amount that concerns me. It is the usage of the money. There is no accountability and many times it gets wasted.


What accountability would you like, a general accounting? I hear men say that recipients aren't held accountable for the usage of the child support money and this always leaves me puzzled. If your children have all their needs met, how is the money not spent on them? As an example, I have a dear friend who recently got divorced. He lamented that his child support payments "went to pay for her new car". Hold on a second. So let's say the money you pay to support your children was literally handed over to the finance company to make her car payment, doesn't that mean that in order to house/feed/clothe/have electricity, gas, water, car insurance and fuel she would have to use her own money for that? What am I missing here?


----------



## Numbersixxx

Catherine602 said:


> I googled father's rights movement and looked at some of the sites. The main focus is legal strategies to lower child support. There were even links to lawyers specializing in child support issues offering men free consultations.
> 
> Children were mentioned in the mission statement, but strangely, child support was not.
> 
> If the movement is about children, why is so much bandwidth expended on the unfairness of supporting the children they want the rights to?


We should really stop calling it child support. It's vagina support, as Tom Leykis puts it.


----------



## naiveonedave

bright eyes - because 9 times out of 10, the CS pays for the kids AND then it pays for the exW to have a much better lifestyle than the exH. Her life may still be bad, but his is usually much worse.


----------



## norajane

lifeistooshort said:


> *The real issue is the idea of a stay at home parent. * I'm in no way suggesting stay at homes aren't valuable, they are (I did it for a few years), but there are risks that nobody considers until things fall apart. When you go along with this you accept that you're now on the hook for her support, and the longer she (or he) stays out of the work force the harder it is to get back in, both because your skills lag and you get used to the lifestyle. It's hysterical when people say "ok, the kids are grown now get a job and support yourself", as if it's that easy.
> 
> In fact, the whole idea of the modern stay at home mom and housewife was created by men. In times past, running the house really was a full time job, and a lot of women worked in various capacities to help the family. As modern conveniences changed this, men wanted the little woman at home where she belonged, thus the modern stay at home. The created the scenario where women were completely dependent; but as long as you couldn't divorce that might be ok (unless the guy just walked out, like my good for nothing grandfather). This meant that men could cheat, beat their wives, and behave however they wanted because wifee couldn't go anywhere, but it also meant that he had full financial responsibility.
> 
> *If you want this to end you must have full financial equality; don't support a stay at home mom unless you're prepared to support her if things don't work out.* If you do, set up a prenup outlining how finances will be handled in case of divorce. Kids have to be supported but the idea that men should pay alimony so a woman doesn't have to get a job is ridiculous. I never asked my ex for alimony because I didn't believe that I should be supported by someone else. Once again: I'm not attacking sahm's, so please don't flame me. I'm suggesting that both parties need to set up an agreement regarding how finances and support will be handled, which is very good for both parties. Both parties will have a say and you won't have to worry about what a judge will decide.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's pretty much how I see it. CS and especially alimony are not an issue if both exes are working. But many men on TAM, and elsewhere, want their wives to be SAHM's, and set up their lives up that way, and then are upset after a divorce because they are responsible for CS and alimony. Some men go so far as to look down on women who have jobs, or as they like to call them, career women. Stay away from them - they're not good marriage material. 

So I have to say you reap what you sow. Men are not stupid, and they have all kind of anecdotes from friends and people they know who get "screwed over by the system" in a divorce. Knowing that, why set up a life where you will absolutely have to pay CS and alimony in a divorce? If the money is such an issue after divorce, then use the money to pay for child care while your wife works instead of being a SAHM. Don't like that idea? Then accept the facts: SAHM = CS and alimony in a divorce. It's not like it was some big surprise that would happen.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What accountability would you like, a general accounting? I hear men say that recipients aren't held accountable for the usage of the child support money and this always leaves me puzzled. If your children have all their needs met, how is the money not spent on them? As an example, I have a dear friend who recently got divorced. He lamented that his child support payments "went to pay for her new car". Hold on a second. So let's say the money you pay to support your children was literally handed over to the finance company to make her car payment, doesn't that mean that in order to house/feed/clothe/have electricity, gas, water, car insurance and fuel she would have to use her own money for that? What am I missing here?


You are missing that the father of the child is forced at gunpoint to give his x tax free money that she gets to make the decision on how to use. They may call that money 'child support', but the title of the entitlement is contrary to what it actually is...free money.
Many men got divorced in the first place due to their exes selfishness. She cared more about herself than her husband and children while married, what makes you think things will be any different once divorced?


----------



## wilderness

norajane said:


> That's pretty much how I see it. CS and especially alimony are not an issue if both exes are working. But many men on TAM, and elsewhere, want their wives to be SAHM's, and set up their lives up that way, and then are upset after a divorce because they are responsible for CS and alimony. Some men go so far as to look down on women who have jobs, or as they like to call them, career women. Stay away from them - they're not good marriage material.
> 
> So I have to say you reap what you sow. Men are not stupid, and they have all kind of anecdotes from friends and people they know who get "screwed over by the system" in a divorce. Knowing that, why set up a life where you will absolutely have to pay CS and alimony in a divorce? If the money is such an issue after divorce, then use the money to pay for child care while your wife works instead of being a SAHM. Don't like that idea? Then accept the facts: SAHM = CS and alimony in a divorce. It's not like it was some big surprise that would happen.


Blame the victim.


----------



## over20

lifeistooshort said:


> Ok, so you guys are clearly getting screwed with your alimony and support payments. The real issue is what's the answer? The quick and dirty answer is don't get married, but that doesn't address the real issue; besides, what will you do instead? Live with a sahm? You don't think if that becomes the norm you'll still get sued for support? I guarantee you will. Live with a woman that works? Well if she works you wouldn't have these issues anyway. Don't live with her and have kids, knowing you'll start as a part time father? If you don't want kids by all means stay single, but if you do want kids the real issue needs to be dealt with.
> 
> The real issue is the idea of a stay at home parent. I'm in no way suggesting stay at homes aren't valuable, they are (I did it for a few years), but there are risks that nobody considers until things fall apart. When you go along with this you accept that you're now on the hook for her support, and the longer she (or he) stays out of the work force the harder it is to get back in, both because your skills lag and you get used to the lifestyle. It's hysterical when people say "ok, the kids are grown now get a job and support yourself", as if it's that easy.
> In fact, the whole idea of the modern stay at home mom and housewife was created by men. In times past, running the house really was a full time job, and a lot of women worked in various capacities to help the family. As modern conveniences changed this, men wanted the little woman at home where she belonged, thus the modern stay at home. The created the scenario where women were completely dependent; but as long as you couldn't divorce that might be ok (unless the guy just walked out, like my good for nothing grandfather). This meant that men could cheat, beat their wives, and behave however they wanted because wifee couldn't go anywhere, but it also meant that he had full financial responsibility.
> 
> If you want this to end you must have full financial equality; don't support a stay at home mom unless you're prepared to support her if things don't work out. If you do, set up a prenup outlining how finances will be handled in case of divorce. Kids have to be supported but the idea that men should pay alimony so a woman doesn't have to get a job is ridiculous. I never asked my ex for alimony because I didn't believe that I should be supported by someone else. Once again: I'm not attacking sahm's, so please don't flame me. I'm suggesting that both parties need to set up an agreement regarding how finances and support will be handled, which is very good for both parties. Both parties will have a say and you won't have to worry about what a judge will decide.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The idea of the stay at home mom was NOT men's idea. Before the industrial revolution BOTH parent's stayed at home and supported the family by farming and preparing goods to barter. The revolution FORCED fathers out their families homes to go to work...hence the beginning of the end of small family farming and sustainability. Honorable men would have never sent their wives to a factory. Men were PROTECTING their wives from that kind of life.


----------



## lifeistooshort

over20 said:


> The idea of the stay at home mom was NOT men's idea. Before the industrial revolution BOTH parent's stayed at home and supported the family by farming and preparing goods to barter. The revolution FORCED fathers out their families homes to go to work...hence the beginning of the end of small family farming and sustainability. Honorable men would have never sent their wives to a factory. Men were PROTECTING their wives from that kind of
> life.


I get that, but factories weren't the only things people did. There were plenty of things women could do that weren't dangerous, but men wanted them at home. You think women want to stay home and be dependent? If that's true why do you think they fought so hard to get into the workforce? It is not most womens goal in life to simply screw men. Sure there are dirtbags but they come in both genders; that's why character vetting is so important.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

lifeistooshort said:


> I get that, but factories weren't the only things people did. There were plenty of things women could do that weren't dangerous, but men wanted them at home. You think women want to stay home and be dependent? If that's true why do you think they fought so hard to get into the workforce? It is not most womens goal in life to simply screw men. Sure there are dirtbags but they come in both genders; that's why character vetting is so important.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, I do think women want to stay at home (and be dependent). As to women's goal being to screw men, perhaps not but when an entire money hungry industry is encouraging women to go for the jugular, many women don't actually look at the hard numbers and/or feel entitled to the free money lottery jackpot that they receive during divorce.


----------



## vellocet

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Again, is your child hungry, homeless and naked? If not, then she is using that money for the benefit of your child.


So its reasonable for a mother receiving $1,500/month for 2 kids to see his children dressed in highwaters, shoes with holes in them and dingy handme downs? As long as they aren't naked and being fed chef boy ardee, I should feel great?

Not jamming on your idea here really. But there is more to it than simply having clothes and food. For the money I pay I expect decent food and nice clothes that fit.




> With all the issues some men face in family court and the heartaches they go through, they garner tremendous sympathy from me and I agree that changes must be made so both sexes are valued in parenting. What upsets me greatly though is this notion that child support is a lifestyle enhancer for women. It isn't and factual data supports that you are incorrect.


For my x-wife, it is. She buys my kids cheap crap so she can pocket the rest. I figure from food for my kids, clothes(even if they were nice clothes) and educational expenses, on average in any given month she will have about $400 left over to spend on whatever SHE wants.

They don't eat more than $400/month in food, if she were to spend $2,000 for both of them twice a year for clothes($4,000), that monthly average comes to $333, and education expenses might end up being at most $1,000/year, making that monthly $83.
Add in maybe $100/month for their share of utilities, and $200/month for a house that has the extra bedrooms for them, the grand total for a month(again considering if she buys them nice clothes, which she doesn't) comes to $1,116. (but again, she doesn't come anywhere NEAR spending $4,000/year for them on clothes) So my figures are a kind estimate in her favor. She actually ends up pocketing on average more like 6 and $700/month without having any financial obligation to them on her part at all.

So not only does she not have to support them financially from her own income, she gets to pocket the difference.

I support them completely and her partially. All that and the father STILL has to make a home for them when they come to visit. So the father gets to support them twice.

And if what I said isn't true then her financial situation would greatly improve if she were to hand over custody to me, no?


----------



## over20

Great point, there are dirtbags on both sides for sure. I am going to disagree with on the point of women wanting to be dependent. The women's movement is all about CHOICE. If a women want's to stay home and be her children's mother and the rested mate for her DH that is still pro-female. It's her CHOICE, just like a woman has the CHOICE to work outside the home. 

Why should the feminist movement try tell me what lifestyle I should choose? The movement was about giving a woman a CHOICE, NOT telling her she has only one CHOICE to make i.e working outside the home.


----------



## norajane

wilderness said:


> Blame the victim.


Is he a victim if he _creates _the circumstances that lead to paying alimony, namely marrying someone he wants to be a SAHM?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> You are missing that the father of the child is forced at gunpoint to give his x tax free money that she gets to make the decision on how to use. They may call that money 'child support', but the title of the entitlement is contrary to what it actually is...free money.
> Many men got divorced in the first place due to their exes selfishness. She cared more about herself than her husband and children while married, what makes you think things will be any different once divorced?


Please let me know what part of the world you live where children cost nothing to raise and thus any support is "free money". Yes, infidelity and those who partake in it exhibit very selfish traits. It's also pretty selfish to consider financial support for your children as some sort of grift. 

As I mentioned to another poster here, yes there are people who take advantage of the system regarding child support, just as there are people who hop from job to job to avoid their obligations. There are extremes on both sides and yet the vast majority is pretty fair. I don't know your case, perhaps it is one that is extreme and thus the obvious anger you have. I don't think it's fair though for you to continually suggest that divorced mothers are swindlers.


----------



## over20

wilderness said:


> Yes, I do think women want to stay at home (and be dependent). As to women's goal being to screw men, perhaps not but when an entire money hungry industry is encouraging women to go for the jugular, many women don't actually look at the hard numbers and/or feel entitled to the free money lottery jackpot that they receive during divorce.


Thank you wilderness. A lot of us women who grew up in the 70's and 80's have seen women put their babies in child care and work long hours in the office sometimes sacrificing their relationships all around them....for what? In hindsight some of us have seen the ugly effects of the feminist movement go way to far and we want different for our own family. We want to sacrifice career for being that rested mate to our husbands and children. Making a happy home life is our great satisfaction in life. I have worked outside the home for a while and Dh and I prefer me home. I am not in a prison catering to my abusive husband but have the freedom to volunteer, pursue hobbies, go back to school all the while there for Dh and the kids when they need me...

I might be throwing gas on the fire here but I think some wives selfishness has lead them down the road to an affair and divorce which brings us back to the OP post....


----------



## over20

norajane said:


> Is he a victim if he _creates _the circumstances that lead to paying alimony, namely marrying someone he wants to be a SAHM?


Please don't insult SAHM's and the men that marry them. There are alot of us out here that are all very happy and not divorcing.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Of course the choice is yours, and in my post above I said that if you choose to stay home you should set up an agreement with your partner as to how the finances will work if things go south. And you can't choose this alone, you have agreement from the person that will be supporting you financially; you can't just decide in a vacuum you're not going to work.

My point was only that the mindset of women as dependents who must be able to get their ex husbands to support them has it's roots in women being forced to stay home. Societal attitudes usually take a few generations to change though. Now that divorces are more common, people just need to think about how this will play out if things go south, and I have the impression that very few have. That's life: choices and consequences.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

over20 said:


> Please don't insult SAHM's and the men that marry them. There are alot of us out here that are all very happy and not divorcing.


There sure are! But the men on this thread have had a lot to say about their no-good ex-wives who are taking advantage of them financially now because they were SAHM's and didn't work during the marriage. All I'm saying is, if that's the kind of life you set up, then there is no reason to be shocked and surprised that you have to pay alimony and CS in the event of a divorce. 

It's not the system's fault that one person in the couple has no job and can't support themselves or the children with their own money. If you don't want to pay alimony in the event of a divorce, and don't want to have to pay as much in CS, then don't set up a SAHM situation in the first place.


----------



## lifeistooshort

wilderness said:


> Yes, I do think women want to stay at home (and be dependent). As to women's goal being to screw men, perhaps not but when an entire money hungry industry is encouraging women to go for the jugular, many women don't actually look at the hard numbers and/or feel entitled to the free money lottery jackpot that they receive during divorce.



Well maybe in your would with the women you choose. Unless you're a high level exec there's a good chance I make a lot more money than you (and I love my job), and I can assure you that I have no desire to sit home and be dependent. But your misogynistic views are clear so I'm sure you either don't believe me or will blow it off.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Please let me know what part of the world you live where children cost nothing to raise and thus any support is "free money". Yes, infidelity and those who partake in it exhibit very selfish traits. It's also pretty selfish to consider financial support for your children as some sort of grift.
> 
> As I mentioned to another poster here, yes there are people who take advantage of the system regarding child support, just as there are people who hop from job to job to avoid their obligations. There are extremes on both sides and yet the vast majority is pretty fair. I don't know your case, perhaps it is one that is extreme and thus the obvious anger you have. I don't think it's fair though for you to continually suggest that divorced mothers are swindlers.


Problem is, child support is not financial support for children. Child support is tax free money given to the custodial parent to be used for anything they want.


----------



## wilderness

lifeistooshort said:


> Well maybe in your would with the women you choose. Unless you're a high level exec there's a good chance I make a lot more money than you (and I love my job), and I can assure you that I have no desire to sit home and be dependent. But your misogynistic views are clear so I'm sure you either don't believe me or will blow it off.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So I am a women hater because I don't like to see innocent men get screwed by a misandrist feministic criminal junta hellbent on destroying men's lives? If that makes me wrong, then I don't wanna be right.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Problem is, child support is not financial support for children. Child support is tax free money given to the custodial parent to be used for anything they want.


Does your child have his or her needs met? If so then it's going towards the child. I know you are angry and saying what you do over and over doesn't make it true. Most custodial parents are not shiftless spenders who fritter everything away on themselves, regardless of how much you paint them as such. Would it be fair if I said non-custodial parents are deadbeats who quit their jobs so the state cannot catch up to them? No, it would not because the majority of the time that isn't true....just like your statements. Extremes on both sides does not a rule make.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Most custodial parents are not shiftless spenders who fritter everything away on themselves, regardless of how much you paint them as suche.


Even if this were true the system would still be an atrocity. Why should one parent have 100% decision making authority and the other have 0?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Even if this were true the system would still be an atrocity. Why should one parent have 100% decision making authority and the other have 0?


100% and 0%? Does your ex have sole custody? For some reason I thought you said you have joint.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 100% and 0%? Does your ex have sole custody? For some reason I thought you said you have joint.


Joint legal. The party receiving the child support is decreed 100% authority on how the money is spent...whether on the child or not.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> Joint legal. The party receiving the child support is decreed 100% authority on how the money is spent...whether on the child or not.


She is receiving that money because I assume she has the primary care responsibilities for the child. Do you want a say in which grocery store she shops at, which gas station she fills up at, which cell phone provider she uses and which power company she gets her electricity from? I don't understand.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She is receiving that money because I assume she has the primary care responsibilities for the child. Do you want a say in which grocery store she shops at, which gas station she fills up at, which cell phone provider she uses and which power company she gets her electricity from? I don't understand.


I will answer this tomorrow. I am on my tablet which is not conducive to typing.


----------



## vellocet

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Please let me know what part of the world you live where children cost nothing to raise and thus any support is "free money".


I think I laid out the costs of supporting my kids very nicely. Certainly not free, but there is free money for x-wife left over and she doesn't have to financially support them from her own income whatsoever. All their support comes from me. None from her.




> Yes, infidelity and those who partake in it exhibit very selfish traits. It's also pretty selfish to consider financial support for your children as some sort of grift.


I don't at all. I wish all of my money went to buy them nice things. But it doesn't. It most easily can, but doesn't. She likes to hold back so she can pocket the rest.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

vellocet said:


> I think I laid out the costs of supporting my kids very nicely. Certainly not free, but there is free money for x-wife left over and she doesn't have to financially support them from her own income whatsoever. All their support comes from me. None from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't at all. I wish all of my money went to buy them nice things. But it doesn't. It most easily can, but doesn't. She likes to hold back so she can pocket the rest.



I thought I responded but now I see I didn't. Your situation is really disturbing, quite unfair and shameful. Are you able to change this in any way, either the support payments or custody itself?


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I thought I responded but now I see I didn't. Your situation is really disturbing, quite unfair and shameful. Are you able to change this in any way, either the support payments or custody itself?


His situation is the rule, not the exception.


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> I think I laid out the costs of supporting my kids very nicely. Certainly not free, but there is free money for x-wife left over and she doesn't have to financially support them from her own income whatsoever. All their support comes from me. None from her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't at all. I wish all of my money went to buy them nice things. But it doesn't. It most easily can, but doesn't. She likes to hold back so she can pocket the rest.



Well then that seems like a character flaw in the woman you chose. I get some child support from my ex, though I can tell you it's much lower than I see being thrown around here (and it nowhere near covers their expenses-I pay plenty out of my pocket), and they are quite well taken care of. They are priority number one for me, but I'm sure my ex would tell you he supplements my life, though I would tell you that he doesn't know what it costs to raise kids....In addition,I make quite a good salary myself, so I am entitled to spend some of my salary as I want. Besides, he has a decent house, two cars (one is a brand spanking new 2014) and is doing just fine. This is a difficult issue to resolve.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She is receiving that money because I assume she has the primary care responsibilities for the child. Do you want a say in which grocery store she shops at, which gas station she fills up at, which cell phone provider she uses and which power company she gets her electricity from? I don't understand.


She was awarded physical custody based on her gender and no other reason, so she shouldn't even have physical custody. That's number 1. Number 2, the 'child support' money I give her goes towards drugs, her new boyfriend, and God knows what else. None towards my daughter. Number 3, yes I most certainly do want a say in where that money is spent as the father of my child. Like most men, I wouldn't be militant about it or anything like that. If she would just work with me, I'd probably be very flexible. But that will never happen.


----------



## vellocet

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I thought I responded but now I see I didn't. Your situation is really disturbing, quite unfair and shameful. Are you able to change this in any way, either the support payments or custody itself?


No, and I expressed this concern to my lawyer after I was already paying support, but the divorce had not yet been finalized.

He said it doesn't matter if they wear ratty clothes and are fed nothing but junk food. As long as they are eating and not naked, like you said, I really have no recourse.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see paying child support as a burden. I'd be paying for them anyway if I was still married.

I just want to see my kids wear nice clothes and eat good food and not have their mother tell them she can't afford to buy them something they want for birthdays or Christmas because she doesn't have enough money, when she has plenty left over from what I give her.

I told her with what I'm paying her she should be taking them to shop at the Buckle twice a year.


----------



## wilderness

vellocet said:


> No, and I expressed this concern to my lawyer after I was already paying support, but the divorce had not yet been finalized.
> 
> He said it doesn't matter if they wear ratty clothes and are fed nothing but junk food. As long as they are eating and not naked, like you said, I really have no recourse.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't see paying child support as a burden. I'd be paying for them anyway if I was still married.
> 
> I just want to see my kids wear nice clothes and eat good food and not have their mother tell them she can't afford to buy them something they want for birthdays or Christmas because she doesn't have enough money, when she has plenty left over from what I give her.
> 
> I told her with what I'm paying her she should be taking them to shop at the Buckle twice a year.


You said that there is upwards of $600/mo that your wife is pocketing. That's a burden if I've ever heard of one.


----------



## vellocet

lifeistooshort said:


> Well then that seems like a character flaw in the woman you chose.


Too bad I didn't see that flaw before I chose her.




> I get some child support from my ex, though I can tell you it's much lower than I see being thrown around here (and it nowhere near covers their expenses-I pay plenty out of my pocket), and they are quite well taken care of.


And that is also true that too many times fathers aren't ordered to pay more whether its because they don't make as much, or the mother's don't push the issue.

Sometimes the mother's don't get enough, sometimes they get well more than enough. You are a great mother to care for them with what you get. I wish my x-wife was the same type of mother as you. I'd sleep better at night.




> They are priority number one for me, but I'm sure my ex would tell you he supplements my life, though I would tell you that he doesn't know what it costs to raise kids



I do think that men will say they supplement their wives life without considering the costs to raise the kids. I did the run down on numbers and based on what I ran, my kids should be wearing damn nice clothes and shopping at Buckle or Hollister.





> ....In addition,I make quite a good salary myself, so I am entitled to spend some of my salary as I want.


Most definitely, especially since I'm sure you make sure your kids are well taken care of...with his money and yours. My X doesn't buy them what they deserve when my money is all she needs to take care of their needs and take care of them well.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

wilderness said:


> She was awarded physical custody based on her gender and no other reason, so she shouldn't even have physical custody. That's number 1. Number 2, the 'child support' money I give her goes towards drugs, her new boyfriend, and God knows what else. None towards my daughter. Number 3, yes I most certainly do want a say in where that money is spent as the father of my child. Like most men, I wouldn't be militant about it or anything like that. If she would just work with me, I'd probably be very flexible. But that will never happen.


You don't come off as a very flexible person on this issue. You state that nothing is going to your daughter then say "and God knows what else" admitting that you have no idea what the money is spent on. Housing/food/water/clothing/ is what it is being spent on. Your daughter hasn't died of neglect, therefore she is being taken care of. The drug part is disturbing though. Are you able to get changes made in your agreement due to this?


----------



## over20

norajane said:


> There sure are! But the men on this thread have had a lot to say about their no-good ex-wives who are taking advantage of them financially now because they were SAHM's and didn't work during the marriage. All I'm saying is, if that's the kind of life you set up, then there is no reason to be shocked and surprised that you have to pay alimony and CS in the event of a divorce.
> 
> It's not the system's fault that one person in the couple has no job and can't support themselves or the children with their own money. If you don't want to pay alimony in the event of a divorce, and don't want to have to pay as much in CS, then don't set up a SAHM situation in the first place.


Any woman can go out and get a job to support herself and children....why don't these EW's deny the CS and do just that? Walk away completely with no ties. They won't because it becomes about the money and the children are the pawns that some of these women use against the father.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she was a SAHM. It's about pure greed and retaliation. If I were to leave my husband you better be darn sure I would have a full time job to support myself and my kids.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

vellocet said:


> No, and I expressed this concern to my lawyer after I was already paying support, but the divorce had not yet been finalized.
> 
> He said it doesn't matter if they wear ratty clothes and are fed nothing but junk food. As long as they are eating and not naked, like you said, I really have no recourse.


How is this not child neglect?


----------



## norajane

over20 said:


> Any woman can go out and get a job to support herself and children....why don't these EW's deny the CS and do just that? Walk away completely with no ties. They won't because it becomes about the money and the children are the pawns that some of these women use against the father.


Ah, so now you're the one blaming SAHM's for being evil, yet you were yelling at me for supposedly insulting SAHM's and the men that marry them. 



> It has nothing to do with the fact that she was a SAHM. It's about pure greed and retaliation. If I were to leave my husband you better be darn sure I would have a full time job to support myself and my kids.


It has everything to do with being a SAHM. SAHM's often give up the jobs they had in order to raise kids. Then they spend years and years out of the workforce. After divorce, they aren't able to simply go back to those jobs, their skills are most likely out of date, their references are stale if they are even around anymore, they haven't done any networking years and years. So getting a job is not that easy for them, certainly not one that will support both the kids and themselves without CS and/or alimony.


----------



## over20

lisab0105 said:


> See and to me, there is nothing remote interesting about the single life you describe. I have never been married, just LTR...I hope that I meet someone who I trust and trusts me enough to make that giant leap with. Creating a bond with another person, and sharing life with them...getting the privilege of calling them my husband, that is a good life to me. I look forward to it.
> 
> As for some of KS other points, I just don't want to make another post...
> For the record, I am a single mom with 2 children by two different fathers  and I receive child support from one of them. I make a middle class closer to lower class salary and I rent and will probably have to rent for a very long time. I understand that according to this idiot broad making these videos, that I am probably in the undesirable category, but she and any other stuck up @ssclown that wants to think lower of someone in my situation with my kind of "baggage" can kiss my grits.:moon:
> 
> Your (general public) baggage is no better than mine. I am a single mom because I was d*cked over like so many here.


 You are a single mom because you chose to have sex outside of wedlock resulting in 2 children being born. YOUR CHOICE


----------



## over20

norajane said:


> Ah, so now you're the one blaming SAHM's for being evil, yet you were yelling at me for supposedly insulting SAHM's and the men that marry them.
> 
> It has everything to do with being a SAHM. SAHM's often give up the jobs they had in order to raise kids. Then they spend years and years out of the workforce. After divorce, they aren't able to simply go back to those jobs, their skills are most likely out of date, their references are stale if they are even around anymore, they haven't done any networking years and years. So getting a job is not that easy for them, certainly not one that will support both the kids and themselves without CS and/or alimony.


In no way was I saying SAHM are evil. If one wants to leave her husband she CAN find some kind of job, heck even stripping to provide for herself. You are ASSUMING they have not networked/kept up skills and have stale references. You paint this picture of SAHM's as unintelligent, uneducated women. Why ? If a wife cheats on her husband and they get divorced she better not expect to get a dime being that she was the cause of the break up. That's just me though.


----------



## Racer

It is a rigged system toward women. My SIL showed up to family court wearing her prison orange (dui’s) and a file full of alcohol and drug abuse documentation as well as failing to continue the court ordered urine test to prove she’s been ‘rehabilitated’... Even then she got visitation and alimony but did lose custody. Yet the espousal support is more than the child support he was awarded from her. 

Essentially, my BIL had to cut a check to this homeless person (less the child support) and added insult, had to leave the kids with her every other weekend no matter where she was staying; “This is Bob, I met him in rehab, he’s trying to kick heroin. See you Sunday! The kids will be fine..” My BIL carried a hundred dollar bill with him at all times; This was her price to skip the overnight stays. Think this is about money when she accepts bribes? You bet it is. Kids reported that she pretty much just slept (passed out) all weekend and they never left the apartment, or house, or condo, or halfway house, or motel room... 

That’s the system. Don’t separate a mother from her children period; Have a file full of rehab reports, dui’s with the kids in the car at 8am, multiple prescriptions from a half dozen different doctors for painkillers... it doesn’t matter. Oh, and she was stay at home too! She stayed at home because no job let her ‘work in that condition’.

So, he won custody! It bankrupted him btw fighting her in court just to get what he did. Lost the house, his car, etc. His boss actually gave him his teenaged daughter’s car to drive around while she was at college. He couldn’t buy it, because his wife’s attorney would claim it was yet another asset during the divorce. Only when the divorce was final could his boss give him that old car for pennies on the dollar just so he could make it to work.


----------



## norajane

over20 said:


> In no way was I saying SAHM are evil.


No, you just called them greedy and retaliatory, but not evil. I stand corrected.



> If one wants to leave her husband she CAN find some kind of job, heck even stripping to provide for herself. You are ASSUMING they have not networked/kept up skills and have stale references. You paint this picture of SAHM's as unintelligent, uneducated women. Why ? If a wife cheats on her husband and they get divorced she better not expect to get a dime being that she was the cause of the break up. That's just me though.


And YOU are assuming SAHM's _cheating _is what leads to ALL divorces.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> You are a single mom because you chose to have sex outside of wedlock resulting in 2 children being born. YOUR CHOICE


Single mothers are also divorced or widowed women. I have no idea what you were implying with that statement you just made.


----------



## over20

norajane said:


> No, you just called them greedy and retaliatory, but not evil. I stand corrected.
> 
> And YOU are assuming SAHM's _cheating _is what leads to ALL divorces.


I called the one's that have strayed and cheated from their original husband, expecting the husband to pay them CS greedy and retaliatory....I did not include ALL or widows. I categorized the ugly, cheating ones.


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> Too bad I didn't see that flaw before I chose her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is also true that too many times fathers aren't ordered to pay more whether its because they don't make as much, or the mother's don't push the issue.
> 
> Sometimes the mother's don't get enough, sometimes they get well more than enough. You are a great mother to care for them with what you get. I wish my x-wife was the same type of mother as you. I'd sleep better at night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think that men will say they supplement their wives life without considering the costs to raise the kids. I did the run down on numbers and based on what I ran, my kids should be wearing damn nice clothes and shopping at Buckle or Hollister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most definitely, especially since I'm sure you make sure your kids are well taken care of...with his money and yours. My X doesn't buy them what they deserve when my money is all she needs to take care of their needs and take care of them well.


Thank you for kind words  

My ex's amount was state calculated, and we've had a gentlemen's agreement to lower it about 15%. This is partly because my daycare expenses have lowered as they've gotten older and because I know it's not in their interest if their father struggles. I also live in a little more expensive area than him because the school district is one of the best in the country; he's about 25 minutes away but it's a different county. My kids could probably have more expensive clothes, but honestly that's not something I value and I'm trying to raise them to not be materialistic(and they're boys and don't care). My ex is supposed to split medical. and dental with me, which I don't ask him for because I'm doing ok
(I'm paying for braces now and my younger son will be getting them just as the first gets them off).

I think it's very difficult to order adequate child support that doesn't leave someone struggling...unless someone is wealthy. Kids are expensive.....My difference is that I'm a good bit above the average salary, partly because I've worked hard and partly because I've studied hard in a somewhat exclusive field.

As for not seeing her character sooner, don't beat yourself up; we all make mistakes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## over20

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Single mothers are also divorced or widowed women. I have no idea what you were implying with that statement you just made.


She claimed she is a single mother because she was dicxxd around by her children's fathers. We all have choices. When we have sex outside of marriage, one knows there is a chance you can get pregnant, which one knows they may be raising that baby on their own. Yes the father's should certainly be held accountable, absolutely. It was not totally their fault. If one doesn't want to raise a baby out of wedlock....hey, don't have sex!!


----------



## vellocet

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How is this not child neglect?


Because courts don't see dingy hand me downs as neglect. And for those new clothes she does buy them, they are always just cheap tshirts at Walmart or something. I don't want my kids to look like trash. I don't expect every piece of clothing they have to not be a tshirt or something possibly from a garage sale, but geez, buy them some nice Hollister clothes once in a while.

That won't happen because it will reduce the amount she can pocket at the end of the month.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

vellocet said:


> Because courts don't see dingy hand me downs as neglect. And for those new clothes she does buy them, they are always just cheap tshirts at Walmart or something. I don't want my kids to look like trash. I don't expect every piece of clothing they have to not be a tshirt or something possibly from a garage sale, but geez, buy them some nice Hollister clothes once in a while.
> 
> That won't happen because it will reduce the amount she can pocket at the end of the month.


I really sympathize with you. Awful, just awful. Thankfully courts are changing but it's a slow process for sure. Mothers shouldn't be expected to provide the majority of care, just as men shouldn't be expected to provide the majority of support. Strict gender roles created this monster and it is slowly and fortunately going away. Both parents deserve to be equal parents in their childrens lives with the equal responsibility that entails.


----------



## lisab0105

over20 said:


> You are a single mom because you chose to have sex outside of wedlock resulting in 2 children being born. YOUR CHOICE


Yes, MY CHOICE to not have abortions. That was my choice. So what if I had them out of wedlock? What f'cking year are we in again? I didn't know that word was still used. 

I didn't ask for the father of my son to freak out when I told him I was pregnant, call my unborn a child a demon and tell me if he was ever sick in the hospital and his life depended on him, he wouldn't be there to help. 

I didn't ask the father of my daughter to retaliate against me for not having an abortion by cheating on me, and spend the next 6 months trying to get laid every which way he possibly could and play every mind game he could think of, lets not leave out physical bullsh*t that resulted.

My relationships ended because they sucked, resulting in me being a single mom. THAT was NOT my choice. Unless you know my story, I suggest you watch your words.


----------



## lisab0105

over20 said:


> She claimed she is a single mother because she was dicxxd around by her children's fathers. We all have choices. When we have sex outside of marriage, one knows there is a chance you can get pregnant, which one knows they may be raising that baby on their own. Yes the father's should certainly be held accountable, absolutely. It was not totally their fault. If one doesn't want to raise a baby out of wedlock....hey, don't have sex!!


And those that wait until marriage to have babies get d*cked over and left to be single moms too...does that make them a little better than me because they waited until they got a ring first?


----------



## Deejo

Well this has turned into quite the 'feel good' thread.


----------



## over20

No it does not. The point I was trying to make was it takes TWO to get in a situation with a baby out of wedlock. BOTH parties know what the end result could be and both parties are EQUALLY responsible. It's not always "a sobbing single mother issue", there are also TONS of men who are single dads, in your same situation, yearning to be part of their children's lives.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Well this has turned into quite the 'feel good' thread.


As a divorced father, do you care to share your thoughts on this?


----------



## over20

This thread I feel is about giving men more respect in wanting a better life as a single dad and man. To uncover the reason's why divorced dad's feelings are forgotten about. It's not always about women and children.


----------



## Catherine602

Machiavelli said:


> I think the problem is when child support is actually ex-wife and new boyfriend support, when CS is about lifestyle equalization rather than what is actually needed to feed and clothe the children. Not to mention women who withhold visitation. My W used to supervise the child support section in a suburban Chicago county and she told me it was horrific.


Mac I dont understand how of a mans own children has any effect on a man's responsibility for his children. Why would a man want to ceed the support of his own children to another man? 

Life style, in my opinion, has little to do with each parent responsibility to contribute to the financial and emotional wellbeing of their children. 

Don't you agree that the D is between two adults? The children are the top priority in the lives of each parent.

If a father lumps his estrangement with his ex-wife along with his children then he would find no problem doing a yearly audit of their lifestyle. He could affix a value and adjust his support of his ex along with her children. 

How does that figure into the fathers rights thing if it not all about money? I agree with one thing that you said. The system should be fair to the children. After that is fixed, the adults can have WWIII.


----------



## over20

Therealbrighteyes said:


> As a divorced father, do you care to share your thoughts on this?


He might be scared to answer with all the anti-male bashing here.


----------



## MovingAhead

norajane said:


> That's pretty much how I see it. CS and especially alimony are not an issue if both exes are working. *But many men on TAM, and elsewhere, want their wives to be SAHM's, and set up their lives up that way, and then are upset after a divorce because they are responsible for CS and alimony.* Some men go so far as to look down on women who have jobs, or as they like to call them, career women. Stay away from them - they're not good marriage material.
> 
> *So I have to say you reap what you sow.* Men are not stupid, and they have all kind of anecdotes from friends and people they know who get "screwed over by the system" in a divorce. *Knowing that, why set up a life where you will absolutely have to pay CS and alimony in a divorce?* If the money is such an issue after divorce, then use the money to pay for child care while your wife works instead of being a SAHM. Don't like that idea? Then accept the facts: SAHM = CS and alimony in a divorce. It's not like it was some big surprise that would happen.


This is just pure crap.

I never thought I would ever be divorced. I meant what I said when I took my vows. I was young and I guess naive and expected my wife to mean hers too. I never went into marriage in my wildest dreams ever believing I would be divorced.

It was a mutual decision for her to be a Sahm. She wanted to do it and so I said ok. I worked very hard to support us both and she got bored.

It was not a mutual decision for her to have affairs.
It was not a mutual decision for her to divorce me.
It was not a mutual decision for the kids to have their lives ripped apart. The repercussions of that are still on going.

I don't need the anecdotes of friends. I can just use my story.

I pay for all the kids sports. I pay for 90% of their school stuff. I pay for 90% of their clothes and I give her child support. 

I buy them things because I love them. I take care of them. If I didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. 

The caveat emptor approach... Things have changed in twenty years. I will be more careful.


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> This thread I feel is about giving men more respect in wanting a better life as a single dad and man. To uncover the reason's why divorced dad's feelings are forgotten about. It's not always about women and children.


You are partially right. Its about mother's and father's and their children. The children are the priority because they are the most vulnerable in the pain of D. 

In that equation, the father's rights movement can't be concerned with respect of men, can it? That is a concern for both men and women.

Adults take care of adult problems. Parents abdicate their role of primacy when they elect to have children. They agree to put their adult concerns way below the concerns that effect their children.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> He might be scared to answer with all the anti-male bashing here.


We are having a discussion that often times becomes passionate from both sides. Deejo can handle himself as can most of the men here. You give them far too little credit.


----------



## over20

No I don't...not ONE female here will side with the father's, not one......besides me....it's time to let the father's have their soap box to stand on and vent...

I mean no ill will


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> She is receiving that money because I assume she has the primary care responsibilities for the child. Do you want a say in which grocery store she shops at, which gas station she fills up at, which cell phone provider she uses and which power company she gets her electricity from? I don't understand.


Your assumptions are wrong. The other parent receives the money because of salary differences pure and simple.

In Md. if you have 50-50 custody and one parent makes $75,000 and the other parent makes $50,000, then the person who is making the $75,000 has to pay the person making $50,000 $920.40/month if you have three children.

So even if you have 50-50 custody, you end up paying $11,044 in child support in one year. That is after taxes.

So let's look at this.

I make $75,000 a year. I have to pay $11,044 in child support after taxes. At 44% tax rate that is $19,722 per year.

So my net take home is now $75,000 - $19,722 or $55,277 per year.

She makes $50,000 and gets $11,044 in CS so her net take home is $61,044

So even though I have been working hard as the bread winner and doing everything, being a single dad, taking care of my kids and taking them to everything. I have to give her more money that I get.

I used real number on MD. Child support calculator. So now even though we have equal custody, the fact that I make more money just screws me.

She can take care of the kids fine on a $50,000 salary. I could take care of them fine on a $75,000 salary. So now the extra $920 goes for what? It does not go for food or clothes etc... I know it is to 'help', but help what? She now brings home more money than I do based on just child support alone.

Now add the fact that I have to pay her alimony and she is the one who cheated. Now it really adds up.

CS has nothing to do with primary care. It is simply calculated by salary differential and nights stayed at each parents.


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> You are partially right. Its about mother's and father's and their children. The children are the priority because they are the most vulnerable in the pain of D.
> 
> In that equation, the father's rights movement can't be concerned with respect of men, can it?
> 
> Adults take care of adult problems. Parents abdicate their role of primacy when they elect to have children. They agree to put their adult concerns way below the concerns that effect their children.


I think the father's rights movement CAN be concerned with respect of men...respect is one of a man's most basic needs. If the women's rights movement can demand change for women why can't men/father's get just as angry for justice?:scratchhead:


----------



## over20

MovingAhead said:


> Your assumptions are wrong. The other parent receives the money because of salary differences pure and simple.
> 
> In Md. if you have 50-50 custody and one parent makes $75,000 and the other parent makes $50,000, then the person who is making the $75,000 has to pay the person making $50,000 $920.40/month if you have three children.
> 
> So even if you have 50-50 custody, you end up paying $11,044 in child support in one year. That is after taxes.
> 
> So let's look at this.
> 
> I make $75,000 a year. I have to pay $11,044 in child support after taxes. At 44% tax rate that is $19,722 per year.
> 
> So my net take home is now $75,000 - $19,722 or $55,277 per year.
> 
> She makes $50,000 and gets $11,044 in CS so her net take home is $61,044
> 
> So even though I have been working hard as the bread winner and doing everything, being a single dad, taking care of my kids and taking them to everything. I have to give her more money that I get.
> 
> I used real number on MD. Child support calculator. So now even though we have equal custody, the fact that I make more money just screws me.
> 
> She can take care of the kids fine on a $50,000 salary. I could take care of them fine on a $75,000 salary. So now the extra $920 goes for what? It does not go for food or clothes etc... I know it is to 'help', but help what? She now brings home more money than I do based on just child support alone.
> 
> Now add the fact that I have to pay her alimony and she is the one who cheated. Now it really adds up.
> 
> CS has nothing to do with primary care. It is simply calculated by salary differential and nights stayed at each parents.


Is she living with another man? Could a judge lower your CS because there might be two incomes in the home?


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What accountability would you like, a general accounting? I hear men say that recipients aren't held accountable for the usage of the child support money and this always leaves me puzzled. If your children have all their needs met, how is the money not spent on them? As an example, I have a dear friend who recently got divorced. He lamented that his child support payments "went to pay for her new car". Hold on a second. So let's say the money you pay to support your children was literally handed over to the finance company to make her car payment, doesn't that mean that in order to house/feed/clothe/have electricity, gas, water, car insurance and fuel she would have to use her own money for that? What am I missing here?


I have to show my W2 each year for the calculated costs so yes I would like some accountability. I would like recieipts for clothes or food or rent or whatever. I would like to know how much is being contributed for their college savings accounts. I pay all of the medical expenses.

I would like to see the rent and food and clothing bills for each month rough total and see what that cost is compared to what I contribute. So yes I want to know that the money that I give for my kids is being used wisely. I have no choice but to give it, she has all the choices in the world on how to use it.

I don't mind paying for my children, but I also don't like giving money away and I cannot see what happens to it.


----------



## MovingAhead

norajane said:


> Is he a victim if he _creates _the circumstances that lead to paying alimony, namely marrying someone he wants to be a SAHM?


This is crap analogy. Wife wants to be a SaHM, Husband supports her. It is mutually agreed on.


----------



## MovingAhead

norajane said:


> No, you just called them greedy and retaliatory, but not evil. I stand corrected.
> 
> And YOU are assuming SAHM's _cheating _is what leads to ALL divorces.


You just throw up straw man arguments. You over-generalize and then go off on the straw man. No one said SaHM are evil. She said if you want a divorce get a damn job!


----------



## Catherine602

MovingAhead said:


> This is just pure crap.
> 
> I never thought I would ever be divorced. I meant what I said when I took my vows. I was young and I guess naive and expected my wife to mean hers too. I never went into marriage in my wildest dreams ever believing I would be divorced.
> 
> It was a mutual decision for her to be a Sahm. She wanted to do it and so I said ok. I worked very hard to support us both and she got bored.
> 
> It was not a mutual decision for her to have affairs.
> It was not a mutual decision for her to divorce me.
> It was not a mutual decision for the kids to have their lives ripped apart. The repercussions of that are still on going.
> 
> I don't need the anecdotes of friends. I can just use my story.
> 
> I pay for all the kids sports. I pay for 90% of their school stuff. I pay for 90% of their clothes and I give her child support.
> 
> I buy them things because I love them. I take care of them. If I didn't do it, it wouldn't get done.
> 
> The caveat emptor approach... Things have changed in twenty years. I will be more careful.


Unfortunately, men are lumped into the irresponsible parent category automatically. Even I do it and I know it's wrong. I have 2 cousins (men) who are D. They are in a situation similar to yours. 

Their ex- wives get child support but, like you, they pay for many of the basic the children need. It amounts to quite a bit of change but is they don't do it, the children would go without. . 

The mothers are busy with their concern's. Both are wonderful fathers. Despite the despicable behavior of their mothers, the children are thriving because they are first in their fathers life.


----------



## DTO

PreRaphaelite said:


> Well, if women consider 80% of men below average as far as desirability then they'll create their own hell. The top 20% most desirable men will have the pick of the litter and it won't ever end, and most women will end up unhappy because they'll see themselves as settling for less if they settle at all.


80% are below average (scratching my analytical head)? At least we know the Pareto rule is alive and well.


----------



## tom67

Moving has given his experience.
Are there exceptions? There are always exceptions.
Let's get back to the video like Moving and others have gone through it's no surprise men are not getting married in the same numbers as years past.
Okay I'll shut up.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> Your assumptions are wrong. The other parent receives the money because of salary differences pure and simple.
> 
> In Md. if you have 50-50 custody and one parent makes $75,000 and the other parent makes $50,000, then the person who is making the $75,000 has to pay the person making $50,000 $920.40/month if you have three children.
> 
> So even if you have 50-50 custody, you end up paying $11,044 in child support in one year. That is after taxes.
> 
> So let's look at this.
> 
> I make $75,000 a year. I have to pay $11,044 in child support after taxes. At 44% tax rate that is $19,722 per year.
> 
> So my net take home is now $75,000 - $19,722 or $55,277 per year.
> 
> She makes $50,000 and gets $11,044 in CS so her net take home is $61,044
> 
> So even though I have been working hard as the bread winner and doing everything, being a single dad, taking care of my kids and taking them to everything. I have to give her more money that I get.
> 
> I used real number on MD. Child support calculator. So now even though we have equal custody, the fact that I make more money just screws me.
> 
> She can take care of the kids fine on a $50,000 salary. I could take care of them fine on a $75,000 salary. So now the extra $920 goes for what? It does not go for food or clothes etc... I know it is to 'help', but help what? She now brings home more money than I do based on just child support alone.
> 
> Now add the fact that I have to pay her alimony and she is the one who cheated. Now it really adds up.
> 
> CS has nothing to do with primary care. It is simply calculated by salary differential and nights stayed at each parents.


I know your situation is tough and really unfair. I am going to call out something though. If you make $75,000 a year you are not paying 44% income tax. If you are using these figures as a hypothetical that's one thing but it sure sounded like you are claiming you pay 44% in income tax. Something isn't right here.


----------



## MovingAhead

over20 said:


> Is she living with another man? Could a judge lower your CS because there might be two incomes in the home?


No, it is based solely on nights stayed at each parent and salary differential. 

So if my EX moves in with her boyfriend. She basically gets the use of the combined salary of the two. I still have to pay the *EXACT* same amount of CS as I do now.

So go back to my $75,000 vs. $50,000 with shared custody where she is now making more money than me because of CS. Add that to the benefit of being with her boyfriend. That means I am really screwed.

For many many many many women, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND MAKING MEN PAY!

For many many many many women, it is about the children. The system does NOT differentiate one iota.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I know your situation is unfair. I was responding to Wilderness though when he said his ex doesn't spend a penny of child support on his child when he later admitted he doesn't know what she spends the money on but he sure is certain it isn't his child. He's also certain not one divorced woman uses child support to benefit children, a claim which is patently and ridiculously false.


You are putting words in his mouth. I think CS should have some accountability. I really do.


----------



## DTO

vellocet said:


> I think I laid out the costs of supporting my kids very nicely. Certainly not free, but there is free money for x-wife left over and she doesn't have to financially support them from her own income whatsoever. All their support comes from me. None from her.


I've got a really good one for you. A friend of mine has a really good job and so owed a ton of CS (well over $1,000 per month, for one child, over a decade ago). The CS rules in our state are that you pay it until the kid is 18, but that can be extended by up to one year if the kid hasn't graduated high school by then. So, the mom held the kid back a year to squeeze those extra months of child support out of my friend.


----------



## over20

tom67 said:


> Moving has given his experience.
> Are there exceptions? There are always exceptions.
> Let's get back to the video like Moving and others have gone through it's no surprise men are not getting married in the same numbers as years past.
> Okay I'll shut up.


Don't shy away, speak your mind.......don't be beta, be alpha!!!


----------



## over20

DTO said:


> I've got a really good one for you. A friend of mine has a really good job and so owed a ton of CS (well over $1,000 per month, for one child, over a decade ago). The CS rules in our state are that you pay it until the kid is 18, but that can be extended by up to one year if the kid hasn't graduated high school by then. So, the mom held the kid back a year to squeeze those extra months of child support out of my friend.


She's a flippin gold digger........i.e. the reason why the thread was started.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> You are putting words in his mouth. I think CS should have some accountability. I really do.


He said your situation is the rule not the exception. That isn't me putting words in his mouth. Your situation is not the rule as most women don't get near the amount you are providing and most women use the money along with their own to cover needs for the children. My objection is when he painted greedy divorced mothers as the "rule" rather than the extreme.


----------



## over20

This thread IS NOT about women but men.....let's get back to that


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> This thread IS NOT about women but men.....let's get back to that


From the original post: "Hi Guys and Gals, 
The search for reasons why my spouse cheated on me has led me to some interesting observations about men and women in society, and what the current value of men is in society to women".

The topic is about both genders.


----------



## tom67

over20 said:


> This thread IS NOT about women but men.....let's get back to that


That's what I was trying to convey and overall guys for the most part get screwed in divorce.
I settled out of court but I paid $$$.
I'm 3 years out plus and back on my feet.

Would I get married again?
My gf knows I'm not up for it now.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He said your situation is the rule not the exception. That isn't me putting words in his mouth. Your situation is not the rule as most women don't get near the amount you are providing and most women use the money along with their own to cover needs for the children. My objection is when he painted greedy divorced mothers as the "rule" rather than the extreme.


I disagree. I believe my situation is the rule and not the exception at least as it goes with infidelity.

Wife cheats on husband. I believe for 75% or above of the men who are BS, my scenario is the rule. I believe that adultery plays a huge part in the dissolution of the marriage and should have consequences in regards to alimony and potential child support in the case of being a parent etc...

You don't want to be married, get a divorce. Don't cheat. The cheaters who walk away and then want everything... I don't even know what to say.

A man cheats on a woman and boom CS is a no brainer. He is nailed. A woman cheats on a man, no biggie. It's no fault, she still makes out. I am just being honest.


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> No I don't...not ONE female here will side with the father's, not one......besides me....it's time to let the father's have their soap box to stand on and vent...
> 
> I mean no ill will


That's alright, speak your mind. But these guys are extremely resilient. Even in their pain and troubles, they don't shrink from a good conflict with the women here. 

Men have a tendency to back out of conflict with the women they love. Not out of weakness but they take undue responsibility for the happiness of the women that love. They think they should fix everything. That makes them appear weak to their partners.

They come here because it is safe. They also deal with a lot of push back from some strong women on TAM. They push back too and realize that we women don't hate them when they do, we just give them a hard time.  

I feel better with men who don't let me knock them back. Believe it or not, it's reassuring for me to know that there are many men that are not wusses and they have b*lls affixed where they should be. Dont worry.


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> That's alright, speak your mind. But these guys are extremely resilient. Even in their pain and troubles, they don't shrink from a good conflict with the women here.
> 
> Men have a tendency to back out of conflict with the women they love. Not out of weakness but they take undue responsibility for the happiness of the women that love. They think they should fix everything. That makes them appear weak to their partners.
> 
> They come here because it is safe. They also deal with a lot of push back from some strong women on TAM. They push back too and realize that we women don't hate them when they do, we just give them a hard time.
> 
> I feel better with men who don't let me knock them back. Believe it or not, it's reassuring for me to know that there are many men that are not wusses and they have b*lls affixed where they should be. Dont worry.


I disagree with you.....that men back down with the conflict they have with their wives/GF........the men here I think represent a great population of the married /divorced men out there that want to reconcile and be the better DH or BF...this is only a public forum where people can say anything they want but if we, as women, read deeper, it is our beloved men that are suffering so....


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> You don't want to be married, get a divorce. Don't cheat. The cheaters who walk away and then want everything... I don't even know what to say.
> 
> A man cheats on a woman and boom CS is a no brainer. He is nailed. A woman cheats on a man, no biggie. It's no fault, she still makes out. I am just being honest.


Let me ask you, would doing away with alimony for infidelity be a partial solution or in the case of a man who cheats a reduction in the splitting of marital assets?


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> That's alright, speak your mind. But these guys are extremely resilient. Even in their pain and troubles, they don't shrink from a good conflict with the women here.
> 
> Men have a tendency to back out of conflict with the women they love. Not out of weakness but they take undue responsibility for the happiness of the women that love. They think they should fix everything. That makes them appear weak to their partners.
> 
> They come here because it is safe. They also deal with a lot of push back from some strong women on TAM. They push back too and realize that we women don't hate them when they do, we just give them a hard time.
> 
> I feel better with men who don't let me knock them back. Believe it or not, it's reassuring for me to know that there are many men that are not wusses and they have b*lls affixed where they should be. Dont worry.


Why then don't you speak for men?.....Uncles, father's , son's, grandson's......


----------



## over20

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Let me ask you, would doing away with alimony for infidelity be a partial solution or in the case of a man who cheats a reduction in the splitting of marital assets?


Why are so anti male...always pressing and asking questions to the men who are sharing on this thread?:scratchhead:


----------



## over20

lisab0105 said:


> Yes, MY CHOICE to not have abortions. That was my choice. So what if I had them out of wedlock? What f'cking year are we in again? I didn't know that word was still used.
> 
> I didn't ask for the father of my son to freak out when I told him I was pregnant, call my unborn a child a demon and tell me if he was ever sick in the hospital and his life depended on him, he wouldn't be there to help.
> 
> I didn't ask the father of my daughter to retaliate against me for not having an abortion by cheating on me, and spend the next 6 months trying to get laid every which way he possibly could and play every mind game he could think of, lets not leave out physical bullsh*t that resulted.
> 
> My relationships ended because they sucked, resulting in me being a single mom. THAT was NOT my choice. Unless you know my story, I suggest you watch your words.


You had sex....and have 2 kids....that is YOUR CHOICE....your a single mom because you cant' keep your legs closed.....don't ever blame anyone besides yourself and the man......health class 101


Your relationship ended not because they sucked....those men have every right to walk away....what makes you think you are so special that they would want to stick around.....those men have every right to leave as much as a woman can have an abortion and not tell the man......It is not all the man's fault....take responsibilty for your own actions...you had sex..got pregnant....both parties are at fault.....

Oh and as you suggest I watch my words is that a physical threat from you?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> Why are so anti male...always pressing and asking questions to the men who are sharing on this thread?:scratchhead:


This is a discussion forum. I am asking for his opinion about what compromises he would like to see regarding alimony. How would I know that without asking the question?


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> Why then don't you speak for men?.....Uncles, father's , son's, grandson's......


I don't think I need to speak for them Over20. I am not here for that. I am working on my issues and I don't think it would good for me to bite my tongue. 

By saying what is on my mind has helped me to disabuse myself of some very crazy thoughts and to be a better women. More understanding of men in general and my husband and son in particular. 

That's a selfish motive but two very important male people benefited most from my less than friendly posts, my husband and my son. 

Please try to understand and don't be upset. It's is a paradox but by having confidence that men can take care of themselves, can deal with women like me but they chose to take on women in many ways, makes me feel that I am Ok and so are they.


----------



## over20

Are you kidding....I am not baiting anyone...this forum is to let divorced dad's shine!! Yet females once again have to voice their opinion.......why can't you let go and supported divorced dad's and just listen to them without speaking?


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> I don't think I need to speak for them Over20. I am not here for that. I am working on my issues and I don't think it would good for me to bite my tongue.
> 
> By saying what is on my mind has helped me to disabuse myself of some very crazy thoughts and to be a better women. More understanding of men in general and my husband and son in particular.
> 
> That's a selfish motive but two very important male people benefited most from my less than friendly posts, my husband and my son.
> 
> Please try to understand and don't be upset. It's is a paradox but by having confidence that men can take care of themselves, can deal with women like me but they chose to take on women in many ways, makes me feel that I am Ok and so are they.



Please help me understand why women can't just let go and listen to men on this thread....why do women have to knock down men..we need to let go ...every thread or issue doesn't have to revolve around us women....geesh


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> Are you kidding....I am not baiting anyone...this forum is to let divorced dad's shine!! Yet females once again have to voice their opinion.......why can't you let go and supported divorced dad's and just listen to them without speaking?


The original post asked for the opinions of men and women. What part of that are you not understanding? I am supporting the divorced fathers here. I empathize with them and written thoughtful responses. There was only one person I disagreed with because he painted divorced women with the same brush. You are free to start your own post and stipulate that you only want responses from men. This OP stipulated she wanted responses from both.


----------



## MovingAhead

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Let me ask you, would doing away with alimony for infidelity be a partial solution or in the case of a man who cheats a reduction in the splitting of marital assets?


In my case no. My EX was a SaHM. Alimony in MD is to get the spouse equipped to re enter the work force. Should i be responsible for paying for that, no, but if I didn't she would be screwed. I minded morally but also I know it needed to be done.

I did pay it but my EX choses a job that underpays her potential by half at least. She has no motivation to get a better job because of the amount of CS she gets. It is tax free to her. My CS money pays all of her bills. What she makes is spending money.

I believe in general, yes... you cheat you should get may be 30% tops. Monetary deterrents seem to work.


----------



## tom67

MovingAhead said:


> In my case no. My EX was a SaHM. Alimony in MD is to ge the spouse equipped to re enter the work force. Should i be responsible for paying for that, no, but if I didn't she would be screwed.
> 
> I did pay it but my EX choses a job that underpays her potential by half at least. She has no motivation to get a better job because of the amount of CS she gets. It is tax free to her. My CS money pays all of her bills. What she makes is spending money.
> 
> I believe in general, yes... you cheat you should get may be 30% tops. Monetary deterrents seem to work.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> You had sex....and have 2 kids....that is YOUR CHOICE....your a single mom because you cant' keep your legs closed.....don't ever blame anyone besides yourself and the man......health class 101
> 
> 
> Your relationship ended not because they sucked....those men have every right to walk away....what makes you think you are so special that they would want to stick around.....those men have every right to leave as much as a woman can have an abortion and not tell the man......It is not all the man's fault....take responsibilty for your own actions...you had sex..got pregnant....both parties are at fault.....


I did not see this before my last post 

These are very, very cruel and unkind things to say. You taunt and show contempt for a person who has it hard and is looking for support and kindness. 

You spoke of concern for the respect and support of men. Is that a principled concern or conditional? 

You seem incapable of compassion or empathy therefore your "advocate for men" stance is false. It cannot be principle that drives you participation in this thread. 

I think you are seeing yourself in the very women you so cruelly taunted and you don't like it. I hope you will be able to grow as a person like I have been so fortunate to do.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

MovingAhead said:


> In my case no. My EX was a SaHM. Alimony in MD is to get the spouse equipped to re enter the work force. Should i be responsible for paying for that, no, but if I didn't she would be screwed. I minded morally but also I know it needed to be done.
> 
> I did pay it but my EX choses a job that underpays her potential by half at least. She has no motivation to get a better job because of the amount of CS she gets. It is tax free to her. My CS money pays all of her bills. What she makes is spending money.
> 
> I believe in general, yes... you cheat you should get may be 30% tops. Monetary deterrents seem to work.


I think expecting alimony after infidelity is pretty crass. I feel the same about men who are unfaithful and want a 50/50 split of assets. Sadly, I know people on both side of that equation. 
Times are changing for the better though regarding family court. I know of two families who have true joint custody, no alimony and no child support. Granted they have similar incomes so I imagine that makes things much easier.


----------



## over20

Do not insult me. The woman had sex with two different men and had babies with them....then she feels the victim in all of this....for pete's sake we all know what can happen when we have unprotected sex...and then to pin point the anger to the father's is very wrong..the woman is just to blame as the father

I have not taunted any woman ......they speak of independence and pro choice but then back out when they don't like the results...how is that fair to males?


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> Do not insult me. The woman had sex with two different men and had babies with them....then she feels the victim in all of this....for pete's sake we all know what can happen when we have unprotected sex...and then to pin point the anger to the father's is very wrong..the woman is just to blame as the father
> 
> I have not taunted any woman ......they speak of independence and pro choice but then back out when they don't like the results...how is that fair to males?


How tall are you?


----------



## over20

Why....


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Karen Straughan - Men not marrying? How deep does "the problem" go?*



Therealbrighteyes said:


> As a divorced father, do you care to share your thoughts on this?


I have a very different relationship with my ex, than do most of the gentlemen here.

But I can relate.

During mediation I made it respectfully clear that I wasnt going to pay a cent of alimony. I swore I'd go to jail, lose my job, and let the state pay for both of us. I was prepared to make alimony a point of mutually assured destruction. My ex refused to get a job while we were married. No way in hell was I going to reward that behavior in a divorce.

To her credit, she waived. Had she not, everything would be different. 

I pay 30k a year in child support. For the last 5 years I have known exactly where that money was going. It was paying for housing, for she and the kids.

Now, is a different story. She just moved in with her boyfriend. Which again, I'm fine with. The man put an addition on his home to accommodate my children. That says a lot. He has kids of his own as well.

However, if she were to tell me that she and he were going to an all inclusive in Punta Cana, I would KNOW that my money, my kids support money, is subsidizing her vacation and that would tweak me a little bit. 

We actually plan on sitting down and talking about collectively setting aside savings for the kids now that some of her money has freed up.

In essence, what these men are saying is absolutely true. Child Support is a label. There is no mandate or control over how that money is used. We, and the courts presume what a reasonable woman and mother will do with the funds. And as we all know reading the boards, not all are reasonable. Same can be said of some fathers refusal to care for their kids. That is NOT what the men here are referring to.

I don't believe women's lifestyle improves after divorce. Everyone's usually goes down.


----------



## lifeistooshort

over20 said:


> No I don't...not ONE female here will side with the father's, not one......besides me....it's time to let the father's have their soap box to stand on and vent...
> 
> I mean no ill will



I'm curious why you think it's required to "side" with fathers. I think it's more productive to discuss all sides and viewpoints. You seem a little angry with some women in general.
Besides, venting is fine but it doesn't solve anything. Open dialogue does.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

MovingAhead said:


> Your assumptions are wrong. The other parent receives the money because of salary differences pure and simple.
> 
> In Md. if you have 50-50 custody and one parent makes $75,000 and the other parent makes $50,000, then the person who is making the $75,000 has to pay the person making $50,000 $920.40/month if you have three children.
> 
> So even if you have 50-50 custody, you end up paying $11,044 in child support in one year. That is after taxes.
> 
> So let's look at this.
> 
> I make $75,000 a year. I have to pay $11,044 in child support after taxes. At 44% tax rate that is $19,722 per year.
> 
> So my net take home is now $75,000 - $19,722 or $55,277 per year.
> 
> She makes $50,000 and gets $11,044 in CS so her net take home is $61,044
> 
> So even though I have been working hard as the bread winner and doing everything, being a single dad, taking care of my kids and taking them to everything. I have to give her more money that I get.
> 
> I used real number on MD. Child support calculator. So now even though we have equal custody, the fact that I make more money just screws me.
> 
> She can take care of the kids fine on a $50,000 salary. I could take care of them fine on a $75,000 salary. So now the extra $920 goes for what? It does not go for food or clothes etc... I know it is to 'help', but help what? She now brings home more money than I do based on just child support alone.
> 
> Now add the fact that I have to pay her alimony and she is the one who cheated. Now it really adds up.
> 
> CS has nothing to do with primary care. It is simply calculated by salary differential and nights stayed at each parents.


This is so clearly unfair it's despicable and nauseating. Also consider that your X does not have to pay taxes on the cs money. So you can add another 7-8k to that money PLUS the alimony. And to top it all off, the real clincher as far as adding insult to injury, is that she can use that money for whatever she darn well pleases. She is not obligated to use your money to support the child. Period.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You don't come off as a very flexible person on this issue. You state that nothing is going to your daughter then say "and God knows what else" admitting that you have no idea what the money is spent on. Housing/food/water/clothing/ is what it is being spent on. Your daughter hasn't died of neglect, therefore she is being taken care of. The drug part is disturbing though. Are you able to get changes made in your agreement due to this?


I already explained that. My X lives with her parents, who pay for everything. She does not use the money for housing or food or water or clothing. She is using the money for bar tabs, drugs, restaurant bills, etc…

As far as changes, I've already filed for a custody modification and the case has dragged on for over a year with NO END in sight. As a retaliation, my ex has levied false accusation after false allegation against me AND everyone in my family. She has also tried everything in her power to keep me away from my daughter. I've gone through 2 lawyers, spent 20 days in jail, spent every single penny I could get my hands on, and lost everything. Yet I continue to fight. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/life-after-divorce/128610-calamity-disaster-still-wilderness.html

But it's not about the children, right ladies? (not talking to you specifically)


----------



## vellocet

MovingAhead said:


> I have to show my W2 each year for the calculated costs so yes I would like some accountability. I would like recieipts for clothes or food or rent or whatever. I would like to know how much is being contributed for their college savings accounts. I pay all of the medical expenses.


That's what frosts the hell out of me. We as fathers are to be accountable to the mothers for our earning and have to report to them as if they are our f'ing parole officers. 

But we cannot require accountability from them.

I say if we pay for something we should be able to request a statement indicating that at least, for example, 80% of the money goes for their care and what doesn't goes into a savings account for them when they are 18 for college expenses.



> I would like to see the rent and food and clothing bills for each month rough total and see what that cost is compared to what I contribute.


Honestly I don't really care to see all that unless its clear that they get decent clothes and such. The rent/utilities is negligible because she needs to provide that for herself anyway and only need a minimal additional costs in those to house them under her roof. And all the while we still have to make a home for them when with us.




> I don't mind paying for my children, but I also don't like giving money away and I cannot see what happens to it.


And I'm sure if you are like me you wouldn't care to see an accounting of where the money goes if you see that they are wearing clothes commensurate with the support you pay, food, etc.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think expecting alimony after infidelity is pretty crass. I feel the same about men who are unfaithful and want a 50/50 split of assets. Sadly, I know people on both side of that equation.


Except it's both legal and very common for the cheating spouse to start divorce proceedings where they will in fact be absolutely entitled to at least 50% of the other person's pension. Those are considered marital assets even though you won't 'see' them for years. Add to that the courts' increasing flexibility to get the better off spouse whomever that is, to pay for the other spouse's healthcare for a very VERY long time after the divorce. So cheat on your spouse? Get half their pension? Check. Get them to pay your healthcare costs? Check.


----------



## vellocet

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Let me ask you, would doing away with alimony for infidelity be a partial solution or in the case of a man who cheats a reduction in the splitting of marital assets?


No. Children need support.

But what should be considered is custody with regards to infidelity. If a man wants custody, which he won't get unless the mother agrees or she is a drug addict or something, then why should he not be granted it if the mother cheated? He didn't ask for that and its adding insult to injury.

Besides, you cheat on your spouse, you cheat on your child. You didn't think enough about your child's well being to keep from going outside the marriage for your orgasms, then you don't really need custody. Let the person who stayed home and cared for their well being get custody.


----------



## Anon Pink

Setting aside more extreme instances of parental neglect after a divorce, I think it might be wise to keep in mind that the purpose of alimony and child support is for the benifit of the child. The goal is so that the child doesn't materially suffer drastic changes between one parents custody and another parents. So that every other weekend when the child switches homes, he/she is materially entering the same standard of living.

Yes, it needs to be tweaked. Yes some accountability would be a wise move. But the goal is that, materially, the child's standard of living remains the same between one parent and the next.


----------



## wilderness

vellocet said:


> That's what frosts the hell out of me. We as fathers are to be accountable to the mothers for our earning and have to report to them as if they are our f'ing parole officers.
> 
> But we cannot require accountability from them.
> 
> .


This is what irks me the most, too. It is shameful that women can keep the children away from fathers so easily. The last time I was in court on a contempt motion, it cost me almost 2k to get there. I had a mountain of evidence and 2 witnesses that could prove my case. Yet the judge wouldn't allow the evidence or the witnesses. To make matters even worse, the opposing attorney made a blatant false accusation against me, that I had been sending abusive facebook messages to my exes family. The judge then gave me a lecture to add insult to injury. These contempt motions have actually set me back. They've empowered my ex and her family to be even more abusive and more difficult to deal with.


----------



## wilderness

Anon Pink said:


> Setting aside more extreme instances of parental neglect after a divorce, I think it might be wise to keep in mind that the purpose of alimony and child support is for the benifit of the child.
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, this just isn't true. If the courts truly cared about children, they would consider adultery in custody, they wouldn't award custody based on gender, and they would enforce the parenting time they order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The goal is so that the child doesn't materially suffer drastic changes between one parents custody and another parents. So that every other weekend when the child switches homes, he/she is materially entering the same standard of living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the goal is to take money from men and give it to women.
Click to expand...


----------



## Machiavelli

Machiavelli said:


> I think the problem is when child support is actually ex-wife and new boyfriend support, when CS is about lifestyle equalization rather than what is actually needed to feed and clothe the children. Not to mention women who withhold visitation. My W used to supervise the child support section in a suburban Chicago county and she told me it was horrific.





Catherine602 said:


> Mac I dont understand how of a mans own children has any effect on a man's responsibility for his children. Why would a man want to ceed the support of his own children to another man?


The man has no choice in the matter, if the court has made the XW the custodial parent. The old rules, which began to change in the North about 1860, were that children were the property of the father. The wife could run off all she wanted, but the kids were going to stay at home.



Catherine602 said:


> Life style, in my opinion, has little to do with each parent responsibility to contribute to the financial and emotional wellbeing of their children.


The problem is that courts use CS as a lifestyle equalizer, and don't mind saying so, especially now that "shared custody" is becoming the norm.



Catherine602 said:


> Don't you agree that the D is between two adults? The children are the top priority in the lives of each parent.


No. That might be the case if the state recognized marriage as it does other contracts, but the state has chosen to ignore the terms in order to facilitate the vast number of cases of divorce. This means D is between the H, the W, and the government. Since 75% of divorces are filed by women, and it has been shown ad nauseum that children of divorce are at a slight (at minimum) disadvantage in life, I don't think the children are the top priority all that often.



Catherine602 said:


> If a father lumps his estrangement with his ex-wife along with his children then he would find no problem doing a yearly audit of their lifestyle. He could affix a value and adjust his support of his ex along with her children.


Why should a man support his ex at all? Since she's the one who is leaving 75% of the time, men should only be paying separate maintenance (alimony) 25% of the time, at most.



Catherine602 said:


> How does that figure into the fathers rights thing if it not all about money? I agree with one thing that you said. The system should be fair to the children. After that is fixed, the adults can have WWIII.


The only way to fix the system is to bring back fault, jury trial divorce. Ain't gonna happen. In the meantime, marriage will continue it's slide from favor in the middle and lower classes. it's just too risky for men in these income brackets.


----------



## Machiavelli

This thread has pretty much morphed into a discussion of the divorce related financial rape of middle and lower income men, and while the financial risk to men represented by the possibility of divorce is great, it's not the only reason men in these categories are increasingly forgoing marriage.

Unless someone has a religious reason to marry (doesn't believe in intercourse outside of marriage) or wants legitimate offspring (but one has always been able to legitimize his bastards IIRC) there is absolutely no reason for a man to marry. Women give it up on the third date routinely. There is no shame among women any longer. So, both state, society, and women have disincentivized marriage for men.


----------



## tom67

Machiavelli said:


> This thread has pretty much morphed into a discussion of the divorce related financial rape of middle and lower income men, and while the financial risk to men represented by the possibility of divorce is great, it's not the only reason men in these categories are increasingly forgoing marriage.
> 
> Unless someone has a religious reason to marry (doesn't believe in intercourse outside of marriage) or wants legitimate offspring (but one has always been able to legitimize his bastards IIRC) there is absolutely no reason for a man to marry. Women give it up on the third date routinely. There is no shame among women any longer. So, both state, society, and women have disincentivized marriage for men.


Summed that up
:iagree::iagree:


----------



## Machiavelli

Here's a little fairy tale from the internet tubes from a few years back, you may remember it:

_Once upon a time, a Prince asked a beautiful Princess, "Will you marry me?"

The Princess said NO and the Prince lived happily ever after and rode motorcycles and xxxxxx skinny big xxx broads and hunted and raced cars and went to naked bars and dated women half his age and drank whiskey, beer and Captain Morgan and never heard *****ing and never paid child support or alimony and ate xxxxxxx and xxx xxxxxx cheerleaders and kept his house and guns and never got cheated on while he was at work and all his friends and family thought he was xxxxxxx cool as hell and had tons of money in the bank and left the toilet seat up ..... The end_


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Setting aside more extreme instances of parental neglect after a divorce, I think it might be wise to keep in mind that the purpose of alimony and child support is for the benifit of the child. The goal is so that the child doesn't materially suffer drastic changes between one parents custody and another parents. So that every other weekend when the child switches homes, he/she is materially entering the same standard of living.


That may be the "goal", but I can tell you its a load of shyte. Most men are reduced to getting a 1 or 2 bedroom cramped apartment, and the mother gets extra money to help buy a house, or get remarried.

I understand what you are saying. CS is to benefit the child, and as long as it does, everything is all well.



> Yes, it needs to be tweaked. Yes some accountability would be a wise move. But the goal is that, materially, the child's standard of living remains the same between one parent and the next.


Again, unless the father is just swimming in money, that isn't going to be the case most of the time. The children will usually go from a nice home to a crackerbox at the father's place.

I even offered up to my x-wife to let me have custody and my kids would want for nothing, and I would require not one dime from her for their support, and would pay for all of their secondary education when the time comes because I could save just some of the money from child support and have their college paid for.

So she gets the freedom to keep on screwing different men without the burden of her kids at home, doesn't have to pay one dime to support them except feeding them when they come to see her, and gets a pass on college expenses.

She didn't go for it, whaddya guess the reason was? That she just had to have her kids a majority of the time? Ya, tell me another good one. If that was the case she wouldn't have went out all the time to screw other men while I was at home with them. And no, that little fact wasn't enough to show that I was the more fit parent.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I don't believe women's lifestyle improves after divorce. Everyone's usually goes down.


You are the first here to admit that. Most believe women are rolling in money after divorce. Some are, most are not. 

Perhaps the Swedish model is better. Few get married but are in long term relationships and have children. Finances are largely separate and both work. Each contributes to the household bills and caring of children. If the relationship ends, splitting things is much easier since each has maintained their own money and have jobs/careers. Most couples have true joint custody so neither is paying support. My relatives say it works quite well.


----------



## vellocet

Machiavelli said:


> So, both state, society, and women have disincentivized marriage for men.


You got that right. I'll sure as hell never get married again.


----------



## Machiavelli

The Economics of Sex. 

This is a great video on the subject of this thread. However, it doesn't get into the Pareto Principle at all, so when they say "men this" and "men that" they are talking about the men women want, not "men" in general.


----------



## Catherine602

Mac what do you envision? Actually, there is an American subculture of men who avoid commitment and father children with several women that they promptly leave. 

Hopefully that will not happen in the larger society. The men and women who don't want to get married, should not have children. The American tax payer will have to foot the bill for the children of irresponsible men and women. 

In that set of circumstances, the money that is paid for CS by D men, will be paid to the state to support fatherless children. Evolution dictates that we must survive as a species by creating progeny and supporting them until they can reproduce. By any means necessary. 

The force of nature will not be diverted by a few or even a million men who don't marry and have a family. 

Unfortunately, in one way or another we all pay for children, those with no parent or one. Men not marrying will not be their salvation from the evolutionary cog wheel. 

This puts me in mind of the poem by John Donne

No Man Is An Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee.


----------



## Catherine602

http://cdn.talkaboutmarriage.net/images/styles/marriage/attach/jpeg.gif
I see Henney Penny has visited this thread too. Busy little chicken.

In the year 2525 - Men are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. Mac my friend, you are all that's left of their religion. Go forth and date women 3 times or until they give "it" up, whatever comes first. Be swift and don't let them hook you. You, oh wise sage, are chosen to cleanse and replenish the earth.


----------



## LongWalk

Men and women marry because 1) it's a tradition/cultural norm 2) they both want children and know that nuclear families are best for this 3) they are tired of dating/do not believe they can do better than the current SO 3) women hope that marriage will induce her husband not to have sex/children with other women although 95% men are always looking, except during the phase of infatuation 4) men have the same hope but they don't understand that women have a different biological pattern of sexual desire; 5) both are crazy about each other but I think that has worn off since cohabitation is the norm; 6) people who marry hope they going to have good sex.

Men are often ripped off by divorce. But from 50,000ft we can see that many beta males have children. Moreover, modern society allows longevity. So even the unjust system is good for our average genes. Just a generation and a half ago TB and other diseases killed many. While we argue about equality and fairness, according to today's norms, we forget about the past. We do not know what the future holds.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> Mac what do you envision? Actually, there is an American subculture of men who avoid commitment and father children with several women that they promptly leave.


I think these folks operate more like "soft harems", which is why the will actually be simultaneously involved with several women.



Catherine602 said:


> Hopefully that will not happen in the larger society. The men and women who don't want to get married, should not have children.


It's already happening in the larger society, since once you remove the societal limitations imposed by an expectation of chastity and monogamy, women will be free to be with the elite males and won't have to settle for the deltas and gammas most of them had to marry in the past. Google "harem management." As for having kids, the men will try to avoid it (CS), but the women want to have kids with these men. It's the limbic reason they are giving it up and it will eventually be the reasoned out reason they're giving it up.



Catherine602 said:


> The American tax payer will have to foot the bill for the children of irresponsible men and women.


In that case, the American taxpayer is well and truly cooked even more than he is now.



Catherine602 said:


> In that set of circumstances, the money that is paid for CS by D men, will be paid to the state to support fatherless children. Evolution dictates that we must survive as a species by creating progeny and supporting them until they can reproduce. By any means necessary.
> 
> The force of nature will not be diverted by a few or even a million men who don't marry and have a family.
> 
> Unfortunately, in one way or another we all pay for children, those with no parent or one. Men not marrying will not be their salvation from the evolutionary cog wheel.


They will reproduce eventually and pay CS, theoretically, so they aren't going to become extinct. It will only be the elites that carry on the marriage tradition, at least on the surface.


----------



## Machiavelli

LongWalk said:


> M While we argue about equality and fairness, according to today's norms, we forget about the past. We do not know what the future holds.


The future holds a lot of the past, because something that can't continue for long, won't.


----------



## Sandfly

I want to marry. 

Not because I've not had options, or because I'm naturally monogamous. Nor because I anticipate being better off financially. I've been asked to marry by two partners (I'm supposed to ask, but, I never asked.) I want to marry, but I want guarantees, like the vows to mean something. For there to be a penalty if the vows are not kept. There isn't any.

I'm not comfortable with that. To me an oath or a vow is different to an everyday promise. If broken they should elicit a smoky patch of ground and a smell of ozone. But nothing happens. So I never married, figuring that if things become fake, the last thing I need is for the fake relationship to be difficult to get out of. I made the right choice.

I believe in marriage and life-long partnership, and desire them.

But under _our _system... I can't agree to it. There are only minuses. Big ones.


----------



## over20

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm curious why you think it's required to "side" with fathers. I think it's more productive to discuss all sides and viewpoints. You seem a little angry with some women in general.
> Besides, venting is fine but it doesn't solve anything. Open dialogue does.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am a rare woman. I don't nag my DH, I don't husband bash when I am out with the girls. I am tired of TV shows and commercials making fun of men and father's. I have a deep respect and admiration for men who work very hard for their families, especially my own DH. I am very tired of the sex war's. I am tired of women who are anti-male and nazi-feminists. I have always preferred hanging out with the guys because they are usually funnier and don't gossip or play mind games.

Yes, I do have some anger towards some women who have cheated and divorced their husbands. My ex BF, a close friend and 2 ex sister-in-laws all did this very thing to their families. I have been able to see the situation through these men's eyes, and my heart truly grieves for dad's in these situations.


----------



## LongWalk

Over20,

We live in an age in which the consumer has become incredibly demanding, absolutely entitled. Women have a desire to seduce and tame an alpha male. Pride and Prejudice reflects this romantic desire, which is really in line with evolutionary interest. A strong male who has the ability to defend himself pairs with a woman out of love and respect for her.

His affection and attachment is extremely constant. Romance fiction is not about servant girls who were seduced by the randy sons of the gentry, only to be sent to some village or institution to raise a b*stard child in disgrace. Holywood and mainstream TV pretty much refuse to spend money on stories with bad endings for the heroine.



> In 2002, Harlequin published 1,113 romance novels, more than half of all romances released in North America. The next most prolific publisher was Kensington Books, which released only 219 romance titles.[1] In 2006, Harlequin published books in 26 languages in 109 international markets. They sold a total of 131 million books, similar to the company's sales in 2005.[39]
> 
> The company is considered one of the most profitable in publishing. Over $585 million worth of books sold in 2003, for gross profits of $124 million and a profit margin of 21%


In contrast to women, men consume porn. So men and women actually have heightened and misguided expectations of how they are going to connect. Hence marriage is not thriving as an institution.

Add the shift in education that has raised women up while men sink down and marriage has an additional hindrance.


----------



## over20

I agree with you...LongWalk....the very ugly result of the feminist movement...it has hurt men, children and women (even though most will disagree....it all started with that darn BC pill)


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> I agree with you...LongWalk....the very ugly result of the feminist movement...it has hurt men, children and women (even though most will disagree....it all started with that darn BC pill)


Well, if you're looking to asses blame, I blame allowing women the right to vote. No, let's go back further. They should never have allowed women to learn to read!

Seriously over20?


----------



## over20

Well hello...once again we disagree....I went back to the Pill invention, which ideally was for married couples spacing their children...the Pill sadly led to free sex..which has led to a lot problems for males and females.


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> Well hello...once again we disagree....I went back to the Pill invention, which ideally was for married couples spacing their children...the Pill sadly led to free sex..which has led to a lot problems for males and females.


Oh dear! 

Well, we will never see eye to eye on this. I don't advocate waiting for marriage. And yes, I have 3 daughters, youngest is 14, then 24, then 27. My oldest is getting married this year, as are every single one of her many friends.... or so it seems.

So you think free sex caused by birth control is what causes women to cheat and leave their husbands while taking all their husbands money while also taking the kids but neglecting them?


----------



## over20

I DO advocate abstinence until marriage...I have 3 daughter's also...20,16,11..daughter's are such a blessing aren't they?...My hope is that they do not sleep around..one knows that after you sleep with a person a piece of your heart and body is left behind with that person.

I think as a whole, society, men and women sleep around way to much....as a result of the invention of BC pill/sexual revolution. There are way to many broken hearts and STD"s that have stemmed from the sexual revolution...


----------



## Catherine602

What is the solution to these dire prediction of men going on strike? 

Men who marry will beget children who are well equipped to marry and nurture children who also get married. 

Their progeny likely to be secure. The stability in their formative years and young adulthood will ready them for the highly technologic age in our future. 

Men who don't get married will probably have less children. If they do, the children will be ill equipped to thrive due to the absence of a strong male figure. 

The survival of the fittest will be the ones who thrive in the new. Social evolution. 

I don't know what the motive is of men who make dire prediction. It is always dire for women but good for men. Nice fantasy but no better than mine. 

No one knows what will happen. I don't believe it will be better for men and worse for women since our destinies are linked.


----------



## LongWalk

Re: birth control
My maternal grandmother had 13 children, including 3 pair twins, the last of which were still born as she could not longer cope with labor. The pill would have made her life easier.

In the future perhaps a contraceptive cream that protects against veneral disease will come on to the market. Then cheating will increase since one additional consideration preventing extra marital sex will vanish. It will probably not taste so good but never mind.

Feminism means different things to different folks. Interesting that feminism generally doesn't lead to women to encourage each other to avoid casual sex and thus strengthen the male desire for marriage.


----------



## Machiavelli

Anon Pink said:


> Well, if you're looking to asses blame, I blame allowing women the right to vote. No, let's go back further. They should never have allowed women to learn to read!


I agree with your first statement, but I'm not aware of anyone ever forbidding women to read.


----------



## over20

Women are soooo competitive with each other....sadly we all will never unite...hence the mommy war's


----------



## Catherine602

Unite for what?? 

The last time we united we got marriage aversive men. Lets just stay fractured lest we do something else to [email protected] things up. 

Women are horrible creatures judging by this forum. It's a wonder that any man would have anything to do with them. Oh yea that.... oh well, that's life. 

The next thing you know we will want the White House painted pink in preparation for our first lady president.


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> What is the solution to these dire prediction of men going on strike?
> 
> Men who marry will beget children who are well equipped to marry and nurture children who also get married.
> 
> Their progeny likely to be secure. The stability in their formative years and young adulthood will ready them for the highly technologic age in our future.


This trend has already been observed and commented upon by social scientists and the press for at least a decade. Higher IQ and earnings people marry other higher IQ and earnings people.



Catherine602 said:


> Men who don't get married will probably have less children. If they do, the children will be ill equipped to thrive due to the absence of a strong male figure.
> 
> The survival of the fittest will be the ones who thrive in the new. Social evolution.


You'll have a small elite overclass that has marriage and is mostly monogamous, and a giant majority underclass where few marry and a few highly sexually desirable baby daddies will be shared by most of the baby mammas. The very hottest underclass women will probably be elevated to consort with the overclass men.



Catherine602 said:


> I don't know what the motive is of men who make dire prediction. It is always dire for women but good for men. Nice fantasy but no better than mine.


The vast majority of underclass men will be the losers, since they won't have a woman, unless they agree to be provider drones and raise the alpha spawn in exchange for occasional coitus.



Catherine602 said:


> No one knows what will happen. I don't believe it will be better for men and worse for women since our destinies are linked.


Monogamy with very little ability to divorce is best for society, all in all. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed and sank.


----------



## Catherine602

Mac you are reading too much fiction. Besides, Margaret Atwood and Isaac Azimov have those topics covered in fiction. Next.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

over20 said:


> Women are soooo competitive with each other....sadly we all will never unite...hence the mommy war's


Your goal isn't unity writing this: "I am tired of women who are anti-male and nazi-feminists. I have always preferred hanging out with the guys because they are usually funnier and don't gossip or play mind games". 

Now back to the topic. Many men are chosing not to marry and many women are doing the same. Both genders have their own reasons and I think it's great that those people recognize marriage isn't for them and that societal pressure to do so is lessening.


----------



## over20

Do you know of any females that can support both sides?...Most of the time females side with females and then on the female side there is a lot of division.....

The OP is about men not marrying


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> Do you know of any females that can support both sides?...Most of the time females side with females and then on the female side there is a lot of division.....
> 
> The OP is about men not marrying


Yes. You are that female. 

But men are not united they only seem that way. in fact they are silos, independent and emotionally isolated. 

They are more competitive than women. It's been socially drilled into them - being the sole provider standing between starvation or plenty for their family. 

I work in a mostly male environment and have had men who worked and studied under my leadership. Women work harder because they think that is the way to get ahead. 

Men work less but manage to appear, by several guises, to get adequate results. How you ask? They are masters at finding the path to the top. It takes manipulation, deviousness and finding followers to work for them. 

However, you will not find anyone more consistently loyal, sincere and committed when they want to be. That is the paradox of men. All of my mentors have been male and successful. 

We get it. You like men. You cannot judge anyone by a few or even 100 post. No one says the same thing all of the time. That's what makes people so fascinating. Relax, men are not as fragile as you think. 

In one area they must be handled with great care by woman, when they give their heart. They are not as connected to as many people as women. They don't give in to their need for connection lightly. I learned that on TAM and life.

But if you don't have their heart, you can say just about anything and they don't cry like women.


----------



## over20

I never said men were not united among themselves...and you are wrong men are very united in a lot of ways/views.

You say men work less but manage to appear by several guises to get adequate results??? Then you blame them to fight to go to the top...you even use the word Manipulation....shame on you.

I know men are not fragile...that's why I deeply respect, (the word you have never used towards men), and appreciate ( another word you have never used in accordance to men).....why such anger towards these men? Why not sympathize with their situation?


----------



## Anon Pink

Over20, you remind me of my mother. I just don't understand women like her, like you. 

My late brother was raked over the coals by his psycho-b!tch exWW. She alienated his sons from him, even while he was dying. When the community raised money for a fund for his medical care, she tried to get her share. When he could no longer move his limbs, she insisted he come and clean his tools out of the garage! When he could no longer use his fingers, she accused him of hiding behind his siblings who typed for him. As he lay in his wheelchair fighting to breathe she kept his sons from him because someone had to stay home to care for the dogs so she could go to her lovers cabin for the weekend. I could tell more horror stories than most of the men here. 

But here's the deal. We warned him not to marry her! My father offered a brand new car. We begged him not to marry her she was a selfish spoiled rotten ice princess. But she looked hot, he was in love, he knew what he was doing....

What happened to him was horrible. But he was warned and he didn't listen. 

If men don't want to marry, they shouldn't! If women don't want to marry, they shouldn't either!

What we have to worry about is not men, nor women, but children! Who will be teaching our sons to be men? Who will be teaching our daughters to be women? Broken people with a negative view a "what's in it for me" attitude? I hope not. If a man decides not to marry in order to protect himself, in order to keep having sex, in order to make his own decisions, so be it. 

Who will teach our children how to make good decisions? Who will teach our children how to share, take turns, empathize, show compassion? We need everyone to do that. 

So men, I wish you Godspeed as you heal your wounds. But don't take too long because your kids need a healthy and whole father to guide them, and they are only children for a short time.


----------



## over20

I am SO SORRY for what you went through with your beloved brother....that is awful.....so very sad....heartbreaking...


----------



## MovingAhead

Catherine602 said:


> I work in a mostly male environment and have had men who worked and studied under my leadership. Women work harder because they think that is the way to get ahead.
> 
> Men work less but manage to appear, by several guises, to get adequate results. How you ask? They are masters at finding the path to the top. It takes manipulation, deviousness and finding followers to work for them.


Hate much? 

Women work harder? Maybe sometimes, but do they work smarter?


----------



## lifeistooshort

MovingAhead said:


> Hate much?
> 
> Women work harder? Maybe sometimes, but do they work smarter?


Yeah, that must be it. Men are just smarter; hate much? Women do have to work harder in certain places to be perceived as equal, but this doesn't translate to men not working hard. And it's not always true.

There's one guy and four women in my department, and the guy works very hard. And he's a good friend of mine and a great guy/ family man. But then again we all work very hard because we understand that we fail or succeed as a team.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon Pink said:


> Over20, you remind me of my mother. I just don't understand women like her, like you.
> 
> My late brother was raked over the coals by his psycho-b!tch exWW. She alienated his sons from him, even while he was dying. When the community raised money for a fund for his medical care, she tried to get her share. When he could no longer move his limbs, she insisted he come and clean his tools out of the garage! When he could no longer use his fingers, she accused him of hiding behind his siblings who typed for him. As he lay in his wheelchair fighting to breathe she kept his sons from him because someone had to stay home to care for the dogs so she could go to her lovers cabin for the weekend. I could tell more horror stories than most of the men here.
> 
> But here's the deal. We warned him not to marry her! My father offered a brand new car. We begged him not to marry her she was a selfish spoiled rotten ice princess. But she looked hot, he was in love, he knew what he was doing....
> 
> What happened to him was horrible. But he was warned and he didn't listen.
> 
> If men don't want to marry, they shouldn't! If women don't want to marry, they shouldn't either!
> 
> What we have to worry about is not men, nor women, but children! Who will be teaching our sons to be men? Who will be teaching our daughters to be women? Broken people with a negative view a "what's in it for me" attitude? I hope not. If a man decides not to marry in order to protect himself, in order to keep having sex, in order to make his own decisions, so be it.
> 
> Who will teach our children how to make good decisions? Who will teach our children how to share, take turns, empathize, show compassion? We need everyone to do that.
> 
> So men, I wish you Godspeed as you heal your wounds. But don't take too long because your kids need a healthy and whole father to guide them, and they are only children for a short time.



I'm sorry Anon, that must have been horrible to watch. Too often men choose women based on how hot they are and then b!tch about what they have to deal with. Who was it that said "give me the most beautiful woman in the world and I'll give you someone that's tired of her sh!t"? I'm deeply uncomfortable with the idea that men who make no effort to evaluate the character of the woman they choose (but she's HOT so what else is there?) are somehow huge victims when she tries to screw them over. If you use shallow criteria to choose a partner don't be shocked when you get a shallow partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

I just think how marriage is conducted needs to change.

'My ex and I used to say a phrase to one another in lieu of ' I love you.'

We used to say 'For all time.'
Had it inscribed in our wedding rings.

Apparently, all time was more like a decade. We were both saddened by the end of our marriage. 

I'm only being partially tongue in cheek here, but I think marriage should be more like a term contract.

Both parties have the opportunity and option to renew at the time of expiration. Write in, and make clear the penalties for early termination, violation of the terms of the agreement, and/or incentivize re-upping, or create a rewards program for those who successfully resubscribe beyond the 1,5,10 and subsequent 10 year terms.

Make it much more of a marketing and business model focused on the marriage rather than just the wedding day itself, and I think everyone would be smarter about, and more fulfilled by the prospect of marriage.


----------



## MovingAhead

lifeistooshort said:


> Yeah, that must be it. Men are just smarter; hate much? Women do have to work harder in certain places to be perceived as equal, but this doesn't translate to men not working hard. And it's not always true.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


*"Hate much? 

Women work harder? Maybe sometimes, but do they work smarter?"*

This is what I actually said...

Please point out to me where I said 'men were smarter'. I don't think I could possibly have a discussion with you because you have translated the exact words that I wrote into something I never meant. You seem to be projecting your bitterness at me for unknown reason.

You made blanket generalization that are stereotypical and you do not address the words that I wrote. I never even made a statement, I asked a question.

Do the women work smarter?

Get out of the bitter barn and play in the hay.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Deejo said:


> I just think how marriage is conducted needs to change.
> 
> 'My ex and I used to say a phrase to one another in lieu of ' I love you.'
> 
> We used to say 'For all time.'
> Had it inscribed in our wedding rings.
> 
> Apparently, all time was more like a decade. We were both saddened by the end of our marriage.
> 
> I'm only being partially tongue in cheek here, but I think marriage should be more like a term contract.
> 
> Both parties have the opportunity and option to renew at the time of expiration. Write in, and make clear the penalties for early termination, violation of the terms of the agreement, and/or incentivize re-upping, or create a rewards program for those who successfully resubscribe beyond the 1,5,10 and subsequent 10 year terms.
> 
> Make it much more of a marketing and business model focused on the marriage rather than just the wedding day itself, and I think everyone would be smarter about, and more fulfilled by the prospect of marriage.



I think that's a good idea. No matter how much you love each other there is a business aspect of marriage, and if you take care of it you have more freedom to love.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MovingAhead

Deejo said:


> I just think how marriage is conducted needs to change.
> 
> 'My ex and I used to say a phrase to one another in lieu of ' I love you.'
> 
> We used to say 'For all time.'
> Had it inscribed in our wedding rings.
> 
> Apparently, all time was more like a decade. We were both saddened by the end of our marriage.
> 
> I'm only being partially tongue in cheek here, but I think marriage should be more like a term contract.
> 
> Both parties have the opportunity and option to renew at the time of expiration. Write in, and make clear the penalties for early termination, violation of the terms of the agreement, and/or incentivize re-upping, or create a rewards program for those who successfully resubscribe beyond the 1,5,10 and subsequent 10 year terms.
> 
> Make it much more of a marketing and business model focused on the marriage rather than just the wedding day itself, and I think everyone would be smarter about, and more fulfilled by the prospect of marriage.


I think that is sad. I meant my vows. I meant forever. I happen to say what I mean and mean what I say. A lot of people do. You get the wrong one, well it can be very bad.


----------



## LongWalk

Deejo said:


> I just think how marriage is conducted needs to change.
> 
> 'My ex and I used to say a phrase to one another in lieu of ' I love you.'
> 
> We used to say 'For all time.'
> Had it inscribed in our wedding rings.
> 
> Apparently, all time was more like a decade. We were both saddened by the end of our marriage.
> 
> I'm only being partially tongue in cheek here, but I think marriage should be more like a term contract.
> 
> Both parties have the opportunity and option to renew at the time of expiration. Write in, and make clear the penalties for early termination, violation of the terms of the agreement, and/or incentivize re-upping, or create a rewards program for those who successfully resubscribe beyond the 1,5,10 and subsequent 10 year terms.
> 
> Make it much more of a marketing and business model focused on the marriage rather than just the wedding day itself, and I think everyone would be smarter about, and more fulfilled by the prospect of marriage.


In other words, people need to be educated about relationships. The 25k bucks to the wedding could be cut to a couple of thousand and the newly weds could go into intensively IC and MC from the word go.

I have buddy who I figure must have Asperger syndrome or something related. He functions well in his IT work for that hated software giant. He leads a team and is good a following the plan. But when it somes to women, he is completely blind emotionally. He just cannot interact properly.

When his confidence was low he felt he could not get laid or talk to women. Eventually he stumbled out of his shyness, but just into ONS and short relationships. It is hard to see him getting married. He sees sex as a need that he has trouble connection to affection. It is very strange. But in another age passing his genes on would have been doable. He would have been introduced a woman based on his economic success.

Today he either has stumble into a dysfunctional person to whom there is some mutual attraction or a woman who understands that he is not 100% takes him on as a project.

re: changing the terms of marriage
There ought to be types of marriage. The kind we have now that allows no fault divorce and a second type that is more restrictive about the grounds for the divorce and penalizes infidelity, spousal abuse, etc.

Women would strive to get men into the second type beause it would have a higher status from a female perspective. It would make some think harder about the risks of cheating.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Maybe marriage is dead. Seems to be headed that way. Maybe in a hundred years no one will be legally married and he notion of lifetime or even long term commitment will be over and out as larger and larger portions of the role the traditional family in terms of material support, child rearing etc are job shopped out the public and private sectors. Maybe being a 'traditionally married' nuclear family will be as anachronistic as the 1950's home maker or as weird looking as Mormon polygamy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Both parties have the opportunity and option to renew at the time of expiration. Write in, and make clear the penalties for early termination, violation of the terms of the agreement, and/or incentivize re-upping, or create a rewards program for those who successfully resubscribe beyond the 1,5,10 and subsequent 10 year terms.


You just described my T-Mobile contract. Since I am happy with the service, I choose to renew every two years. Now, if they added in all kinds of charges or took away features, I would take my business elsewhere. It works because emotions aren't involved. Marriage is very different however.


----------



## Deejo

I have T-Mobile too. I kind of wish marriage was more like T-Mobile. In some ways it is ...

They promise a tremendous amount of coverage and features, and after you sign the contract and go to make a call ... "No Network Available"


----------



## Machiavelli

Catherine602 said:


> Mac you are reading too much fiction. Besides, Margaret Atwood and Isaac Azimov have those topics covered in fiction. Next.


You'll have to be a little more specific about what you're taking issue with.


----------



## lifeistooshort

MovingAhead said:


> *"Hate much?
> 
> Women work harder? Maybe sometimes, but do they work smarter?"*
> 
> This is what I actually said...
> 
> Please point out to me where I said 'men were smarter'. I don't think I could possibly have a discussion with you because you have translated the exact words that I wrote into something I never meant. You seem to be projecting your bitterness at me for unknown reason.
> 
> You made blanket generalization that are stereotypical and you do not address the words that I wrote. I never even made a statement, I asked a question.
> 
> Do the women work smarter?
> 
> Get out of the bitter barn and play in the hay.



I'm sorry you assume that because I don't agree with you that I must be bitter. That's akin to name calling, which is what people do when they don't have an argument.

You suggest that women only work harder because they don't work smarter, like men, who work less because they work smarter. Please refrain from name calling and making blanket statements about someone you don't know anything about. With your logic I can assume you must be bitter, as you accused another poster of hate: "hate much?". Please point out where she said she hates anyone.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sandfly

Most women are cleverer than most men. I have a lot of fun IRL watching the sly things they do to each other.

I'm only talking my experience, don't anyone expect a bleeding study 

But 'multi-tasking' is horsesh*t.

Some of the girls I worked with would boast about their ability to multitask. What it meant in practice, is doing a half job of many things at once, and then getting stressed at all the things they've left unfinished. Then taking out the stress on colleagues. "I'm so busy!"

Overall I don't find men or women to be more _productive _workers. They're all different, I found no rules for it.

In terms of hierarchical behaviour, 

As a supervisor, I found women workers are easier to direct, motivate and get along with. I prefer them as underlings.

In the opposite situation, where they are the manager, they pick favourites and bully the other women. Then they wonder why motivation goes down the drain. It doesn't affect me so much, I just laugh at their self-destructive behaviour... but it creates a cruddy atmosphere. Constant whining from colleagues.

The woman manager who consciously acts professionally at work - no favourites, no romances etc. - will outpace any man and rise up a company faster than any man, and deservedly so.

The one who gossips and backstabs - for her there is no glass ceiling, apart from the one she installed for herself. No amount of legislation is going to make this sort of person fit for governing people.

Just my opinions... as a dumberer creature, you shouldn't hold me criminally responsible for them. Agreed?


----------



## MovingAhead

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm sorry you assume that because I don't agree with you that I must be bitter. That's akin to name calling, which is what people do when they don't have an argument.
> 
> You suggest that women only work harder because they don't work smarter, like men, who work less because they work smarter. Please refrain from name calling and making blanket statements about someone you don't know anything about. With your logic I can assume you must be bitter, as you accused another poster of hate: "hate much?". Please point out where she said she hates anyone.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I haven't even let you know what my thoughts are. I asked a question. I never made a statement. This is a statement. "You have a serious lack of understanding the difference between a question and a statement." Here is another statement, 'You are projecting your opinions on my question and making assumptions about what I think." Here is one more statement, "It seems obtuse of you that you continually misrepresent what I write as my stated beliefs."

Now here is a question, "Did I ever state that men work harder than women?" Here is another question, "Can you say for certain that I believe men work harder than women?"

I have NEVER voiced my opinion on the matter. You have taken a question that I asked and assumed I had formulated some opinion. I never stated one.

This is another question: (You can tell by the question mark at the end of the sentence...) 'Since, I have never given an opinion on whether men work harder than women, how can you disagree with me?'

For the record, because all you have done is presuppose things that I never said, I do not think either sex works harder than the other. I believe individuals do and I don't think gender plays a role.

For the record, I DON"T SUGGEST THINGS. You made assumptions. If I want to say something, I will damn well say it!

Please look at the facts of this post and understand that I use logic. You have used nothing but assumptions and presuppositions. That is your problem. I asked a question and you assumed that I had some deep seeded meaning and were suggesting an insult to the fairer gender.

If I want to insult someone, I will do it so it is understood. I insulted your assumptions earlier by pointing out the difference between statements and questions.


Here is a skewed example of your logic but not so far skewed...

Me: 'Is the door brown?'
You: You asked if the door was brown. You must not like the color brown. You are a racist! What aren't you banned yet?

Me: Whatever... I don't do logic or math with fluffy bunnies, unicorns, rainbows, and happy flowers.


----------



## SolidSnake

Sandfly said:


> I want to marry.
> 
> Not because I've not had options, or because I'm naturally monogamous. Nor because I anticipate being better off financially. I've been asked to marry by two partners (I'm supposed to ask, but, I never asked.) I want to marry, but I want guarantees, like the vows to mean something. For there to be a penalty if the vows are not kept. There isn't any.
> 
> I'm not comfortable with that. To me an oath or a vow is different to an everyday promise. If broken they should elicit a smoky patch of ground and a smell of ozone. But nothing happens. So I never married, figuring that if things become fake, the last thing I need is for the fake relationship to be difficult to get out of. I made the right choice.
> 
> I believe in marriage and life-long partnership, and desire them.
> 
> But under _our _system... I can't agree to it. There are only minuses. Big ones.


Just write a prenup. It's not a big deal. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

MovingAhead said:


> Hate much?
> 
> Women work harder? Maybe sometimes, but do they work smarter?


Should have written "the women worked harder" and "the men worked less" meaning that the men and women under my supervision. 

The implication that this applied to all men was unintended. My apologies to hard working men. 

Actually, almost all of my grad students did well in their own ways. More men rose to the top than women because they had strategies that were more successful in that environment. 

How did you get hate from the post? Man = bad and women = good. Many commendations for your impressive reductionist abilities. However, you may want to apply as much effort to comprehension.

Put in reductionist parlance - read post.


----------



## Catherine602

Machiavelli said:


> You'll have to be a little more specific about what you're taking issue with.


I was being abstruse.  your post reminded me of two books by these authors. 

Atwood wrote a science fiction novel "The Handmaid's Tale" about subjugation of women. 

I lifted this from Wiki - "The story is presented from the point of view of a woman called Offred (literally Of-Fred). The character is one of a class of individuals kept as concubines ("handmaids") for reproductive purposes by the ruling class in an era of declining births due to sterility from pollution and sexually transmitted diseases." 

Asimov wrote a science fiction novel "The Stars Like Dust". The human race has been decimated and the few people left, live with life-like robots and communicate with other humans by computer. Humans never meet directly.


----------



## Anon Pink

The Handmaids Tale was built on a society in which the ruling class righted all the wrongs heaped upon society by women's equality movement. The first thing the ruling class did was enslave or kill librarians and outlaw women's right to read. Then they went after unwed mothers, then divorced mothers. 

Damn scary book!


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> I never said men were not united among themselves...and you are wrong men are very united in a lot of ways/views.
> 
> You say men work less but manage to appear by several guises to get adequate results??? Then you blame them to fight to go to the top...you even use the word Manipulation....shame on you.
> 
> I know men are not fragile...that's why I deeply respect, (the word you have never used towards men), and appreciate ( another word you have never used in accordance to men).....why such anger towards these men? Why not sympathize with their situation?


Do you live very close to a body of water?


----------



## Catherine602

Anon Pink said:


> The Handmaids Tale was built on a society in which the ruling class righted all the wrongs heaped upon society by women's equality movement. The first thing the ruling class did was enslave or kill librarians and outlaw women's right to read. Then they went after unwed mothers, then divorced mothers.
> 
> Damn scary book!


Have you read her novels as well? I read Oryx and Crake and the follow up, forgot title. After reading that, I will not read any more of her books. A lot of abuse.


----------



## Catherine602

Anon Pink said:


> The Handmaids Tale was built on a society in which the ruling class righted all the wrongs heaped upon society by women's equality movement. The first thing the ruling class did was enslave or kill librarians and outlaw women's right to read. Then they went after unwed mothers, then divorced mothers.
> 
> Damn scary book!


Its not so far fetched. It could happen. Reading some of the post here on TAM and listening to some of the politicians is frightening. 

When bad things happen someone must found to blame. Reminds me of one of the songs in Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera, The Mikado. 
I've Got a Little List - The Mikado - Gilbert and Sullivan - YouTube


----------



## Anon Pink

Catherine602 said:


> Its not so far fetched. It could happen. Reading some of the post here on TAM and listening to some of the politicians is frightening.



You mean like this one?




over20 said:


> I agree with you...LongWalk....the very ugly result of the feminist movement...it has hurt men, children and women (even though most will disagree....it all started with that darn BC pill)



Yes, very scary!


----------



## Jellybeans

Deejo said:


> I just think how marriage is conducted needs to change.
> 
> 'My ex and I used to say a phrase to one another in lieu of ' I love you.'
> 
> We used to say 'For all time.'
> Had it inscribed in our wedding rings.
> 
> *Apparently, all time was more like a decade*.


:iagree:

Yeah that whole "Forever" thing is funny, right? 



over20 said:


> I think as a whole, society, men and women sleep around way to much....as a result of the invention of BC pill/sexual revolution. There are way to many broken hearts and STD"s that have stemmed from the sexual revolution...


People have been fvcking and sleeping around for a lot longer than the invention of the pill. The Greeks were famous for their ship orgies. Just saying.


----------



## vellocet

Catherine602 said:


> Women are horrible creatures judging by this forum.


Nah, not women in general. Just the b!tches we have had the pleasure of marrying, having them cheat, then take our kids away from us adding insult to injury.


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> Nah, not women in general. Just the b!tches we have had the pleasure of marrying, having them cheat, then take our kids away from us adding insult to injury.



Fair enough, but how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?

If more men thought about that maybe they'd be more confident about choosing a better partner in the future. First piece of advice: hot does not equal good character.

I mean, I chose a pr!ck for my first marriage, but I accept that I chose him and thought a lot about how I could choose a better partner. That doesn't seem to be the case here, only "f$ck women" (not you personally).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

lifeistooshort said:


> Fair enough, but how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?


Don't even start that. I had no idea the type of person she ended up being. Anyone can be fooled.


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> Don't even start that. I had no idea the type of person she ended up being. Anyone can be fooled.



So as you look back there were no red flags that you overlooked? Not trying to start a fight, trying to understand. I know people can be fooled, but do you think everyone here fully evaluated their partner and was just fooled? This isn't even directed at you, it's directed at all the anger toward women on the board. Your ex sounds like a real piece of work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

I know I was fooled! I did it to myself though. I saw something I thought was something else. Turns out I was wrong and the mistake was mine. Thanks to TAM I no longer think all men are actually extremely stupid. 

I'm serious. All the men I've known in my life have been unbearably hopelessly stupid when it comes to women. Now I understand they are just men and I needed to learn to communicate better.

Funny how that works.


----------



## wilderness

Anon Pink said:


> I know I was fooled! I did it to myself though. I saw something I thought was something else. Turns out I was wrong and the mistake was mine. Thanks to TAM I no longer think all men are actually extremely stupid.
> 
> I'm serious. All the men I've known in my life have been unbearably hopelessly stupid when it comes to women. Now I understand they are just men and I needed to learn to communicate better.
> 
> Funny how that works.


Actually, men In general communicate far more effectively than women. Men tend to communicate overtly, women covertly. Imo overt communication is the more honorable of the 2.


----------



## vellocet

lifeistooshort said:


> So as you look back there were no red flags that you overlooked?


You really think if there was even a hint of her being untrustworthy I would have hooked up with her anyway?

Where there red flags later on after we got married? Sure.

You really think if there was an indication she was a cheater that me or anyone in their right mind would have put a ring on her finger?


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> You really think if there was even a hint of her being untrustworthy I would have hooked up with her anyway?
> 
> Where there red flags later on after we got married? Sure.
> 
> You really think if there was an indication she was a cheater that me or anyone in their right mind would have put a ring on her finger?



The defensiveness is unnecessary. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we all make mistakes. I'm asking about as you look back, that's all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MovingAhead

lifeistooshort said:


> Fair enough, but how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?
> 
> If more men thought about that maybe they'd be more confident about choosing a better partner in the future. First piece of advice: hot does not equal good character.
> 
> I mean, I chose a pr!ck for my first marriage, but I accept that I chose him and thought a lot about how I could choose a better partner. That doesn't seem to be the case here, only "f$ck women" (not you personally).
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Married 15 years... Out of the blue, wife was no longer who she was when I married her. She came from a good Christian home. She had values. She disappeared and this creature from Invasion of the Body Snatchers took her place.

You cannot control people. You can only hope they choose right because when they choose wrong, then it is hell to pay!


----------



## vellocet

lifeistooshort said:


> The defensiveness is unnecessary. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we all make mistakes. I'm asking about as you look back, that's all.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


When someone says not all women are bad and only those b!tches we married, then they cheated and took our kids away, only for someone to come back and say "Fair enough, but how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?"

You just implied that we are partly to blame for being cheated on and not being able to see our kids on a daily basis.

What is NOT to get defensive about with a comment like that?

And perhaps you simply didn't think about that comment before you said it. If that's the case, then ok.


----------



## MovingAhead

Anon Pink said:


> I know I was fooled! I did it to myself though. I saw something I thought was something else. Turns out I was wrong and the mistake was mine. Thanks to TAM I no longer think all men are actually extremely stupid.
> 
> I'm serious. All the men I've known in my life have been unbearably hopelessly stupid when it comes to women. Now I understand they are just men and I needed to learn to communicate better.
> 
> Funny how that works.


We are not all extremely stupid, some of us get as high as just mostly stupid.

(See this is tongue and cheek, please do not be offended. I was not offended by the post.)


----------



## lifeistooshort

vellocet said:


> When someone says not all women are bad and only those b!tches we married, then they cheated and took our kids away, only for someone to come back and say "Fair enough, but how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?"
> 
> You just implied that we are partly to blame for being cheated on and not being able to see our kids on a daily basis.
> 
> What is NOT to get defensive about with a comment like that?



I implied that there is a chance that some men didn't thoroughly evaluate the character of the woman they chose. Women do this too, it's a human flaw. ..If that shoe doesn't fit you don't wear it. I read all over this site that we're all gold digging b!tches that want to tie men down, cheat, and screw them over. Thus the never getting married again arguments. That's quite a generalization.

That doesn't stop me from attempting to have a fruitful discussion. Now I'm just banging my head against the wall. Forget I asked, we're all b!tches out to screw men.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> Do you live very close to a body of water?


why?


----------



## Anon Pink

MovingAhead said:


> We are not all extremely stupid, some of us get as high as just mostly stupid.
> 
> (See this is tongue and cheek, please do not be offended. I was not offended by the post.)


:rofl:

Not offended at all.  

You didn't grow up with a vag, so it may be hard to understand some things. I didn't grow up with a penis, ..........so I understand a hell of a lot more because I grew up with a vag... 


Kidding!

We sometimes speak different languages. Women aren't one way and men another. We all, the healthy ones that is, essentially want the same things. We just don't describe them the same way.


----------



## over20

SolidSnake said:


> Just write a prenup. It's not a big deal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think that's a good point. It's solves the money issue, but in the event of a divorce how could a father guarantee equal time with his children. Unless it's written into the prenup? :scratchhead:


----------



## vellocet

lifeistooshort said:


> I implied that there is a chance that some men didn't thoroughly evaluate the character of the woman they chose.


No, you implied that the pain we experienced, the loss of our children, is somehow partly our fault.



> how much of that is on men for choosing b!tches?





> I read all over this site that we're all gold digging b!tches that want to tie men down, cheat, and screw them over. Thus the never getting married again arguments. That's quite a generalization.
> 
> That doesn't stop me from attempting to have a fruitful discussion. Now I'm just banging my head against the wall. Forget I asked, we're all b!tches out to screw men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Your reply about how much of that do men own for choosing b!tches was in response to my post where I OBVIOUSLY stated that not all women are like that, I believe I said, "not all women in general". Just the ones we happened to end up with.

So basically I said not all women, just the ones WE MARRIED. 

And yes, I'll never get married again. Not because I think all women are like that, but I simply am not going to take the chance that I get another psycho b!tch.


----------



## Anon Pink

wilderness said:


> Actually, men In general communicate far more effectively than women. Men tend to communicate overtly, women covertly. Imo overt communication is the more honorable of the 2.


Shocking!


----------



## SolidSnake

over20 said:


> I think that's a good point. It's solves the money issue, but in the event of a divorce how could a father guarantee equal time with his children. Unless it's written into the prenup? :scratchhead:


I know you can waive the right to alimony in a prenup. 

You might be able to write child custody clauses into a prenup too. How enforceable that is once the courts get involved is another story. 

Wilderness knows more about it than I do.


----------



## over20

Ok..got it, thanks


----------



## LongWalk

How many watched the economics of sex?


----------



## Sandfly

SolidSnake said:


> Just write a prenup. It's not a big deal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are right. I forget that a solution exists.


----------



## over20

Sandfly said:


> You are right. I forget that a solution exists.


Sandfly,you seem like such a great guy...would you really not ever marry?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DTO

SolidSnake said:


> I know you can waive the right to alimony in a prenup.
> 
> You might be able to write child custody clauses into a prenup too. How enforceable that is once the courts get involved is another story.
> 
> Wilderness knows more about it than I do.


I don't think you can, at least not where I'm at.

In my divorce settlement, alimony was mutually waived, but child support was set at zero. The attorney confirmed that neither I nor my ex could sign it away, because it was not for our benefit (but instead for the child's benefit).


----------



## Fenix

********** said:


> Well chaps, I'm a writer - not famous - still have the day job. Sigh! Anyway, some years ago I wrote a piece called "The Sisterhood - Are You Kidding Me?".
> 
> For those of you too young to remember, the 'sisterhood' was a term used in the 1970s when feminism took hold. BTW I never did burn my bra - there used to be protests in parks where women would burn their bras, I was in my first year in university and I thought that particular action was rather foolish!
> 
> But, I was very much in favour of feminism in the way I saw it. For me it was the same as the concept of justice. If I do the same job as a man, then I should get the same pay. In those days women on average got paid 20 or 30% less than their male counterparts for doing the same work. In fact in some industries it persists today, Equally it was VERY hard for women to get promoted - for instance become a judge after a long and illustrious career as a barrister. I could go on about the true injustices that existed.
> 
> Years later, I thought about what 'the sisterhood' had become because the term was still bandied around. With my own eyes, I have seen women stab each other in the back in the workplace, I've been stabbed a few times myself LOL . Some female politicians where I live scare me because they are so hard-assed, especially when it comes to social justice - health care and the like. Crikey!
> 
> And when it comes to romance? Sheesh! You chaps do know don't you that if my H had an A, there's a good chance that it would be with my best friend. :slap: I haven't been a victim of that but I know at least 5 women who have. I have worked in a male profession all my life and sometimes the guys forget that I'm there. I've heard them on occasion comment on a friend's hot wife but they have quickly added that they would never 'cut another man's lunch'. With romance my own experience is that men are more loyal to their guy friends in this matter than women are to their girlfriends. I could be wrong. On all other counts I agree. Women are just the same as men. For every b&stard, there's a b*tch waiting around the corner. Scsue the terminology - blush.
> 
> I should add that I know some women in their late twenties early thirties, smart professionals I suppose you would call them and I have heard them say, with my OWN EARS that they wouldn't even think of dating a guy who wasn't worth a million dollars. Made me sad really. Romance for them anyway is gone.
> 
> No we're not all the touchy, feely, soft people you might have been raised to believe. *We're just the same as men!*
> 
> My piece ended with: "Are you kidding me? The sisterhood is dead and gone, and to be honest I'm not even sure it ever existed".
> 
> There you have it chaps. I'm ready for a hail of bullets because I sure got one when I wrote that piece.
> 
> ETA: I just remembered I was a victim of the romance thing - in a small way. A year or so after my divorce a gf & I met a guy socially & used to bump into him. She kept telling me he was interested in me and he did seem to engage me in conversation more than others in the group. One night we were at a party and he was there. She said excitedly, he's here - he'll probably make a move on you. I circulated and chatted to various people and at one stage noticed that my gf was deep in conversation with him but didn't think anything of it. I then played a song or two on the guitar - someone had brought one along and afterwards I looked up to see her sitting in a corner with him have a big snogging session. "She's going to swallow his head" I thought. I feared for the poor man.
> 
> Anyway, y'all have a good day!:smcowboy:


I like this. I didn't like the video. I thought she was smug, inexperienced and self satisfied. I also detest how the term feminist has been turned into a pejorative and corrupted. As ********** described, it is simply about equality. That is all.

As far as the sisterhood goes, I do think it is alive and well...in the older crowd. I feel like I have tapped into it and it is a wondrous thing. Unfortunately, I also think that women can be their own worst enemies. Men are taught from a very early age "Bros before hos". Women are taught that they are a trophy, valued primarily for their looks, and should be put on a pedestal/rescued. Both ideas are utter crap.


----------



## Fenix

MovingAhead said:


> First of all you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously you don't. Not even a single clue.
> 
> The point of marriage is what? If I wasn't married to her, she would not have had access to my money. Yes she could get child support and alimony, but the things that honestly I worked for that were ripped away from me when we were divorced are what caused me to go broke. So if we just had kids together, the outcome would have been different. I would not have to give her any of my 401k. I would not have had to divvy up the assets like I did. In that respect alone, I was screwed by the fact we got married. Isn't that the point of the thread? Marriage...
> 
> You see if it were a bad marriage and she just wanted out, she would have just gotten out and left. She would have left with the clothes on her back and the kids and never looked back. That is not what happened. She decided that the marriage was over. She cheated and it was my fault and I have to pay. That is the truth of things in her eyes... If the marriage was so bad she would have just wanted to start over. That is not what happened. I was absolutely blind sided by everything that happened.
> 
> Also I have a great deal of knowledge about the 'general population' of women, at least the available ones. I have dated 29 different women since December and the general population of women are concerned about 'What I can do for them'. That is the absolute truth. I would say 24 out of the 29 women are like that.
> 
> They forget they need to bring their half to the table. I can do x for them. What are they willing to do in return? They want me to put all my cards on the table and then choose if they want me. That is the truth of most women. Let me see your cards too so I know if I want you.
> 
> Let me point something out to you Lisa and let me be clear. I do NOT judge people by how other people have treated me. I judge them on their actions.
> 
> I am definitely more wary. I am not as open an trusting as I was but I treat everyone based on what they do and how they act.
> 
> I am not narrow minded. I know what I want in a woman. I sure as hell don't want someone who is extremely bitter.... just sayin


Forgive me, Movingahead, but you are bitter as well. Very bitter.

I get it. I really do. I got screwed over big time.

My supposedly loving husband begged me to move to Europe when I was 7 months pregnant with our first. Three years...that was the time frame. Then we would be back. I was at the same level professionally and had already arranged the nanny. Unfortunately, I have a hard time turning down an adventure. I thought we were a team. Stupidest thing I ever did. Because you know what happened? We weren't a team. It was all about him. He kept putting off the return because he wasn't ready. Meanwhile, I could not work due to permit restrictions. Sure, I could have ripped apart the family and returned without him, but again, I saw us as a team and I believed his slick lies. Fast forward 15 years, and I have the pleasure of discovering what a lying cheating bastard he was. A predatory serial cheater who took his gfs to our family home (which was a holiday home). Um yeah. So, while I understand your bitterness, I do not focus it on one gender. I don't have anything to say about any ideas about the courts in this area being predisposed to women. I certainly hope so, because I look at my time in the marriage as an investment. I bought stock in stbx.com and I want a ROI that is decent. Now, it is simply a business transaction...and one in which I did not break the contract. He did.

Am I bitter? Hell yes. But I am working on directing that bitterness toward one person and not across the entire gender.

I believe marriage can be a wonderful thing. When the partners operate as a team, support each other and have the same goals, it is profitable, fun and health-giving (esp. for men). I have no idea if I will get married again. While I am loyal, attractive and bright, my finances are shot and my prospects are ''interesting''. In addition, financially speaking, it may not make sense (e.g. alimony) Same goes for co-habitation. Still, I like men. I like their energy and their perspective...and I really like being part of a team.

Finally, I think it is foolish for people to downplay the business aspect of marriage. There are benefits both ways. Now, having said that, I think a pre-nup for people in our situation is mandatory. I also think a post nup in some situations is a really good idea.


----------



## naiveonedave

the problem is, it is hard to do enough due diligence to prevent getting screwed, so it comes down to probabilities. And the D is not financially favorable to one of the partners if they make 80+% of the income in the M.


----------



## Fenix

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is, it is hard to do enough due diligence to prevent getting screwed, so it comes down to probabilities. And the D is not financially favorable to one of the partners if they make 80+% of the income in the M.


It sure is not going to be favorable to my stbx!

Seriously though, divorce is the biggest wealth destroyer there is. It is not favorable to anyone.


----------



## SolidSnake

DTO said:


> I don't think you can, at least not where I'm at.
> 
> In my divorce settlement, alimony was mutually waived, but child support was set at zero. The attorney confirmed that neither I nor my ex could sign it away, because it was not for our benefit (but instead for the child's benefit).


I checked a reference book about prenuptial agreements regarding the child custody and support provisions. From what it says, both custody and the amount of support are off limits in a prenup, but you can write in clauses about where both spouses and any children would live in the event of a separation or divorce, who will have the marital home, how soon one party would agree to move, and so fourth. In some states you can include clauses regarding what would happen if a party cheats. There really is a lot you can do. 

As I see it there are three general paths one can take regarding marriage agreements:

1) civil marriage without a prenup 

2.) civil marriage with a prenup 

3.) Non-civil marriage (religious only marriage, versus civil marriage). This is the possibility of getting married without obtaining a license (and as such the state is not a third party in the contract and therefor has no jurisdiction over the marriage). I researched this heavily, and its perfectly lawful to get married without a license, and has been for hundreds of years. You just need an official who will agree to perform the ceremony without one. Both sovereign citizens and some Christians tend to do this. In such a case, you can write up your own premarital agreement pertaining to money, custody, how you will handle disputes, etc. which is not necessarily subject to the courts jurisdiction. As per usual, it a bigger hassle to do it this way, but it is an option.

I came across child custody agreements custody while researching option 3.) above prior to getting married. I must have confused what I read researching option 3.) with option 2.) above, so please forgive the mistake. Custody agreements are not possible under 2.) but are possible under 3.).

While I think its fine to have a personal preference not to want marriage, the totality of the above renders the financial/custody reasons moot.


----------



## MovingAhead

Fenix said:


> I like this. I didn't like the video. I thought she was smug, inexperienced and self satisfied. I also detest how the term feminist has been turned into a pejorative and corrupted. As ********** described, it is simply about equality. That is all.
> 
> As far as the sisterhood goes, I do think it is alive and well...in the older crowd. I feel like I have tapped into it and it is a wondrous thing. Unfortunately, I also think that women can be their own worst enemies. Men are taught from a very early age "Bros before hos". Women are taught that they are a trophy, valued primarily for their looks, and should be put on a pedestal/rescued. Both ideas are utter crap.


'Bros before hos', while it sounds crass is loyalty to your friends and not letting a woman come between you and your friend.

John Lennon should have listened to this instead we have Yoko Ono.


----------



## Fenix

MovingAhead said:


> 'Bros before hos', while it sounds crass is loyalty to your friends and not letting a woman come between you and your friend.
> 
> John Lennon should have listened to this instead we have Yoko Ono.


Oh, right. The evil woman tore apart the loyal brotherhood. *yawn*


----------



## Anon Pink

Fenix said:


> Oh, right. The evil woman tore apart the loyal brotherhood. *yawn*


Hey! Yoko did tear it apart! But John was stupid to fall in love with such a evil woman!


----------



## Fenix

Anon Pink said:


> Hey! Yoko did tear it apart! But John was stupid to fall in love with such a evil woman!


They were already on their way when she showed up.

Yoko Ono ‘thankful’ for McCartney’s admission she did not break up The Beatles - Telegraph


----------



## Anon Pink

Fenix said:


> They were already on their way when she showed up.
> 
> Yoko Ono ‘thankful’ for McCartney’s admission she did not break up The Beatles - Telegraph


We can debate a moot point till the cows come home.


----------



## not recognizable

" Even in a committed relationship, there is still less chance of her getting off than a man during sex, but there is a much likelier chance she will. "

You nailed it (no pun intended). I've often wondered if it's evolution that has produced the tendency for SOME women to prefer committed relationships so that our sex drive is actually satisfied. One night stands--the man is not likely to care if we do or don't. BORING.


----------



## wilderness

not recognizable said:


> Hmm, my household income was slashed by more than half, I live in a tiny apartment, my ex gives me nothing, and he lost nothing. I even pay the vet bill for that cat in his custody.


Need more details. What state, who has custody, etc...


----------



## over20

It never ends....does it...you men are so noble and so patient....it breaks my heart that you have to struggle...


----------



## Fenix

over20 said:


> It never ends....does it...you men are so noble and so patient....it breaks my heart that you have to struggle...


:lol:


----------



## Anon Pink

wilderness said:


> Need more details. What state, who has custody, etc...


If a man posted the same thing Notrecognizable posted, wilderness would be pointing and shouting support for another poor and oppressed brother. A woman posts and wilderness needs more info...


----------



## lifeistooshort

Anon Pink said:


> If a man posted the same thing Notrecognizable posted, wilderness would be pointing and shouting support for another poor and oppressed brother. A woman posts and wilderness needs more info...



Ha ha anything to support his male victim agenda. I'm sure this lady's ex didn't soak her, he's just misunderstood like Wilderness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

Anon Pink said:


> If a man posted the same thing Notrecognizable posted, wilderness would be pointing and shouting support for another poor and oppressed brother. A woman posts and wilderness needs more info...


I need more info because I don't think it's true. Notice how she never responded to my inquiry.


----------



## Blondilocks

"I even pay the vet bill for that cat in his custody. "

HIS custody. Happy now?


----------



## lifeistooshort

wilderness said:


> I need more info because I don't think it's true. Notice how she never responded to my inquiry.


Of course not, if it doesn't support your agenda it must be a lie. Keep going through life like this, see how it works for you. It must be ok though as you have such a happy and fulfilling life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wilderness

lifeistooshort said:


> Of course not, if it doesn't support your agenda it must be a lie. Keep going through life like this, see how it works for you. It must be ok though as you have such a happy and fulfilling life.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My 'agenda' should be everyone's agenda. Innocent men and children are being destroyed by this predatory criminal divorce system, and it's wrong.

And the reason I didn't believe it is not because it didn't support my agenda. I didn't believe it because that's not the way modern divorce works.


----------



## Deejo

This should end well ...


----------



## not recognizable

Because I wasn't lurking around the forum to answer you it must be untrue? I do sleep and work sometimes.

Thanks to Anon Pink, lifeistooshort and Blondilocks for the back up!


I've heard some men complain about the male bashing here, but I am continuously startled by how flat out mean many men here are to women. Wilderness I'm not necessarily referring to you; I don't know you at all. I'm thinking of another thread, but here you have made an inclusive statement about women and appear pretty annoyed when shown to be wrong, or you assume someone must be lying. Why would I even spend the energy to lie on an anonymous internet forum?

But your belief is just wrong in all cases. A friend of mine works full time while her husband collects disability, even though he is fully capable of building sheds, riding his bike, going to the gym, etc. When they divorced, he got custody, the house, and she has to pay both alimony and child support. She said the judge openly stated that HE wanted to make an example of her.

I haven't attempted to get anything from my ex through the legal system. I've asked him for help on a $6000 credit card bill--mostly that cat, who has diabetes--but also my dentist, and I wouldn't expect him to pay for that. He has refused, always claiming to be broke, yet tells me he sends money to his mother (who still works) and his three sisters (two work), he has a new car (mine is '01 that sounds like a helicopter), new computer, new laptop, etc.

So I might not be a good example for your hypotheses, but that still somewhat invalidates your claim that all women gain and all men lose. We have no children, so that takes a huge issue out of the equation.


----------



## not recognizable

I agree any man would be bitter about that.
Take the inverse: man cheats, leaves the woman, she must exist on what is often a lower salary--much lower in some cases, or none at all if she hasn't been working--and if she gets the kids she has to raise them on her own while he's getting lots of sex (for now).

Why wouldn't and woman be a little bitter or angry about that?

Someone I work with came to me just the other day: her husband cheated on her a few years back, left, came back, repented etc. He had simply gone underground. He convinced his wife to sell the house and most the furniture--he banked the money--since the kids were out of the house, so they could fulfill their dream of traveling around the world.

Once in the apartment, he told her he wanted a divorce and that he was moving in with his girlfriend. He told her he won't have to pay her anything because the kids are gone.


----------



## SolidSnake

not recognizable said:


> But your belief is just wrong in all cases.


I'm sure his belief that the legal system favors women is not wrong "in all cases." The converse statement, that the legal system always favors men, isn't wrong_ in all cases_ either. 

Please, can we allow some rationality to return to this discussion now?


----------



## Deejo

This has devolved to little more than back and forth and is highjacking the thread. 

Asking you both to refrain or take it to PM's.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...what's happened to you? You just ain't no fun no mo'.


----------



## SolidSnake

not recognizable said:


> Why are you asking me?
> 
> I'm not sure what you are finding irrational.


I find the statement "your belief is wrong in all cases," irrational. This is called sweeping generalization, and it is a logical fallacy. 

In the context of your post, it seems as though your statement is referring to Wilderness's belief that the courts broadly favor women, and not to your own personal situation. 

If you are only talking about your own personal situation, then I have no input.


----------



## SolidSnake

I agree with Deejo that the thread needs to return to topic. 

I honestly don't understand some of the hostility here. Its unnecessary. I'm tired of the war between the sexes.


----------



## not recognizable

SolidSnake said:


> I find the statement "your belief is wrong in all cases," irrational. This is called sweeping generalization, and it is a logical fallacy.
> 
> In the context of your post, it seems as though your statement is referring to Wilderness's belief that the courts broadly favor women, and not to your own personal situation.
> 
> If you are only talking about your own personal situation, then I have no input.


Sorry, my post was unclear. I didn't word it very well. I wasn't the one making a sweeping generalization, I was attempting to counter one. I was trying to say women do NOT win in every case (all cases).


----------



## SolidSnake

not recognizable said:


> Sorry, my post was unclear. I didn't word it very well. I wasn't the one making a sweeping generalization, I was attempting to counter one. I was trying to say women do NOT win in every case (all cases).


Ok, no problem. Overall, I agree with Wilderness, but I also agree with you that there are counter examples.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...what's happened to you? You just ain't no fun no mo'.


I'm peri-manopausal.


----------



## Catherine602

over20 said:


> It never ends....does it...you men are so noble and so patient....it breaks my heart that you have to struggle...


Do you live in an open air domicile with a beamed over-structure?


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> I'm peri-manopausal.


Wow! Where do you put your estring? And if you say what seems obvious you need to start a new penis thread...just to show off.


----------



## tom67

I thought this was interesting

Circumcision, Divorce and Male Disposability - Paul Elam on Freedomain Radio - YouTube


----------



## Machiavelli

Here's some sauce for the gander:

Gold digger husband gets millions despite multiple pre-nups


----------



## tom67

Machiavelli said:


> Here's some sauce for the gander:
> 
> Gold digger husband gets millions despite multiple pre-nups




If this would be consistent like this case.


----------



## Omego

Machiavelli said:


> Here's some sauce for the gander:
> 
> Gold digger husband gets millions despite multiple pre-nups


:scratchhead: Ummmm, why? Why would she marry this man? He doesn't work at all?


----------



## treyvion

Omego said:


> :scratchhead: Ummmm, why? Why would she marry this man? He doesn't work at all?


I guess he had the gift of gab, a body of a god and a hot c0ck that wouldn't quit.


----------



## over20

Catherine602 said:


> Do you live in an open air domicile with a beamed over-structure?


What do you mean by this?


----------



## LongWalk

It's an insult. She is asking if you are homeless and live under a bridge. No need for such personal attacks.

Discuss whatever topic is at hand and let the merit of your observations speak for you.


----------



## over20

LongWalk said:


> It's an insult. She is asking if you are homeless and live under a bridge. No need for such personal attacks.
> 
> Discuss whatever topic is at hand and let the merit of your observations speak for you.


Thank you


----------



## SolidSnake

over20 said:


> What do you mean by this?


She's trolling you. Not very nice.


----------



## Chaparral

Runs like Dog said:


> Most people have poor decision making skills.
> There really isn't someone for everyone.
> Romantic love has only been around for about 400 years.
> Marriages were invented when 19 was middle aged.


There is a book about the village in the valley of the kings, by a fellow named Romer I think. They were the artisans and craftsmen that built the pharoh's tombs. They wrote all about their lives. There is no doubt, romantic love, poetry, love letters,cheating and divorce was going on about four thousand years ago.


----------



## Chris989

Runs like Dog said:


> Most people have poor decision making skills.
> There really isn't someone for everyone.
> Romantic love has only been around for about 400 years.
> Marriages were invented when 19 was middle aged.


19 hasn't ever been "middle aged". Statistics that cite "average life expectancy" of 40 include child mortality.

Even the bible - perhaps written 2,000 years ago - cites the average lifespan as "three score years and ten" - i.e. 70.

There is further obfuscation here because women often died in childbirth. However, once a woman became too old to bear children, her life expectancy would have been around 70 until modern medical developments (mainly antibiotics which are perhaps reaching the beginning of the end for us) enabled us to live longer.

As such, the argument that marriage is a construct for people only expected to live until 40 is an ill informed straw man at best.


----------



## Machiavelli

Chris989 said:


> 19 hasn't ever been "middle aged". Statistics that cite "average life expectancy" of 40 include child mortality.
> 
> Even the bible - perhaps written 2,000 years ago - cites the average lifespan as "three score years and ten" - i.e. 70.
> 
> There is further obfuscation here because women often died in childbirth. However, once a woman became too old to bear children, her life expectancy would have been around 70 until modern medical developments (mainly antibiotics which are perhaps reaching the beginning of the end for us) enabled us to live longer.
> 
> As such, the argument that marriage is a construct for people only expected to live until 40 is an ill informed straw man at best.


Quite correct. Traditionally, the stages of life were childhood to puberty (12/13) and the four stages of adulthood were Youth, from puberty to 25, middle age (the plateau before the decline) 25 to 40, maturity from 40-60, and old age beyond that. Men no longer had to muster to battle after age 60 in Greece, for example.

The modern era, in the form of the census bureau, calls 35 the start of middle age and runs it all the way out to 55.

Marriage for girls was traditionally at the start of "youth" (right after menarche) with boys at the same age (Hebrews) or slightly later (Romans) or much later (Greeks).


----------



## LongWalk

Death was nonetheless a much more common experience in history. Mortality from diseases like TB, measles and small pox is thing of the past.


----------



## Jung_admirer

I've thought about Ms. Straughan's comments, and I have a few thoughts on the topic. I recently exchanged email messages with Michele Weiner-Davis on the topic of Walk-Away Wife. My argument observes the increasing trend of female partners commenting that "the children come first in the marriage" (child-centered marriage). There have been several studies done to confirm this trend, which has been accelerating since 1980. The alternative model for a couple, the partner-centered marriage, has been losing strength. There have also been several studies done examining the mental health of children developing under each of these models. Contrary to what might be assumed, children fair much better with parents in the partner-centered marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, which might be the subject of another thread. 

Here's how I tie all this up. What partner would knowingly enter a relationship that will devolve into a child-centered marriage whereby both my children and I will suffer? It would then be logical to assume that men are looking (subconsciously) for women who definitively prefer the partner-centered marriage. How exactly would one discern that?


----------



## not recognizable

Jung_admirer said:


> I've thought about Ms. Straughan's comments, and I have a few thoughts on the topic. I recently exchanged email messages with Michele Weiner-Davis on the topic of Walk-Away Wife. My argument observes the increasing trend of female partners commenting that "the children come first in the marriage" (child-centered marriage). There have been several studies done to confirm this trend, which has been accelerating since 1980. The alternative model for a couple, the partner-centered marriage, has been losing strength. There have also been several studies done examining the mental health of children developing under each of these models. Contrary to what might be assumed, children fair much better with parents in the partner-centered marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, which might be the subject of another thread.
> 
> Here's how I tie all this up. What partner would knowingly enter a relationship that will devolve into a child-centered marriage whereby both my children and I will suffer? It would then be logical to assume that men are looking (subconsciously) for women who definitively prefer the partner-centered marriage. How exactly would one discern that?


"Contrary to what might be assumed, children fair much better with parents in the partner-centered marriage"

My mom always felt my father came first, and then the children. She always emphasized that when we children married, the marriage must come first. As for faring better, I can't say. I can say I was neglected a good deal, which wasn't always a bad thing. I did get into heaps of trouble though.

How can one discern? Without the presence of children from a prior relationship, I don't really think it's possible--and I don't think either partner knows for certain who will come first, each other or the children, until they actually have them.

Not very helpful, I realize.


----------



## Jung_admirer

not recognizable said:


> "Contrary to what might be assumed, children fair much better with parents in the partner-centered marriage"
> 
> My mom always felt my father came first, and then the children. She always emphasized that when we children married, the marriage must come first. As for faring better, I can't say. I can say I was neglected a good deal, which wasn't always a bad thing. I did get into heaps of trouble though.
> 
> How can one discern? Without the presence of children from a prior relationship, I don't really think it's possible--and I don't think either partner knows for certain who will come first, each other or the children, until they actually have them.
> 
> Not very helpful, I realize.


Certainly helpful ... Can it be as simple as a therapist, pastor or parent telling a young couple, "Always place one another first ... above your parents, above your siblings and above your children". I guess this is what the marriage vow is all about, which seems reduced to a platitude as we focus our emotional intimacies on the children. 

I hear, "They need me so much". Perhaps what is really being projected is, "I need someone to need me this much". Taken to the extremes, isn't this the popular definition of co-dependency? Was George Carlin right to call us "child worshippers"?


----------



## not recognizable

Jung_admirer said:


> Certainly helpful ... Can it be as simple as a therapist, pastor or parent telling a young couple, "Always place one another first ... above your parents, above your siblings and above your children". I guess this is what the marriage vow is all about, which seems reduced to a platitude as we focus our emotional intimacies on the children.
> 
> I hear, "They need me so much". Perhaps what is really being projected is, "I need someone to need me this much". Taken to the extremes, isn't this the popular definition of co-dependency? Was George Carlin right to call us "child worshippers"?


"Was George Carlin right to call us "child worshipers"? "

Oh my I've never heard that but YES, we are. It does seem a little less intense, or maybe I'm not around it much to observe. I remember my brother's children running wild around the house, shouting and shrieking. Parents remained oblivious. Later when my mom inquired, they said they didn't want their children to hear the word "no."
Luckily for all, that phase wore out pretty quickly, but I saw that attitude everywhere for a time, and children got away with wildly obnoxious behavior in public.
As a female, I always felt the female doting over babies pressure. I was always supposed to say "oh, how cute" anytime a baby was within sight. I didn't find babies cute at the time, and I didn't have the "I want one" reaction either. It seemed so fake, so expected, just like asking "how are you?" to strangers, and we don't want to know.
Many parents feel responsible for their children's happiness, and attempt to provide it via anything the child wants.
Is it co-dependency? Probably. 
As a side note, I have many Orthodox Jewish friends, and rabbis do indeed tell newlyweds exactly that.


----------

