# Is mgtow for real?



## VHVGN

I am married for a bit over a year. She is a very good person and I can tell without a doubt really loves me. Same on this side. If you visit a MGTOW site, it makes it seem like all women are horrid and men can only live a satisfying life without them. Women make up 51% of the worldwide population! Sounds a bit far fetched. Any opinions? Any truly happily married men out there who would not trade it for the world?


----------



## knobcreek

what is mgtow?


----------



## VHVGN

MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY. A group of men who seem to harbor some very negative views on the female gender. Many of these men seem educated and some of their arguments carry a bit of truth - but there is good and bad in both genders.


----------



## turnera

Read His Needs Her Needs. It will explain what the guys who ARE happy in their marriage know, and do. 

Those guys who've had bad experiences aren't willing to address the stuff in the book and, of course, get bad results.


----------



## knobcreek

Do they just get prostitutes? How do they deal with no sex or intimacy?

I'm sure there's some merit for men going their own way, and for a decent guy who has been burnt over and over by women it may make sense assuming they have the financial means to afford "company" from time to time, a man needs that... Most men enter marriages with women today knowing that in the end they'll always look to move on up the chain. Men are content, women never are, women are always looking for something better. But we deal with it anyway, then move on to the next one.


----------



## VHVGN

Many do get prostitutes. Some just try to suppress their urges. Some admit to onanism.


----------



## turnera

And some hit on any woman who'll take them. I know many men - married men - who do this.

And if a decent guy keeps getting burnt over and over, he is the common denominator and should take a hard look at why that is.


----------



## Heatherknows

VHVGN said:


> MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY. A group of men who seem to harbor some very negative views on the female gender. Many of these men seem educated and some of their arguments carry a bit of truth - but there is good and bad in both genders.


Let them go their own way...nobody will care. 

:surprise:


----------



## jorgegene

VHVGN said:


> Many do get prostitutes. Some just try to suppress their urges. Some admit to onanism.


ONANISM! 

now there's a word not often used.

i went my own way for years as a bachelor, but it didn't have anything to do with animosity towards women at all. I liked women then, i like them now.

i just felt that dating, playing games, relationships were way too much trouble. i was happy as i was a bachelor and content. and yes i did partake of the onanism cup now and then. that kept me fine.

i changed all that about ten years ago and started dating again after about 20 years. i found that dating was still a pain in the @ss and relationships too, but the highest highs in life are intimacy, so i decided to throw my hat into the ring.

now i'm very happily married going on almost 3 years.

i get guys (and gals) that don't want to bother with all the bul$hit of dating. but i also think any negativity toward the opposite sex is even more stupid.


----------



## jorgegene

just do your thing whatever it is and don't be a jerk and think that you are victimized by the opposite sex.


----------



## Ynot

Is MGTOW real? I hope that it is. It just makes my odds better. Seriously though, I don't understand people who project their experience with one or two members of group onto all other members of a group.


----------



## knobcreek

I will add that I could never live without a woman in my life long term, I am fine with it for months or even years if I need to. But long term I enjoy a woman's companionship and company. I find I'm a better man when I'm with a woman I love. If left to my own devices I drink too much, tend to become self-centered, and more shallow. I look for sex not love, and things to satisfy my immediate needs. They're good to great at the time but feel hollow after awhile.

I'm married 15 years (with a two year separation in between) and still partake in the onanism cup at least weekly .

But I don't ever let myself think that my marriage is for life anymore. That went out the door when we first separated. I don't invest to the point where she's my whole life. I leave it so if she decides she's bored and wants a divorce, or cheats, I can move on and recover a lot easier than when I was younger and more emotional.

There's a ton of talk about how men can't adjust to modern society, in some ways they have a point. But I think women need to look at how they're adjusting, between the cheating, filing for divorce at a much greater rate, taking offense at pretty much everything, modern feminism more about man hate and bringing men down several pegs instead of uplifting women, self-medication and medicating anxiety and depression, there's a lot the "modern woman" needs to look at and assess.

I think in our times there are much starker divides between the races and sexes than in previous generations. The fringe element on both sides is very agitated, aggressive, and outspoken.


----------



## VHVGN

knobcreek..very well written! There is a lot of negativity on both sides of the gender aisle. We are meant to live together as humans - not apart. I am not religious at all - but however we were created - this just seems natural. One thing I do take issue with on the MGTOW forums is the horrific, degrading language being used about women. The C*** word is used quite often, and while there may be many women guilty of behaving in that manner, there are many, many men who the D*** word is just as apt. If any MGTOW or similar movement is to have any traction and wants to be taken seriously, it must not stoop to sophomoric, degrading levels.


----------



## jb02157

VHVGN said:


> Any truly happily married men out there who would not trade it for the world?


Well that's just it, if your marriage is happy, life is good but if it isn't then life can get terrible.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> There's a ton of talk about how men can't adjust to modern society, in some ways they have a point. But I think women need to look at how they're adjusting, between the cheating, filing for divorce at a much greater rate, taking offense at pretty much everything, modern feminism more about man hate and bringing men down several pegs instead of uplifting women, self-medication and medicating anxiety and depression, there's a lot the "modern woman" needs to look at and assess.


I'm a feminist and definitely a "modern woman." To me that means to I would like to have equal access to resources (educational opportunities, business opportunities, salary and position) and I accept equal responsibility for that. Which means, I support myself and don't expect a man to pay my way through life. Real feminists believe in fairness...not in taking advantage of the system because they're women.

I certainly do not disrespect men...never would. If I disrespected my husband...who is a formidable person...he'd divorce me in a heartbeat and I have several men that work for me and that I work for at work that are brilliant, kind and who always have my back if I screw up at work. I need them to help me be successful at what I do and vice versa.

I'm actually fundamentally opposed to medication unless its absolutely necessary. I take zero although I have to watch my iron levels carefully by diet means and if I'm lacking take iron supplements.

And being a feminist doesn't mean that I don't love doing things that are traditionally female...when I'm not working I love to cook, take pride in a clean house and I knit most of my kid's winter stuff.

And I'm not alone. Most of my social circle are very successful, "modern", feminists who are very similar to me.

I'm so tired of bitter men lumping all women who want some fairness and equality into this fake feminism label. The fact is that a lot of women who call themselves feminists don't want equality, they want special treatment while they seek some men to financially support them. There's a lot of bad people out there...from both genders.

We're not all that way and maybe what you need to do is recognize that its your failure to seek out and find good women.


----------



## Ynot

I think that many of issues being discussed here come from the label we apply to ourselves or to others. It seems that a lot of people are simply unable to recognize, accept and respect the individual for who they are. Each of us is a whole lot more than whatever label we choose to apply of have applied on us.


----------



## Woodchuck

jorgegene said:


> ONANISM!
> 
> now there's a word not often used.
> 
> i went my own way for years as a bachelor, but it didn't have anything to do with animosity towards women at all. I liked women then, i like them now.
> 
> i just felt that dating, playing games, relationships were way too much trouble. i was happy as i was a bachelor and content. and yes i did partake of the* onanism cup *now and then. that kept me fine.
> 
> i changed all that about ten years ago and started dating again after about 20 years. i found that dating was still a pain in the @ss and relationships too, but the highest highs in life are intimacy, so i decided to throw my hat into the ring.
> 
> now i'm very happily married going on almost 3 years.
> 
> i get guys (and gals) that don't want to bother with all the bul$hit of dating. but i also think any negativity toward the opposite sex is even more stupid.


You may be a bit confused here, you don't wear a cup when you onanize....It would get in the way....Although if you do it for long periods of time, you might want to wear a cup afterwards...Those puppies can get TENDER....

I too did not enjoy relationship games...Married at 19....50 years next FEB...


----------



## Fozzy

The thing I don't understand about Men Going There Own Way is why a man would need to be part of a movement to go his own way. Isn't joining a group of like minded people the opposite of going your own way?


----------



## Fozzy




----------



## Mr. Nail

I don't watch the videos or subscribe to the hate involved but I very much believe in MGTOW. My expression of it is simple. Many women want some unreasonable things from men. I refuse to supply those things. I encourage other men to see how unreasonable those demands are, and to also refuse to be a supplier.
Here is a partial list:
Prom Dates.
Diamonds.
Big Weddings.
Child Support for children we aren't allowed to parent.

Now when a woman is willing to be a reasonable partner There is a possibility of Relationship. When the women want a man to be a prop in their fantasy, No Thanks.


----------



## jorgegene

Mr. Nail said:


> I don't watch the videos or subscribe to the hate involved but I very much believe in MGTOW. My expression of it is simple. Many women want some unreasonable things from men. I refuse to supply those things. I encourage other men to see how unreasonable those demands are, and to also refuse to be a supplier.
> Here is a partial list:
> Prom Dates.
> Diamonds.
> Big Weddings.
> Child Support for children we aren't allowed to parent.
> 
> Now when a woman is willing to be a reasonable partner There is a possibility of Relationship. When the women want a man to be a prop in their fantasy, No Thanks.


these are some of the reasons, not all, that i chose to remain single for so long. as far as making a movement or convincing others to follow, i guess that's where i depart. a lot of people play games that i don't like. in fact i don't like the idea of the 'dating game'. but from where i stood, i saw guys and gals playing the 'game' equally.


----------



## Mr. Nail

. . . . and I also won't warm up the sauna for the aerobics instructor . . . . . .


----------



## Heatherknows

Mr. Nail said:


> I don't watch the videos or subscribe to the hate involved but I very much believe in MGTOW. My expression of it is simple. Many women want some unreasonable things from men. I refuse to supply those things. I encourage other men to see how unreasonable those demands are, and to also refuse to be a supplier.
> Here is a partial list:
> Prom Dates.
> Diamonds.
> Big Weddings.
> Child Support for children we aren't allowed to parent.
> 
> Now when a woman is willing to be a reasonable partner There is a possibility of Relationship. When the women want a man to be a prop in their fantasy, No Thanks.


No diamonds or child support...

Men with that attitude would be better off becoming monks. IMHO.


----------



## Heatherknows

Fozzy said:


> The thing I don't understand about Men Going There Own Way is why a man would need to be part of a movement to go his own way. Isn't joining a group of like minded people the opposite of going your own way?


LOL!

Maybe they're really closet homosexuals and use this group as a coping mechanism.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I think this is awesome. They take themselves out of the dating pool and we don't have to weed them out later on. It's not like anyone is going to be sad that these men aren't an option, they'll be happy. Everyone is happy. (Except for these men who are really just bitter and pretending to be happy ) 
It's like a bunch of people talking about a fun party and the whiny kid who people don't really like says "Well that's it! I'm not coming" and you're all "ok?....... were you even invited?"

Oh and I haven't asked for, wanted or had any of that list of unreasonable things us females seem to want. Still wouldn't want to date one of these guys so I'm happy they wouldn't waste my time.


----------



## Fozzy

Rise UP my brothers! Resist our gynocentric oppressors!!!


----------



## Mr. Nail

Blood diamonds

As to diamonds, I'll give you a pint of my own blood if you think it proves my devotion, but I won't buy someone else's so you can have a pretty bauble. 

I thought I qualified the Child support thing enough. I believe that men should support their children, and not just with money. 

But yes many men should in fact remove themselves from the supply chain. And they should be much more careful about fathering children.


----------



## Heatherknows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and I haven't asked for, wanted or had any of that list of unreasonable things us females seem to want. Still wouldn't want to date one of these guys so I'm happy they wouldn't waste my time.


You never wanted an engagement ring? OMG there was a time when that's all me and my friends would talk about. When I got mine it was soooooo amazing. Dream come true. :x

(Couple of years later I got the matching earrings. woohoo!!.)

0


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I don't watch the videos or subscribe to the hate involved but I very much believe in MGTOW. My expression of it is simple. Many women want some unreasonable things from men. I refuse to supply those things. I encourage other men to see how unreasonable those demands are, and to also refuse to be a supplier.
> Here is a partial list:
> *Prom Dates.
> Diamonds.
> Big Weddings.
> Child Support for children we aren't allowed to parent.*
> 
> Now when a woman is willing to be a reasonable partner There is a possibility of Relationship. When the women want a man to be a prop in their fantasy, No Thanks.


Again, lets not lump all women in the same category.

-I never went to my prom...
-I admit to having a very large engagement ring but I didn't buy and certainly didn't ask for it. I never ask for gifts and prefer to give not get. I don't need anything that I can't buy myself.
-My first wedding cost about 70 bucks and the second one was probably 50 bucks. I wore nice skirt suits that I had on hand to both...and believe me, I'm not poor and neither were either of my husbands. I just think wasting money on weddings is stupid...
-I share 50/50 parental custody with my ex for our youngest child. I didn't request either child support or alimony when I got divorced because I can support myself and my own children. He tried to sue ME for full custody and requested child support from ME. 

MGTOW is basically an excuse for lazy men who attract shallow women because of what they're putting out there. There are a lot of hard-working, financially independent, non-naggy, rational, good women out there. The MGTOW male's inability to attract them is due to their own deficiencies. Real women aren't interested in bitter men with chips on their shoulder about the whole female gender.

Women are not all the same and real feminists who believe in fairness, equality and carrying their own financial weight are some of the best women out there.


----------



## tech-novelist

I'm not part of the MGTOW movement, but my understanding is that the common thread is that they plan their own lives rather than following a conventional script.

I can't imagine why anyone would criticize men for doing that. I mean, why is it even anyone else's business?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I can't imagine why anyone would criticize men for doing that. I mean, why is it even anyone else's business?


I have zero issue with men keeping to themselves.

I have an issue with the stereotypes they label to all women...particularly how they describe the modern feminist. MGTOW men rarely have anything positive to say about the female gender.


----------



## bfree

EnigmaGirl said:


> I'm a feminist and definitely a "modern woman." To me that means to I would like to have equal access to resources (educational opportunities, business opportunities, salary and position) and I accept equal responsibility for that. Which means, I support myself and don't expect a man to pay my way through life. Real feminists believe in fairness...not in taking advantage of the system because they're women.
> 
> I certainly do not disrespect men...never would. If I disrespected my husband...who is a formidable person...he'd divorce me in a heartbeat and I have several men that work for me and that I work for at work that are brilliant, kind and who always have my back if I screw up at work. I need them to help me be successful at what I do and vice versa.
> 
> I'm actually fundamentally opposed to medication unless its absolutely necessary. I take zero although I have to watch my iron levels carefully by diet means and if I'm lacking take iron supplements.
> 
> And being a feminist doesn't mean that I don't love doing things that are traditionally female...when I'm not working I love to cook, take pride in a clean house and I knit most of my kid's winter stuff.
> 
> And I'm not alone. Most of my social circle are very successful, "modern", feminists who are very similar to me.
> 
> I'm so tired of bitter men lumping all women who want some fairness and equality into this fake feminism label. The fact is that a lot of women who call themselves feminists don't want equality, they want special treatment while they seek some men to financially support them. There's a lot of bad people out there...from both genders.
> 
> We're not all that way and maybe what you need to do is recognize that its your failure to seek out and find good women.


My wife said to like this post for her as well.


----------



## bfree

Actually if I understand the origin of the MGTOW movement it started in Japan with a group of men roughly translated as Grass Fed Boys. These men were sick of the dating, mating, and intergender tactics that apparently women in Japan use. They say Japanese women, mostly the single older ones, are aggressive bullies. I think those same women in the US would be called cougars. From what I understand many "city women" in Japan concentrated on their careers and achieving success when they were younger and are now feeling somewhat desperate because their biological clock is ticking. So their desperation is turning to anger and frustration. Anyway these Grass Fed Boys chose to remove themselves from this process and instead spend their disposable income on toys for men like video game systems, motorcycles, sports cars, etc. The movement morphed when it came to the US into what is now known as MGTOW.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Actually if I understand the origin of the MGTOW movement it started in Japan with a group of men roughly translated as Grass Fed Boys. These men were sick of the dating, mating, and intergender tactics that apparently women in Japan use. They say Japanese women, mostly the single older ones, are aggressive bullies. I think those same women in the US would be called cougars. From what I understand many "city women" in Japan concentrated on their careers and achieving success when they were younger and are now feeling somewhat desperate because their biological clock is ticking. So their desperation is turning to anger and frustration. Anyway these Grass Fed Boys chose to remove themselves from this process and instead spend their disposable income on toys for men like video game systems, motorcycles, sports cars, etc. The movement morphed when it came to the US into what is now known as MGTOW.


Very interesting.

Honestly, I can totally understand the appeal of a single life....nothing wrong with that. I remember when I got divorced and lived alone for a while, it was a lot of fun.

Again, my complaint is simply when MGTOW men describe women. Its analogous to hearing someone from the KKK describe african americans. 

And if you think that way, you really should stay away from women...you're not really very well suited for a LTR.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> I have zero issue with men keeping to themselves.
> 
> I have an issue with the stereotypes they label to all women...particularly how they describe the modern feminist. MGTOW men rarely have anything positive to say about the female gender.


Perhaps that is because they aren't very successful with women.

As for me, I'm fine with "equity feminism", i.e., the idea that women should have the same rights as men.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Perhaps that is because they aren't very successful with women.


Yes...so it begs the question on whether their philosophy is borne out of non-emotional, empirical data or if its just the ravings of a pack of bitter guys who only attract shallow, gold-digging women?


----------



## bandit.45

Fozzy said:


> The thing I don't understand about Men Going There Own Way is why a man would need to be part of a movement to go his own way. Isn't joining a group of like minded people the opposite of going your own way?


Agreed. 

I was part of this club and didn't even know it, although I don't onanate very often.


----------



## bandit.45

EnigmaGirl said:


> Yes...so it begs the question on whether their philosophy is borne out of non-emotional, empirical data or if its just the ravings of a pack of bitter guys who only attract shallow, gold-digging women?


I'd say that is pretty much it.


----------



## Heatherknows

bfree said:


> Anyway these Grass Fed Boys chose to remove themselves from this process and instead *spend their disposable income on toys for men like video game systems, motorcycles, sports cars, etc. *The movement morphed when it came to the US into what is now known as MGTOW.


Should have been called "Men Who Remain Children."


----------



## bfree

EnigmaGirl said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> Honestly, I can totally understand the appeal of a single life....nothing wrong with that. I remember when I got divorced and lived alone for a while, it was a lot of fun.
> 
> Again, my complaint is simply when MGTOW men describe women. Its analogous to hearing someone from the KKK describe african americans.
> 
> And if you think that way, you really should stay away from women...you're not really very well suited for a LTR.


What I know about the Grass Fed Boys is from a fairly detailed article I read a few years ago. Their complaint chiefly is with a specific group of women, career city women in their mid to late 30's who they say are too aggressive. And it wasn't like they were complaining vocally about them. They were just saying that the tactics used turned them off to dating. They interviewed a few women and it didn't seem that these men weren't successful daters. The biggest complaint the women had was that these men wouldn't commit to marriage. Anyway from what I can see when the Grass Fed Boys movement came to US mild complaints about that specific group of women changed into major issues with all women. Not sure how that happened but there it is.


----------



## Mr. Nail

@EnigmaGirl ,
I find you stance to be reasonable. I also agree that there are many women out there who don't make those unreasonable demands. But there is a flaw in Western (read United States) culture that is actively training women to expect unreasonable things. Diamonds are an easy example. In order to create a high demand for their product (and a corresponding high price) Diamond sellers have perpetuated the myth that if it isn't a real diamond, it isn't real love. This all started around the start of WWII . Diamond production has been carefully managed to keep these cats fat. Prior to the Great wars most people never owned diamonds. @Heatherknows points out how "normal" this desire is now. 

Diamonds are not the only unreasonable example, they are just the easiest. My list is in no way exhaustive. Yet another high on my list is trips to Micky Mouse Land. Going your own way means doing exactly what smart feminists do. Evaluate what women are asking for, decide if it is a fair exchange, and refuse to enter into unfair deals. 

The trouble is men like to provide. It reinforces their feelings of self worth. There is nothing we like more than the challenge of fulfilling the desires of our partners. (Even if it is "warming up the Sauna") So we skip the evaluation phase, and plunge ahead no matter how unreasonable the request is. Many (not all) women are highly offended when a man refuses to supply any demand. They have come to expect it. And Phrases like "his own deficiencies" get thrown around. A man being cautious with his resources is not Stingy, they are realistic. 

So there is this wild suggestion out there that men who refuse unreasonable demands should be Monks. Well that is a disservice to Monks. Monks give everything. But, what is really implied is that these men should live without women. Hey, isn't that exactly what they are doing. They will give up one of their greatest emotional needs in order to stand up for their principle. Isn't controlling that passion a sign of a strong man, not a "lazy" one? 

US Culture is in a state of over correction. MGTOW is a reaction to that state. The pendulum will most likely swing back. Hopefully it will center, but there is no historical precedent.


----------



## Heatherknows

Mr. Nail said:


> @EnigmaGirl ,
> I find you stance to be reasonable. I also agree that there are many women out there who don't make those unreasonable demands. But there is a flaw in Western (read United States) culture that is actively training women to expect unreasonable things. Diamonds are an easy example. In order to create a high demand for their product (and a corresponding high price) Diamond sellers have perpetuated the myth that if it isn't a real diamond, it isn't real love. This all started around the start of WWII . Diamond production has been carefully managed to keep these cats fat. Prior to the Great wars most people never owned diamonds. @Heatherknows points out how "normal" this desire is now.
> 
> Diamonds are not the only unreasonable example, they are just the easiest. My list is in no way exhaustive. Yet another high on my list is trips to Micky Mouse Land. Going your own way means doing exactly what smart feminists do. Evaluate what women are asking for, decide if it is a fair exchange, and refuse to enter into unfair deals.
> 
> The trouble is men like to provide. It reinforces their feelings of self worth. There is nothing we like more than the challenge of fulfilling the desires of our partners. (Even if it is "warming up the Sauna") So we skip the evaluation phase, and plunge ahead no matter how unreasonable the request is. Many (not all) women are highly offended when a man refuses to supply any demand. They have come to expect it. And Phrases like "his own deficiencies" get thrown around. A man being cautious with his resources is not Stingy, they are realistic.
> 
> So there is this wild suggestion out there that men who refuse unreasonable demands should be Monks. Well that is a disservice to Monks. Monks give everything. But, what is really implied is that these men should live without women. Hey, isn't that exactly what they are doing. They will give up one of their greatest emotional needs in order to stand up for their principle. Isn't controlling that passion a sign of a strong man, not a "lazy" one?
> 
> US Culture is in a state of over correction. MGTOW is a reaction to that state. The pendulum will most likely swing back. Hopefully it will center, but there is no historical precedent.


People live their life as they seem fit. Men who spend time dwelling on what they "won't" do for a woman doesn't sound like a man I'd like to know.


----------



## Mr. Nail

turnera said:


> Read His Needs Her Needs. It will explain what the guys who ARE happy in their marriage know, and do.
> 
> Those guys who've had bad experiences aren't willing to address the stuff in the book and, of course, get bad results.


This post finally pushed me over the edge. I got the book last night and finished the third chapter this morning. Chapter 2 was a revelation. Chapter 3 just told me how badly I got suckered in the last negotiation. 

Jury is still out on the value of this treatise.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Heatherknows said:


> People live their life as they seem fit. Men who spend time dwelling on what they "won't" do for a woman doesn't sound like a man I'd like to know.


Then you need a Monk.


----------



## Heatherknows

Mr. Nail said:


> Then you need a Monk.


LOL. OK, I'll ask my husband if he can get me one for Christmas. :grin2:


----------



## bfree

Heatherknows said:


> LOL. OK, I'll ask my husband if he can get me one for Christmas. :grin2:


----------



## knobcreek

EnigmaGirl said:


> Women are not all the same and real feminists who believe in fairness, equality and carrying their own financial weight are some of the best women out there.


That's fine, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but much of the feminist movement of today is associated with taking men down several notches, attacking mens value and worth in society moreso than building up women. Feminism today is more associated with misandry in my opinion, it actually has a lot in common with this group.

It's not far from the modern race movement that is more about doing away with any American history or white history as it's deemed offensive to people of race. Remove Woodrow Wilson from Princeton, eventually what no mentioning George Washington because he had slaves? Tear down the white race, especially white men, eventually society will move towards their ideal that white = bad, white man = terrible. Blacks on campus now want "safe zones" where only blacks can go, dormitories for blacks who want to celebrate "black affinity" i.e. no whites allowed. Effectively the modern race movement is gearing towards re-segregation, highlighting differences between the races, and attempting to severely limit free speech on campus and in society under the guise of political correctness. This attempt to dismiss anything a white man has worked for as "white privilege" is another attempt to lessen our value, make us feel guilt and inferiority when there is none.

I guess I said it best originally:

"I think in our times there are much starker divides between the races and sexes than in previous generations. The fringe element on both sides is very agitated, aggressive, and outspoken."


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> That's fine, I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but much of the feminist movement of today is associated with taking men down several notches, attacking mens value and worth in society moreso than building up women. Feminism today is more associated with misandry in my opinion, it actually has a lot in common with this group.


And those women ARE just like this group. Actual feminists are against those views just as much as you are. 
Just as there are extremists in every group, you can't cast judgement on the whole because of the actions of a few. 

It's not "much" of them, they are few. Just like these kinds of men are few. 
The few are usually louder and more in your face so it's harder to ignore them and see the rest. The _most _of us are just quietly at home being feminist and believing that men and women should have equal ability to access the same rights. 

I'm a feminist. I believe in equal rights. I also believe in men having equal rights after a divorce for custody and realistic child support and their ability to be a SAHD if they chose. 
Simply the ability to be equal.

I see extremist men with these kinds of views and I can just brush them off and realize they are in their own little world and have nothing to do with men in general. It does nothing to change my views on equality and feminism. 

Countering extremism with extremism (basically, I'm going to be MGTOW because of extreme feminists) is just being hypocritical IMO.


----------



## knobcreek

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And those women ARE just like this group. Actual feminists are against those views just as much as you are.
> Just as there are extremists in every group, you can't cast judgement on the whole because of the actions of a few.
> 
> It's not "much" of them, they are few. Just like these kinds of men are few.
> The few are usually louder and more in your face so it's harder to ignore them and see the rest. The _most _of us are just quietly at home being feminist and believing that men and women should have equal ability to access the same rights.
> 
> I'm a feminist. I believe in equal rights. I also believe in men having equal rights after a divorce for custody and realistic child support and their ability to be a SAHD if they chose.
> Simply the ability to be equal.
> 
> I see extremist men with these kinds of views and I can just brush them off and realize they are in their own little world and have nothing to do with men in general. It does nothing to change my views on equality and feminism.
> 
> Countering extremism with extremism (basically, I'm going to be MGTOW because of extreme feminists) is just being hypocritical IMO.



Your movement has been hijacked by a very vocal, very aggressive faction. To the point now where the very word feminist I immediately associate with misandry. Right or wrong, that's the view of many men (and many women). The fringe left of your group has moved the modern feminism movement into attack mode IMO. This group and the general apathy many men have towards women, relationships, and marriage is a direct result. You and others can proclaim I'm just for equal rights, and that's great, but that isn't where your movement is currently at. Women wonder where the good men have gone? They should take a longer look at themselves and realize they're there, they just aren't attracted to what you're putting out there.

My wife and I had a child very young and married, she went back to school, I supported her, she's going for her master's I'm supporting her. That means working 80 hours a week as a VP of IT, picking up kids at day care, dinners, baths, vacuuming (although she never helps me in the yard, or painting, but that's another story). I'm all for equal rights between the sexes and races, but modern feminism, and the fringe modern race movement is not about equality, it's about preferential treatment for their group and the tearing down of another group.


----------



## Deejo

Go their own way?

Pishaw.

Those men just aren't very good at managing women.

Women NEED men. They need our leadership and direction. Our strength, our affection, our sperm and our money.

Go my own way? Hell no.

I'm going to make damn sure I give my all to women.

As many of them as possible. As the great John Shaft once said, "It's my duty to knock that booty." 0

Let them go I say. And let the real men get on with their work. Now if you'll excuse me, Lexy Panterra needs me to like her latest video.

This post was brought to you by the letters, irony, and the number 2


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> Your movement has been hijacked by a very vocal, very aggressive faction. To the point now where the very word feminist I immediately associate with misandry. Right or wrong, that's the view of many men (and many women).


And the same thing happens to some people when they hear words associated with ANY group. Muslim, Christian, Single Mother, American, Gun owners..... I could name any group and come up with a handful of wrong stereotypes associated with it because there are some vocal and aggressive members in it. 

It's my job- IMO- to understand the difference and not judge based on the few. 

And just FTR, it's not "My movement" I simply believe in equality. For everyone, not just gender. I believe in equality for race, sexual orientation, religion. Believing that men and women should have equal ability to access rights makes me a feminist. That's it. 

There's no movement, it's just "do you think men and women should have equal access and opportunities for rights?" Yes? Congrats, you are a feminist.


----------



## StilltheStudent

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There's no movement, it's just "do you think men and women should have equal access and opportunities for rights?" Yes? Congrats, you are a feminist.


Excuse me?

There very much is a movement and it is successfully exercising legal and policy influence on this country.

Every Feminist who pops up on this site is a perfect, "Oh, I believe in equality and those misandrists are not real feminists," advocate.

Meanwhile the Duluth Model is real, Affirmative Consent Laws are being blatantly created to hold men accountable for all sexual acts on college campuses, and men are being _arrested in New York for "manspreading."_

Ladies, you cannot No True Scotsman your way out of the reality that Radical 3rd Wave Feminists have control of the political movement and are basically out to punish men.

"Moderate" equity Feminists exercise basically zero influence on the actual political movement of feminism and are therefore, basically, nonexistent.

Oh sure, you ladies are actually out there.

You just don't do anything.

Part of the MGTOW philosophy holds that these guys need to escape that whole "female imperative" idea.

Well, when you look at what actual 3rd Wave Feminists are "accomplishing" across College Campuses and the country in general, they have plenty of real world examples of that fear to point to.

Claiming that Radical 3rd Wavers are not "true feminists" is meaningless when those 3rd Wavers are recognized publically as the political arm of Feminism and alter socio-cultural standards and _laws_ in the name of Feminism.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> Yes...so it begs the question on whether their philosophy is borne out of non-emotional, empirical data or if its just the ravings of a pack of bitter guys who only attract shallow, gold-digging women?


Of course there are emotional components in their approach to these issues, but there is also some empirical data indicating that men and women have different sexual responses, wherein men are generally more focused on appearance and women have more complex responses including appearance as well as attitude and status in society.

(BTW, I think most of the men in that movement can't attract any women, shallow and gold-digging or otherwise.)


----------



## StilltheStudent

Agreed with technovelist there; the few MGTOW guys I think I knew basically chose that direction because they were 100% unsuccessful with women.

Personally, I think these guys are combining real concerns with the over-reach of modern "You go grrrrl!!" Feminism, fears over actual institutional sexism, and an often overwrought emotional response to the reality that they have failed to find a mature partner who appreciates them.

Fear, immaturity, disappointment, and frustration combined with pragmatic individualism after a certain point.

The interesting thing is how responses to the MGTOW differ from the "Professional Singles" responses that women get. Both disdain the opposite sex for toxic [masculinity/feminism] and unfair/unrealistic standards.

But one is told they are independent and don't need the other sex while the other is a pack of losers. :scratchhead:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But one is told they are independent and don't need the other sex while the other is a pack of losers.


Oh there's no doubt that there are women who espouse very similar stereotypes about men. I wasn't trying to suggest its one sided.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> @EnigmaGirl ,
> I find you stance to be reasonable. I also agree that there are many women out there who don't make those unreasonable demands. But there is a flaw in Western (read United States) culture that is actively training women to expect unreasonable things. Diamonds are an easy example. In order to create a high demand for their product (and a corresponding high price) Diamond sellers have perpetuated the myth that if it isn't a real diamond, it isn't real love. This all started around the start of WWII . Diamond production has been carefully managed to keep these cats fat. Prior to the Great wars most people never owned diamonds. @Heatherknows points out how "normal" this desire is now.
> 
> Diamonds are not the only unreasonable example, they are just the easiest. My list is in no way exhaustive. Yet another high on my list is trips to Micky Mouse Land. Going your own way means doing exactly what smart feminists do. Evaluate what women are asking for, decide if it is a fair exchange, and refuse to enter into unfair deals.
> 
> The trouble is men like to provide. It reinforces their feelings of self worth. There is nothing we like more than the challenge of fulfilling the desires of our partners. (Even if it is "warming up the Sauna") So we skip the evaluation phase, and plunge ahead no matter how unreasonable the request is. Many (not all) women are highly offended when a man refuses to supply any demand. They have come to expect it. And Phrases like "his own deficiencies" get thrown around. A man being cautious with his resources is not Stingy, they are realistic.
> 
> So there is this wild suggestion out there that men who refuse unreasonable demands should be Monks. Well that is a disservice to Monks. Monks give everything. But, what is really implied is that these men should live without women. Hey, isn't that exactly what they are doing. They will give up one of their greatest emotional needs in order to stand up for their principle. Isn't controlling that passion a sign of a strong man, not a "lazy" one?
> 
> US Culture is in a state of over correction. MGTOW is a reaction to that state. The pendulum will most likely swing back. Hopefully it will center, but there is no historical precedent.


I understand what you're saying but there's also a lot of people of both genders who buck the nonsensical propaganda spewed at them. More importantly, there are a lot of women that do not expect men to provide everything for them. In fact, the numbers of earning women is increasing year-after-year and are causing a lot of the previous dynamics to change for both genders.

I was mentioning my personality type on another thread. I'm an INTJ INTJ Personality (?The Architect?) | 16Personalities and a large part of my "type" is that I don't accept following what everyone else does just because its always been done that way. I never do anything just because everyone else is doing it...in fact, telling me that I should do anything because everyone else always does it that way,is a good way to ensure I absolutely refuse to do something that doesn't make sense to me.

You mentioned diamonds but I'll bring up modern weddings. I just cannot understand how the wedding industry got to the point where for 1 day, you spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on nonsense. A poofed out, silly looking dress that you wear once...a limo, that you obviously don't actually own and probably can't afford...hair and makeup and nonsense like you're in a broadway play....when the reality is that you really want your husband to make vows to you for who you actually are...not the fairytale version of you....thousands of dollars wasted in flower arrangements and centerpieces and other nonsense. I could go on and on. 

People who barely have two cents to rub together have been told that there's nothing wrong with dropping the downpayment for a house on a 1-day ceremony that takes several months to plan and causes massive amounts of stress and often fighting in couples that are supposed to simply be making lifetime vows to each other.

So I totally get what you're saying.

But my solution is simple. Find someone who shares your values and be with them. Don't assume that all women buy into this crap of thinking that they're princesses and deserved to be indulged in nonsense everyday. Find a quality, good women who wants to be a partner and not a dependent. Find one who recognizes her side of the responsibility in a relationship and contributes fairly. Find one that's not emotionally irrational and that knows its not ok to talk to and treat man like crap when they don't get what they want. Find one that's not self-absorbed and who realizes that its not all about them. They ARE out there and they're aren't as easy to find because quality anything is rare.

And if you're too lazy to do that...by all means, you have every right to be single. Just don't stereotype ALL women.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> I was mentioning my personality type on another thread. I'm an INTJ INTJ Personality (?The Architect?) | 16Personalities and a large part of my "type" is that I don't accept following what everyone else does just because its always been done that way. I never do anything just because everyone else is doing it...in fact, telling me that I should do anything because everyone else always does it that way,is a good way to ensure I absolutely refuse to do something that doesn't make sense to me.


I think it is a shame that there are so few INTJ women, as they make very good wives, at least for NT men.

I'm very fortunate that my wife is an INTJ. :grin2:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I'm very fortunate that my wife is an INTJ.


Your wife and I would get along very well, I'm sure. All of my friends are analyst personality types. They're just amazing, cool women. When I was younger, I tried having emotional personality-type friends but they never lasted.

More men are analyst personality types also which explains why its sometimes hard for men and women to understand or tolerate each other. Probably more people should understand their personality tendencies before they make serious commitments to each other so they understand what they're getting into.

My husband is an INTJ also. We've never had a disagreement.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> Your wife and I would get along very well, I'm sure. All of my friends are analyst personality types. They're just amazing, cool women. When I was younger, I tried having emotional personality-type friends but they never lasted.
> 
> More men are analyst personality types also which explains why its sometimes hard for men and women to understand or tolerate each other. Probably more people should understand their personality tendencies before they make serious commitments to each other so they understand what they're getting into.
> 
> My husband is an INTJ also. We've never had a disagreement.


I can't say we've never had a disagreement, but then I'm an ENTP, not an INTJ, and that is probably the cause of most of our disagreements.

As for Fs: My wife's best friend is an INFP, who is (amazingly) enough always having trouble dealing with people who suck all her energy away. 

Anyway, sometimes I think nearly all of the INTJ women in the world are on this board. :smile2:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> As for Fs: My wife's best friend is an INFP, who is (amazingly) enough always having trouble dealing with people who suck all her energy away.


I talk alot about people that wear me out and needlessly use time and energy. I get it...lol.


----------



## JerryB

Heatherknows said:


> LOL!
> Maybe they're really closet homosexuals and use this group as a coping mechanism.





EnigmaGirl said:


> Yes...so it begs the question on whether their philosophy is borne out of non-emotional, empirical data or if its just the ravings of a pack of bitter guys who only attract shallow, gold-digging women?


Is this the Men's Clubhouse section of the forum, or not?
Then why am I reading from women, and self-claimed femenists what a men's group IS or isn't? And why it MAY or may not be for me? And if it WAS for me, then I will be called a closet homosexual.

Thanks for the 'safe place' to talk & explore some men's issues we might have.

_OMG! There was a time when all you and your friends thought about were engagement rings?!_

That post and about 10 others probably deserve their own thread or post in the Woman's Club house, don't you think?

_Your wife made you LIKE this thread?_
*facepalm*

5 pages in the last 2 days, and only 2 people understand MGTOW. And they both have to spend all their time defending their position. And one of them has just rolled over in order to still be liked by the beligerant females here.

MGTOW is a great philosophy for young men to know about. They need to know that it's OK to think contrarian thoughts in today's cry-bull & ultra-PC world. Where anything you say may be taken out of context and labeled sexist, racist, and more. They need to know that it's not ok for women to beat on men and for men to take it. More importantly, they don't need to chase woman to make themselves feel vindicated. They don't need to put the vagina on a pedastal hoping to get access to a vagina... to feel vindicated.

Read the first 2 chapters of No More Mr. Nice Guy, and you will see a nicely decribed description of the environment of how boys have been raised by women since World War 2, taught at public schools by women, and lost their passage (initiation methods) into manhood (also well described by Jeung). It's a society of infantilized men.

Hell, everything I just described has also been brought up in one way or another in at least 1/2 the posts in the Infidelity section of this site. The MOST popularly read & visited forum, unfortunately. 

*All I really wanted to say to answer the OP:*
MGTOW is the result of the pendulum being swung too far in one direction. Which of course probably happened because patriarchy had been swung too far previously in the other direction. One doesn't need to subscribe to the extreme philosophy, but its extremism will probably contribute to slowing the pendulum and helping it get back to equilibrium. 


When our grandparents turned 18, they were men. That's not the case today, usually. Perhaps this allows the youth of today the time they need to grow up.

Instead of thinking of MGTOW as men actually going their own way [forever], you should look at it more like, IOIMGTOW.... It's OK If Men Go Their Own Way. 
In other words, it's ok to find self-worth from your own actions and deeds. It will get you to a better self-sufficient and independent place where you can then be mature enough to RECOGNIZE and pursue (or be pursued by) good women.


----------



## Personal

technovelist said:


> I think it is a shame that there are so few INTJ women, as they make very good wives, at least for NT men.
> 
> I'm very fortunate that my wife is an INTJ. :grin2:


Snap!

My wife is INTJ as well

I'm ENTJ.


----------



## knobcreek

I could only go my won way if I had a ton of cash to have unlimited access to vagina. Until then I guess I'm doing what she wants.


----------



## bfree

I dunno Jerry...I guess I'm old fashioned myself. I prefer to talk to people with respect. Women posting in the Men's clubhouse! Men posting in the Ladies lounge! Dogs and cats sleeping together! What a world...what a world. Hey. But what do I know. I must be a feminist because I do believe that men and women should be treated equally. Notice I said equally and not the same because men and women are different after all. And yes my wife did ask me to like that post for her. She doesn't have an account on TAM. Something about not having the time nor the patience to deal with narrow minded people.


----------



## john117

Heatherknows said:


> Should have been called "Men Who Remain Children."


Guilty as charged.

Give me some quality time cycling or shooting my camera or playing Halo on the Xbox. I did the parenting and husbanding thing for three decades. Got me two awesome kids and awesome memories.

That's it. Not a bad way to end the saga.


----------



## Heatherknows

JerryB said:


> Is this the Men's Clubhouse section of the forum, or not?
> Then why am I reading from women, and self-claimed femenists what a men's group IS or isn't? And why it MAY or may not be for me? And if it WAS for me, then I will be called a closet homosexual.
> 
> Thanks for the 'safe place' to talk & explore some men's issues we might have.
> 
> _OMG! There was a time when all you and your friends thought about were engagement rings?!_
> 
> That post and about 10 others probably deserve their own thread or post in the Woman's Club house, don't you think?
> 
> _Your wife made you LIKE this thread?_
> *facepalm*


...yo Jerry...maybe it's time to try decafe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg5aVzSDme4


----------



## Marduk

This is the funniest thread I've read in a long time.


----------



## Satya

This post might not resonate with some people here, so just a forewarning that this is coming from my own personal view.

I discovered MGTOW after I was divorced, when I was trying very hard to understand men. My divorce was due to my husband wanting to change gender, which is a very different story than what has happened to most on TAM, and it hit me very hard in a very personal way. After divorce, I was struggling with my perception of what made a man a man. I thought that if I had chosen to marry a man that would eventually have an identity crisis, that there must be something wrong with my picker - with me. I poured over lots of reading material that is suggested for men here: MMSLP, Hold on to your N.U.T.S, Awareness, When I say No, I Feel Guilty, and many, many, many others. I have read and re-read them.

My ex-husband was not butch, did not do anything closely related to DIY, and was not interested in competitive sports. Basically, he was not the stuff of what we consider to be a "man" or rather a "good old boy." The thing is, his qualities are what attracted me personally from the beginning, so in a way, I loved him for who he was, not who he wasn't.

After divorce, I had one long, difficult year of trying to heal while still being rather overwhelmed by what had happened. The revelation of his desire to transition gender came out of nowhere. There were no hints that I knew of. It was only a year or so after processing our separation and soon-to-be divorce, that I looked back on things that may have classified as red flags. Realizing this, after the fact and once the “divorce fog” had lifted, I felt like an idiot.

I went to an all-women's college. I went to an all-girls high school. I have never associated myself with modern-day feminism. If anything, I am a somewhat of a "Red Pill Woman" (you’ll have to Google it). I was not always this way, nor have I ever been a staunch feminist. I simply want the sexes to respect the value that each can bring to the world, but I also accept that there are some truths to the world that makes things inherently unfair. I don't believe in competing with nature’s initial design. To me, that would be an ultimately losing battle. I want men to be men and women to be women. I also appreciate that these words mean different things to different people. It's a very difficult concept for me to describe... I do not harbor ill will toward people that think a certain way regarding gender roles, but likewise I would wish that they allow me to be somewhat old fashioned in my ways, so long as my ways are not directly causing harm.

In college (all women’s), I was often pressured into joining movements that were intended to belittle men, make them seem like sex-hungry savages, and ignore plights that were real and they did face, such as sexual harassment and rape. Women were praised in the workforce, praised for STEMs, praised for anything other than what they had done tirelessly for centuries before – been the backbone of the family, raised the future, instilled empathy into their boys and girls so that they could go on to be great in their own ways. The “you go, girl” culture was prevalent in my teens and 20s, but I did not really subscribe to it. I simply did things because I did them, not because I felt compelled or challenged to because of my gender. I also felt that I succeeded or failed in things because I worked for them or they simply didn't come naturally, and didn't need recognition or sympathy above or beyond any one else that may strive for the same goals.

An old friend once shared a Japanese saying with me (and I am paraphrasing): “If a man is the sword, the woman is the sheath.” I don't mean this in a sexual way at all, but in a manner of roles. This is quite possibly the best way of how I currently interpret the role of man and woman, which is obviously old-fashioned and traditional to some posters here. We all know that these roles can be reversed in many modern families, and CAN work. I'm not in denial, I just know that I could never feel comfortable being the captain of the relationship. I am headstrong, but I am not dominating.

My college peers believed that being a SAHM was considered shameful and lazy, they believed children should be put on the back burner for a career (despite the knowledge that the biological clock is not kind), and they believed that marriage was an inevitability, once it was time to settle down to have a family (and once the partying and multi-dating was out of their system). They believed that men should always buy you drinks and "things", they deserved large and expensive weddings, and that their personal moral and value system was not up for scrutiny by anyone, no matter how free-thinking they were in their words and actions.

I was an outlier in my college class, because I was engaged to be married in my Freshman year while my peers were busy partying, studying, and riding what has been commonly referred to as the “c**k carousel.” That was simply not my way of being. I was very devoted to my then-soon-to-be-husband. I knew what I wanted and I went for it. I had a few classmates that were like-minded, and we formed a small circle that would regularly study together, but most of my friends were shocked that I would limit myself by marriage so early in my life.

So… with that in mind, back to MGTOW. It was eye-opening. It actually made sense to me. I believe that it can be taken to extremes (just like MMSLP and other male self-help philosophies). Like all knowledge, it must be used wisely and some of it may or may not apply. This is exactly how I feel about feminism. There are parts of it I greatly support and there are current practices that I simply do not. 

What I hope men are able to take away from MGTOW are the lessons in self-improvement. We can all benefit from that, right? - Learning our boundaries, what we will/will not tolerate, because this helps us in our interaction with others. We teach people how to treat us, so if we don’t respect ourselves, how can we expect others to respect us for the gifts we bring?

MGTOW has a purpose and a place, but in the hands of a broken, bitter man it could be used as a very destructive (self-destructive) weapon. In the hands of a self-aware man seeking wisdom after a divorce or break-up, it can be a valuable code for self-improvement in an otherwise chaotic world of mixed messages.


----------



## Marduk

@Satya all that says to me is that schools (especially university) should be co-ed to avoid lunacy as much as possible.


----------



## ET1SSJonota

EnigmaGirl said:


> Again, lets not lump all women in the same category…
> MGTOW is basically an excuse for lazy men who attract shallow women because of what they're putting out there. There are a lot of hard-working, financially independent, non-naggy, rational, good women out there. The MGTOW male's inability to attract them is due to their own deficiencies. Real women aren't interested in bitter men with chips on their shoulder about the whole female gender.
> Women are not all the same and real feminists who believe in fairness, equality and carrying their own financial weight are some of the best women out there.


I'm struggling to understand how you can post the first statement, with vehemence, then make the middle paragraph, and go straight back to the original demeanor at the end. 

Is lumping of large groups of people based on perception from some/anecdotal evidence acceptable to you, or not? Because it seems just fine for you to do to others, just not if you happen to be the recipient.

MGTOW is just as widely spread an idea as “feminism”, and no one specific philosophy defines it. Sure, there are a$$holes in there that say terrible things. Are you going to tell me there aren’t self-proclaimed feminists who don’t act similarly? 

So – let’s talk equality AND practice what we preach, eh?


----------



## tech-novelist

Satya said:


> This post might not resonate with some people here, so just a forewarning that this is coming from my own personal view.


It resonates with me. Thank you.


----------



## Satya

marduk said:


> @Satya all that says to me is that schools (especially university) should be co-ed to avoid lunacy as much as possible.


I certainly didn't intend to badmouth all-girls or all-women's institutions. There was a reason I applied to the college I did and was very happy to be accepted. I had attended co-ed school and found it very difficult to progress with my studies while getting a lot of pressure from boys in my class. I was a tomboy growing up, but I also matured much faster than other girls in my class, therefore was picked on in many ways I wasn't prepared to process.

I don't regret going to an all-women's college, I simply found that it catered more to a certain type of modern woman that I was not.

Had I attended co-ed college, no doubt my experience would have been different.


----------



## jld

Satya said:


> I certainly didn't intend to badmouth all-girls or all-women's institutions. There was a reason I applied to the college I did and was very happy to be accepted. I had attended co-ed school and found it very difficult to progress with my studies while getting a lot of pressure from boys in my class. I was a tomboy growing up, but I also matured much faster than other girls in my class, therefore was picked on in many ways I wasn't prepared to process.
> 
> I don't regret going to an all-women's college, I simply found that it catered more to a certain type of modern woman that I was not.
> 
> Had I attended co-ed college, no doubt my experience would have been different.


I remember one woman who had attended an all women's college saying that the focus there was purely on studies. She said in her classes no one seemed to hesitate to raise a hand to answer a question, and there was lots of participation in class discussions.


----------



## Satya

jld said:


> I remember one woman who had attended an all women's college saying that the focus there was purely on studies. She said in her classes no one seemed to hesitate to raise a hand to answer a question, and there was lots of participation in class discussions.


Not to veer too OT, but yes, this was my experience as well, JLD.


----------



## john117

The lack of perspective from men would be frightening in liberal art type classes...


----------



## Satya

john117 said:


> The lack of perspective from men would be frightening in liberal art type classes...


I was able to cross-register with nearby co-ed colleges. So, my personal college experience wasn't devoid of male input or influence. There were also men that attended classes on my campus and would visit girlfriends, they just couldn't live there.


----------



## Marduk

Over specialization tends to breed in weakness and flaws. 

An all girl school will fixate on girls issues and perspectives. Same for an all boys school or an all anything school. 

It's a recipe for extreme and dis balanced viewpoint.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

Welcome to academia at large...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

john117 said:


> Guilty as charged.
> 
> Give me some quality time cycling or shooting my camera or playing Halo on the Xbox. I did the parenting and husbanding thing for three decades. Got me two awesome kids and awesome memories.
> 
> That's it. Not a bad way to end the saga.


yet all that BS about "being young forever","seeing life through the eyes of a child", "being yourself is most important"

but only if others can use you ...


----------



## john117

spotthedeaddog said:


> yet all that BS about "being young forever","seeing life through the eyes of a child", "being yourself is most important"
> 
> but only if others can use you ...


I am young forever subject to wear and tear. As we speak I'm in a college town where my older attends and feel right at home. I see life thru young people eyes - I better as I design stuff mostly young people buy. I am myself and don't really feel used. 

It's all a matter of perspective. My father at my age retired. I look forward going to work every day (55). Staying connected to young people keeps me mentally young too. It's been a great ride so far.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

I don't know anyone who labels themselves MGTOW, so I popped over to their forum. On first impressions it seems none of them are actually going their own way as they seem to spend an awful lot of time on the internet moaning about the thing they claim to have escaped from


----------



## Heatherknows

Julius Beastcavern said:


> I don't know anyone who labels themselves MGTOW, so I popped over to their forum. On first impressions it seems none of them are actually going their own way as they seem to spend an awful lot of time on the internet moaning about the thing they claim to have escaped from


So basically it's: 

*M*en *G*o *T*o *O*nline Forums to talk about *W*omen


----------



## bfree

Lol


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Heatherknows said:


> So basically it's:
> 
> *M*en *G*o *T*o *O*nline Forums to talk about *W*omen



Er, yeah :grin2:


----------



## Marduk

In China, there are approx 40M more men than women.

This has resulted in all kinds of social unrest.

Even when self-imposed, I suggest MGTOW will encounter similar themes and either implode or explode.

Because, at the end of the day, most boys really like girls, and girls are really good for most boys. We can get all up in arms about it as much as we want, but that's kinda the human condition.

I liken this to the "Voluntary Human Extincition Movement." Interesting idea as a thought experiment, but I don't think you're gonna get people exactly lining up for it in reality.

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/gender-imbalance-china-statistics

http://www.vhemt.org


----------



## Heatherknows

marduk said:


> In China, there are approx 40M more men than women.


Now I know where I'll be teaching ESL if I get divorced. 

Thx. 

0


----------



## weightlifter

MGTOW seems to make the most bitter CWI poster look optimistic.


----------



## naiveonedave

having read a little bit of it and having spent time with men who got totally shafted in divorce, I can see why this group exists. The real solution seems to me to have more equitable divorce laws (and yes, some women get screwed too, but men, on average fair much worse than women) and to not let yourself drop in to despair/depression when chit doesn't go your way.


----------



## Kivlor

MGTOW is a pretty wide group, but I'll admit, most are pretty hard to listen to / read. It's like listening to just about any vocal feminist--well, maybe not quite as bad, but close.

I can certainly empathize with many guys advocating some of their policies. The legal system is very dangerous for men, and the marriage / parenthood portion (say no fault divorce) is the worst offender. Experiencing my parents' brutal divorce and seeing many other people do the same, it's easy to wonder: "Is it worth it?" 

A lot of their societal complaints are quite valid too. I think the response of completely leaving society is a little cowardly, but then again, their lives, not mine. This is the natural course of abundance and decadence in civilization. They are "The beautiful ones" from J. B. Calhoun's mouse utopia study. They are the future of our civilization if something is not done to change our course.


----------



## ocotillo

Kivlor said:


> I think the response of completely leaving society is a little cowardly, but then again, their lives, not mine. This is the natural course of abundance and decadence in civilization.


Interesting observation.

I have a friend who probably qualifies as mgtow. I'll call him, "John."

John's wife passed away suddenly several years ago. He tried getting back into dating, but just couldn't seem to make it work. 

John is nice. John is a hard worker. John has made some very shrewd real estate purchases that have left him, "set for life" as the saying goes. But John is only average looking, which apparently doesn't work out so well in the dating world. 

John eventually gave up. In his own words, "I like women, but they don't seem to like me." He spends his time these days building a self-sufficient home completely off the grid out in the middle of nowhere. 

I can't make up my mind if that's cowardly or courageous, but I'm pretty sure isolation is not good for anyone.


----------



## knobcreek

ocotillo said:


> Interesting observation.
> 
> I have a friend who probably qualifies as mgtow. I'll call him, "John."...
> 
> John eventually gave up. In his own words, "I like women, but they don't seem to like me." ...


John's standards are likely way too high, John should lower them a bit and start getting laid and eventually find a nice woman to share time with.


----------



## chillymorn

can't live with them can't live without them.


----------



## ocotillo

knobcreek said:


> John's standards are likely way too high, John should lower them a bit and start getting laid and eventually find a nice woman to share time with.


Actually no. Personally, I think "John" went about it all wrong, (If I suddenly found myself single again, dating sites would be pretty low on my list of places to look for social contact.) but he is not and was not picky about physical appearance.


----------



## Heatherknows

ocotillo said:


> Interesting observation.
> 
> I have a friend who probably qualifies as mgtow. I'll call him, "John."
> 
> John's wife passed away suddenly several years ago. He tried getting back into dating, but just couldn't seem to make it work.
> 
> John is nice. John is a hard worker. John has made some very shrewd real estate purchases that have left him, "set for life" as the saying goes. But John is only average looking, which apparently doesn't work out so well in the dating world.
> 
> John eventually gave up. In his own words, "I like women, but they don't seem to like me." He spends his time these days building a self-sufficient home completely off the grid out in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I can't make up my mind if that's cowardly or courageous, but I'm pretty sure isolation is not good for anyone.


He might be still grieving over his wife. He'll find love again.


----------



## Kivlor

ocotillo said:


> Interesting observation.
> 
> I have a friend who probably qualifies as mgtow. I'll call him, "John."
> 
> John's wife passed away suddenly several years ago. He tried getting back into dating, but just couldn't seem to make it work.
> 
> John is nice. John is a hard worker. John has made some very shrewd real estate purchases that have left him, "set for life" as the saying goes. But John is only average looking, which apparently doesn't work out so well in the dating world.
> 
> John eventually gave up. In his own words, "I like women, but they don't seem to like me." He spends his time these days building a self-sufficient home completely off the grid out in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I can't make up my mind if that's cowardly or courageous, but I'm pretty sure isolation is not good for anyone.


I've got (well, had I guess) a similar friend. His wife flat out abandoned him and his daughter, and it left him jaded. After a couple years, he decided he and his daughter were going off grid. Made sure his closest friends / family knew, so no one would freak out. Haven't heard from him in 2 1/2 years. As far as I know, no one who knew him has.

I completely admire things like self-reliance. I understand wanting to live off the grid--heck, I determined several years ago that if I've not figured the marriage thing out by the time I'm 40 I'm going off the grid--even if it makes me a coward. I enjoy solitude, and I've grown weary over the years.

What I think is cowardly about MGTOW is that rather than saying "let's work together to change this!" they simply throw up their hands and give up. They are right that things must change, they are wrong that "this is the only way to change things." Sadly, as per the Calhoun mouse studies, we have evidence they _will_ fail, and actually increase the speed of the disintegration of our culture / society. 

There is only one cure I know of for the ills MGTOW complain about; and MGTOW are not the solution.

As for your friend John, who can blame him. Is it really that women don't like him, or that he doesn't like the women he's finding?


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I've got (well, had I guess) a similar friend. His wife flat out abandoned him and his daughter, and it left him jaded. After a couple years, he decided he and his daughter were going off grid. Made sure his closest friends / family knew, so no one would freak out. Haven't heard from him in 2 1/2 years. As far as I know, no one who knew him has.
> 
> I completely admire things like self-reliance. I understand wanting to live off the grid--heck, I determined several years ago that if I've not figured the marriage thing out by the time I'm 40 I'm going off the grid--even if it makes me a coward. I enjoy solitude, and I've grown weary over the years.
> 
> What I think is cowardly about MGTOW is that rather than saying "let's work together to change this!" they simply throw up their hands and give up. They are right that things must change, they are wrong that "this is the only way to change things." Sadly, as per the Calhoun mouse studies, we have evidence they _will_ fail, and actually increase the speed of the disintegration of our culture / society.
> 
> *There is only one cure I know of for the ills MGTOW complain about*; and MGTOW are not the solution.
> 
> As for your friend John, who can blame him. Is it really that women don't like him, or that he doesn't like the women he's finding?


Don't keep us in suspense. What is the cure?


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Don't keep us in suspense. What is the cure?


What do you think it is Technovelist? 

...We all know it, we just don't voice it....


----------



## norajane

ocotillo said:


> Interesting observation.
> 
> I have a friend who probably qualifies as mgtow. I'll call him, "John."
> 
> John's wife passed away suddenly several years ago. He tried getting back into dating, but just couldn't seem to make it work.
> 
> John is nice. John is a hard worker. John has made some very shrewd real estate purchases that have left him, "set for life" as the saying goes. But John is only average looking, which apparently doesn't work out so well in the dating world.
> 
> John eventually gave up. In his own words, "I like women, but they don't seem to like me." He spends his time these days building a self-sufficient home completely off the grid out in the middle of nowhere.
> 
> I can't make up my mind if that's cowardly or courageous, but I'm pretty sure isolation is not good for anyone.


I've watched House Hunters Off the Grid, and those people are insane. Outhouses and composting toilets...just sayin'


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> What do you think it is Technovelist?
> 
> ...We all know it, we just don't voice it....


I have no idea what it is. That's why I asked...


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> I have no idea what it is. That's why I asked...


In my opinion--and everyone here can hate me for it all they want--most of MGTOW's complaints are resolved by simply reminding women whenever they get out of line, that they're overstepping or flat out wrong. Most men are too scared of the other sex. Instead of opting out of society / sex completely, refuse to tolerate specifics and encourage more men to do so. 

If a woman wants to claim "women are just as strong as men" point how wrong she is--politely, not nastily. (A favorite of mine is "I think it's adorable you think that.") They are the "fairer" sex for a reason. If a woman feels like getting into a physical altercation with you, knock her flat, put her in an arm bar, etc; remind her _why_ men treat women gently--and that it is by _choice_. Don't go out of your way to be a **** to women--in fact, be great to them in general--and certainly don't strike anyone who hasn't swung first, but refuse to tolerate crap from the bad ones. Put them in their place. 

Organize and openly support custody, child support and alimony reforms; support education aimed at boys, oppose medicating them into submission. Support more severe punishments for filing a false police report / fraudulently seeking a restraining order. Reproductive rights law changes. Repeal Predominant aggressor laws. The list is exhaustive.

In short, stand up to women.

Not that men have balls enough for any of this. Most are terrified of being labeled "misogynistic". Now... how long before everyone here calls me a misogynist?


----------



## ocotillo

Kivlor said:


> As for your friend John, who can blame him. Is it really that women don't like him, or that he doesn't like the women he's finding?


If I could answer that question, I'd be wealthier than "John." 

I don't know. I've known absolutely horrible human beings (Men and Women) who for some strange reason are irresistible to the opposite sex. Conversely, I've known very nice people who for equally inexplicable reasons, don't seem to have any luck at all. --And I'm not talking about ugly, ill mannered, unwashed, overweight, etc. 

My impression of mgtow is that a lot of them are similarly unfortunate individuals. 

For example, one of the more prominent ones is known on you-tube as, "Sandman." Most of his videos strike me as out beyond Pluto, but I did feel a little sorry for him when he explained the meaning of his moniker. --He was so parched for female attention that he was willing to do anything to get it. And predictably he got taken advantage of. Now he's on a crusade to expose the, "ugly truth about female nature." 

John at least understands the problem is his own. It's a bummer of a thing to be born with, but a person can either be bitter about it or they can find other ways to be happy.


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> In my opinion--and everyone here can hate me for it all they want--most of MGTOW's complaints are resolved by simply reminding women whenever they get out of line, that they're overstepping or flat out wrong. Most men are too scared of the other sex. Instead of opting out of society / sex completely, refuse to tolerate specifics and encourage more men to do so.
> 
> If a woman wants to claim "women are just as strong as men" point how wrong she is--politely, not nastily. (A favorite of mine is "I think it's adorable you think that.") They are the "fairer" sex for a reason. If a woman feels like getting into a physical altercation with you, knock her flat, put her in an arm bar, etc; remind her _why_ men treat women gently--and that it is by _choice_. Don't go out of your way to be a **** to women--in fact, be great to them in general--and certainly don't strike anyone who hasn't swung first, but refuse to tolerate crap from the bad ones. Put them in their place.
> 
> Organize and openly support custody, child support and alimony reforms; support education aimed at boys, oppose medicating them into submission. Support more severe punishments for filing a false police report / fraudulently seeking a restraining order. Reproductive rights law changes. Repeal Predominant aggressor laws. The list is exhaustive.
> 
> In short, stand up to women.
> 
> Not that men have balls enough for any of this. Most are terrified of being labeled "misogynistic". Now... how long before everyone here calls me a misogynist?


What if we think some laws protecting women are actually beneficial to society? 

Look, are some laws biased against men? Of course, those will even out over time and already are, especially as we see some men take more of a role as care-giver. I tend to get a chuckle watching women moan and gripe when a Hollywood celeb has to pay alimony to her husband, or part with millions in a divorce. Welcome to the club I say... But let's not kid ourselves, testosterone is a hell of a hormone, and some men (especially men from violent or abusive households) cannot handle what it does to them, they become violent, possessive, angry, mix that with a heavy dose of misogyny and you get violently deranged sexual deviants.

Many men, simply can't handle the fact that women are working, doing great things without the need for a man to be protecting them or taking care of them. I think that's where this MGTOW movement comes from, men who have low self-esteem, they can only view their worth to a woman if she's incapable of being indepdent. A woman who would be with them by choice, and not out of obligation or because she's financially incapable of not being with them terrifies them into isolation, which grows into a hatred of women.

This is just my theory on something like this. A lot of men have control issues, self-esteem issues, and a woman's independence is scary to them, because they don't see themselves as worthy or suitable for such a woman.


----------



## Kivlor

ocotillo said:


> If I could answer that question, I'd be wealthier than "John."
> 
> I don't know. I've known absolutely horrible human beings (Men and Women) who for some strange reason are irresistible to the opposite sex. Conversely, I've known very nice people who for equally inexplicable reasons, don't seem to have any luck at all. --And I'm not talking about ugly, ill mannered, unwashed, overweight, etc.
> 
> My impression of mgtow is that a lot of them are similarly unfortunate individuals.
> 
> For example, one of the more prominent ones is known on you-tube as, "Sandman." Most of his videos strike me as out beyond Pluto, but I did feel a little sorry for him when he explained the meaning of his moniker. --He was so parched for female attention that he was willing to do anything to get it. And predictably he got taken advantage of. Now he's on a crusade to expose the, "ugly truth about female nature."
> 
> *John at least understands the problem is his own. It's a bummer of a thing to be born with, but a person can either be bitter about it or they can find other ways to be happy.*


At least your friend recognizes that. Hopefully he finds a way to be happy without. More than that, I hope he does find someone some day.

I've listened to Sandman. I can't take too much of him, he's out there. I find StarDusk ("Thinking Ape") a little more tolerable, but he's pretty out there too. 

I think it comes with the territory in MGTOW. They're guys who've come to recognize the problems and risks men face in society; and they've come to the determination that the only solution is to not partake, and eliminate the risks. 

I think life without risk is bland. The risks of engaging with the opposite sex are very high; but the rewards are worth it I think. And things can be done to lower your individual risk, as well as to try and alter the broader risks for men in general, if you've got the stomach for it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> In my opinion--and everyone here can hate me for it all they want--most of MGTOW's complaints are resolved by simply reminding women whenever they get out of line, that they're overstepping or flat out wrong. Most men are too scared of the other sex. Instead of opting out of society / sex completely, refuse to tolerate specifics and encourage more men to do so.
> 
> If a woman wants to claim "women are just as strong as men" point how wrong she is--politely, not nastily. (A favorite of mine is "I think it's adorable you think that.") They are the "fairer" sex for a reason. If a woman feels like getting into a physical altercation with you, knock her flat, put her in an arm bar, etc; remind her _why_ men treat women gently--and that it is by _choice_. Don't go out of your way to be a **** to women--in fact, be great to them in general--and certainly don't strike anyone who hasn't swung first, but refuse to tolerate crap from the bad ones. Put them in their place.
> 
> Organize and openly support custody, child support and alimony reforms; support education aimed at boys, oppose medicating them into submission. Support more severe punishments for filing a false police report / fraudulently seeking a restraining order. Reproductive rights law changes. Repeal Predominant aggressor laws. The list is exhaustive.
> 
> In short, stand up to women.
> 
> Not that men have balls enough for any of this. Most are terrified of being labeled "misogynistic". Now... how long before everyone here calls me a misogynist?


That is a great plan... or would be, if there were any way to implement it. Right now that approach is like relying on the tooth fairy.

I wholeheartedly support the reforms you cite. However, until and unless I see them actually enacted, I have only the greatest respect for those who step out of the way of the steamroller rather than standing in front of it and being run over.


----------



## ocotillo

knobcreek said:


> Many men, simply can't handle the fact that women are working, doing great things without the need for a man to be protecting them or taking care of them.


The idea that men are upset about equality is a mainstay of the (equally unpalatable) antithesis to mgtow; radical feminism. 

mgtows are griping about alleged hypocrisy. Their claim is that postmodern women are not shy about pulling out the, "I'm old fashioned" card whenever it's convenient.


----------



## Kivlor

knobcreek said:


> What if we think some laws protecting women are actually beneficial to society?
> 
> Look, *are some laws biased against men? Of course, those will even out over time and already are, especially as we see some men take more of a role as care-giver.* I tend to get a chuckle watching women moan and gripe when a Hollywood celeb has to pay alimony to her husband, or part with millions in a divorce. Welcome to the club I say... *But let's not kid ourselves, testosterone is a hell of a hormone, and some men (especially men from violent or abusive households) cannot handle what it does to them, they become violent, possessive, angry, mix that with a heavy dose of misogyny and you get violently deranged sexual deviants.*
> 
> *Many men, simply can't handle the fact that women are working, doing great things without the need for a man to be protecting them or taking care of them.* I think that's where this MGTOW movement comes from, men who have low self-esteem, they can only view their worth to a woman if she's incapable of being indepdent. A woman who would be with them by choice, and not out of obligation or because she's financially incapable of not being with them terrifies them into isolation, which grows into a hatred of women.
> 
> This is just my theory on something like this. *A lot of men have control issues, self-esteem issues, and a woman's independence is scary to them, because they don't see themselves as worthy or suitable for such a woman.*


Name a law skewed in favor of women that is beneficial to society. Not going to say not possible, but I can't think of any right now.

1. Many laws are not evening-out, they are in high risk of becoming worse. There is pressure for laws to be altered to assume guilt in rape allegations, despite evidence that over half of rape claims are falsified. Pressure to require "affirmative consent" from women prior to having sex, but assumption of men's consent. There is tremendous pressure to change the law so that women cannot give consent while intoxicated--all drunk sex is rape--and yet we assume that men are capable while intoxicated. Things are going in the _*opposite *_direction.

2. I think you mean estrogen. Look up some scientific studies. Testosterone does not have that effect naturally in men, despite the propaganda. I'm not sure of any correlation between either estrogen or testosterone and sexual deviancy, and I'll remain skeptical absent evidence.

3. I don't know anyone who bemoans women being able to take care of themselves. Many men bemoan women pretending to be equals, and demanding free things by virtue of their gender. Demanding to be taken care of, but then asserting just how "strong" and "independent" they are. 

4. Consider this: Most men complaining / concerned do not view themselves as unworthy. They live in perpetual fear that a woman can leave whenever she wants, and gain half of everything, and control their children's futures, regardless of how_ little _she has invested into the marriage. You are projecting _your_ belief they are unworthy on _them_. They fear she will become_ bored_ in time, and that is all it takes to lose your entire life. If she were out-earning them, they wouldn't fear. It is precisely that most women don't out-earn their men that causes this tremendous concern. 

I'm curious if you've personally witnessed many divorces. I have. I've watched a man prove his wife was insane in a courtroom, and listened to the judge say "yes, she is. But I believe all kids belong with their mother. I award her primary custody, and grant the father visitation rights every-other weekend." I've seen similar cases repeatedly. I've not once seen with my own eyes a divorce case where a man won without having the wife on her way to prison / stuck in rehab.​


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> That is a great plan... or would be, if there were any way to implement it. Right now that approach is like relying on the tooth fairy.
> 
> I wholeheartedly support the reforms you cite. However, until and unless I see them actually enacted, I have only the greatest respect for those who step out of the way of the steamroller rather than standing in front of it and being run over.


Yeah, like I said, men are too scared. We won't en-masse step up to the plate and swing on these issues. Most men are terrified of the crazy feminists denouncing them. Personally, I decided several years ago that I'm going to live this way, and if I'm called mean names, well "c'est la vie". 

ETA: The problem is that you--like most sane people--silently support the reforms, but want to wait for someone else to enact them. Men today are all waiting for someone else to lead them. Stop waiting around, man up and take that hill. Lead by example, and show the others they've nothing to fear if they will only dare. And when you've won, and the feminists call you names, laugh. Laugh, because they are weak and you are strong. / end edit



ocotillo said:


> The idea that men are upset about equality is a mainstay of the (equally unpalatable) antithesis to mgtow; radical feminism.
> 
> mgtows are griping about alleged hypocrisy. Their claim is that postmodern women are not shy about pulling out the, "I'm old fashioned" card whenever it's convenient.


:iagree:

This. All they can do is say "you just hate that women are taking care of themselves." and "you're an evil misogynist". "You're a control-freak". They don't attack the legitimate concerns men have, they merely offer ad-hominem fallacies. 

It's because they have no argument to stand on.​


----------



## knobcreek

ocotillo said:


> The idea that men are upset about equality is a mainstay of the (equally unpalatable) antithesis to mgtow; radical feminism.


This is simply an ad hominem attack, I dropped some truth on your ass and the only counter is to associate my argument with "radical feminism" (notice not even feminism but RADICAL feminism) in order to try and immediately discredit my argument due to association with radical feminism. 

I'm perfectly capable of making an independent statement based on observation and have it completely unassociated with radical feminism even if portions of our argument intersect.


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> Name a law skewed in favor of women that is beneficial to society. Not going to say not possible, but I can't think of any right now.
> 
> 1. Many laws are not evening-out, they are in high risk of becoming worse. There is pressure for laws to be altered to assume guilt in rape allegations, despite evidence that over half of rape claims are falsified. Pressure to require "affirmative consent" from women prior to having sex, but assumption of men's consent. There is tremendous pressure to change the law so that women cannot give consent while intoxicated--all drunk sex is rape--and yet we assume that men are capable while intoxicated. Things are going in the _*opposite *_direction.​




Don't have sex with an inebriated woman and you don't have to worry about it. Fvcking is a funny thing, it's always the male sticking his thing inside a woman, so we'll always be culpable based on sheer biology and how heterosexual sex works. If a man is passed out he can't be raped by a woman, he can by a man, and if you're passed out drunk and a dude pounds your ass I assume you would have a problem with that, even if both of you bros were drunk.



Kivlor said:


> 2. I think you mean estrogen. Look up some scientific studies. Testosterone does not have that effect naturally in men, despite the propaganda. I'm not sure of any correlation between either estrogen or testosterone and sexual deviancy, and I'll remain skeptical absent evidence.


Men run high in test, women in estrogen, once women's prisons are filled with tens of thousands of sexually deviant criminals, and our society is filled with potentially millions of sexually predatorial women abusing children and men with rape, strangulation, abuse etc... I'll give you the nod that test has nothing to do with mens behavior. Our violence tamed the jungle no doubt, without it we wouldn't have made it out of the stone age, but it's time to reign it in, some dudes can't.



Kivlor said:


> 3. I don't know anyone who bemoans women being able to take care of themselves.


Umm MGTOW's and most dudes in the manosphere...



Kivlor said:


> 4. Consider this: Most men complaining / concerned do not view themselves as unworthy. They live in perpetual fear that a woman can leave whenever she wants,


They should grow a fvcking pair then. All life is risk, nothing ventured nothing gained.



Kivlor said:


> I'm curious if you've personally witnessed many divorces.


Sure and no one that I can see comes out a winner.​


----------



## ocotillo

knobcreek said:


> This is simply an ad hominem attack, I dropped some truth on your ass and the only counter is to associate my argument with "radical feminism" (notice not even feminism but RADICAL feminism) in order to try and immediately discredit my argument due to association with radical feminism."


For the love of Pete.... Where do I even start?

I made an observation that I would be happy to back up with quotes from some of the nastier books produced by feminist academicians. 

I did not use that observation as part of a deductive syllogism and therefore there is no error in formal logic, _ad hominem_ or otherwise.

Even were that not the case, my observation would fall under the umbrella of a different rhetorical device known as "poisoning the well." I did not and have not attacked you personally. I'm sure you're a decent person.

I'm perfectly happy to accept your observation anecdotally, but at the same time, it is exactly backwards as far as the mgtow movement is concerned. They aren't put off by women with good jobs and high earnings. --Quite the opposite. They're terrified of splitting their estate with a woman of lesser means.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> I'm perfectly happy to accept your observation anecdotally, but at the same time, it is exactly backwards as far as the mgtow movement is concerned. *They aren't put off by women with good jobs and high earnings*. --Quite the opposite. They're terrified of splitting their estate with a woman of lesser means.


Some of them will talk down about these women, in a general sense. They talk about how women in high paying jobs are taking jobs from THEM, and how if women would just stay home or in lesser jobs, take care of the kids and their husbands, society wouldn't be falling apart right now. You see, it is all because women "want to act like men" that the entire world is having a gender problem, according to some of them.

"Act like men" to this type means:

*wants to have a career

*may not want to have children 

*wants to have sex without consequence with more than just one partner in a lifetime

You see, to the ones I'm speaking about, it is all women's fault, either way. Well, women and manginas and white knights, it is apparently their fault, too, because manginas and white knights keep women thinking that they can do what they want and still have men around them.


----------



## FalconKing

All I know is that if a woman makes a post about feminism in the Ladie's Lounge, men should chime in and be able to say that women who believe in that stuff are lesbian and losers. And just be overall ignorant to some legitimate concerns and worries of men. 

If post anything like that and get banned or my post deleted, I will lose all respect for this site.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FalconKing said:


> All I know is that if a woman makes a post about feminism in the Ladie's Lounge, *men should chime in and be able to say that women who believe in that stuff are lesbian and losers. And just be overall ignorant to some legitimate concerns and worries of men. *
> 
> If post anything like that and get banned or my post deleted, I will lose all respect for this site.


They do that *every* time we post about women's issues and feminism in the ladies lounge.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> They do that *every* time we post about women's issues and feminism in the ladies lounge.


Well I haven't posted here in a year. It's possible I could've missed that



As long is everyone is allowed to be obnoxious a$$holes I have no other complaints. Carry on.


----------



## Kivlor

knobcreek said:


> Don't have sex with an inebriated woman and you don't have to worry about it. Fvcking is a funny thing, it's always the male sticking his thing inside a woman, so we'll always be culpable based on sheer biology and how heterosexual sex works. If a man is passed out he can't be raped by a woman, he can by a man, and if you're passed out drunk and a dude pounds your ass I assume you would have a problem with that, even if both of you bros were drunk.


This is parody, right? Your argument is that 1) any time a guy has sex with a girl who's had a drink it is rape? 2) Only men can commit rape. 



knobcreek said:


> Men run high in test, women in estrogen, once women's prisons are filled with tens of thousands of sexually deviant criminals, and our society is filled with potentially millions of sexually predatorial women abusing children and men with rape, strangulation, abuse etc... I'll give you the nod that test has nothing to do with mens behavior.


You realize that women commit domestic assault / violence at similar rates as men, right? That we have "predominant aggressor" laws that often result in the man being arrested, even if he's the victim? We offer protections that keep women out of prison. On top of that, women get lighter sentences (cultural issue, not necessarily a legal one) for the same crimes as men, right? So what does prison population have to do with the real statistics? 



knobcreek said:


> Umm MGTOW's and most dudes in the manosphere...


 <Citation needed> 





knobcreek said:


> They should grow a fvcking pair then. All life is risk, nothing ventured nothing gained.


Why should they engage in a risk that they find unpalatable? Please, explain... We are talking about a group of people who have weighed the risks and rewards, and said "nope, not worth it." 



knobcreek said:


> Sure and no one that I can see comes out a winner.


 Often one party comes out significantly ahead of the other, and if you've witnessed many divorces, you're well aware of it.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Some of them will talk down about these women, in a general sense. They talk about how women in high paying jobs are taking jobs from THEM, and how if women would just stay home or in lesser jobs, take care of the kids and their husbands, society wouldn't be falling apart right now. You see, it is all because women "want to act like men" that the entire world is having a gender problem, according to some of them.
> 
> "Act like men" to this type means:
> 
> *wants to have a career
> 
> *may not want to have children
> 
> *wants to have sex without consequence with more than just one partner in a lifetime
> 
> *You see, to the ones I'm speaking about, it is all women's fault, either way. Well, women and manginas and white knights, it is apparently their fault, too, because manginas and white knights keep women thinking that they can do what they want and still have men around them.*


You prove yourself wrong with this statement. Think on it. "It's all women's fault! Except when we blame the guys, but then, it's all women's fault!" Seriously, MGTOW are pointing fingers at both men and women. This means they blame both, not just women. 

They recognize that there is no significant financial / legal risk for interacting with men, but with women, different story. It's about risk mitigation, not blame.

As for MGTOW "putting down" women who work for taking jobs from men, I'll ask for some evidence, because I've not seen it. You're tilting at windmills here. Claiming that society would be better off if women--who file for divorce the vast majority of the time--stuck to their vows, keeping their children in a 2 parent home is not work related, and is simply a truism. 

It's late /yawn


----------



## Faithful Wife

Men?s rights activist Paul Elam: ?If we want society to advance, we need to leave men alone to do their work? - Salon.com


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Men?s rights activist Paul Elam: ?If we want society to advance, we need to leave men alone to do their work? - Salon.com


MRA =/= MGTOW. They are actually very different and opposing concepts. MRAs are looking for equality and an improved society. MGTOW is very antisocial by nature. The entire concept of MGTOW is "fvck society! Especially since society isn't treating us equally or fairly".

Moreover, where was the '_They're taking our jerbz!_' comment you were so happy to claim earlier? Not in that article. Nor in the original (the video interview was missing, couldn't watch it) Elam claims that we function better in separate work spaces, which is another truism. The fight over male-only spaces has been fought for centuries; it's nothing new.

Feel free to keep tilting at your windmills though. :grin2:


----------



## techmom

This is pulled right from the mgtow site, they don't seem to like the "supportive" women who seem to understand their movement or "traditional" women...

https://www.mgtow.com/birdwatching-in-the-manosphere/


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> This is pulled right from the mgtow site, they don't seem to like the "supportive" women who seem to understand their movement or "traditional" women...
> 
> https://www.mgtow.com/birdwatching-in-the-manosphere/


That article is retarded, but just because it is from a site called mgtow.com, that doesn't mean it is representative of the entire MGTOW movement. In fact, there is no official MGTOW movement for it to be representative of.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> MRA =/= MGTOW. They are actually very different and opposing concepts. MRAs are looking for equality and an improved society. MGTOW is very antisocial by nature. The entire concept of MGTOW is "fvck society! Especially since society isn't treating us equally or fairly".


They are different but not really "opposing", because they are both concerned with equality (or the lack of it).



Kivlor said:


> Moreover, where was the '_They're taking our jerbz!_' comment you were so happy to claim earlier? Not in that article. Nor in the original (the video interview was missing, couldn't watch it) Elam claims that we function better in separate work spaces, which is another truism. The fight over male-only spaces has been fought for centuries; it's nothing new.
> 
> Feel free to keep tilting at your windmills though. :grin2:


----------



## techmom

This is what I gather from reading the articles on their web site, they don't like women. They think traditional women want to subject them to a life of servitude, they don't like so-called modern women, they don't like sahm's, they don't like "supportive" women, they don't like "easy", etc., etc. They don't trust any word coming out of a female's mouth, any actions, any concerns, anything at all. 

My advice to women who may happen to come across one of these men is to just walk the other way. Treat them as the outcasts they claim to be, don't trust them, don't engage, just walk away. They don't deserve our attention, concern or assistance, because "women always have an alternate agenda". Women are sub-human beings who live to make a man's life difficult. It is useless debating these people, it will be an endless back and forth.

So, all of my future responses in this thread will include an article, quote or saying from their official website.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> This is what I gather from reading the articles on their web site, they don't like women. They think traditional women want to subject them to a life of servitude, they don't like so-called modern women, they don't like sahm's, they don't like "supportive" women, they don't like "easy", etc., etc. They don't trust any word coming out of a female's mouth, any actions, any concerns, anything at all.
> 
> My advice to women who may happen to come across one of these men is to just walk the other way. Treat them as the outcasts they claim to be, don't trust them, don't engage, just walk away. They don't deserve our attention, concern or assistance, because "women always have an alternate agenda". Women are sub-human beings who live to make a man's life difficult. It is useless debating these people, it will be an endless back and forth.
> 
> So, all of my future responses in this thread will include an article, quote or saying from their official website.


Again, *there is no official website for mgtow*. mgtow.com is private, not owned by the "mgtow movement".


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> That article is retarded, but just because it is from a site called mgtow.com, that doesn't mean it is representative of the entire MGTOW movement. In fact, there is no official MGTOW movement for it to be representative of.


Well now you get it when we say that what one feminist says is not representative of the whole group when we get bombarded with hostile quotes and sayings from women who are then used to represent "all" feminists? If that article does not represent all mgtow, then the mgtow man who disagrees is responsible to tell the website admins to remove it. See how that works?

There is evidently a movement, if there wasn't then what is the purpose of this thread? Whoever is claiming that domain name is taking responsibility for the movement, so those articles are relevant in defining the mgtow movement.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Well now you get it when we say that what one feminist says is not representative of the whole group when we get bombarded with hostile quotes and sayings from women who are then used to represent "all" feminists? If that article does not represent all mgtow, then the mgtow man who disagrees is responsible to tell the website admins to remove it. See how that works?
> 
> There is evidently a movement, if there wasn't then what is the purpose of this thread? Whoever is claiming that domain name is taking responsibility for the movement, so those articles are relevant in defining the mgtow movement.


Ok, then type "feminism.com" into your browser and tell me what you see there. Clearly they are taking responsibility for feminism, so whatever is on that page must be relevant in defining the feminist movement!


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Ok, then type "feminism.com" into your browser and tell me what you see there. Clearly they are taking responsibility for feminism, so whatever is on that page must be relevant in defining the feminist movement!


Well, here you go...

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Well, here you go...
> 
> "Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."


That's not what I get when I go to feminism.com. Try this link: Feminism.


----------



## techmom

Now for mgtow.com:

M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.

Now, considering what was posted in this thread, would it be agreed that this is what the movement stands for?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> That's not what I get when I go to feminism.com. Try this link: Feminism.


I posted the mission statement from that same page, just scroll to the top of the page...

Anyway, here is another gem from mgtow.com:

https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> They are different but not really "opposing", because they are both concerned with equality (or the lack of it).


They are certainly similar. Both camps agree on a lot of problems faced by men today. I tend to view them as in opposition to each other, because MRA's are concerned with making changes to existing laws / issues. MGTOW have professed no interest in making changes. They have given up and are checking out of society. 



techmom said:


> This is what I gather from reading the articles on their web site, they don't like women. They think traditional women want to subject them to a life of servitude, they don't like so-called modern women, they don't like sahm's, they don't like "supportive" women, they don't like "easy", etc., etc. They don't trust any word coming out of a female's mouth, any actions, any concerns, anything at all.
> 
> My advice to women who may happen to come across one of these men is to just walk the other way. Treat them as the outcasts they claim to be, don't trust them, don't engage, just walk away. They don't deserve our attention, concern or assistance, because "women always have an alternate agenda". Women are sub-human beings who live to make a man's life difficult. It is useless debating these people, it will be an endless back and forth.
> 
> So, all of my future responses in this thread will include an article, quote or saying from their official website.


Yes, one of the conclusions many MGTOW come to is that women cannot be trusted in an intimate fashion. What is terrible, is that so many people refuse to engage them with any level of politeness. This compounds the problem. 

My advice to women is, when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW. 

MGTOW is the end of result--and death throes--of an abundant society, and ignoring them / shaming them is only going to spread this social ill. And again, I will suggest that this is heavily paralleled to the "Mouse Utopia" experiment by John B Calhoun.


----------



## techmom

https://www.mgtow.com/poster/be-a-real-man

https://www.mgtow.com/poster/women-can-multitask


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> I posted the mission statement from that same page, just scroll to the top of the page...
> 
> Anyway, here is another gem from mgtow.com:
> 
> https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/


Obviously you still haven't visited feminism.com. That must be the official website for feminism, right? Here's the link again: Feminism.


----------



## techmom

Kivlor said:


> They are certainly similar. Both camps agree on a lot of problems faced by men today. I tend to view them as in opposition to each other, because MRA's are concerned with making changes to existing laws / issues. MGTOW have professed no interest in making changes. They have given up and are checking out of society.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, one of the conclusions many MGTOW come to is that women cannot be trusted in an intimate fashion. What is terrible, is that so many people refuse to engage them with any level of politeness. This compounds the problem.
> 
> My advice to women is, when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW.
> 
> MGTOW is the end of result--and death throes--of an abundant society, and ignoring them / shaming them is only going to spread this social ill. And again, I will suggest that this is heavily paralleled to the "Mouse Utopia" experiment by John B Calhoun.


According to the website, women can't be trusted in any setting, we be some evil b!tches. The following article is written by a dude still carrying grudges from 3rd grade because the girls got a few sips of water more than the boys:

https://www.mgtow.com/the-water-fountain/

I mean, geez...


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Obviously you still haven't visited feminism.com. That must be the official website for feminism, right? Here's the link again: Feminism.


I'm sure we are educated enough to just type in feminism.com and see the mission statement on the top reads what I posted...

Now, please post what YOU see on the page when you type feminism.com ...


----------



## Kivlor

techmom said:


> https://www.mgtow.com/poster/be-a-real-man
> 
> https://www.mgtow.com/poster/women-can-multitask


Ha! Those had me laughing. I've known plenty of women to pull the first one. That or just to start swinging / clawing and call the cops if you try to stop them. In a similar vein, This one always makes me laugh

I've got a couple women in my office that used to say things like the last one. It's cute they think they're competent. Lol.

I'll bite, "techmom". You'll get no "No True Scotsman" fallacies from me. MGTOW.com may as well be somewhat representative of the movement. Or at least be a common place for many within the movement to congregate. I'll try not to use the insanity of feminism as a red herring here.

Not sure where you're going with these? I've not seen you post anything all that inflammatory from their website yet.


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> Well, here you go...
> 
> "Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."


Feminism.com...
Technovelist, satisfied now?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> According to the website, women can't be trusted in any setting, we be some evil b!tches. The following article is written by a dude still carrying grudges from 3rd grade because the girls got a few sips of water more than the boys:
> 
> https://www.mgtow.com/the-water-fountain/
> 
> I mean, geez...


Let me know when you visit the official website of feminism. Here's the link again: Feminism.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Feminist.com...
> Technovelist, satisfied now?


No, Feminism.com, not feminist.com.

The latter would be the official website of feminis*t*(s), but the former is the official website of feminis*m*.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Let me know when you visit the official website of feminism. Here's the link again: Feminism.


Tech, she's pulling her info from that site. Click the Wiki tab on the page you link to, or just go here

It's irrelevant. Don't give in to her here. MGTOW.com may as well be as representative as any other online site. Does it represent all MGTOW? Nope. Does it represent the philosophy fairly? Sure.

She's seemed willing to concede that movements can't be completely defined by a website or person. Call her out on what she's linking. It's not contentious. It's humor.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> Tech, she's pulling her info from that site. Click the Wiki tab on the page you link to, or just go here
> 
> It's irrelevant. Don't give in to her here. MGTOW.com may as well be as representative as any other online site. Does it represent all MGTOW? Nope. Does it represent the philosophy fairly? Sure.
> 
> She's seemed willing to concede that movements can't be completely defined by a website or person. Call her out on what she's linking. It's not contentious. It's humor.


I know all about wikipedia's definition of feminism, but she isn't pulling the definition of *mgtow *from wikipedia, but from mgtow.com. Here's the wikipedia article that MGTOW redirects to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement. Obviously this isn't the same as mgtow.com.

And the fact that there is a link to wikipedia from feminism.com doesn't mean that feminism.com is the official website of feminism, which it would have to be according to her criteria for mgtow.com!


----------



## techmom

Kivlor said:


> Ha! Those had me laughing. I've known plenty of women to pull the first one. That or just to start swinging / clawing and call the cops if you try to stop them. In a similar vein, This one always makes me laugh
> 
> I've got a couple women in my office that used to say things like the last one. It's cute they think they're competent. Lol.
> 
> I'll bite, "techmom". You'll get no "No True Scotsman" fallacies from me. MGTOW.com may as well be somewhat representative of the movement. Or at least be a common place for many within the movement to congregate. I'll try not to use the insanity of feminism as a red herring here.
> 
> Not sure where you're going with these? I've not seen you post anything all that inflammatory from their website yet.


We have many threads here on TAM where in the ladies lounge a topic about sexual consent or retroactive jealousy comes up, and some male posters get offended that we are discussing the topic at all. Many threads were derailed by male posters saying "not all men are ..." and women in the thread are caught having to defend themselves instead of just discussing a topic that affects women.

Those articles are inflammatory because they depict a "straw-person" view of women that does not represent the majority of women. The majority of women who I work with are very talented in their fields and are not just "multitasking". In fact, I know plenty of women who encounter men who resent them for being experts and more knowledgable than they are, and are held back as a result. This is my experience as well.

Also, the 911 thing is another thing that is very offensive, considering that women who are in abusive relationships need resources to help them get out of situations like those. Also, if mgtow claim that men are so much better than women, why don't they remove themselves from that situation before they find themselves ready to hit a woman. Plus, some men find themselves attracted to those "crazy" types, and don't bother with us normal women. Which brings me to...

Why these men are going their own way? Are they rejected by every woman they talk to, or just the beautiful women? Do they actually notice the "plain Jane's" or are they flying under their radars? Do they notice the hard working, independent, secure, high self esteem, and women with life goals? Or are they attracted to dependent women looking for a meal ticket by way of marriage?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Anyway, here is another gem from mgtow.com:
> 
> https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/


That one sounds reasonably representative of the mgtows I've met online.

If I were a young man, my approach to life would probably be fairly similar to that.

What exactly is wrong with it?


----------



## soccermom2three

So Kivlor, what was your previous TAM name?


----------



## techmom

Here's another site sympathetic to the movement,

The Masculine Principle: The Truth About "Misogyny"

I will keep posting links to show the female posters what these movements are about, and cast a light on the men who think "what's so bad about it? It's not that bad."

My question to those same men is this, would you want your daughter to date or marry these men?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> That one sounds reasonably representative of the mgtows I've met online.
> 
> If I were a young man, my approach to life would probably be fairly similar to that.
> 
> What exactly is wrong with it?


You would approach women with a mindset like this?



> The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. The average young woman today is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts.


You would view all women you encounter like this?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> You would approach women with a mindset like this?
> 
> "The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. *The average young woman today* is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts."
> 
> You would view all women you encounter like this?


No, not all; I'm sure there are exceptions. However, in the absence of other information, that's about what I would expect of the *average young woman today*.


----------



## techmom

> Re: Is mgtow for real?
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by techmom View Post
> You would approach women with a mindset like this?
> 
> "The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. The average young woman today is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts."
> 
> You would view all women you encounter like this?
> No, not all; I'm sure there are exceptions. However, in the absence of other information, that's about what I would expect of the average young woman today.


Ok, so you don't have a problem with the flip side of this when most women would guard themselves and view all men as potential rapists?


----------



## techmom

All of these articles have something in common, they all depict a particular type of woman, one who is dependent with low self esteem. These women tend to gravitate towards men who are dying for female attention, these men are threatened by the independent women who have their sights on their careers instead of a human ATM who can validate them. *These men don't feel confident that they can attract a woman with qualities other than what they can provide. *The dependent woman who wants to leech off of men is the constant theme who is presented as the enemy, however nothing is suggested as to how to avoid this type. They present the problem, but the only solution they present is "retreat!!!". These are scared, insecure men who were never validated in their lives and looked towards women to do that for them. But the women who they were paired with were dependent and looking for validation themselves, so it was a mismatch. The men ended up hurt by these women over and over again, but didn't look beyond the matrix of dependent needy women.

Men who are secure and confident in themselves don't look to women for validation, they look for true partnerships. These are true partnerships between two individuals who know what they want in life and find the right match for that. Even the dominant/submissive relationships have the same understanding between two people, give and take on both sides. Some people are too broken to enter these type of relationships, so they end up in hurtful relationships which change their worldview on relationships in general.

The "be a man" troupe is constantly repeated amongst some men themselves who tend to uphold toxic masculinity, which means that anything feminine should be wiped away from their characteristics and behavior. This is rooted in patriarchy, which demonized anything feminine. Feminity is seen as weak and not worthy, everything male-centric is what we base everything on (sexuality, strength, intelligence, etc). Therefore it is laughable when some of these men say that women are taking everything over and they have no rights anymore.


----------



## Heatherknows

techmom said:


> Here's another site sympathetic to the movement,
> 
> The Masculine Principle: The Truth About "Misogyny"
> 
> I will keep posting links to show the female posters what these movements are about, and cast a light on the men who think "what's so bad about it? It's not that bad."
> 
> My question to those same men is this, would you want your daughter to date or marry these men?


(After they went their own way my guess is they found nothing much and turned around.)


----------



## Ripper

Apparently, not only is MGTOW real, but it causes women on this forum to go into conniptions.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Ok, so you don't have a problem with the flip side of this when most women would guard themselves and view all men as potential rapists?


Yes, they have an equal right to do that.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Therefore it is laughable when some of these men say that women are taking everything over and they have no rights anymore.


Ok, so then I assume you are favor of equal rights for men; that is, there should be no rights that only women have?

Of course the converse is assumed; there should also be no rights that only men have.


----------



## Heatherknows

Ripper said:


> Apparently, not only is MGTOW real, but it causes women on this forum to go into conniptions.


I haven't heard the word "conniption" in a million years!

Don't get much conniption nowadays.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Ok, so then I assume you are favor of equal rights for men; that is, there should be no rights that only women have?
> 
> Of course the converse is assumed; there should also be no rights that only men have.


I will say this, patriarchy is the ultimate enemy of men.

Would you agree with the rest of my post then? I would say that my statements ring true for a lot of cases here at TAM.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> I will say this, patriarchy is the ultimate enemy of men.
> 
> Would you agree with the rest of my post then? I would say that my statements ring true for a lot of cases here at TAM.


Sorry, which post are you talking about exactly? I agreed with the post about women being entitled to view men with suspicion as well.


----------



## techmom

techmom said:


> All of these articles have something in common, they all depict a particular type of woman, one who is dependent with low self esteem. These women tend to gravitate towards men who are dying for female attention, these men are threatened by the independent women who have their sights on their careers instead of a human ATM who can validate them. *These men don't feel confident that they can attract a woman with qualities other than what they can provide. *The dependent woman who wants to leech off of men is the constant theme who is presented as the enemy, however nothing is suggested as to how to avoid this type. They present the problem, but the only solution they present is "retreat!!!". These are scared, insecure men who were never validated in their lives and looked towards women to do that for them. But the women who they were paired with were dependent and looking for validation themselves, so it was a mismatch. The men ended up hurt by these women over and over again, but didn't look beyond the matrix of dependent needy women.
> 
> Men who are secure and confident in themselves don't look to women for validation, they look for true partnerships. These are true partnerships between two individuals who know what they want in life and find the right match for that. Even the dominant/submissive relationships have the same understanding between two people, give and take on both sides. Some people are too broken to enter these type of relationships, so they end up in hurtful relationships which change their worldview on relationships in general.
> 
> The "be a man" troupe is constantly repeated amongst some men themselves who tend to uphold toxic masculinity, which means that anything feminine should be wiped away from their characteristics and behavior. This is rooted in patriarchy, which demonized anything feminine. Feminity is seen as weak and not worthy, everything male-centric is what we base everything on (sexuality, strength, intelligence, etc). Therefore it is laughable when some of these men say that women are taking everything over and they have no rights anymore.


Technovelist.. I'm talking about this post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tom67

Perfect example...

MGTOW HQ ? Men Going Their Own Way Forums ? View topic - A Happy Ending If He Doesn't **** It Up!


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> All of these articles have something in common, they all depict a particular type of woman, one who is dependent with low self esteem. These women tend to gravitate towards men who are dying for female attention, these men are threatened by the independent women who have their sights on their careers instead of a human ATM who can validate them. *These men don't feel confident that they can attract a woman with qualities other than what they can provide. *


Of course they can't attract a woman with qualities other than what they can provide, because it is logically impossible for anyone to do anything with qualities that they don't have. 



techmom said:


> The dependent woman who wants to leech off of men is the constant theme who is presented as the enemy, however nothing is suggested as to how to avoid this type. They present the problem, but the only solution they present is "retreat!!!". These are scared, insecure men who were never validated in their lives and looked towards women to do that for them. But the women who they were paired with were dependent and looking for validation themselves, so it was a mismatch. The men ended up hurt by these women over and over again, but didn't look beyond the matrix of dependent needy women.


Now you are contradicting yourself. Above you said: "these men are threatened by the independent women who have their sights on their careers instead of a human ATM who can validate them. ", whereas now you are saying: "The dependent woman who wants to leech off of men is the constant theme who is presented as the enemy,"

So which type is the enemy, the independent women or the dependent ones?


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Of course they can't attract a woman with qualities other than what they can provide, because it is logically impossible for anyone to do anything with qualities that they don't have.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are contradicting yourself. Above you said: "these men are threatened by the independent women who have their sights on their careers instead of a human ATM who can validate them. ", whereas now you are saying: "The dependent woman who wants to leech off of men is the constant theme who is presented as the enemy,"
> 
> So which type is the enemy, the independent women or the dependent ones?


When I said that men feel that they don't have other qualities other than what they provide, I meant money or status. Like when you say, I provide for a woman, you are not providing your looks or personality, but money. I thought you would come to that conclusion by the fact that these guys who are mgtow feel taken advantage of, especially in that area.

Mgtow states they have issues with feminism because it makes women more independent and less likely to stay in relationships. Then they turn around and complain of women who are after their money, or status. For a woman to be after your money, she has to be the dependent type correct? She has to have no career goals other than hypergamy.

Clarify this for me, do men appreciate the independent women who don't need to marry a guy for money or status? Who would marry a guy just because of sheer attraction? Or do men want to be wanted by a dependent woman who will stay with you regardless because she sees you as the human ATM?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> When I said that men feel that they don't have other qualities other than what they provide, I meant money or status. Like when you say, I provide for a woman, you are not providing your looks or personality, but money. I thought you would come to that conclusion by the fact that these guys who are mgtow feel taken advantage of, especially in that area.
> 
> Mgtow states they have issues with feminism because it makes women more independent and less likely to stay in relationships. Then they turn around and complain of women who are after their money, or status. For a woman to be after your money, she has to be the dependent type correct? She has to have no career goals other than hypergamy.
> 
> Clarify this for me, do men appreciate the independent women who don't need to marry a guy for money or status? Who would marry a guy just because of sheer attraction? Or do men want to be wanted by a dependent woman who will stay with you regardless because she sees you as the human ATM?


Of course I don't speak for them, but as I understand their complaint it is that women want it both ways. They want to be "strong and independent" but then also have the man pay for everything or close to it, as well as being able to cut off sex and/or take them to the cleaners in a divorce.

If I were in that situation, I would be fine with a wife who would rely on me for support, so long as she didn't also complain about not being "strong and independent", take me to the cleaners in a divorce, or cut off sex.

In fact, I am in pretty much that situation. I do support my wife, and have no objection to doing so. But then she appreciates my support rather than complaining about not being "strong and independent", and I'm not worried about her taking me to the cleaners in a divorce, or cutting off sex.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Of course I don't speak for them, but as I understand their complaint it is that women want it both ways. They want to be "strong and independent" but then also have the man pay for everything or close to it, as well as being able to cut off sex and/or take them to the cleaners in a divorce.
> 
> If I were in that situation, I would be fine with a wife who would rely on me for support, so long as she didn't also complain about not being "strong and independent", take me to the cleaners in a divorce, or cut off sex.
> 
> In fact, I am in pretty much that situation. I do support my wife, and have no objection to doing so. But then she appreciates my support rather than complaining about not being "strong and independent", and I'm not worried about her taking me to the cleaners in a divorce, or cutting off sex.


Again, in my personal experience with people I know, none of the women wanted to take the man to the cleaners or withhold sex. If she was a SAHM and she became one as a result of a mutual decision between her and her husband in order to save money on child care, then had to place her career on hold, then I would understand child support and alimony.

But it seems to me that some men appreciate having the wife at home caring for the children when the relationship is good, but when things go sour they want to be able to just split without taking into consideration the sacrifice the wife made in postponing her career. Now that more men are making that sacrifice, we hope this would increase understanding of this aspect of divorce. It is not fair to cry foul when you were reaping the benefits while married, because if the wife keeps her career while child rearing the circumstances would be much tougher in terms of child care and work/life balance.


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Again, in my personal experience with people I know, none of the women wanted to take the man to the cleaners or withhold sex. If she was a SAHM and she became one as a result of a mutual decision between her and her husband in order to save money on child care, then had to place her career on hold, then I would understand child support and alimony.
> 
> But it seems to me that some men appreciate having the wife at home caring for the children when the relationship is good, but when things go sour they want to be able to just split without taking into consideration the sacrifice the wife made in postponing her career. Now that more men are making that sacrifice, we hope this would increase understanding of this aspect of divorce. It is not fair to cry foul when you were reaping the benefits while married, because if the wife keeps her career while child rearing the circumstances would be much tougher in terms of child care and work/life balance.


I consider that a valid proposition for the minority of divorces that are initiated by men. However, it doesn't explain the roughly 3/4ths of all divorces that are initiated by women.

By the way, you never answered my question as to whether women should have rights that men don't have. Should they, or shouldn't they?


----------



## techmom

what rights do women have that men do not have? What do you mean by this?


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> what rights do women have that men do not have? What do you mean by this?


Here you go: 5 Legal Rights Women Have That Men Don?t | Thought Catalog


----------



## techmom

Here it is...

1. Women have the right to genital integrity-

Women did not make the decision to make circumcision as widespread as it is. That being said, I agree that men should have the right to genital integrity. However, who makes the decision to circumcise little boys? The parents. Should we outlaw circumcision?

2. Selective service should be outlawed, I have an adult son and I would hate for him to have to serve in the armed forces in order to vote. But women serve too, will they be required to sign up when they turn 18? Drones are being used more and more, we may have more high tech war in the future so selective service may be obsolete.

3. Right to choose parenthood- Men should be more careful of who they have sex with, bottom line. They don't have uteruses, so they can only prevent pregnancy by wearing birth control. This is a right men can claim by just being careful and taking responsibility for birth control, don't leave it to the woman to do. Should they be able to force a woman to carry a birth to term? Old white men in congress just might make that possible, lol. Then you may find more women refusing sex like back in the old days, not much fun for the men...

4. Right to assume to be the primary caregiver to children - Yes, men should have this right. More and more men are becoming SAHDs, thanks to feminism women are in the workplace and earning more money. Which allows dads to stay home if they choose, which makes them the primary caregiver for children, because...Feminism

5. If sex is unwanted and coerced, then it is rape. Both men and women should have this right, they should be able to press charges against the person who violated them.

In summary, all of these rights would belong to men if only they get rid of the toxic masculinity. Men should be caregivers, be able to refuse sex and don't have to be automatic soldiers in this society in order to be considered "real men".


----------



## tech-novelist

techmom said:


> Here it is...
> 
> 1. Women have the right to genital integrity-
> 
> Women did not make the decision to make circumcision as widespread as it is. That being said, I agree that men should have the right to genital integrity. However, who makes the decision to circumcise little boys? The parents. Should we outlaw circumcision?
> 
> 2. Selective service should be outlawed, I have an adult son and I would hate for him to have to serve in the armed forces in order to vote. But women serve too, will they be required to sign up when they turn 18? Drones are being used more and more, we may have more high tech war in the future so selective service may be obsolete.
> 
> 3. Right to choose parenthood- Men should be more careful of who they have sex with, bottom line. They don't have uteruses, so they can only prevent pregnancy by wearing birth control. This is a right men can claim by just being careful and taking responsibility for birth control, don't leave it to the woman to do. Should they be able to force a woman to carry a birth to term? Old white men in congress just might make that possible, lol. Then you may find more women refusing sex like back in the old days, not much fun for the men...
> 
> 4. Right to assume to be the primary caregiver to children - Yes, men should have this right. More and more men are becoming SAHDs, thanks to feminism women are in the workplace and earning more money. Which allows dads to stay home if they choose, which makes them the primary caregiver for children, because...Feminism
> 
> 5. If sex is unwanted and coerced, then it is rape. Both men and women should have this right, they should be able to press charges against the person who violated them.
> 
> In summary, all of these rights would belong to men if *the government recognizes those rights for men, which it currently doesn't*. Men should be caregivers, be able to refuse sex and don't have to be automatic soldiers in this society in order to be considered "real men".


Fixed it for you. 

For some reason, I don't hear anyone other than the MRAs talking about this disparity in rights between men and women. Presumably feminists should be in favor of all these rights, but I don't hear anything from them about those rights...

And as for #3, women have the following rights that men don't have:
1. Choosing to have an abortion.
2. Choosing to keep the baby.
3. Choosing to give it up for adoption.

If they choose #2, then the biological father (or sometimes another man who isn't even related to the baby biologically) is compelled to pay child support for the next 18+ years according to often draconian formulas having no regard to the child's actual needs, and where the mother has no responsibility to account for where the money goes.

If we want to be fair, since the woman gets the entire say as to what happens to the baby (her body, her choice), then the man should get the say as to who supports the baby (his body, his choice).


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

It's the woman's body. When men carry babies they can choose what they do to their own body.

Men have the legal right to be a SAHD, to report a rape, to use condoms and to do what they want to their own bodies (like a vasectomy) to prevent babies.

Dad's are often the ones deciding to circ their baby boys. 
If a group decided to fight against the legality of circumcision I would support them 100%.


----------



## techmom

technovelist said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> For some reason, I don't hear anyone other than the MRAs talking about this disparity in rights between men and women. Presumably feminists should be in favor of all these rights, but I don't hear anything from them about those rights...
> 
> And as for #3, women have the following rights that men don't have:
> 1. Choosing to have an abortion.
> 2. Choosing to keep the baby.
> 3. Choosing to give it up for adoption.
> 
> If they choose #2, then the biological father (or sometimes another man who isn't even related to the baby biologically) is compelled to pay child support for the next 18+ years according to often draconian formulas having no regard to the child's actual needs, and where the mother has no responsibility to account for where the money goes.
> 
> If we want to be fair, since the woman gets the entire say as to what happens to the baby (her body, her choice), then the man should get the say as to who supports the baby (his body, his choice).


Again, with abortion becoming harder to obtain (Planned Parenthood funding anyone?) women may not have a choice of carrying a birth to term. Should the man get off Scot free if that happens? Absolutely not, but he can disappear, as it was done before in the past.

Most men forget why feminism was necessary in the first place, for the mother and child. Back in the past, men could knock up women and just walk, and the unfortunate lady was stuck with a bad reputation and a baby to support. Sometimes families would pretend the baby was a new sibling, which meant that the pregnant lady was hidden from public view.

Now some men claim to be victims of an unjust system because they are held responsible for who they knock up. Well, you better hope abortion doesn't fade out and you better support planned parenthood programs, that Plan B contraception. Which, by the way, women bear responsibility for.

The things some men whine about...


----------



## tom67

techmom said:


> Again, with abortion becoming harder to obtain (Planned Parenthood funding anyone?) women may not have a choice of carrying a birth to term. Should the man get off Scot free if that happens? Absolutely not, but he can disappear, as it was done before in the past.
> 
> Most men forget why feminism was necessary in the first place, for the mother and child. Back in the past, men could knock up women and just walk, and the unfortunate lady was stuck with a bad reputation and a baby to support. Sometimes families would pretend the baby was a new sibling, which meant that the pregnant lady was hidden from public view.
> 
> Now some men claim to be victims of an unjust system because they are held responsible for who they knock up. Well, you better hope abortion doesn't fade out and you better support planned parenthood programs, that Plan B contraception. Which, by the way, women bear responsibility for.
> 
> The things some men whine about...


Cupcake you are the reason a priest has gone from 35 weddings to 5 today.
Thank you.


----------



## tom67

tom67 said:


> Cupcake you are the reason a priest has gone from 35 weddings to 5 today.
> Thank you.


Now veryhurts mangina son I don't think we can save sadly.


----------



## techmom

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's the woman's body. When men carry babies they can choose what they do to their own body.
> 
> Men have the legal right to be a SAHD, to report a rape, to use condoms and to do what they want to their own bodies (like a vasectomy) to prevent babies.
> 
> Dad's are often the ones deciding to circ their baby boys.
> If a group decided to fight against the legality of circumcision I would support them 100%.


Well then, if men want to stop circumcision then they can simply say no. As I stated earlier, men can attain these rights by just saying no to toxic masculinity. Men can be caregivers, refuse sex, and refuse to go to war. All they have to do is go to Congress (mostly male) and say, hey, we are redefining what it means to be male. Give up machoism and chauvinism, just say "we want to be able to do what women do".

Masculinism on the rise...>


----------



## Faithful Wife

And besides...soon there will be this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/i...plants-make-male-pregnancy-possible.html?_r=0

These guys can be an island and have their own baby, leave women completely out of it. Then there will be no one to take custody away from them, no one to split any assets with, no one to have to watch like a hawk (because hypergamy). Problem solved, MGTOW's dream future is coming.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(and every woman everywhere says "YAY!!!!!")


----------



## MountainRunner

Well when I read about "married" women lusting after big ****s and celebrities on a "hall pass", I have to wonder if there is some validity to this. I'm kinda looking into this now...I'm serious. You girls can't...LOL...You do like your d1ck, dontcha?


----------



## Personal

MountainRunner said:


> Well when I read about "married" women lusting after big ****s and celebrities on a "hall pass", I have to wonder if there is some validity to this. I'm kinda looking into this now...I'm serious. You girls can't...LOL...You do like your d1ck, dontcha?


Are you okay, do you have you someone close you can talk to right now?


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> It's the woman's body. When men carry babies they can choose what they do to their own body.
> 
> Men have the legal right to be a SAHD, to report a rape, to use condoms and to do what they want to their own bodies (like a vasectomy) to prevent babies.
> 
> Dad's are often the ones deciding to circ their baby boys.
> If a group decided to fight against the legality of circumcision I would support them 100%.


In 1 out of 20 that I know of, where the requirement wasn't from Judaism, it was the mother who wanted the boy circumcised "because her friends had told her that boys don't look after them/don't clean them".

Actually no, men in the majority of countries, including the US, cannot legally be raped by a woman, only "assaulted". (and it's called something worse if done by another man)

And sure it's a woman's body... and a mans family and child for the rest of his life. Including extremely large and invasive financial penalties without relief. So yeah, you get 9 months, but her decision affects the complete rest of HIS life.


----------



## Heatherknows

Faithful Wife said:


> And besides...soon there will be this:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/i...plants-make-male-pregnancy-possible.html?_r=0
> 
> These guys can be an island and have their own baby, leave women completely out of it.




...and then they'll have baby girls. The ultimate revenge. >

In all seriousness, whilst I like being female, in our society, it's the worst gender to be. Being born female you have a much higher risk of being raped and living in poverty than a male. If an unborn child was given the facts and then a gender choice: Nobody would choose to be female.


----------



## just got it 55

Want to bring equality and mutual respect to the Men and Women issue

Go by the John Mayer song with the lyrics "Fathers be good to your daughters"

That's where it all starts.

Raise your daughters to be kind,self respecting humans
and to work to meet their goals and rely on no one.

MGTOW is misogynistic bull$h!t

55


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> ...and then they'll have baby girls. The ultimate revenge. >
> 
> In all seriousness, whilst I like being female, in our society, it's the worst gender to be. Being born female you have a much higher risk of being raped and living in poverty than a male. If an unborn child was given the facts and then a gender choice: Nobody would choose to be female.


Do you live in Saudi Arabia?


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> MGTOW is the end of result--and death throes--of an abundant society, and ignoring them / shaming them is only going to spread this social ill. And again, I will suggest that this is heavily paralleled to the "Mouse Utopia" experiment by John B Calhoun.


It's not really a social ill because these guys are very much the fringe of society. Most heterosexual men engage just fine with women.

I knew guys like this, they were overweight (not saying all these guys are), unattractive generally, poor personality, yet couldn't understand why they couldn't land that super cute outgoing girlfriend. They wouldn't lower their standards and find a girl who maybe had a few pounds on her and a large nose or something. They just pined over the "hot girl" ignoring them.

What I DO see is men generally not going along with marriage, I think that will be a growing trend as it is a bit asinine for a man to get married today since he's inheriting all the risk, and to gain companionship, love, sex, even children from a woman it's not a requirement anymore. I'm 38 and out of 9 of my closest friends that I've known since middle school, only two of us ever married. The other 7 have long term girlfriends, they travel, date, one has children, they split up, not a huge deal, 6 months later they're back on their feet at it again.

So while MGTOW will always be on the fringe of society because most men's desire for women's companionship, sex, and love, will always outweigh the poor ways women today generally treat their men. I do see an abandonment of long standing institutions like engagements, marriages with huge ceremonies, etc... You'll always have marriage for some folks, some women will demand the 30K ring, and 70K wedding and they'll get it, likely with the 500K divorce settlement. But overall I think we'll start (actually we have already seen men abandoning marriage) marriage decline drastically in the coming generations.


----------



## knobcreek

I do agree if a woman makes the choice to abort, or bring a baby to term she should be solely responsible for that decision, a man shouldn't have to pay anything since he had no say in whether the baby is born or not. I think this will see time in the courts and eventually, due to Roe V Wade decisions the courts will have to completely review child support and how it's done today.

Insemination doesn't guarantee a baby, it's now the woman's body and her decision, if she decides to abort it, then it's aborted, if she decides to carry it to term, that's her decision.

I can only see child support if people are married (assumption of children), or there is a pre-existing agreement to support any children out of their coupling.


----------



## tom67

knobcreek said:


> I do agree if a woman makes the choice to abort, or bring a baby to term she should be solely responsible for that decision, a man shouldn't have to pay anything since he had no say in whether the baby is born or not. I think this will see time in the courts and eventually, due to Roe V Wade decisions the courts will have to completely review child support and how it's done today.
> 
> Insemination doesn't guarantee a baby, it's now the woman's body and her decision, if she decides to abort it, then it's aborted, if she decides to carry it to term, that's her decision.
> 
> I can only see child support if people are married (assumption of children), or there is a pre-existing agreement to support any children out of their coupling.


Until the courts put accountability back in marriage via at fault divorce men with half a brain will not marry.


----------



## Cosmos

knobcreek said:


> I do agree if a woman makes the choice to abort, or bring a baby to term she should be solely responsible for that decision, a man shouldn't have to pay anything since he had no say in whether the baby is born or not. I think this will see time in the courts and eventually, due to Roe V Wade decisions the courts will have to completely review child support and how it's done today.
> 
> Insemination doesn't guarantee a baby, it's now the woman's body and her decision, if she decides to abort it, then it's aborted, if she decides to carry it to term, that's her decision.
> 
> I can only see child support if people are married (assumption of children), or there is a pre-existing agreement to support any children out of their coupling.


Child support isn't about the man or woman. It is about the child and its right to have a roof over its head and food in its stomach. We lost the right to decide whether we will or will not support that child when we CHOSE to have unprotected sex.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> I do agree if a woman makes the choice to abort, or bring a baby to term she should be solely responsible for that decision, a man shouldn't have to pay anything since he had no say in whether the baby is born or not. I think this will see time in the courts and eventually, due to Roe V Wade decisions the courts will have to completely review child support and how it's done today.
> 
> Insemination doesn't guarantee a baby, it's now the woman's body and her decision, if she decides to abort it, then it's aborted, if she decides to carry it to term, that's her decision.
> 
> I can only see child support if people are married (assumption of children), or there is a pre-existing agreement to support any children out of their coupling.


I can't wait to see the response to this!


----------



## ocotillo

FW



Faithful Wife said:


> You see, to the ones I'm speaking about, it is all women's fault, either way. Well, women and manginas and white knights, it is apparently their fault, too, because manginas and white knights keep women thinking that they can do what they want and still have men around them.


Are you sure those were mgtows and not just garden variety red pill misogynists? 

(I'm only asking because of my interest in social movements of all types.)

The mgtow stuff I've run across seems to be a more specific type of misogyny that accuses women of enjoying the legal benefits of equality while simultaneously enjoying the social benefits of inequality. 

A typical mgtow complaint would be getting dumped a week after paying off a girlfriend's student debt. Instead of saying, "Shame on me for not thinking with my brain." they launch into elaborate, convoluted social and evo-psych explanations for how all women are somehow like that.


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> Child support isn't about the man or woman. It is about the child and its right to have a roof over its head and food in its stomach. We lost the right to decide whether we will or will not support that child when we CHOSE to have unprotected sex.


Except of course if "we" are a woman, in which case "we" can give the child up for adoption or abort it.

But if "we" are a man, "we" are SOL.


----------



## tom67

Another good one...

Sexbots: Why Women Should Panic - Breitbart


----------



## Runs like Dog

People generally are more intolerant, needy, selfish and self involved now. This is only one small aspect of it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

tom67 said:


> Another good one...
> 
> Sexbots: Why Women Should Panic - Breitbart


This will be awesome for women. More men will opt out who are just looking for a quick, cheap lay and see women as nothing more than holes to put their pecker in. 
They don't want to put in the work to meet emotional needs and build a connection and have mutually good sex. 
They want to be the guy in the porno videos he's spent his youth watching where the hot girl just jumps on him with no effort. 

Getting them out of the way makes it easier for us to find a good mate- and good sex.


----------



## Kivlor

So much to address since my last login.



soccermom2three said:


> So Kivlor, what was your previous TAM name?


This is my first, one and only account / screen name on this website. Do I remind you of someone else?



techmom said:


> You would approach women with a mindset like this?
> 
> You would view all women you encounter like this?


The statement you quoted is true of a large number of women. Most men would be wise to understand it before interacting with any woman in an intimate way. 




techmom said:


> Here it is...
> 
> 1. Women have the right to genital integrity-
> 
> Women did not make the decision to make circumcision as widespread as it is. That being said, I agree that men should have the right to genital integrity. However, who makes the decision to circumcise little boys? The parents. Should we outlaw circumcision?
> 
> 2. Selective service should be outlawed, I have an adult son and I would hate for him to have to serve in the armed forces in order to vote. But women serve too, will they be required to sign up when they turn 18? Drones are being used more and more, we may have more high tech war in the future so selective service may be obsolete.
> 
> 3. Right to choose parenthood- Men should be more careful of who they have sex with, bottom line. They don't have uteruses, so they can only prevent pregnancy by wearing birth control. This is a right men can claim by just being careful and taking responsibility for birth control, don't leave it to the woman to do. Should they be able to force a woman to carry a birth to term? Old white men in congress just might make that possible, lol. Then you may find more women refusing sex like back in the old days, not much fun for the men...
> 
> 4. Right to assume to be the primary caregiver to children - Yes, men should have this right. More and more men are becoming SAHDs, thanks to feminism women are in the workplace and earning more money. Which allows dads to stay home if they choose, which makes them the primary caregiver for children, because...Feminism
> 
> 5. If sex is unwanted and coerced, then it is rape. Both men and women should have this right, they should be able to press charges against the person who violated them.
> 
> In summary, all of these rights would belong to men if only they get rid of the toxic masculinity. Men should be caregivers, be able to refuse sex and don't have to be automatic soldiers in this society in order to be considered "real men".


2. So do you support forcing women to enter the selective service until such time as the selective service is disbanded? If not, why not?

3. Right to choose parenthood- *Women* should be more careful of who they have sex with, bottom line. They *don't have penises, so they can prevent pregnancy by wearing birth control, taking a shot, taking a pill, and several other methods*. This is a right *women* can claim by just being careful and taking responsibility for birth control, don't leave it to the *man* to do. Should they be able to force a* man to keep a child?* Old white *women* in congress just might make that possible, lol. Then you may find more *men* refusing sex like back in the old days, not much fun for the *women*... I fixed that for you.

4. I think it is absolutely hilarious that you attribute the minor successes of men in gaining CUSTODY of their children to feminism, and not to the MEN--like my father and many others--who fought endlessly, spending fortunes just to see their children. Feminism has accomplished nothing. You're hilarious darlin.

Drop the whole "Patriarchy" crap. Your theology is unrelated to this discussion. There is no "Patriarchy". There probably was, a very, very long time ago. Your bogeyman has been slain and even the bones of his corpse no longer remain. 

It's quite funny that you stick to the "Patriarchy oppresses men too!" line. Consider this: if men were to create a pro-male society, why would they incorporate anti-male policies? They wouldn't. You're stuck blaming men for everything, just as much as the MGTOW are stuck blaming women. At least MGTOW have statistics and evidence on their side.


----------



## Heatherknows

tom67 said:


> Another good one...
> 
> Sexbots: Why Women Should Panic - Breitbart


I knew I shouldn't have clicked on the link..
But I clicked on it...
I knew it was stupid...
But I did it anyway...

:surprise:
:nerd:


----------



## tom67

Heatherknows said:


> I knew I shouldn't have clicked on the link..
> But I clicked on it...
> I knew it was stupid...
> But I did it anyway...
> 
> :surprise:
> :nerd:


:rofl::rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

tom67 said:


> Until the courts put accountability back in marriage via at fault divorce men with half a brain will not marry.


Well, it doesn't take at fault divorce to fix it. In fact that really won't fix it, because people will just lie, as they did when fault was necessary.

What *will *fix it is the enforcement of pre-nups covering absolutely everything that the parties agree to, including child support, division of assets, etc., just like every other type of contract.

I'm not holding my breath for that, though.


----------



## Kivlor

techmom said:


> Again, with abortion becoming harder to obtain (Planned Parenthood funding anyone?) women may not have a choice of carrying a birth to term. Should the man get off Scot free if that happens? Absolutely not, but he can disappear, as it was done before in the past.
> 
> Most men forget why feminism was necessary in the first place, for the mother and child. Back in the past, men could knock up women and just walk, and the unfortunate lady was stuck with a bad reputation and a baby to support. Sometimes families would pretend the baby was a new sibling, which meant that the pregnant lady was hidden from public view.
> 
> Now some men claim to be victims of an unjust system because they are held responsible for who they knock up. Well, you better hope abortion doesn't fade out and you better support planned parenthood programs, that Plan B contraception. Which, by the way, women bear responsibility for.
> 
> The things some men whine about...


What about men who wanted to keep the child? Who wanted to be a father? How about men who would rather give the kid up for adoption? 

RE: You're comment about feminism; if I were as bigoted a misogynist as you are a bigoted feminist I'd say something along the lines: "Serves her right for having sex outside of marriage. She should have been more careful who she had sex with. She could always get rid of the pregnancy, she chose not to." See the double standard you've created? You said as much earlier regarding men!

But I actually disagree with this statement as much as I disagree with your previous one. Women have agency, and so do men. 



Heatherknows said:


> ...and then they'll have baby girls. The ultimate revenge. >
> 
> In all seriousness, whilst I like being female, in our society, it's the worst gender to be. Being born female you have a much higher risk of being raped and living in poverty than a male. If an unborn child was given the facts and then a gender choice: Nobody would choose to be female.


Being born male you have a much higher risk of being falsely accused of rape, being the victim of physical violence and murder, suicide and false imprisonment leading to a higher chance of being raped anally. If an unborn child was given the facts and then a gender choice: Nobody would choose to be male. Fixed that for ya 



Cosmos said:


> Child support isn't about the man or woman. It is about the child and its right to have a roof over its head and food in its stomach. We lost the right to decide whether we will or will not support that child when we CHOSE to have unprotected sex.


Except child support and custody are almost always awarded to the woman, despite how little capacity she has to pay for and care for the child or how fit the man is or how much the man wishes to be primary custodian. Then the man's wages are garnished to supply the woman the means to provide for the man's child. If this was happening en-masse in the opposite direction, women would revolt.


----------



## Kivlor

I apologize for so many posts in succession. 


knobcreek said:


> It's not really a social ill because these guys are very much the fringe of society. Most heterosexual men engage just fine with women.
> 
> I knew guys like this, they were overweight (not saying all these guys are), unattractive generally, poor personality, yet couldn't understand why they couldn't land that super cute outgoing girlfriend. They wouldn't lower their standards and find a girl who maybe had a few pounds on her and a large nose or something. They just pined over the "hot girl" ignoring them.
> 
> What I DO see is men generally not going along with marriage, I think that will be a growing trend as it is a bit asinine for a man to get married today since he's inheriting all the risk, and to gain companionship, love, sex, even children from a woman it's not a requirement anymore. I'm 38 and out of 9 of my closest friends that I've known since middle school, only two of us ever married. The other 7 have long term girlfriends, they travel, date, one has children, they split up, not a huge deal, 6 months later they're back on their feet at it again.
> 
> So while MGTOW will always be on the fringe of society because most men's desire for women's companionship, sex, and love, will always outweigh the poor ways women today generally treat their men. I do see an abandonment of long standing institutions like engagements, marriages with huge ceremonies, etc... You'll always have marriage for some folks, some women will demand the 30K ring, and 70K wedding and they'll get it, likely with the 500K divorce settlement. But overall I think we'll start (actually we have already seen men abandoning marriage) marriage decline drastically in the coming generations.


They are on the fringe and growing. I think you should spend some time reading the study I have repeatedly mentioned here. J. Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment. This is going to grow if steps aren't taken to fix it.

You're right about marriage. It is on it's way out, and personally I think that is a sad thing. Necessary, but sad. As long as the marriage contract is voidable by either party without reason, and the stay-at-home party can take half of everything, plus child custody, plus garnishment for income they never earned, plus extra money for the kids, marriage will be a raw deal.

I think you're wrong about MGTOW staying on the fringe. They are for now, but with the advent of more realistic and better designed artificial women, more men will opt out. We are approaching the creation of artificial "sex bots" that will greet a man when he comes home, and actually treat him like a human being. We're not there, but it's on the way. Women are going to have to shape up and address this problem, or society will collapse. 

The more that women like techmom screech at men about how deficient they are, the more men will look to other avenues to get sexual release and appealing social interaction. And then we will die out as a culture. And we will have deserved it.



knobcreek said:


> I do agree if a woman makes the choice to abort, or bring a baby to term she should be solely responsible for that decision, a man shouldn't have to pay anything since he had no say in whether the baby is born or not. I think this will see time in the courts and eventually, due to Roe V Wade decisions the courts will have to completely review child support and how it's done today.
> 
> Insemination doesn't guarantee a baby, it's now the woman's body and her decision, if she decides to abort it, then it's aborted, if she decides to carry it to term, that's her decision.
> 
> I can only see child support if people are married (assumption of children), or there is a pre-existing agreement to support any children out of their coupling.


I actually think this is a pretty reasonable solution / compromise. I can't imagine most feminists agreeing. They want to be treated like children.


----------



## always_alone

As a life-support system for a vagina, I would just like to say that I can totally understand why a man might prefer a fleshlight, sex doll or robot. In the end, I have one, maybe two body parts, that are at all relevant or interesting for the sexual gratification of men, and the system supporting these parts really is overly and unnecessarily complex. 

I mean really, all this "personality" stuff is a complete waste. All Ithat is essential is some docile agreeableness, and perhaps a voice recorder to beg for "it". 

Brain power? Who needs it? Talent? Unless it's in the bedroom, fuggedaboutit. Only thing vaginas are needed for is being vaginas, the rest of the world, after all, is built by and run by men. 

Being just a vagina, it's sometime difficult to remember that the whole world will come apart at the seams if they don't realize their proper place.


----------



## norajane

> As long as the marriage contract is voidable by either party without reason, and the stay-at-home party can take half of everything, plus child custody, plus garnishment for income they never earned, plus extra money for the kids, marriage will be a raw deal.


Then perhaps people should choose to have two working spouses in a marriage instead of a spouse that stays home raising the kids for decades instead of working. Many men here have a lot of nasty things to say about so-called "career women." Many men are _proud _and _happy _that their wives are SAHMs and _want _their wives home taking care of the kids and the house. They like it very much until they divorce and are shocked! that they are responsible for child support and alimony for the SAHM they wanted, like it is some kind of secret that they never heard could happen.


----------



## Marduk

All the emoting in the world about how the current divorce situation isn't fair for men (and in some cases it probably isn't) isn't going to change the following facts:

1) it wasn't fair for women for a very long time
2) posting here isn't going to change any divorce laws -- go and join a lobby group or donate to a cause that is going your way instead
3) what's good for either one of the parents isn't neccessarily good for the children


----------



## Kivlor

norajane said:


> Then perhaps people should choose to have two working spouses in a marriage instead of a spouse that stays home raising the kids for decades instead of working. Many men here have a lot of nasty things to say about so-called "career women." Many men are _proud _and _happy _that their wives are SAHMs and _want _their wives home taking care of the kids and the house. They like it very much until they divorce and are shocked! that they are responsible for child support and alimony for the SAHM they wanted, like it is some kind of secret that they never heard could happen.


Indeed, many of us like the idea of a SAHM. Personally, I think one of the primary points of marriage is to have and raise kids, and I think kids benefit tremendously from having a SAHM / SAHD. The problem I see here is that being a SAHM / SAHD shouldn't affect the divorce outcome tremendously. (I'm okay with alimony for say, 6 months. That's long enough to get your own life started) 

It's not forced on one party or the other. It's not a sacrifice. It is a choice, made mutually. The working partner makes just as much a "sacrifice" by leaving the house everyday, to work their butt off and pay for their family. It's a team effort, and it is very telling of how you view a marriage if you view this as a "sacrifice" rather than a mutual decision.



marduk said:


> All the emoting in the world about how the current divorce situation isn't fair for men (and in some cases it probably isn't) isn't going to change the following facts:
> 
> 1) it wasn't fair for women for a very long time
> 2) posting here isn't going to change any divorce laws -- go and join a lobby group or donate to a cause that is going your way instead
> 3) what's good for either one of the parents isn't neccessarily good for the children


Marduk, I always enjoy your posts. Polite, and well-thought. And succinct.

1. Marriage's previous "unfairness" doesn't mean it should be unfair today or tomorrow. It's like saying "blacks were slaves once, so whites should be today to make up for it"
2. I do donate and lobby. I also post on some websites and engage people in person also to try to spread the word, and get more people involved. The only way to change this--as I stated earlier--is to stop moaning and waiting for a savior. Take that hill! 
3. Indeed. And at the end of the day, I do think the kids should be the focus. And they're not. Or people would focus less on their own selfish desires, fix their marriages, and not divorce. Marriage is good for children. Divorce is terrible for them. Single-parenthood is terrible for them.

I can only do so much, I am one man. But if I convince another man or woman to take up the sword, now we're 2. If they convince another, we're 3. That's how this has to change.


----------



## Heatherknows

always_alone said:


> *As a life-support system for a vagina,* I would just like to say that I can totally understand why a man might prefer a fleshlight, sex doll or robot. In the end, I have one, maybe two body parts, that are at all relevant or interesting for the sexual gratification of men, and the system supporting these parts really is overly and unnecessarily complex.


***Award goes to always_alone for: Best Comedy Writer.***

:grin2:


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> Indeed, many of us like the idea of a SAHM. Personally, I think one of the primary points of marriage is to have and raise kids, and I think kids benefit tremendously from having a SAHM / SAHD. The problem I see here is that being a SAHM / SAHD shouldn't affect the divorce outcome tremendously. *(I'm okay with alimony for say, 6 months. That's long enough to get your own life started) *


...yeah, OK. 

I stand by my original statement:

If given a choice no unborn child would choose to be female.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I for one am happy that women are allowed in the work force if they choose so we don't have to be dependent on men. Thank goodness for feminists. 

I do agree that divorce and custody laws have not caught up as quickly as they should have but many places are now realizing that custody should be 50/50 as a default and spousal support only gets awarded if the couple had one parent sacrifice their career for their family. 

Child support itself is not a woman's benefit. Whoever makes more pays. It doesn't matter if you are male or female. The child's best interest is all that matters. 
In many cases the amount a parent gets doesn't even cover half the child's expenses. Those little buggers are expensive. 

If a man wants to put himself in a position to get spousal support and child support, he will have to first sacrifice years of his career to stay home and raise the babies, clean the house, while his wife goes to work. In the event of a divorce they will be starting with a beginner job that won't even make ends meet when trying to maintain some kind of stability in the life of his children. 
When he does all this, he will be awarded SS and CS just like the women who do it do.


----------



## knobcreek

Cosmos said:


> Child support isn't about the man or woman. It is about the child and its right to have a roof over its head and food in its stomach. We lost the right to decide whether we will or will not support that child when we CHOSE to have unprotected sex.


The child is 100% the woman's choice, just like sex, insemination, and conception doesn't guarantee a child for a woman, who still has options, it's logically inconsistent to then use the argument that "if you don't want a child don't have sex" against men. Because it can easily be turned on women as an argument against abortion. "don't want a a child don't have sex, no abortion for you". Now I'm all for abortion, too many kids being born to people who shouldn't be procreating.

So unless there's a marriage contract or a contract where both parties mutually decide to support and raise any children due to their coupling, I don't see how forcing men to a lifetime of punishment due to someone else's decision is fair or logically consistent at all. No one is forcing a woman to carry the fetus to term, it's her choice, she should bear that responsibility IMO.

I also think all children should be required to have a DNA test prior to the awarding of any spousal support or child support. An estimated 20% of all children are not the assumed biological fathers in marriages, it's wrong to impose child support on someone in this situation.


----------



## Lila

All I keep thinking when i read MGTOW b.s. is that Pu$$y Power is indeed formidable.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

The only contract regarding child support that I would support would be if the man and woman decide and sign BEFORE conception that any child produced, if brought to term, will not be supported by it's father. At least then they both agree or just decide to not have sex.

There are simply far too many men out there who don't take responsibility for the children they create that making it legal for them to do it would harm too many children. Guess how many Mothers and children end up on welfare or other assistance if the father is allowed to just walk away.
It is not in the child's best interest to only be supported by one parent. The child should come first.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> Marduk, I always enjoy your posts. Polite, and well-thought. And succinct.


 I've been called many things, but not polite! Thanks!


> 1. Marriage's previous "unfairness" doesn't mean it should be unfair today or tomorrow. It's like saying "blacks were slaves once, so whites should be today to make up for it"


From a purely rational perspective, this is true.

The problem is that male chauvinism isn't quite dead yet, and neither is female chauvinism. And that everybody still has a lot of emotional ties to that.


> 2. I do donate and lobby. I also post on some websites and engage people in person also to try to spread the word, and get more people involved. The only way to change this--as I stated earlier--is to stop moaning and waiting for a savior. Take that hill!


Good!


> 3. Indeed. And at the end of the day, I do think the kids should be the focus. And they're not. Or people would focus less on their own selfish desires, fix their marriages, and not divorce. Marriage is good for children. Divorce is terrible for them. Single-parenthood is terrible for them.


Mmm... I think sometimes bad marriages are bad for kids, and single parenting is better. Everything else being equal.


> I can only do so much, I am one man. But if I convince another man or woman to take up the sword, now we're 2. If they convince another, we're 3. That's how this has to change.


That's democracy!


----------



## Cosmos

knobcreek said:


> T*he child is 100% the woman's choice, just like sex, insemination, and conception doesn't guarantee a child for a woman, who still has options, it's logically inconsistent to then use the argument that "if you don't want a child don't have sex" against men. Because it can easily be turned on women as an argument against abortion. "don't want a a child don't have sex, no abortion for you". Now I'm all for abortion, too many kids being born to people who shouldn't be procreating.
> *
> So unless there's a marriage contract or a contract where both parties mutually decide to support and raise any children due to their coupling, I don't see how forcing men to a lifetime of punishment due to someone else's decision is fair or logically consistent at all. No one is forcing a woman to carry the fetus to term, it's her choice, she should bear that responsibility IMO.
> 
> I also think all children should be required to have a DNA test prior to the awarding of any spousal support or child support. An estimated 20% of all children are not the assumed biological fathers in marriages, it's wrong to impose child support on someone in this situation.


I've read some idiotic garbage on TAM, but this really does take the cake. 

If you don't want to end up paying child support, don't make a baby in the first place. Abortion is not a form of contraception and it isn't something most woman can enter into lightly.


----------



## knobcreek

Cosmos said:


> I've read some idiotic garbage on TAM, but this really does take the cake.
> 
> *If you don't want to end up paying child support, don't make a baby in the first place. Simple!*
> 
> EDITED:
> 
> If you don't want to end up paying child support, don't make a baby in the first place. Abortion is not a form of contraception and it isn't something most woman can enter into lightly.


I don't think it's that simple, couldn't that same mantra be used against women?

"If you don't want to have to give birth or pay for child support for the next 20 years, don't make a baby in the first place?"

I'm playing devils advocate here, but I don't see how both are logically consistent, or what's wrong with a woman being accountable for what amounts to her sole choice? Unless, both parties agree to care for children that may come about from their coupling.

There are one million abortions every year in the USA, women are now proudly shouting their abortion via Twitter, I think you're wrong about women not entering into it lightly. It is a form of birth control, as is Plan B. But at the end of the day the woman didn't manage her fertility, and if she decides to bring a child into the world, she should be accountable for the decision that is 100% her own.


----------



## BlackIris

knobcreek said:


> The child is 100% the woman's choice, just like sex, insemination, and conception doesn't guarantee a child for a woman, who still has options, it's logically inconsistent to then use the argument that "if you don't want a child don't have sex" against men. Because it can easily be turned on women as an argument against abortion. "don't want a a child don't have sex, no abortion for you". Now I'm all for abortion, too many kids being born to people who shouldn't be procreating.
> 
> So unless there's a marriage contract or a contract where both parties mutually decide to support and raise any children due to their coupling, I don't see how forcing men to a lifetime of punishment due to someone else's decision is fair or logically consistent at all. No one is forcing a woman to carry the fetus to term, it's her choice, she should bear that responsibility IMO.
> 
> I also think all children should be required to have a DNA test prior to the awarding of any spousal support or child support. An estimated 20% of all children are not the assumed biological fathers in marriages, it's wrong to impose child support on someone in this situation.


I don't know whether this is supposed to be controversial sarcasm or if I should ask "How did you get to our planet?"!


----------



## Cosmos

knobcreek said:


> I don't think it's that simple, *couldn't that same mantra be used against women?*
> *
> "If you don't want to have to give birth or pay for child support for the next 20 years, don't make a baby in the first place?"
> *
> I'm playing devils advocate here, but I don't see how both are logically consistent, or what's wrong with a woman being accountable for what amounts to her sole choice? Unless, both parties agree to care for children that may come about from their coupling.


Absolutely! But most women know this already. The onus of child support doesn't fall on men alone. It is the duty of BOTH parents to support any child they make together.

I'm neither pro nor anti-abortion, but there is no way that it should be used as a form of contraception. Abortion can be a highly traumatic experience for many women, and it just isn't feasible that it could ever become an acceptable form of contraception.



> But at the end of the day the woman didn't manage her fertility, and if she decides to bring a child into the world, she should be accountable for the decision that is 100% her own.


And the man didn't manage his. They're equally responsible. 50% / 50%.


----------



## Marduk

@knobcreek, whether intentional or unintentional, your posts come across as strikingly mysogenistic.

Which isn't doing you a lot of favors, especially when you claim to be trying to be rational.

If that's your intention, you might want to refine your message.


----------



## knobcreek

marduk said:


> @knobcreek, whether intentional or unintentional, your posts come across as strikingly mysogenistic.
> 
> Which isn't doing you a lot of favors, especially when you claim to be trying to be rational.
> 
> If that's your intention, you might want to refine your message.


I don't think you've read most of my posts in this thread to make that determination. I know when JLD is giving me likes "my posts" are not misogynistic. It's a touchy subject and people have problems looking at arguments broken down when each side has such a vested interest in the other. I'm just using logic and don't see how they're being construed as misogynistic.

You know when you're being equated to a radical feminist and a misogynist in the same thread you're doing a good job staying in the middle, using common sense, and playing devil's advocate for each side.

Some of my quotes, yep I"m a real misogynist...



> John's standards are likely way too high, John should lower them a bit and start getting laid and eventually find a nice woman to share time with...
> 
> Don't have sex with an inebriated woman and you don't have to worry about it. Fvcking is a funny thing, it's always the male sticking his thing inside a woman, so we'll always be culpable based on sheer biology and how heterosexual sex works. If a man is passed out he can't be raped by a woman, he can by a man, and if you're passed out drunk and a dude pounds your ass I assume you would have a problem with that, even if both of you bros were drunk.
> 
> hat if we think some laws protecting women are actually beneficial to society? ...
> 
> Look, are some laws biased against men? Of course, those will even out over time and already are, especially as we see some men take more of a role as care-giver. I tend to get a chuckle watching women moan and gripe when a Hollywood celeb has to pay alimony to her husband, or part with millions in a divorce. Welcome to the club I say... But let's not kid ourselves, testosterone is a hell of a hormone, and some men (especially men from violent or abusive households) cannot handle what it does to them, they become violent, possessive, angry, mix that with a heavy dose of misogyny and you get violently deranged sexual deviants...
> 
> Many men, simply can't handle the fact that women are working, doing great things without the need for a man to be protecting them or taking care of them. I think that's where this MGTOW movement comes from, men who have low self-esteem, they can only view their worth to a woman if she's incapable of being independent. A woman who would be with them by choice, and not out of obligation or because she's financially incapable of not being with them terrifies them into isolation, which grows into a hatred of women...
> 
> This is just my theory on something like this. A lot of men have control issues, self-esteem issues, and a woman's independence is scary to them, because they don't see themselves as worthy or suitable for such a woman...


----------



## jld

Okay, going to check which posts of yours I have put "likes" on . . .


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

PDFV1983 said:


> I am married now 2.5 years. Baby on the way. We both work, though I make 5X more but she has pension plan.
> 
> I posted regarding intellectual compatibility previously as a concern of mine (not even sure if it was a legitimate concern) but otherwise I have a strong marriage.
> 
> Few things:
> -We need stop gender wars. There are shortcomings on both sides. I don't view humanity as man vs woman. Every person needs to be judged based on their individual merits.
> -Sites devote to PUA's, MGTOW, etc are extremist in their views. The truth is never that extreme. While marriage is not for everyone, it has many advantages. Just read some of the research articles.
> -There are marriage-quality women out there. I know my wife is one of them. She is 100% dedicated, loyal, honest, low-maintenance, & caring. She has a clean heart with no complexes. I even tell her that if she ever turned out to be different, I would change my name because I would be so extremely shocked. I trust her 100% even on my death bed. I don't even trust myself that much.
> -Yes, divorce laws are biased against men. This must change. In my marriage, I will be the one financially punished upon divorce. The thoughts of such an outcome has given me so much anxiety. It's not fair to the higher earner esp. if his or her success was not dependent on their spouse.
> - Commitment & marriage take a certain amount of depth & maturity. In some ways you have to move beyond primal instincts & materialism. For some, this is unacceptable & impossible. For others, like myself, it is possible with introspection, practice, & deep thinking. And for a few, like my wife, it is a way of life. There are some good books on this topic I would recommend. Some of them are difficult reads:
> - Transformation Through Intimacy The Journey Toward Awakened Monogamy by Robert Augustus Masters
> -Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships by David Schnarch
> -The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman
> -At the end of the day, for me intimacy & children were really important. So I entered marriage. Some of my most anxious times, unfortunately, are when I read websites by PUAs, MGTOWs, etc. These make me question commitment, family-creation, & marriage even though I have a happy life.


2.5 yrs, baby on way?

give us a call in another 5 years when she splits for another bloke or gal, calls you a money&career obsessed oppressor, and all the problems in her life are because she gave everything up to raise _your_ kid, and now she wants 150% of her previous _employed_ income for doing nothing, from you. and will make your life hell to see your own kid.

The "marriage" contract when a child is involved is _very_ one sided.


----------



## knobcreek

jld said:


> Okay, going to check which posts of yours I have put "likes" on . . .


----------



## jld

knobcreek said:


> Don't have sex with an inebriated woman and you don't have to worry about it. Fvcking is a funny thing, it's always the male sticking his thing inside a woman, so we'll always be culpable based on sheer biology and how heterosexual sex works. If a man is passed out he can't be raped by a woman, he can by a man, and if you're passed out drunk and a dude pounds your ass I assume you would have a problem with that, even if both of you bros were drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> Men run high in test, women in estrogen, once women's prisons are filled with tens of thousands of sexually deviant criminals, and our society is filled with potentially millions of sexually predatorial women abusing children and men with rape, strangulation, abuse etc... I'll give you the nod that test has nothing to do with mens behavior. Our violence tamed the jungle no doubt, without it we wouldn't have made it out of the stone age, but it's time to reign it in, some dudes can't.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm MGTOW's and most dudes in the manosphere...
> 
> 
> 
> They should grow a fvcking pair then. All life is risk, nothing ventured nothing gained.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and no one that I can see comes out a winner.


Okay, checked and this is the only post you have made in this thread that I put a like on. 

I think the first two paragraphs in particular deserved a like.


----------



## Kivlor

Heatherknows said:


> ...yeah, OK.
> 
> I stand by my original statement:
> 
> If given a choice no unborn child would choose to be female.


Why wouldn't you want to be a girl? Why do you think no one would, given the choice?

I see no relationship between your statement, and the quoted comment. What bearing do alimony payments from a potential divorce settlement have on wanting to be a girl? If so, that says a lot about you as a person. 

Why do you discount the issues men face like selective service, prison rape, longer prison sentences for same crimes, being expected to silently endure domestic violence, higher rates of being the victim of violent crime, higher rate of being the victim of murder, higher suicide rate, false rape allegations etc?

Only one gender is expected to receive tremendously better treatment and be showered with gifts from the other. Protip: It's not men. 

My point is that it is not a cake-walk regardless of gender. There are some great benefits to being a girl. There's some perks to being a guy too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

spotthedeaddog said:


> 2.5 yrs, baby on way?
> 
> give us a call in another 5 years when she splits for another bloke or gal, calls you a money&career obsessed oppressor, and all the problems in her life are because she gave everything up to raise _your_ kid, and now she wants 150% of her previous _employed_ income for doing nothing, from you. and will make your life hell to see your own kid.
> 
> The "marriage" contract when a child is involved is _very_ one sided.


So are you willing to be the one who stays home, sacrifices career advancement and risks having to start at square 1 in a divorce? (as in min. wage because you're unemployable after being a SAHP for so long) 

If you want the "benefits" of getting the child support and the spouse support ,you need to be the one who does the above and makes that choice.


----------



## Lila

Kivlor said:


> Why wouldn't you want to be a girl? Why do you think no one would, given the choice?
> 
> I see no relationship between your statement, and the quoted comment. What bearing do alimony payments from a potential divorce settlement have on wanting to be a girl? If so, that says a lot about you as a person.
> 
> Why do you discount the issues men face like selective service, prison rape, longer prison sentences for same crimes, being expected to silently endure domestic violence, higher rates of being the victim of violent crime, higher rate of being the victim of murder, higher suicide rate, false rape allegations etc?
> 
> Only one gender is expected to receive tremendously better treatment and be showered with gifts from the other. Protip: It's not men.
> 
> My point is that it is not a cake-walk regardless of gender. There are some great benefits to being a girl. There's some perks to being a guy too.


I'm curious.....what do you think are some of the great 'benefits' to being a girl? From your previous posts, you don't seem to like women, at all.


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> Why do you discount the issues men face like selective service, prison rape, longer prison sentences for same crimes, being expected to silently endure domestic violence, higher rates of being the victim of violent crime, higher rate of being the victim of murder, higher suicide rate, false rape allegations etc?


Selective service will likely change very shortly and women will have to register for the draft and be drafted into the infantry for the next major war that requires it.

As for much of what you wrote men are responsible for the misery it causes other men, most murders of men are by men, all forcible rapes of men are by men, the vast majority of violent crime inflicted on men are by men, etc...
_____________________________

As for not choosing to be a woman, I think a woman's life is a bit easier than a mans, much easier to meet people, people actively engage you, no performance anxiety, tons of scholarships available to you, you make out when it comes to divorce and the criminal justice system, hiring preferences for good STEM jobs. If you're a very attractive woman you literally have to not work for anything to live an amazingly charmed life.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> As for not choosing to be a woman, I think a woman's life is a bit easier than a mans, much easier to meet people, people actively engage you, no performance anxiety, tons of scholarships available to you, you make out when it comes to divorce and the criminal justice system, hiring preferences for good STEM jobs. If you're a very attractive woman you literally have to not work for anything to live an amazingly charmed life.


Ya, I don't experience any of this. I do get/have gotten harassment, violent attacks and/or the threat of violence, rapes, sexism, being judged based on my attractiveness, weight, parenting abilities, sexual past, and just overall misogyny though....


----------



## Lila

knobcreek said:


> A woman's life is a bit easier than a mans, much easier to meet people, people actively engage you, no performance anxiety, tons of scholarships available to you, you make out when it comes to divorce and the criminal justice system, hiring preferences for good STEM jobs. If you're a very attractive woman you literally have to not work for anything to live an amazingly charmed life.


Just goes to show that perception is not always reality.


----------



## Marduk

knobcreek said:


> I don't think you've read most of my posts in this thread to make that determination. I know when JLD is giving me likes "my posts" are not misogynistic. It's a touchy subject and people have problems looking at arguments broken down when each side has such a vested interest in the other. I'm just using logic and don't see how they're being construed as misogynistic.
> 
> You know when you're being equated to a radical feminist and a misogynist in the same thread you're doing a good job staying in the middle, using common sense, and playing devil's advocate for each side.
> 
> Some of my quotes, yep I"m a real misogynist...


#1 I think many of @jld's posts have an anti-woman vibe to them, too.
#2 posting ones where you don't doesn't mean that you don't do them elsewhere.

Listen man, I just want you to think about what you say before you post it becasue the result of some of what you sounds inflammatory and detracts from what you're trying to say... if I could tease out what you're trying to say. Take, for example:



> As for not choosing to be a woman, I think a woman's life is a bit easier than a mans, much easier to meet people, people actively engage you, no performance anxiety, tons of scholarships available to you, you make out when it comes to divorce and the criminal justice system, hiring preferences for good STEM jobs. *If you're a very attractive woman you literally have to not work for anything to live an amazingly charmed life.*


That is strikingly mysogenistic. I know plenty of knockout women who work their assess off and don't take handouts because of their gender or their attractiveness from anybody. And it pretty much invalidates a woman's viewpoint on any struggles they've ever had as a result of their gender or any bias because of that.

Just please... if women are part of who are you are talking to, consider how they will hear you.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> most murders of men are by men, all forcible rapes of men are by men, the vast majority of violent crime inflicted on men are by men, etc...


You know what?

Men are scary.

:surprise:


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So are you willing to be the one who stays home, sacrifices career advancement and risks having to start at square 1 in a divorce? (as in min. wage because you're unemployable after being a SAHP for so long)
> 
> If you want the "benefits" of getting the child support and the spouse support ,you need to be the one who does the above and makes that choice.


You mean, I'd have to stay at home, play with my kids, teach them, clean house and make dinner? That would be my great daily challenge? I'd be _sacrificing _a ton, but I guess I could be persuaded to take a hit for the team. I'm sure it would be difficult at first, to go completely against my male nature to toil all day, then come home and beat my wife and kids, but I believe I could, with great effort, come to be a nurturing parent and spouse. I may even some day stop resenting my wife for my choice of sacrificing work over my kids. /sarcasm 

I would take it in a heartbeat. Most men would. Except not many women want a "deadbeat" for a husband who doesn't pay the bills. In fact, I would bet a sizable amount of money you wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from a man. Not over a decade. Almost no woman would. Imagine if you, or any girl you know, took a guy out on a date--which you're paying for--and then he said "You know, what I really want to do with my life is find a great girl who'll take care of me, while I stay at home and care for the children, take care of the house, grow a garden, and generally support her." Any girl encountering this man would drop him like a hot frying pan.

Get off your high horse. It is *not a sacrifice* to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference. 



Lila said:


> I'm curious.....what do you think are some of the great 'benefits' to being a girl? From your previous posts, you don't seem to like women, at all.


I've named several. So has Tech. Go back through the posts and look. One tremendous example off the top of my head: Predominant Aggressor Laws. No Selective Service--you can vote and don't have to register to die for our country; how quaint! Almost nil chance of being falsely accused of rape. Lower sentences for same crimes. Automatic assumption of primary care for your children. When behind in child support--I know, it's hard to believe any woman has to pay at all--women are drastically less likely to be sent to jail, even though women are drastically more likely to fall behind. 

What about my posts gives the opinion I don't like women?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> You mean, I'd have to stay at home, play with my kids, teach them, clean house and make dinner? That would be my great daily challenge? I'd be _sacrificing _a ton, but I guess I could be persuaded to take a hit for the team. I'm sure it would be difficult at first, to go completely against my male nature to toil all day, then come home and beat my wife and kids, but I believe I could, with great effort, come to be a nurturing parent and spouse. I may even some day stop resenting my wife for my choice of sacrificing work over my kids. /sarcasm
> 
> I would take it in a heartbeat. Most men would. Except not many women want a "deadbeat" for a husband who doesn't pay the bills. In fact, I would bet a sizable amount of money you wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from a man. Not over a decade. Almost no woman would. Imagine if you, or any girl you know, took a guy out on a date--which you're paying for--and then he said "You know, what I really want to do with my life is find a great girl who'll take care of me, while I stay at home and care for the children, take care of the house, grow a garden, and generally support her." Any girl encountering this man would drop him like a hot frying pan.
> 
> Get off your high horse. It is *not a sacrifice* to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference.


I am not a SAHM BTW. I work full time and have no desire to be a SAHM. 

The majority of men do not want to be a SAHD. Some do, some have been able to successfully. Sorry if you have not been able to but do not blame women for that. 

Women who want to be a SAHM typically find a partner who's wants are compatible. They agree before the children are even born that the woman would stay home. 

If a man wants to be a SAHD or wants a woman who also works full time then he should find one that is compatible with that. 

Don't blame women in general if your picker is off and you end up with a woman who you don't agree with, aren't compatible with or even like (by the sounds of it).


----------



## knobcreek

marduk said:


> #1 I think many of @jld's posts have an anti-woman vibe to them, too.
> #2 posting ones where you don't doesn't mean that you don't do them elsewhere.
> 
> Listen man, I just want you to think about what you say before you post it becasue the result of some of what you sounds inflammatory and detracts from what you're trying to say... if I could tease out what you're trying to say. Take, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> That is strikingly mysogenistic. I know plenty of knockout women who work their assess off and don't take handouts because of their gender or their attractiveness from anybody. And it pretty much invalidates a woman's viewpoint on any struggles they've ever had as a result of their gender or any bias because of that.
> 
> Just please... if women are part of who are you are talking to, consider how they will hear you.


This is the men's clubhouse, and I do post with hyperbole or my tongue squarely in my cheek many times. I didn't think anything about what I wrote was at all "strikingly misogynistic" for anyone with even the slightest sense of humor.

Look bro, you're one of these online white knights, looking to make imaginary points with what amounts to imaginary people on the Internet and I get that. Doesn't mean I have to give a flip about what you write "bro"...


----------



## Marduk

knobcreek said:


> This is the men's clubhouse, and I do post with hyperbole or my tongue squarely in my cheek many times. I didn't think anything about what I wrote was at all "strikingly misogynistic" for anyone with even the slightest sense of humor.
> 
> Look bro, you're one of these online white knights, looking to make imaginary points with what amounts to imaginary people on the Internet and I get that. Doesn't mean I have to give a flip about what you write "bro"...


So it was a joke... "bro?"


----------



## knobcreek

marduk said:


> So it was a joke... "bro?"


How about I just put you on ignore and we forget all about this unpleasantness? Feel free to do the same "man", "bro"...


----------



## jld

@marduk

My posts are not "anti-woman." I care very much about the welfare of women and children.

I do not want to see women carrying even more of the load in marriage than I think many already do. And that is sometimes twisted around to mean that I am "anti-woman."

That said, some women are fine with carrying their share of the marital load, and then some. To each her own.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> @marduk
> 
> My posts are not "anti-woman." I care very much about the welfare of women and children.
> 
> I do not want to see women carrying even more of the load in marriage than I think many already do. And that is sometimes twisted around to mean that I am "anti-woman."
> 
> *That said, some women are fine with carrying their share of the marital load*, and then some. To each her own.


You just made my point for me.


----------



## knobcreek

PDFV1983 said:


> Perhaps your context/experience is different than mine. We are all biased based on our life circumstances. I highly doubt my wife will be the type you describe. I have seen lots of good wives/mothers & there is no reason to always be pessimistic.
> 
> I am from Canada, and, yes, courts do favour the lower earner (usually wife), but there are child support/alimony calculators, and things aren't as bad as you paint them. Though I 100% agree divorce is expensive for the higher earner. This needs to change, of course.
> 
> I am sick & tired of seeing so much anger towards the opposite sex on this thread. Honestly, I think if you use common sense and know yourself real well it's unlikely that you will unknowingly commit to a crazy person.


Not for nothing but you don't really have a frame of reference to draw from only 2 years into a marriage and no children. You are in what is commonly called the honeymoon phase still.

You've mentioned several times the fact that you earn much more, and that you're a lot more educated and both kinda bother you a bit, at least that's what I'm getting from your posts at TAM. This will typically amplify as the marriage goes on, especially if you're busy learning languages and going to the opera, and she's binge watching Family Guy on NetFlix.

I'm not nearly as cynical as the other poster, but I'm pretty damn cynical. The majority of marriages will end in divorce, of the remaining 45% or so probably 35% either should end, or the people simply can't afford for it to end. In your case your wife will make out like a bandit with you being a medical doctor, so you have A LOT riding on this, at the first sign of unhappiness your wife knows she can be gone and take basically everything you have and get a new boyfriend. In your case there is no financial restraint to divorce, there is actually a financial benefit to your wife. It's a scary spot to be in, I'm in it too, although likely not as bad as you.

You sound like you got it figured out, you better hope so because making 5-6 times more than your wife, especially when kids come you will be SHOCKED how much the courts take from you each month.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> You just made my point for me.


----------



## Lila

Since you asked....here it is:



Kivlor said:


> Elam claims that we function better in separate work spaces, which is another truism. The fight over male-only spaces has been fought for centuries; it's nothing new.
> 
> *Feel free to keep tilting at your windmills though*. :grin2:


Although there were several male posters that disagreed with your position, you seemed to direct the belittling remarks like "tilting at windmills" solely towards the female posters. These types of remarks show a lack of respect for the other person's position. The fact that they were directed solely at the females is telling.



Kivlor said:


> In my opinion--and everyone here can hate me for it all they want--most of MGTOW's complaints are resolved by simply *reminding women whenever they get out of line, that they're overstepping or flat out wrong*. Most men are too scared of the other sex. Instead of opting out of society / sex completely, refuse to tolerate specifics and encourage more men to do so.
> 
> If a woman wants to claim "women are just as strong as men" point how wrong she is--politely, not nastily. (*A favorite of mine is "I think it's adorable you think that.*") They are the "fairer" sex for a reason.
> 
> [....snip] *Put them in their place. *


Again, belittling a women's feelings is not indicative of someone who appreciates them. Comments like 'get out of line' and 'put them back in their place' implies superiority. It implies little value or regard for the other person.

Techmom said "This is what I gather from reading the articles on their web site, they don't like women. They think traditional women want to subject them to a life of servitude, they don't like so-called modern women, they don't like sahm's, they don't like "supportive" women, they don't like "easy", etc., etc. They don't trust any word coming out of a female's mouth, any actions, any concerns, anything at all."

To which you agreed, then proceeded to blame women for breeding that hate (see your last sentence in the post below). Then you encouraged women to 'engage them'. Why would you encourage a woman to engage these men knowing full well they absolutely detest women? Not something a man who actually liked women would recommend.



Kivlor said:


> Yes, one of the conclusions many MGTOW come to is that women cannot be trusted in an intimate fashion. What is terrible, is that so many people refuse to engage them with any level of politeness. This compounds the problem.
> 
> *My advice to women is, when you meet men like this, engage them with civility.* The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. *Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW*.
> 
> *MGTOW is the end of result--and death throes--of an abundant society, and ignoring them / shaming them is only going to spread this social ill.*


Here's my last example.....Technovelist stated ""The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. The average young woman today is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts." to which you agreed was the norm for most women. The site limited the number of posts I could repost or I would have included your response verbatim. This is an incredibly negative view of women and one that is the exclusion not the norm. He!! I wouldn't like to be around other women if they behaved this way. Luckily they don't but you've painted all women with the same brush. If you see women in such a negative light, it's no wonder you really don't like them.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I am not a SAHM BTW. I work full time and have no desire to be a SAHM.
> 
> The majority of men do not want to be a SAHD. Some do, some have been able to successfully. Sorry if you have not been able to but do not blame women for that.
> 
> Women who want to be a SAHM typically find a partner who's wants are compatible. They agree before the children are even born that the woman would stay home.
> 
> If a man wants to be a SAHD or wants a woman who also works full time then he should find one that is compatible with that.
> 
> Don't blame women in general if your picker is off and you end up with a woman who you don't agree with, aren't compatible with or even like (by the sounds of it).


I'm not trying to place blame. I am pointing out reality. Be honest with me, and think on the above man I described, having that discussion with you, or any girl you know. It's not_ my _picker that's broken--at least not in this issue lol. In fact, any girl dating the man I have described would be constantly assailed about how _her picker_ is broken. And he'd be constantly derided about being lazy. I'd bet a cool grand you would be one of them, talking him down. Almost everyone would. And that's okay. It's life. 

Are you sure most men would not be a SAHD if they thought it was an option? I bet a ton would if they thought A) Their wife would support it and never view it with contempt B) Their wife's friends, coworkers and family wouldn't "poison the well" when they're not around C) Their wife could earn as much as they could and D) It would make their wife happy.

Men have to strike a compromise: what they want to be, what the think their wife wants them to be, what society wants them to be and what they think their family needs them to be. 

You asked if I would be a SAHD? I answered yes. I'm not sorry I won't be a SAHD. It's not pitiable. It's life. Most women will never bring home close to what I do, so I'll end up working. Almost no woman would support such a relationship. I am the man I _need_ to be, not the man I _want_ to be. That's called adulthood.

I will restate what I have been trying to get at:

It is not a *sacrifice *to stay at home and take care of one's children. It is a choice; a luxury. It is trading toil for play, labor for leisure, and I think it is great that so many people can do it; but it is not a sacrifice. 

Before everyone starts going off on that last statement: play can be exhausting, and sweaty, and difficult. Just because it is play doesn't mean it isn't challenging or fulfilling.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor- Do you think it's just as easy for a woman to support herself after 10+ years of unemployment as it is for a woman to have worked and built a career in that time? Is it for a man? Because losing potential income, losing those years to advance and develop your career is exactly the reason why the men I know don't want to do it. 

The parent who does it is _sacrificing _career building years for parenting. It's a perfectly acceptable choice for a couple to make but it has it's cons, it has it's risks for both people, as does every choice.

One of the cons and risks for the couple is that spousal support and/or higher child support will be needed to get the SAHP on her/his feet after so many years of not being employed. it's a risk YOU as the working parent accept when you make this choice. You don't get to b*tch about it later if you actually have to do it.


----------



## Marduk

@Kivlor, is it a sacrifice to go to work to provide for your family?

I don't think so.


----------



## Kivlor

Lila said:


> Since you asked....here it is:
> 
> Although there were several male posters that disagreed with your position, you seemed to direct the belittling remarks like "tilting at windmills" solely towards the female posters. These types of remarks show a lack of respect for the other person's position. The fact that they were directed solely at the females is telling.


J'accuse! 
It may be a little difficult to understand, but telling someone they're tilting at windmills, when in fact, they are tilting at windmills is not exactly a personal attack. I don't have to "respect" fallacious arguments, nor do you. I was actually pretty polite. I didn't call her names, I didn't say anything particularly mean. Maybe you would like to stipulate the veracity of my accusation instead? 



Lila said:


> Again, belittling a women's feelings is not indicative of someone who appreciates them. Comments like 'get out of line' and 'put them back in their place' implies superiority. It implies little value or regard for the other person.


This may be another difficult concept for you, but belittling a woman's feelings is not belittling all women's feelings. It indicates I don't care for her feelings, just like I don't at this moment care for yours. Moreover, I didn't belittle her feelings, I belittled her argument. 

Let me break down this post--which most women had no trouble understanding: Sometimes women get out of line. Most men are too scared to let them know and put them in order. They aren't scared to tell another man when he oversteps his bounds or set him straight. Men need to learn to tell women when they are out of line. I even gave an example: most women think they can hit a guy and get away with it. If a woman hits you, you should lay her flat. End of story. We treat women gently because we choose to. Because we like women. We don't have to.



Lila said:


> Techmom said "This is what I gather from reading the articles on their web site, they don't like women. They think traditional women want to subject them to a life of servitude, they don't like so-called modern women, they don't like sahm's, they don't like "supportive" women, they don't like "easy", etc., etc. They don't trust any word coming out of a female's mouth, any actions, any concerns, anything at all."
> 
> To which you agreed, then proceeded to blame women for breeding that hate (see your last sentence in the post below). Then you encouraged women to 'engage them'. Why would you encourage a woman to engage these men knowing full well they absolutely detest women? Not something a man who actually liked women would recommend.


I blamed _some_ women for contributing to the growth of MGTOW. Men are spreading this on their own now, but many women's actions serve as the impetus. Are you completely denying these men's experiences? How about mine? I asked women to consider whether or not they are contributing to the growth of this movement. I implored women to treat them like people, to engage them in civil discussion. 

I was asking people such as yourself to, when you meet these folks in person, with all civility prove to them they are mistaken for the betterment of society. But you take this as an attack on all females everywhere. I didn't ask anything but civility and a desire to make society better which you have declared too much. How sad and small a person you must be. 



Lila said:


> Here's my last example.....Technovelist stated ""The women they encounter demand attention, loyalty, resources and undue privilege, while offering very little in return. The natural hypergamous nature that once served them well in their quest to secure the best possible mate is now a sustained lifestyle bringing an endless pursuit of bigger and better. The average young woman today is less concerned about the number of quality men who would commit to her than she is about the number of men who retweet a photo of her breasts." to which you agreed was the norm for most women. The site limited the number of posts I could repost or I would have included your response verbatim. This is an incredibly negative view of women and one that is the exclusion not the norm. He!! I wouldn't like to be around other women if they behaved this way. Luckily they don't but you've painted all women with the same brush. If you see women in such a negative light, it's no wonder you really don't like them.


I can't find this particular response of mine, please link it. I've yet to see once where I "painted all women with the same brush". Please, link to that while you're at it. 

You too, like a previous poster, may be tilting at windmills as well :wink2:


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> @Kivlor, is it a sacrifice to go to work to provide for your family?
> 
> I don't think so.


I'll agree, it's not a sacrifice. It's a choice and a duty. Let's not make it out to be something it's not.


----------



## Lila

Kivlor said:


> J'accuse!
> It may be a little difficult to understand, but telling someone they're tilting at windmills, when in fact, they are tilting at windmills is not exactly a personal attack. I don't have to "respect" fallacious arguments, nor do you. I was actually pretty polite. I didn't call her names, I didn't say anything particularly mean. Maybe you would like to stipulate the veracity of my accusation instead?


Tilting at windmills was just one example of the belittling comments. Here's a few more...

-


Kivlor said:


> *Get off your high horse.* It is not a sacrifice to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference.


-


Kivlor said:


> 4. I think it is absolutely hilarious that you attribute the minor successes of men in gaining CUSTODY of their children to feminism, and not to the MEN--like my father and many others--who fought endlessly, spending fortunes just to see their children. Feminism has accomplished nothing. *You're hilarious darlin*.


-


Kivlor said:


> *The more that women like techmom screech at men *about how deficient they are, the more men will look to other avenues to get sexual release and appealing social interaction. And then we will die out as a culture. And we will have deserved it.





Kivlor said:


> This may be another difficult concept for you, but belittling a woman's feelings is not belittling all women's feelings. It indicates I don't care for her feelings, just like I don't at this moment care for yours. Moreover, I didn't belittle her feelings, I belittled her argument.


Bless your heart. You know, It just occurred to me who you remind me of with your comments. 



Kivlor said:


> I blamed _some_ women for contributing to the growth of MGTOW. Men are spreading this on their own now, but many women's actions serve as the impetus. Are you completely denying these men's experiences? How about mine? I asked women to consider whether or not they are contributing to the growth of this movement. I implored women to treat them like people, to engage them in civil discussion.
> 
> I was asking people such as yourself to, when you meet these folks in person, with all civility prove to them they are mistaken for the betterment of society. But you take this as an attack on all females everywhere. I didn't ask anything but civility and a desire to make society better which you have declared too much. How sad and small a person you must be.


I for one don't feel that I have anything to prove to these people. I will always be open to meeting someone new but will never engage anyone civilly of not who fails to respect me. I will respond in kind. Show me hate, and all you'll get from me is disinterest. Show me kindness, and I'll will show you graciousness.



Kivlor said:


> I can't find this particular response of mine, please link it. I've yet to see once where I "painted all women with the same brush". Please, link to that while you're at it.


Here you go.

-


Kivlor said:


> The statement you quoted is true of a large number of women. Most men would be wise to understand it before interacting with any woman in an intimate way.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> I'll agree, it's not a sacrifice. It's a choice and a duty. Let's not make it out to be something it's not.


So why is that your focus for stay at home moms?


----------



## techmom

Well, sounds like guys in the mgtow and their sympathizers need to read this and see which category they fit...

The 11 Differences Between Dating a Boy vs a Man - JustMyTypeMag

You get what you dish out, bottom line. Most guys who are insecure in their attractiveness and doubt their ability to pull women with anything else besides money will always cry foul when that is the only type of women they pull.

If you want to attract bees, you use honey, not a slab of beef. Thus, if you want to attract a confident, independent woman who makes her own money and is hard working, then present yourself as the type of man who doesn't need a woman hanging on you, constantly validating you, and needy.

If you are the type of man who is not confident, and needs validation of your masculinity, then guess what? You are going to pull the dependent, "take 'em to the cleaners", lay around, feed the ego type of woman. This type will tire of your constant neediness and start to withdraw, refuse sex, and act like a general b!tch 10, 15, 20 years in.

Got it?

Blaming the entire female population is wrong and unfounded. You guys describe the type of women I avoid, because I surround myself with women who have goals in life. If a relationship comes along, fine, but they don't lean and smother him. And using him as a human ATM is totally below our standards, because we have our own, thanks very much>

Capiche?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

techmom said:


> You get what you dish out, bottom line. Most guys who are insecure in their attractiveness and doubt their ability to pull women with anything else besides money will always cry foul when that is the only type of women they pull.


This is absolutely spot on. Your entire post and it's the same with women who only end up with jerks and users. 
They can sit and b*tch about how all men are jerks and users or they can look at what is wrong with their picker and themselves that is putting them with these types of men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ladies, I think these guys who want to discuss this in such a frenzy are simply on the fringe and therefore, will not stop chewing that bone as long as anyone is engaging them.

I think the majority (by a HUGE percentage) of the men at TAM think the whole MRA/PUA/RP/MGTOW stuff is nonsense, silly, or worse. I think most men at TAM love their wives and are not misogynists. I also think some of them can relate to feeling lonely or unloved at one time or another in their lives (or now), and so they have some empathy for the dudes who end up on the fringe...but by and large, they think these guys are weird losers just like we think they are. None of the decent men at TAM would want their daughter to date any of the creeps who are on the fringe of these internet "movements".

The men posting here who do want promote this fringe crap say the same things, in every post on this subject. They have all had their say. The majority of other posters, including the men, don't agree with them. There used to be a lot more of these fringers at TAM. Most of them have been banned. They still try to infiltrate and post their same fringe crap now and then on these threads, but it is becoming less and less all the time.

I think TAM has improved a lot in this way.


----------



## techmom

PDFV1983 said:


> As a man, I agree with your statement that these men are "fringers". All of MRA/PUA/RP/MGTOW stuff are extremist viewpoints, which, I, as a modern man, could never incorporate into my life.
> 
> However, I don't think it's appropriate to ban members because of their viewpoints. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I find it a much better option to hold healthy debates about these topics.


FYI, a poster is banned if he or she posts personal attacks against another poster. If you disagree with a person's viewpoint, fine, I can go all day. Personal attacks are not tolerated.


----------



## knobcreek

PDFV1983 said:


> I see your point re: honeymoon. However, we dated for 4 years & live together for 3 years before we got married. So we've now been together for 6 years total. Honeymoon, at most, lasts 2 years in a relationship.


The time you spent living together is totally irrelevant, with marriage and kids everything changes. I could be wrong, but I think divorce rates are higher with cohabitating couples.



PDFV1983 said:


> Also, my wife has been "stress-tested":
> -Unfortunate unexplained infertility with IVF. Now a baby soon. She held it together like a goddess. Never once did she break down & lose hope. *Not even when I lost my **** & told her that the infertility is her problem & I wasn't sure if I was gonna stick around. Even with me being a total a**hole*, she rode out the storm.


That's ****ty dude, she will hold onto that forever, don't let that fester or she'll be throwing it in your face when the marriage is breaking down 10 years from now. Get in front of that, it could become a real issue. Saying stuff like that sucks, because you can never pull a re-do and be there for her the way you need to. I'm guilty of doing things I regret and I've learned that women never forget or forgive, they just don't.



PDFV1983 said:


> -We went from earning just over >$100K/year to now >$500K. Guess what? 75% of our earning are going into savings/investments. She hasn't asked for a single expensive item. She shops at Walmart & H&M, while other doc's wives are spending $1000's at luxury shops.


My wife and I married at 19 and 22 respectively, I was making 18K a year as a Corporal in the Marines and qualified for WIC. Today I make 15 times that, money doesn't really make things easier, it makes it harder in many ways, especially when you're making all the money. We have no savings, I had a sex offender move in next door so took on a second home and mortgage to get my family away from him, if you're putting 75% of 500K away yearly good on ya.



PDFV1983 said:


> -To this day & during this pregnancy, she wakes up every morning to make me breakfast & pack my lunch. This is even when she's nauseated/sick & going to work herself.


Tomorrow you need to make her breakfast and lunch, in fact she basically gets nothing but a life of leisure and no stress for a year when she's carrying your child. Foot massages and you telling her how she's glowing should be a daily occurrence.



PDFV1983 said:


> I know it's scary to get married. There is a lot at stake. But there are good people out there. And, no sir, I don't agree that my wife will suddenly change overnight after a child is born. She puts our marriage first.


Kid isn't born yet, once the kid comes you'll be secondary or tertiary (if you're lucky) on her concern list. You'll need to adjust to that.



PDFV1983 said:


> Your divorce statistics are incorrect. I do, however, agree with you that many marriages end in divorce. Marriage & commitment are hard work I walk around the hospital chatting with female workers all the time. If I wanted to sleep or date crap loads of them, I could. In fact, I could have not married my wife & become a player boy instead. But, I didn't. And, no, I wasn't manipulated or tricked into marriage. It was a choice.


We all can be players, but for some reason we opt for marriage, whether my divorce stats were off by 5% or 2% is irrelevant, point remains the same, most marriages fail miserably even if slightly greater than half survive. Not divorcing doesn't equal a successful marriage.


----------



## bfree

I love my wife. I hope I'd never be thought of as a misogynist. I don't think those men are weird losers. I'm actually kinda sad that any man or woman would feel so disenfranchised that they would voluntarily withdraw from society. I think that the large growing group of "grass fed boys" in Japan is pitiable. I think it's tragic that the men in the mgtow and mra groups feel so put upon that they need to band together. I also feel it's a shame that feminism is still needed or desired at all in modern society. The human race has made such strides but sometimes it feels as if we haven't improved at all.


----------



## Kivlor

techmom said:


> Again, in my personal experience with people I know, none of the women wanted to take the man to the cleaners or withhold sex. If she was a SAHM and she became one as a result of a mutual decision between her and her husband in order to save money on child care, then had to place her career on hold, then I would understand child support and alimony.
> 
> But it seems to me that some men appreciate having the wife at home caring for the children when the relationship is good, but when things go sour they want to be able to just split without taking into consideration the sacrifice the wife made in postponing her career. Now that more men are making that sacrifice, we hope this would increase understanding of this aspect of divorce. It is not fair to cry foul when you were reaping the benefits while married, because if the wife keeps her career while child rearing the circumstances would be much tougher in terms of child care and work/life balance.





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I for one am happy that women are allowed in the work force if they choose so we don't have to be dependent on men. Thank goodness for feminists.
> 
> I do agree that divorce and custody laws have not caught up as quickly as they should have but many places are now realizing that custody should be 50/50 as a default and spousal support only gets awarded if the couple had one parent sacrifice their career for their family.
> 
> Child support itself is not a woman's benefit. Whoever makes more pays. It doesn't matter if you are male or female. The child's best interest is all that matters.
> In many cases the amount a parent gets doesn't even cover half the child's expenses. Those little buggers are expensive.
> 
> If a man wants to put himself in a position to get spousal support and child support, he will have to first sacrifice years of his career to stay home and raise the babies, clean the house, while his wife goes to work. In the event of a divorce they will be starting with a beginner job that won't even make ends meet when trying to maintain some kind of stability in the life of his children.
> When he does all this, he will be awarded SS and CS just like the women who do it do.





SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> So are you willing to be the one who stays home, sacrifices career advancement and risks having to start at square 1 in a divorce? (as in min. wage because you're unemployable after being a SAHP for so long)
> 
> If you want the "benefits" of getting the child support and the spouse support ,you need to be the one who does the above and makes that choice.





marduk said:


> *So why is that your focus for stay at home moms?*


I was zeroed in on the above theme, from Slowly, who I was engaging, as well as Techmom. They wanted it to be viewed as a "sacrifice"; I'm merely disputing. They appear to me to be pandering for people to view this act as a noble, selfless act deserving of additional compensation that isn't. But, I'm done with it unless someone's wanting to really argue this point. No sense beating a dead horse.


----------



## tom67

bfree said:


> I love my wife. I hope I'd never be thought of as a misogynist. I don't think those men are weird losers. I'm actually kinda sad that any man or woman would feel so disenfranchised that they would voluntarily withdraw from society. I think that the large growing group of "grass fed boys" in Japan is pitiable. I think it's tragic that the men in the mgtow and mra groups feel so put upon that they need to band together. I also feel it's a shame that feminism is still needed or desired at all in modern society. The human race has made such strides but sometimes it feels as if we haven't improved at all.


bfree love the shades:smile2:


----------



## Kivlor

Lila said:


> Tilting at windmills was just one example of the belittling comments. Here's a few more...
> 
> -Quote:
> Get off your high horse. It is not a sacrifice to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference.
> 
> -Quote:
> 4. I think it is absolutely hilarious that you attribute the minor successes of men in gaining CUSTODY of their children to feminism, and not to the MEN--like my father and many others--who fought endlessly, spending fortunes just to see their children. Feminism has accomplished nothing. You're hilarious darlin.
> 
> -Quote:
> The more that women like techmom screech at men about how deficient they are, the more men will look to other avenues to get sexual release and appealing social interaction. And then we will die out as a culture. And we will have deserved it.
> 
> Quote:
> This may be another difficult concept for you, but belittling a woman's feelings is not belittling all women's feelings. It indicates I don't care for her feelings, just like I don't at this moment care for yours. Moreover, I didn't belittle her feelings, I belittled her argument.
> 
> Bless your heart. You know, It just occurred to me who you remind me of with your comments.
> 
> I for one don't feel that I have anything to prove to these people. I will always be open to meeting someone new but will never engage anyone civilly of not who fails to respect me. I will respond in kind. Show me hate, and all you'll get from me is disinterest. Show me kindness, and I'll will show you graciousness.
> 
> Here you go.
> 
> -The statement you quoted is true of a large number of women. Most men would be wise to understand it before interacting with any woman in an intimate way.


I stand by my first statement. Trying to act as if it somehow more noble to be a SAHP, and that they deserve extra compensation beyond half of everything in a divorce. Someone is acting a little sanctimonious with words like "sacrifice".

The second and third were part of the same post, aimed at a specific female poster, who was literally attributing all things good to feminism and all things bad to masculinity. I certainly made fun of it; she and people like that should be mocked. I also took it a little personal due to personal experience in child custody. You're free to make fun of me if you like. I'd actually probably laugh at it. And if I ever promoted the opposite, preaching the evils of "toxic femininity" and the "oppression" of the "matriarchy" you should take it to me. I'd deserve it.

I see nothing incorrect in the fourth post. I stand by it. Techmom has played her hand. And people who talk about men / masculinity the way she does only assist the growth of groups like MGTOW. 

The fifth was aimed at you, particularly because I get tired of the whole "You just hate women" line. And it was a little tongue-in-cheek. Probably poor taste in retrospect. Would you like an apology? I am sorry.

Bless my heart, who do I remind you of? You're not the first person who has accused me of having another pseudonym on this site.

RE: my call for civility, you have taken this far too personally. I didn't mean to personally prove you are better. It's not about you. Read back to my first posts. I've been open and clear in my position: MGTOW is the end of society. If we do not engage these men, politely, and work to show them they are mistaken, it will spread like a cancer and our culture will die out. If we treat them horribly, and endlessly mock them, we will prove them right, and give them ammunition. The only way is to kill them with kindness. 

I know, it's too much to ask. Not of you, but of people in general. To think several moves ahead in the game is beyond most. Not due to lack of intellect, rather lack of interest. 

RE: The last quote: I was looking for that. And I stand by it. "Many women are like that" is not painting all women with a broad brush. I pointed out that men should be aware of these kinds of women, so they will try not to involve themselves with them. I was advising caution and awareness, not fear.

Like a parent advising her daughter not to date men who beat her. Do they exist? Yup. Are there a lot of them? Probably. Should she be aware? Yup. Do they make up all men? Nope. Should she not date men ever? That's going too far. 

I'm going to note, I _think_ mostly it has been women who have engaged me in rhetoric here. In fact, the only guy I can think of is Marduk. He's been pretty tame and not accusatory. Maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

MGTOW is the end of society.

MGTOW will never be anything more than a minority of men because most men do not believe the garbage. 
Some don't care to even read it, others laugh at it, make fun of it, think they should "grow some [email protected]". 
That is how these MGTOW types look to a lot of men. It's made fun of, looked down on. It's not viewed as noble or strong. It's seen as sad and pathetic. 
But even the ones who don't feel strongly either way, men who are confident in themselves _don't follow_ these types of men. If they get hurt, they pick themselves up and move on, not sink into a pity party. It just doesn't appeal to them to sit and sulk. 
A few will join the MGTOW ranks but most will not. 

There will always be enough good men out there for women to find a good match and there will always be enough good women out there for the men who want them.

MGTOW scares no one. Not a single woman is upset that these men are off the market. We don't want them anyway and we're glad we didn't waste our time going through them and now the men who do want relationships are easier to find- win for everyone still on the market. 

Any man who wants to take himself off the market because he doesn't like women, can't get the ones he wants, or feels he is at an unfair playing field by being with one- should. 

The rest of us will thank you.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> MGTOW is the end of society.
> 
> MGTOW will never be anything more than a minority of men because most men do not believe the garbage.
> Some don't care to even read it, others laugh at it, make fun of it, think they should "grow some [email protected]".
> That is how these MGTOW types look to a lot of men. It's made fun of, looked down on. It's not viewed as noble or strong. It's seen as sad and pathetic.
> But even the ones who don't feel strongly either way, men who are confident in themselves _don't follow_ these types of men. If they get hurt, they pick themselves up and move on, not sink into a pity party. It just doesn't appeal to them to sit and sulk.
> A few will join the MGTOW ranks but most will not.
> 
> There will always be enough good men out there for women to find a good match and there will always be enough good women out there for the men who want them.
> 
> MGTOW scares no one. Not a single woman is upset that these men are off the market. We don't want them anyway and we're glad we didn't waste our time going through them and now the men who do want relationships are easier to find- win for everyone still on the market.
> 
> Any man who wants to take himself off the market because he doesn't like women, can't get the ones he wants, or feels he is at an unfair playing field by being with one- should.
> 
> The rest of us will thank you.


And yet you keep coming here to discuss them. I think they bother you more than you want to let on. 

If you disagree with my analysis, fine. At least take the time to read and think on John Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment. Don't just make snap judgments.

Today nihilism, moral and cultural relativism are popular and growing, and are pushed by many vocal feminists as well as many others. The women deriding these men are the same ones claiming "toxic masculinity" and seeking to abolish gender roles and norms.

Your entire argument is "men will be too ashamed to do that" yet there is a tremendous movement to abolish this "shame". If morals are relative, there is no nobility; and if there are no gender roles your shame tactics will fail. It will not be contained for long. A few more generations perhaps? 

But then, who cares right? It won't be you dealing with this, it will be your granddaughters and great granddaughters. Their problem, not ours.


----------



## Cosmos

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There will always be enough good men out there for women to find a good match and there will always be enough good women out there for the men who want them.
> 
> MGTOW scares no one. Not a single woman is upset that these men are off the market. We don't want them anyway and we're glad we didn't waste our time going through them and now the men who do want relationships are easier to find- win for everyone still on the market.
> 
> Any man who wants to take himself off the market because he doesn't like women, can't get the ones he wants, or feels he is at an unfair playing field by being with one- should.
> 
> The rest of us will thank you.


Well said!

From what I've read about the followers of MGTOW, their self-removal from the gene pool is probably a very positive thing. They simply cannot cope with the changes that have taken place in society and their primitive instinct is to degrade and destroy it, rather than work with it and adapt.



> _The modern human species came into existence with strong social instincts. These were a legacy from two million years of **** erectus and **** habilis. They in turn had inherited a prior two million years of herd/tribal cultural living from prior hominid species. Hominid cultures are, have been, and always will be driven by those strong social instincts.
> 
> There is no conflict between intellect and instinct when intellect is applied to mechanical problems, but there is conflict between intellect and instinct when intellect is applied in the social sphere. For intellect to work in human culture it must control individual social instinct. If intellect is to contribute to culture it must augment some instincts and diminish the effects of others. Individual behavior within a culture becomes controlled by the application of intellect over the community rather than relying on the individual to instinctively behave in the right manner.As it does so, it negates the influence of instinct on the culture.
> 
> Evolution degenerates characteristics not screened by the environment. If instincts are controlled by intellect, they no longer need to breed true, since the intellect will dictate proper behavior. The originally strong social instincts will, in time, become degenerate and perverted. As these instincts degenerate, it becomes more and more necessary to enforce community rules for proper behavior. The evolutionary spiral continues to develop more and more perverted instinctive behaviors as stronger and stronger offsetting enforcement measures are required to obtain an orderly community. These stronger behavioral enforcement measures will continue to grow, while the individuals in the community develop less and less tolerance, until a point is reached when the individuals in the community rebel. At that point the intellectual restraints are no longer effective, the now perverted and degenerate social instincts are allowed full sway, and the society teeters on the brink of collapse. If it should collapse, the human, now with distorted social instincts, would be unable to survive.
> 
> Evolution is Now Degenerating the Human. _


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only contract regarding child support that I would support would be if the man and woman decide and sign BEFORE conception that any child produced, if brought to term, will not be supported by it's father. At least then they both agree or just decide to not have sex.


I would be fine with this solution, on the condition that courts would uphold such a contract.

They won't, therefore it is not a valid solution.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> You mean, I'd have to stay at home, play with my kids, teach them, clean house and make dinner? That would be my great daily challenge? I'd be _sacrificing _a ton, but I guess I could be persuaded to take a hit for the team. I'm sure it would be difficult at first, to go completely against my male nature to toil all day, then come home and beat my wife and kids, but I believe I could, with great effort, come to be a nurturing parent and spouse. I may even some day stop resenting my wife for my choice of sacrificing work over my kids. /sarcasm
> 
> I would take it in a heartbeat. Most men would. Except not many women want a "deadbeat" for a husband who doesn't pay the bills. In fact, I would bet a sizable amount of money you wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from a man. Not over a decade. Almost no woman would. Imagine if you, or any girl you know, took a guy out on a date--which you're paying for--and then he said "You know, what I really want to do with my life is find a great girl who'll take care of me, while I stay at home and care for the children, take care of the house, grow a garden, and generally support her." Any girl encountering this man would drop him like a hot frying pan.
> 
> Get off your high horse. It is *not a sacrifice* to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference.
> 
> 
> 
> I've named several. So has Tech. Go back through the posts and look. One tremendous example off the top of my head: Predominant Aggressor Laws. No Selective Service--you can vote and don't have to register to die for our country; how quaint! Almost nil chance of being falsely accused of rape. Lower sentences for same crimes. Automatic assumption of primary care for your children. When behind in child support--I know, it's hard to believe any woman has to pay at all--women are drastically less likely to be sent to jail, even though women are drastically more likely to fall behind.
> 
> What about my posts gives the opinion I don't like women?


I can answer that last question. Anyone who points out all the advantages that women have in this society is trying to stop women from playing the victim card. So obviously he doesn't like women.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

No, it's insulting to every man in my life to think an of them are or could ever be like this and because the strong, wonderful men I know are raising strong, wonderful sons they will continue to roll their eyes at this kind of garbage and live happy lives with strong, wonderful women- that they can get because they have the confidence and ability to attract them. 

There will always be men who don't have either and they will have their little group but society will never be in danger of losing our good men because the good men just don't fall for this junk and it's not out of shame, it's because they are good enough that they don't need to "opt out" They can find good women, they can be attractive to women. Being single and whiny doesn't appeal to them. They are strong, confident, they raise amazing sons and daughters to follow in their steps. 

The only men who will end up like this weren't the ones we wanted or the ones who could get a good woman anyway. They aren't a factor, losing them changes nothing. It's like when a show you never watched or cared to watch gets canceled. You just don't notice. 

But don't insult men by saying that many of them will become weak and pouty and stomp their feet away from the big, bad women who keep exploiting them to "opt out" of dating. (LOL try telling that to any man I know) 
I'm raising a son and I sure as heck have a better view of him than you seem to have of most men. He's a lot better than this, always will be and so will the vast majority of men.

You may think that your ideas are anti-women and pro-men but this whole thing is more insulting to men than anyone.


----------



## Cosmos

You make a child, you have a JOINT responsibility to support that child. It isn't up to others to take responsibility for our choices or take care of the messes we make.

Here's a really novel idea, folks:-


----------



## Ripper

Most recent image I could easily find showing how MGTOW is trending (at least on Google). It continued to climb into this year when it took a slight dip. It is also primary focused in the "Western" world.










Regardless of what anyone thinks or the barrage of shaming tactics thrown at it, this appears to be the trend for the immediate future. Will the rest of the western world begin to look like Japan and their "herbivores"? Probably, if nothing changes.

I'm in the "just watch it burn" period of my life, otherwise I would be more concerned. A large number of idle, disaffected young men is the primary ingredient in a number of destructive recipes. 



Kivlor said:


> And yet you keep coming here to discuss them. *I think they bother you more than you want to let on.*


Obviously. The reasons why would make for an interesting thread in and of itself. Seems like an awful lot of effort for a bunch of "pathetic, misogynistic losers" who have walked off the field. Still the lengthy vitriolic filled posts are highly entertaining. Literally every single "shaming tactic" has been deployed. You can check:

https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

Somewhat disappointing actually. I was hoping for a few new ones.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Ripper said:


> Obviously. The reasons why would make for an interesting thread in and of itself. Seems like an awful lot of effort for a bunch of "pathetic, misogynistic losers" who have walked off the field.


1. I like to debate
2. I like to stand against this kind of thinking towards men and woman. 
3. I read my H these kinds of threads and we can bond over them because we both feel the same way. His feelings about this is attractive to me so the more I read and participate in threads like this, the more I want and appreciate my husband. It's good for our marriage . 

So why continue on your side? 
If the men are done, be done. Why continue to b*tch about it?

Have you ever been part of a TV show forum? I have, I read imdb forums a lot. There are always the posters who get all pissy about the show and make all the "that's it! I am never, ever watching again" threads to get attention. But they don't actually stop watching, they just complain over and over again, week after week. 

No one is making them watch. No one is making these guys get back in the game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was a good article.

This Group of Straight Men Is Swearing Off Women | VICE | United States

With this nice little snippet:

The "manosphere" snake is starting to eat itself.


----------



## Satya

I'd just like to take a moment to address the *mods* that may be watching, along with any posters starting to get a bit heated. 

I ask all to please weigh the civility demonstrated by some in this thread as it continues to mature. There have been bans to some past members that have not played by the rules, but their stance is nonetheless valid just like anyone else's in a community forum. It takes all sorts in this world.

My SO got permabanned because he wanted to push the boundaries of this forum's etiquette to speak his mind. He had it coming as I tried to warn him, but he's also his own person and capable of exacting his own choices and having the consequences dished. Some posters of TAM did not like him, which was entirely their choice, and no doubt they were thrilled to see him gone. I use him as an example of a poster going "against" what has slowly and surely become the broader grain of TAM. 

I for one miss many posters that are no longer with us and have left or been removed since my joining, even if I staunchly disagreed with their ideals and arguments, including those of my own SO. In many cases, I have learned to appreciate different viewpoints because of their contributions. Again, these posters did not play by the rules and I'm very capable of respecting why such rules exist and why they are executed. I believe those who would attempt to bait and incite are equally guilty but I am not a mod. 

I see where this thread is headed, in the same direction other threads of the same ilk have come and gone. There's a definite pattern of thread life cycle if one cares to look. I can't speak for others but it's been disagreeable and worrying to me for some time. I give TAM quite a bit of respect, but honestly, like a honeymoon period once high on Oxytocin now gone sour with the bitter reality of incompatibility, my resentment is starting to build. 

Apologies for my TJ. I have contributed to this thread previously in the spirit of why it was raised, and have taken a back seat as I usually do. I don't have to read or remain, but I'd like to. I would like for it to stay intact as a place for stoic, diplomatic, and safe discussion for all that wish for the same. 

Please carry on.


----------



## Personal

Faithful Wife said:


> This was a good article.
> 
> This Group of Straight Men Is Swearing Off Women | VICE | United States
> 
> With this nice little snippet:
> 
> The "manosphere" snake is starting to eat itself.


I wonder how many sexually successful men if any are drawn to such ideals?


----------



## tech-novelist

Ripper said:


> Seems like an awful lot of effort for a bunch of "pathetic, misogynistic losers" who have walked off the field. Still the lengthy vitriolic filled posts are highly entertaining. Literally every single "shaming tactic" has been deployed. You can check:
> 
> https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/
> 
> Somewhat disappointing actually. I was hoping for a few new ones.


That's because there aren't any new ones. It's like the "cheater's playbook", where each one thinks they are a "special snowflake" but actually they are all acting identically to all the other "special snowflakes".


----------



## Heatherknows

Ripper said:


> *The reasons why would make for an interesting thread in and of itself. Seems like an awful lot of effort for a bunch of "pathetic, misogynistic losers" who have walked off the field. *


IMO these guys seem...well...gross and probably should go their own way. Hopefully, none of them will procreate and their faulty genes will die out.


----------



## farsidejunky

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> No, it's insulting to every man in my life to think an of them are or could ever be like this and because the strong, wonderful men I know are raising strong, wonderful sons they will continue to roll their eyes at this kind of garbage and live happy lives with strong, wonderful women- that they can get because they have the confidence and ability to attract them.
> 
> There will always be men who don't have either and they will have their little group but society will never be in danger of losing our good men because the good men just don't fall for this junk and it's not out of shame, it's because they are good enough that they don't need to "opt out" They can find good women, they can be attractive to women. Being single and whiny doesn't appeal to them. They are strong, confident, they raise amazing sons and daughters to follow in their steps.
> 
> The only men who will end up like this weren't the ones we wanted or the ones who could get a good woman anyway. They aren't a factor, losing them changes nothing. It's like when a show you never watched or cared to watch gets canceled. You just don't notice.
> 
> But don't insult men by saying that many of them will become weak and pouty and stomp their feet away from the big, bad women who keep exploiting them to "opt out" of dating. (LOL try telling that to any man I know)
> I'm raising a son and I sure as heck have a better view of him than you seem to have of most men. He's a lot better than this, always will be and so will the vast majority of men.
> 
> You may think that your ideas are anti-women and pro-men but this whole thing is more insulting to men than anyone.


This is true, SGC.

The problem is that fewer and fewer households actually have father's in them.

So while true, it is diminishing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cosmos

farsidejunky said:


> This is true, SGC.
> 
> *The problem is that fewer and fewer households actually have father's in them.*
> 
> So while true, it is diminishing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Which is very sad. Children need their fathers to be actively in their lives just as much as they need their mothers.


----------



## farsidejunky

Cosmos said:


> Which is very sad. Children need their fathers to be actively in their lives just as much as they need their mothers.


Yep.

But here is where it gets controversial (to some).

Most (please note I said most and not all) women do not know how to teach a young man to be a man. Conversely, the same is true for fathers and daughters.

Yet here we are, in a society where young men are increasingly raised by only or mostly women, with no father figure in their life. 

MGTOW is a natural consequence of this state.





Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cosmos

farsidejunky said:


> Yep.
> 
> But here is where it gets controversial (to some).
> 
> Most (please note I said most and not all) women do not know how to teach a young man to be a man. Conversely, the same is true for fathers and daughters.
> *
> Yet here we are, in a society where young men are increasingly raised by only or mostly women, with no father figure in their life. *
> 
> MGTOW is a natural consequence of this state.


It isn't an ideal situation for sure... I raised my son alone from when he was 4 years of age (ex remarried and 'too busy' to exercise access), and would have given my back teeth to have his father involved in his life - particularly when he was a teen. I did my best and fortunately things turned out well for my son.

We shouldn't understimate the role fathers play in their daughters lives, either. My parents were together but my father lived the life of a single man and was never home. Every man I ever had a relationship with paid the price for my father's neglect of his family, and to this day I crave the love of the father I never had.


----------



## knobcreek

I think boys today are raised to believe they're bad, basically ADHD brats and rapists in training is how they're spoken about while girls are celebrated and receive nothing but self-esteem boosts from women. Our public schools have been taken over by the liberal left, primarily feminists which have all but destroyed boys education and self-esteem in public schools.

If boys are told how bad they are since birth you can't be surprised when they meet your expectations.

Women unknowingly are WGTOW, they're called cat ladies, or divorcees who left perfectly good men in order to chase an ideal man that only exists in their minds. Once menopause hits they become old ladies and meeting a mate other than someone to play pinochle with becomes really hard. So many just resign themselves to a single life filled with wine, other single divorced friends, and cats. If you look at this board it's literally 99 to 1 women cheating on their husbands and I think that trend continues and isn't far off in the public at large. Eventually men are going to more and more reject any contract that promises half their earnings and child support for 25 years to a woman who is most definitely going to cheat on him over the course of a long marriage.

So men today have a choice, live as a cuckold and hope your wife doesn't leave, or stay single.


----------



## farsidejunky

Cosmos said:


> It isn't an ideal situation for sure... I raised my son alone from when he was 4 years of age (ex remarried and 'too busy' to exercise access), and would have given my back teeth to have his father involved in his life - particularly when he was a teen. Fortunately, however, I did my best and it turned out to be more than good enough. Others aren't so lucky.


Good!

My mom raised me from 7 to 11ish after my dad left. I saw him a couple weeks a year.

She raised me to be risk averse, to value safety, to treat women with kids gloves, and many other things that are strong on the nurturing side. She taught me how to be a beta.

When she met my stepfather, and he came into the fold, he actually taught me what it was like to be a man. He taught me was okay to be aggressive in going after what I want. He taught me many other things

I know a lot of folks don't like to consider the alpha / beta mix of things, but these MGTOW men are often the final logical conclusion to being an extreme beta.

Given the nature of the family structure in today's society, I see this problem with men becoming worse. Men are no longer raised to be men. The rugged individualism that once separated men from boys is slowly dying . 

Until that problem is solved, this movement will only grow.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## knobcreek

farsidejunky said:


> Given the nature of the family structure in today's society, I see this problem with men becoming worse. Men are no longer raised to be men. The rugged individualism that once separated men from boys is slowly dying .


I don't think anyone knows what it means to be a man anymore. Feminism has removed any characteristics that are uniquely masculine. Men aren't allowed to have men's clubs, they're not allowed to compete or play rambunctiously in school, everyone gets a medal, winning is bad. The beta male is supposedly the feminine ideal, but in reality that's not the guy they want. They don't want the nice guy SAHD, the divorce rates in marriages where women make more and men raise the children are sky high, and typically the woman has an affair.

So we have women shaping society to what they think they want, but in reality it doesn't appear to be what they want at all. Factor in the cheating rates among women, use of drugs just to get through life, and them filing for divorce at astronomical levels I don't think for a second women are happy with the way we're going either.


----------



## Cosmos

knobcreek said:


> I think boys today are raised to believe they're bad, basically ADHD brats and rapists in training is how they're spoken about while girls are celebrated and receive nothing but self-esteem boosts from women. Our public schools have been taken over by the liberal left, primarily feminists which have all but destroyed boys education and self-esteem in public schools.
> 
> If boys are told how bad they are since birth you can't be surprised when they meet your expectations.
> 
> *Women unknowingly are WGTOW, they're called cat ladies, or divorcees who left perfectly good men in order to chase an ideal man that only exists in their minds. Once menopause hits they become old ladies and meeting a mate other than someone to play pinochle with becomes really hard. So many just resign themselves to a single life filled with wine, other single divorced friends, and cats. * If you look at this board it's literally 99 to 1 women cheating on their husbands and I think that trend continues and isn't far off in the public at large. Eventually men are going to more and more reject any contract that promises half their earnings and child support for 25 years to a woman who is most definitely going to cheat on him over the course of a long marriage.
> 
> So men today have a choice, live as a cuckold and hope your wife doesn't leave, or stay single.


Which must make me pretty unique, then. I've never cheated on anybody and (to my knowledge) have never been cheated on. I met my wonderful SO in my mid-50s (post-meno) and, whilst we both love cats, I don't drink and (being 15 years younger than me) he leaves me very little time for 'pinochle.' Unless that's code, of course, for wild, kinky sex. 

You really need to get out more. I've never encountered so much bitterness and negativity.


----------



## Satya

Two years ago, I found myself in a ____-or-get-off-the-pot moment in my life. I was 33, divorced for over 3 years at that point, was well done with my 2-year healing phase, and had just broken up with a boyfriend of 8 months because we were unfortunately traveling different paths and it wasn't going to work. I wanted to freeze my eggs, because I've known since 23 that I wanted children, but I truly didn't want to do it alone unless I absolutely HAD to.

Don't misunderstand... By "had" to, I don't mean I wasn't prepared to go it alone, pay for everything, and be a single mom. I mean rather that I believe fathers to be vitally important in the rearing of male or female children, just as I believe mothers are vitally important. I wanted an opportunity to find a man that really wanted what I wanted, and wanted to do it with me. Although my prospects of finding this match were slim, I am the master of my own fate and a man wasn't just going to come flying through my window like superman to provide and want me as a partner. 

The prospect of being back at the drawing board, once again, was disheartening. I was looking at 2 more years (broad timeframe), IF I found someone new immediately. I decided to give dating 6 more good months before I was going to make an appointment with a fertility doctor. I can't believe the miracle that occurred before those 6 months were over, but I'd spent many hours pondering over the possibility of raising a boy as a single mom. 

I thought at great length about doing my utmost to expose him to good, strong, men of integrity in his formative years. I had decided I would never actively date, but if a man came into our lives that genuinely wanted to complete a family unit, and I had known him and "vetted" his sincerity for long enough, and LOVED him, I would be open and welcome to that change. I did not want my life to be a revolving door of men, because my son would see a very improper example of what a woman and mother should be in my POV, and as an exemplar of the female gender, I would want to project the sort of qualities in a woman I would hope that HE would look for some day. 

Any men in my life would have to live the qualities of what I think my son would benefit from, and there is simply no way that I can personally teach him these things. All I can do is support his learning process by finding men that can and getting him involved in activities and exercises that will educate him.

I would be able to teach my son the subtle and not so subtle ways that many women can manipulate men. There is a LOT he'd just have to learn on his own, and I'd have to sit on my hands, but if he came to me to ask about women, he would only ever receive the truth. Women (and men) are a product of their upbringing, and as we all know, this can be either stable or unstable. Part of distinguishing what is healthy or not is a lesson we learn by experience better than by being told. 

If I had a daughter, I'd also want men of integrity in her life to educate her, too, but they would be better at reinforcing the kinds of lessons I can impart. Since the thread is about men, I will leave the focus on my thoughts about having a son.


----------



## farsidejunky

I am under no illusions that most single mothers are not so by choice. I also recognize that most are doing the very best they can.

But feminism, despite some of their principles being both beneficial and necessary, has sold a lie to women; that anything a man can do, a woman can also do. 

There are reasons the sexes are different. Yet society at large is doing its very best to adopt that lie sold by feminism.

I would never assume I could impart motherly aspects of rearing to my children nearly as well as an actual mother.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## knobcreek

Cosmos said:


> Which must make me pretty unique, then. I've never cheated on anybody and (to my knowledge) have never been cheated on. I met my wonderful SO in my mid-50s (post-meno) and, whilst we both love cats, I don't drink and (being 15 years younger than me) he leaves me very little time for 'pinochle.' Unless that's code, of course, for wild, kinky sex. .


That's great but it doesn't negate the fact that many women older in years have removed themselves from the dating pool and become increasingly hostile towards men. It's a similar movement among women, maybe without a label yet, but it exists.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> If you look at this board it's literally 99 to 1 women cheating on their husbands and I think that trend continues and isn't far off in the public at large Eventually men are going to more and more reject any contract that promises half their earnings and child support for 25 years to a woman who is most definitely going to cheat on him over the course of a long marriage.
> 
> So men today have a choice, live as a cuckold and hope your wife doesn't leave, or stay single.


This board has a confirmation bias going on. It caters more to men with cheating wives so more men with cheating wives end up here. 

But don't you understand, you are saying that boy are being raised to be told they are bad, evil and not worth it for women but then turn around and say that women are bad, evil and not worth it for men. 
Neither of these thoughts should be acceptable.

Both boys and girls should be raised with optimism that they will be capable of choosing wonderful partners to share their lives with. 
Instill confidence in them. That's #1. 
I teach my kids to own their choices. If they pick a bad mate it will not be the fault of an entire gender but with that 1 mate and themselves for ending up with someone so incompatible. 
My H spends time teaching my son about good women and the kind to avoid just like we will teach our daughter.


----------



## Cosmos

farsidejunky said:


> I am under no illusions that most single mothers are not so by choice. I also recognize that most are doing the very best they can.
> *
> But feminism, despite some of their principles being both beneficial and necessary, has sold a lie to women; that anything a man can do, a woman can also do. *
> 
> There are reasons the sexes are different. Yet society at large is doing its very best to adopt that lie sold by feminism.
> 
> I would never assume I could impart motherly aspects of rearing to my children nearly as well as an actual mother.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


As with every revolution, the pendulum has a tendency to swing too far, and the sexual revolution was probably no exception. People can rant and rave all they like about the unjustness / unfairness of XY and Z, but until that pendulum stops swinging (which will probably take another 50 years, IMO) we're all going to have to learn to adapt as best we can.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> I was zeroed in on the above theme, from Slowly, who I was engaging, as well as Techmom. They wanted it to be viewed as a "sacrifice"; I'm merely disputing. They appear to me to be pandering for people to view this act as a noble, selfless act deserving of additional compensation that isn't. But, I'm done with it unless someone's wanting to really argue this point. No sense beating a dead horse.


What I'm saying is that it's logically inconsistent to view being a stay at home mom as not a sacrifice, and yet working to provide for your family is not a sacrifice, either -- and yet somehow it's not equivalent.

I work my ass off working and it's not a sacrifice. My wife, when she is a stay at home mom, works her ass of and it's not a sacrifice.

My income is half hers because we are married. The work she does at home for the kids and the house benefits me as well because we are married. The income I have has been more than a little enabled because I had the time and energy to devote to it because of her efforts.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> IMO these guys seem...well...gross and probably should go their own way. Hopefully, none of them will procreate and their faulty genes will die out.


In other words, they are bitter losers who can't get laid.

Thanks for playing!


----------



## Kivlor

@Satya

Thanks for the warning. I was getting the hint from some of the comments about "what's your previous TAM account" / "I know who you remind me of" comments. (Sidenote: No one will tell me who I remind them of, and I'm darn curious now) There's been an ominous feeling for pages now that some folks are just waiting for me to "slip up" so they can start the :banhim: chant.

Certainly appears that way from the trolling a couple of the posters here are engaging in. Straw-man arguments, claiming I'm anti-woman and anti-man. Creating caricatures of what I said, and expecting me to defend them. Assuming that because some of us agree with the concerns of MGTOW that we are MGTOW and are here to defend their conclusions, despite several posts to the contrary. Acting as if asking for someone to treat others with empathy and civility is asking far too much. 

I came from tougher forums than this one, where trolling is an art form--and there are no mods--but I certainly appreciate the reminder that here there are more strict rules.

Trolls gonna troll.


----------



## Marduk

farsidejunky said:


> I am under no illusions that most single mothers are not so by choice. I also recognize that most are doing the very best they can.
> 
> But feminism, despite some of their principles being both beneficial and necessary, has sold a lie to women; that anything a man can do, a woman can also do.


What can a woman not do that a man can?




> There are reasons the sexes are different. Yet society at large is doing its very best to adopt that lie sold by feminism.
> 
> I would never assume I could impart motherly aspects of rearing to my children nearly as well as an actual mother.


Ah, brother, but there's quite a difference between being more biologically or culturally suited for certain tasks -- meaning that a woman _may_ find it easier or be "better" at certain things than others.

But lots of women are crappy mothers and lots of men are super stay at home dads -- so again, you're back to the intra-gender variation problem.

Like you, I don't think equal rights means that men and women are equal in all things -- I think it means that we have an equal right to pick and choose what we want to do.

And that comes with equal negative consequences, too -- for example, equal rights should mean that women get drafted as much as men during wartime, for example.

And I think maybe that's a component that you're pointing at?


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> [MENTION=40793]
> *I came from tougher forums than this one, where trolling is an art form-*-and there are no mods--but I certainly appreciate the reminder that here there are more strict rules.
> 
> Trolls gonna troll.


Would you like a medal?

:nerd:


----------



## jld

The US military recently opened all combat roles to women.

All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says - NBC News
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

And, see, jld, that's what I'm getting at when I say your worldview strikes me as anti-woman.

Because when you get all up on how women need to be protected and coddled and men need to "weather their storms..." 

What you are really saying is that women aren't on equal footing with men, and _need_ those things. When they don't.

You're either equal, or not.

And by equal, I don't mean the mathmatical term equivalent.


----------



## knobcreek

jld said:


> The US military recently opened all combat roles to women.
> 
> All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Pentagon Says - NBC News
> ]


But they aren't required to register for the draft.

That and combat infantry excels on esprit de corps and a brotherhood. But of course women have to come and ruin anything good men have. Now we'll have 0311 ladies walking around with light duty chit in preggo cammies... 

WM's could not maintain the physical standards (even their reduced standards), 75% of all females in the platoon were either pregnant or on light duty due to some imagined ailment. And this is what we're gonna put on the front lines against ISIS?

Not a chance I would want my boys serving alongside women in combat.

I think born male heterosexuals should take the next 10 wars off, let women and gays go fight ISIS and the Chinese, we'll stay back and sell war bonds and rivet planes together .


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> And, see, jld, that's what I'm getting at when I say your worldview strikes me as anti-woman.
> 
> Because when you get all up on how women need to be protected and coddled and men need to "weather their storms..."
> 
> What you are really saying is that women aren't on equal footing with men, and _need_ those things. When they don't.
> 
> You're either equal, or not.
> 
> And by equal, I don't mean the mathmatical term equivalent.


You don't *have* to do anything. Some have listened to the advice I have given them, and found benefit from it.

You are certainly welcome to ignore it completely.

Women overall look to have a promising future in front of them. I am trying to help men have one, too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> You don't *have* to do anything. Some have listened to the advice I have given them, and found benefit from it.
> 
> You are certainly welcome to ignore it completely.
> 
> Women overall look to have a promising future in front of them. I am trying to help men have one, too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Do you think women need these things?

Because that's my point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

It would not be surprising if the selective service requirement changed, too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> But they aren't required to register for the draft.
> 
> That and combat infantry excels on esprit de corps and a brotherhood. But of course women have to come and ruin anything good men have. Now we'll have 0311 ladies walking around with light duty chit in preggo cammies...
> 
> WM's could not maintain the physical standards (even their reduced standards), 75% of all females in the platoon were either pregnant or on light duty due to some imagined ailment. And this is what we're gonna put on the front lines against ISIS?
> 
> Not a chance I would want my boys serving alongside women in combat.
> 
> .


I happen to agree with this post.

If you cannot handle the physical requirements of a job you shouldn't be able to have that job.

And...

I don't think women should have to work outside the home.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Do you think women need these things?
> 
> Because that's my point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think all people appreciate feeling understood, Marduk.

My interest just happens to be focusing in on cases where wives seem to need it, and are not getting it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Heatherknows said:


> I happen to agree with this post.


Would you like to elaborate, Heather?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

Heatherknows said:


> Would you like a medal?
> 
> :nerd:


No, I'd like to be able to take the kid gloves off. But I'll play by the rules, since this isn't my house. 

It's best that I can't. The trolls are used to the kid gloves. They wouldn't take it well. :wink2:


----------



## techmom

The term "toxic masculinity" comes from Dr. Nerdlove, he wrote a good article on it...

Reclaiming Manhood: Detoxifying Toxic Masculinity - Paging Dr. NerdLove
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> Would you like to elaborate, Heather?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I did. I fixed the original post.


----------



## knobcreek

jld said:


> Would you like to elaborate, Heather?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I would imagine she has someone close to her in the military and knows what really goes on with women in the military and what a disaster it has been just so we can be PC.

I remember Marine Corps boot camp as I'm told over and over that WM's go through exactly what we do as I'm watching them do push ups on their knees and their obstacle course two feet lower. Or in the fleet watching not one make a 25 mile hump, or of the 8 women in my platoon not one could pass the PFT or meet even the most basic standards of a Marine.

The idea of women wearing preggo cammies in an infantry platoon is shocking to me. It will be a disaster of an experiment.

I have a 15 year old son who may get drawn into a war soon, he wants to serve I told him don't, it's a different USA and a different military from when I was in, neither is worth dying for anymore IMO. Let the over-eager women, liberals, and gays fight the wars they so desperately want to be a part of. But don't wine when rounds come down range and **** gets real.


----------



## Kivlor

Heatherknows said:


> I happen to agree with this post.
> 
> *If you cannot handle the physical requirements of a job you shouldn't be able to have that job.*
> 
> And...
> 
> I don't think women should have to work outside the home.


Sadly, a lot of women disagree with this statement. 

Citations
News5 Investigates: 12 female officers sue City of Colorado Spri - KOAA.com | Continuous News | Colorado Springs and Pueblo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrxEnQPgouc


----------



## jld

I think it takes courage to say what you think, Heather, knowing it may not be well received. I respect your honesty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## knobcreek

Kivlor said:


> Sadly, a lot of women disagree with this statement.
> 
> Citations
> News5 Investigates: 12 female officers sue City of Colorado Spri - KOAA.com | Continuous News | Colorado Springs and Pueblo
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrxEnQPgouc


This is a good one too:

Firefighter who flunked physical injured 10 days into job | New York Post

fails the physical over and over yet is hired onto the NYFD because of some perceived bias. Yeah the bias is she can't cut the mustard physically. But 10 days on the job and we'll be paying her pension for a job she never should have had in the first place lol, only in America.


----------



## BetrayedDad

PDFV1983 said:


> However, I don't think it's appropriate to ban members because of their viewpoints. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.


Yet it happens ALL the time... 

Banned because of a viewpoint is VERY common here and its shamelessly obvious which side of the political spectrum these "independent" thinkers come from too. Not trollish behavior (eg like fabricated stories) but just a point of view that differs radically from the establishment that has claimed a strong foothold over the last few years. 

These people claim they are fair minded then they get you banned when they can't win their arguments on the merits and write you off as a "fringer". Just another label they slap on to try to minimize you and keep everyone else in line. Their independent as long as you tow their line.

I wouldn't prescribe to mgtow but many of the points are valid. Men these days just have to work ALOT harder to find a low maintenance woman. They are out there but maybe 1 in 10 fit the bill, in modern times, and most of them have long been scooped up already. I deeply sympathize with the frustration.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I think all people appreciate feeling understood, Marduk.
> 
> My interest just happens to be focusing in on cases where wives seem to need it, and are not getting it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unsurprisingly, that's not an answer at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## knobcreek

BetrayedDad said:


> Men these days just have to work ALOT harder to find a low maintenance woman. They are out there but maybe 1 in 10 fit the bill, in modern times, and most of them have long been scooped up already.


This is true, women are insanely high maintenance today. Just reading TAM you have women come on defending or explaining away their affairs because the husband doesn't buy them trinkets or he stopped texting I love you everyday. I mean are you a 30 year old adult or a 16 year old love stricken kid? Most of the reasons for the ladies stepping out are absolute jokes. And let's be honest they do it because they're bored and there aren't a lot of consequences for them if they get caught.

My wife has one friend, very attractive lady, she married in he mid-20's cheated on him and divorced, married another guy in her 30's (great guy I know him) cheated on him and divorced. In her 40's again met a good guy, cheated and divorced again. Yet speaking with her she never even acknowledges she did anything wrong with the affairs. Her second affair she said was sparked because when she went to a sports game with a group of friends he wasn't as openly affectionate so she decided she was effectively entitled to an affair. Just crazy nonsense like that. The woman is clearly impossible to please, and sadly that's a large sum of the female American population today.


----------



## Marduk

You guys are hilarious. 

I'm actually friends with a lot of women. A lot of them are low maintenance, laid back, cool, attractive women. 

And do you know what they say?

They say they get ignored by most men who are busy chasing the high maintenance '*****y' women (their words). 

Hell, there's a book about how to be high maintenance in order to attract men. 

I say all that being a guy who's only attracted to high maintenance women, and who married a princess - the irony is not lost on me.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46191.Why_Men_Love_*****es
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

BetrayedDad said:


> Yet it happens ALL the time...
> 
> *Banned because of a viewpoint is VERY common here and its shamelessly obvious which side of the political spectrum these "independent" thinkers come from too.* Not trollish behavior (eg like fabricated stories) but just a point of view that differs radically from the establishment that has claimed a strong foothold over the last few years.
> 
> These people claim they are fair minded then* they get you banned when they can't win their arguments on the merits and write you off as a "fringer"*. Just another label they slap on to try to minimize you and keep everyone else in line. Their independent as long as you tow their line.
> 
> I wouldn't prescribe to mgtow but many of the points are valid. Men these days just have to work ALOT harder to find a low maintenance woman. They are out there but maybe 1 in 10 fit the bill, in modern times, and most of them have long been scooped up already. I deeply sympathize with the frustration.


You're not making me feel better lol.


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> You guys are hilarious.
> 
> I'm actually friends with a lot of women. A lot of them are low maintenance, laid back, cool, attractive women.
> 
> And do you know what they say?
> 
> They say they get ignored by most men who are busy chasing the high maintenance '*****y' women (their words).
> 
> Hell, there's a book about how to be high maintenance in order to attract men.
> 
> I say all that being a guy who's only attracted to high maintenance women, and who married a princess - the irony is not lost on me.
> 
> Why Men Love *****es: From Doormat to Dreamgirl - A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship by Sherry Argov ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Maybe just my experience, but a lot of girls I've dated appear low maintenance at first, and seem to change as things progress. They're fun to hang out with, pay for their own things, don't expect expensive gifts, are willing to let me work my 60 hour workweek; but past the 6 month mark I've noted what seems to be a tremendous shift. "You don't spend enough time with me!" "Why won't you buy me X?" "You're so cheap! It's embarrassing!". 

What I want is low maintenance. What I'm attracted to is low maintenance and I have a habit of dropping girls who start to want too much money spent on them. Maybe it's my picker, maybe it's the pool I'm pulling from, maybe I am too cheap and uncaring or maybe, just maybe, it's that many women--like many men--will pretend to be what they think you want until they think they've got you hooked on the line. Then their real personality shows.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> Maybe just my experience, but a lot of girls I've dated appear low maintenance at first, and seem to change as things progress. They're fun to hang out with, pay for their own things, don't expect expensive gifts, are willing to let me work my 60 hour workweek; but past the 6 month mark I've noted what seems to be a tremendous shift. "You don't spend enough time with me!" "Why won't you buy me X?" "You're so cheap! It's embarrassing!".
> 
> What I want is low maintenance. What I'm attracted to is low maintenance and I have a habit of dropping girls who start to want too much money spent on them. Maybe it's my picker, maybe it's the pool I'm pulling from, maybe I am too cheap and uncaring or maybe, just maybe, it's that many women--like many men--will pretend to be what they think you want until they think they've got you hooked on the line. Then their real personality shows.


As long as you realize that the common factor is you in picking or attracting women. 

So you want a woman that doesn't cost you money or time. 

Money I think is achievable. Time won't be. 

Unless what you get for yourself is a career driven woman with no time and lots of money. Maybe give that a go.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> As long as you realize that the common factor is you in picking or attracting women.
> 
> So you want a woman that doesn't cost you money or time.
> 
> Money I think is achievable. Time won't be.
> 
> Unless what you get for yourself is a career driven woman with no time and lots of money. Maybe give that a go.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, I want a woman who will let me work in the day and spend time with her in the evenings / weekends. I don't think I'm asking for much. But I've dated women who, about 6-9 months in are upset if I'm working 30 hours a week. I don't believe most women ever feel that you are spending enough time or money on them. Like I said above, just my experience. 

I've taken the stance that if me working 40+ hours (a standard workweek) is asking too much, they are high maintenance, needy and not worth my time.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> No, I want a woman who will let me work in the day and spend time with her in the evenings / weekends. I don't think I'm asking for much. But I've dated women who, about 6-9 months in are upset if I'm working 30 hours a week. I don't believe most women ever feel that you are spending enough time or money on them. Like I said above, just my experience.
> 
> I've taken the stance that if me working 40+ hours (a standard workweek) is asking too much, they are high maintenance, needy and not worth my time.


I've dated lots of women. 

I've never experienced that. 

I'll ask my single buddies.... But I suspect it's the women you're picking. 

Perhaps you're like me? Attracted to high maintenance women?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> I've dated lots of women.
> 
> I've never experienced that.
> 
> I'll ask my single buddies.... But I suspect it's the women you're picking.
> 
> Perhaps you're like me? Attracted to high maintenance women?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol, could be. I've certainly got my own issues, and I'm not above blaming myself for my poor choices. :grin2:

Let me know what your buddies say.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Kivlor said:


> You're not making me feel better lol.


Unfortunately, if you want to stick around here long term, then you're going to have to learn to bite your tongue while the other side gets cart blanche to rip you to shreds...

Make your points and don't bother bickering. You won't win. Mods here have itchy trigger fingers.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> Lol, could be. I've certainly got my own issues, and I'm not above blaming myself for my poor choices. :grin2:
> 
> Let me know what your buddies say.


I asked one. His answer was that he thinks you're meeting women in the wrong places. 

Try doing something you love - rock climbing or hiking or poetry reading or whatever you're into, and meeting women there. 

What I did when I was single was to make really good friends with really cool smart women. And then not date them. 

Once the had me sussed out, they found women for me. It was one of their boyfriends that introduced me to my wife.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

Kivlor said:


> Re: my call for civility, you have taken this far too personally. I didn't mean to personally prove you are better. It's not about you. Read back to my first posts. I've been open and clear in my position: MGTOW is the end of society. If we do not engage these men, politely, and work to show them they are mistaken, it will spread like a cancer and our culture will die out. If we treat them horribly, and endlessly mock them, we will prove them right, and give them ammunition. The only way is to kill them with kindness.
> 
> I know, it's too much to ask. Not of you, but of people in general. To think several moves ahead in the game is beyond most. Not due to lack of intellect, rather lack of interest.


I find it interesting that you advocate women to engage these MGTOW women haters politely and "kill them with kindness" but you don't advocate the same of men towards feminists.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

MGTOW can opt out all they want, I don't care, and it won't be the end of society. 

It's what, .0000001% of men? Who do it for what, a year or two before they give their head a shake?

That's not even a blip in the natural selection order of things. And even if it did approach 10%, there would be plenty of dudes who would be happy with that situation and eager to please.


----------



## john117

Heatherknows said:


> Now I know where I'll be teaching ESL if I get divorced.
> 
> Thx.
> 
> 0


Because dating Asians worked sooooo well for me 

Seriously, tho, the problem in China may be one of women selectivity more than anything else.


----------



## john117

knobcreek said:


> John's standards are likely way too high, John should lower them a bit and start getting laid and eventually find a nice woman to share time with.


My marriage is far from optimal but lowering one's standards too much is asking for trouble. 

Reverse roles and see if a woman would drop her standards - and panties - likewise.


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> *It's what, .0000001% of men? Who do it for what, a year or two before they give their head a shake?*


Yeah, I wonder how long these guys would choose to go their own way if they met someone they were into and who was into them. Sometimes people tell themselves they don't want something simply because they can't or don't have it. It makes it easier psychologically.


----------



## Marduk

norajane said:


> Yeah, I wonder how long these guys would choose to go their own way if they met someone they were into and who was into them. Sometimes people tell themselves they don't want something simply because they can't or don't have it. It makes it easier to not have it.


I guarantee the vast majority of dudes 'going their own way' would drop it in seconds if a bombshell winked at them.

Because, you know... giggity.


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> Maybe just my experience, but a lot of girls I've dated appear low maintenance at first, and seem to change as things progress. They're fun to hang out with, pay for their own things, don't expect expensive gifts


...yeah. That's false advertising. Men should know what their getting into which is why I'd always start off really high maintenance and if the guy stuck around I became lower maintenance.

(But still somewhat high...)


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> MGTOW can opt out all they want, I don't care, and it won't be the end of society.
> 
> It's what, .0000001% of men? Who do it for what, a year or two before they give their head a shake?
> 
> That's not even a blip in the natural selection order of things. And even if it did approach 10%, there would be plenty of dudes who would be happy with that situation and eager to please.


Well, let's see. .0000001% of the world population would be 3 men. So I think it is a little more than that.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> I find it interesting that you advocate women to engage these MGTOW women haters politely and "kill them with kindness" but you don't advocate the same of men towards feminists


Is that what you think a feminist is? 

Fascinating. 

You do realize being a feminist and being a misandrist are two completely different things....

And there are plenty examples of both on this forum.


----------



## Personal

technovelist said:


> Well, let's see. .0000001% of the world population would be 3 men. So I think it is a little more than that.


Are there 5 of them?


----------



## Kivlor

Lila said:


> I find it interesting that you advocate women to engage these MGTOW women haters politely and "kill them with kindness" but you don't advocate the same of men towards feminists.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No. I don't. Because it won't work against the vocal, pious and visible feminists. Feminism is a religion. MGTOW is an anti-social movement based on observation. The people in them are different folks, and they will respond to things differently. Men have tried to reason with women for decades about these issues. The time for reasoning is done. _Women do not respect men who bargain, they view them with contempt for their weakness._ 

However, I absolutely think men should take the time to understand feminists. And oppose them at every turn. Publicly. Privately. Politely. Civilly. Unless they get violent, in which case men should help them to reap what they sow. We treat them with kid gloves by choice, and they should be aware of it. _Which I stated regarding fixing some of the problems MGTOW recognizes back on page 7._ 

I have, from the outset of this conversation called for civility, for for empathy from men and women regarding this subject. This shouldn't be a very controversial request, however, it has become one, particularly from some of the women here, who seem so opposed to it. 



marduk said:


> MGTOW can opt out all they want, I don't care, and it won't be the end of society.
> 
> It's what, .0000001% of men? Who do it for what, a year or two before they give their head a shake?
> 
> That's not even a blip in the natural selection order of things. And even if it did approach 10%, there would be plenty of dudes who would be happy with that situation and eager to please.


You're welcome to think that's the case. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Have you bothered to look up Calhoun's mouse experiments? 

When I urge people to view MGTOW as the end of society, it is more that they are a signal of the end. Our culture, like Rome's, will not end in a day, but over the course of a long time, and it will not come to an end because of one single cause, but a myriad. 

Male mice did the same thing as MGTOW in the mouse experiments. Females became aggressive, males withdrew and refused to court females or fight for dominance. And in time there were no more live births, and the mouse society ended. 

They grew old and died. I do not think that the survival instinct in humans is really any stronger than in mice or dogs. It's strong in all of us. The only thing we have going is our intelligence; our ability to think strategically and plan out over days, weeks, years, decades. We can still react to it, but ignoring it did nothing for the mice.

Compare live births in Western countries today. We are steeply on the decline. This is far stronger than you may think. In the US there is only population growth due to immigration. Will humans live? Certainly. But this society, Western society, may not. 

But I like the Enlightenment culture, which founded us. The Magna Carta, Rights of Man, Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of Speech, Right to a Fair Trial. There is no evidence that when our culture shifts--and if things continue on course it must--the new culture will keep these things. In fact, evidence is to the contrary. And I, capable of planning out decades, wish to see my descendants have these rights. And I would hope you do too.


----------



## Lila

Kivlor said:


> No. I don't. Because it won't work against the vocal, pious and visible feminists. Feminism is a religion. MGTOW is an anti-social movement based on observation. The people in them are different folks, and they will respond to things differently. Men have tried to reason with women for decades about these issues. The time for reasoning is done. Women do not respect men who bargain, they view them with contempt for their weakness.
> 
> However, *I absolutely think men should take the time to understand feminists. And oppose them at every turn. Publicly. Privately. Politely. Civilly. *Unless they get violent, in which case men should help them to reap what they sow. We treat them with kid gloves by choice, and they should be aware of it. Which I stated regarding fixing some of the problems MGTOW recognizes back on page 7.


Recognize that there are people who feel just as strongly about MGTOW as you do about Feminism.

Most women who have posted on this thread have read the MGTOW literature, watched the videos, and visited their websites. I call that making an effort to understand them. Now they're doing exactly as _you_ recommend men do to feminist...... _oppose them at every turn, publicly, privately, politely, and civilly_".


----------



## Marduk

Personal said:


> Are there 5 of them?


_Exactly._


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> You're welcome to think that's the case. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Have you bothered to look up Calhoun's mouse experiments?
> 
> When I urge people to view MGTOW as the end of society, it is more that they are a signal of the end. Our culture, like Rome's, will not end in a day, but over the course of a long time, and it will not come to an end because of one single cause, but a myriad.
> 
> Male mice did the same thing as MGTOW in the mouse experiments. Females became aggressive, males withdrew and refused to court females or fight for dominance. And in time there were no more live births, and the mouse society ended.
> 
> They grew old and died. I do not think that the survival instinct in humans is really any stronger than in mice or dogs. It's strong in all of us. The only thing we have going is our intelligence; our ability to think strategically and plan out over days, weeks, years, decades. We can still react to it, but ignoring it did nothing for the mice.
> 
> Compare live births in Western countries today. We are steeply on the decline. This is far stronger than you may think. In the US there is only population growth due to immigration. Will humans live? Certainly. But this society, Western society, may not.
> 
> But I like the Enlightenment culture, which founded us. The Magna Carta, Rights of Man, Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of Speech, Right to a Fair Trial. There is no evidence that when our culture shifts--and if things continue on course it must--the new culture will keep these things. In fact, evidence is to the contrary. And I, capable of planning out decades, wish to see my descendants have these rights. And I would hope you do too.


I find it interesting that you thing MGTOW has anything to do with a decline in the birth rate, which is really linked to affluence, high cost of having children, vs in the past where children were really seen as part of the production labour to increase the productivity of the household.

In short, people have access to stuff without needing to have kids to get it, and kids are a net drain on the income of the household -- ergo, fewer kids.

MGTOW I think really is a bunch of guys who are:

a) mad at divorce laws
b) mad at the loud (but few!) radical feminists
c) mad at not being able to get with the women they think they should

I see MGTOW as really an offshot of failed red-pill dudes... when the RP didn't work, they threatened to take their ball and go home.

And really, I see a very, very, _very_ small number of men that will actually opt to do this before they ever get married and have kids to begin with.

A divorced guy that is bitter and refuses to date and puts an MGTOW label on it? I think that is something else. Lots of women in that spot, too. If you played the game, pumped out a few kids, and are butthurt about that? Well... from a reproductive standpoint, you're pretty much useless now anyway. So go ahead and check out.

But I would be very surprised to see more than a handful of men across north america (say) in their prime 20's and 30's opt to check out... and then actually do.


----------



## Marduk

BTW, I've actually written papers on Calhoun's experiment, and generally agree with this:



> Controversy exists over the implications of the experiment. Psychologist Jonathan Freedman's experiment recruited high school and university students to carry out a series of experiments that measured the effects of density on behavior. He measured their stress, discomfort, aggression, competitiveness, and general unpleasantness. He declared to have found no appreciable negative effects in 1975. Researchers argued that "Calhoun’s work was not simply about density in a physical sense, as number of individuals-per-square-unit-area, but was about *degrees of social interaction.*"


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink


----------



## Marduk

Oh, to finish my point about MGTOW... I think it's really a passive aggressive attempt to get some woman, somewhere, to say to one of these guys...

"Oh, please mr MGTOW, please come back to us women!"

Only it doesn't happen. Because they're too busy being with other men.

So all it really is, is a pointless passive-agressive covert contract. To me.

And I say that knowing at least two guys that have decided to stop dating and just be bachelors forever because they're too old now, and things didn't work out in their marriages or LTRs. But neither one of them are mad at women in general about it, even though one swears he never got married because he was afraid of losing half his stuff.

But they're both happy in their life, have lots of women as friends, and aren't generally passive aggressive or antisocial about anything. And I think that's fine.

And they certainly don't subscribe to any kind of philosophy about it, such as MGTOW.


----------



## Kivlor

Lila said:


> Recognize that there are people who feel just as strongly about MGTOW as you do about Feminism.
> 
> Most women who have posted on this thread have read the MGTOW literature, watched the videos, and visited their websites. I call that making an effort to understand them. Now they're doing exactly as _you_ recommend men do to feminist...... _oppose them at every turn, publicly, privately, politely, and civilly_".


I have this strong feeling I would have been banned for saying similar things about feminists many here have said about MGTOW. 

I've actually been far more tame with the feminists here than they have been with MGTOW. Go back and read my posts. And if you do, you will see I'm correct. "darlin'" is about the worst I've called anyone here. Pretty scary, demeaning language there, eh?



marduk said:


> I find it interesting that you thing MGTOW has anything to do with a decline in the birth rate, which is really linked to affluence, high cost of having children, vs in the past where children were really seen as part of the production labour to increase the productivity of the household.
> 
> In short, people have access to stuff without needing to have kids to get it, and kids are a net drain on the income of the household -- ergo, fewer kids.
> 
> MGTOW I think really is a bunch of guys who are:
> 
> a) mad at divorce laws
> b) mad at the loud (but few!) radical feminists
> c) mad at not being able to get with the women they think they should
> 
> I see MGTOW as really an offshot of failed red-pill dudes... when the RP didn't work, they threatened to take their ball and go home.
> 
> And really, I see a very, very, _very_ small number of men that will actually opt to do this before they ever get married and have kids to begin with.
> 
> A divorced guy that is bitter and refuses to date and puts an MGTOW label on it? I think that is something else. Lots of women in that spot, too. If you played the game, pumped out a few kids, and are butthurt about that? Well... from a reproductive standpoint, you're pretty much useless now anyway. So go ahead and check out.
> 
> But I would be very surprised to see more than a handful of men across north america (say) in their prime 20's and 30's opt to check out... and then actually do.


Glad you're familiar with the study. Like I said, you're free to disagree. Differing viewpoints can be a good thing; iron sharpening iron and all. I'm familiar with the Behavior Sink, and I think Calhoun's implications were probably right. He was also right that this isn't necessarily our end--that we can overcome it. "Oh, it's not a problem, don't worry about it" isn't exactly addressing it.

I don't think MGTOW is causing low birth rates, I think MGTOW, if it takes root can only exacerbate the existing issue of low birth rates. Humans have longer gestation and lifespans, so the end is not nigh, but I personally don't like the implications of this, mixed with a myriad other issues; they compound each other. MGTOW is but one of the symptoms of our decadence. 

The male mice in the mouse study withdrew after the females became aggressive and stopped breeding. That is the similarity to MGTOW. Women have become aggressive, and many no longer want to have kids. And after an increase in this behavior, we see MGTOW form. I do not think it bodes well. 

I do agree that MGTOW is passive aggressive. I think for many it may be what you say "Oh, please come back to society" is what they're looking for. I think for some it is spite. And for others, it is apathy.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Oh, to finish my point about MGTOW... I think it's really a passive aggressive attempt to get some woman, somewhere, to say to one of these guys...
> 
> "Oh, please mr MGTOW, please come back to us women!"
> 
> Only it doesn't happen. Because they're too busy being with other men.
> 
> So all it really is, is a pointless passive-agressive covert contract. To me.
> 
> And I say that knowing at least two guys that have decided to stop dating and just be bachelors forever because they're too old now, and things didn't work out in their marriages or LTRs. *But neither one of them are mad at women in general about it, even though one swears he never got married because he was afraid of losing half his stuff.*
> 
> But they're both happy in their life, have lots of women as friends, and aren't generally passive aggressive or antisocial about anything. And I think that's fine.
> 
> And they certainly don't subscribe to any kind of philosophy about it, such as MGTOW.


They aren't getting married, therefore they are in fact following the MGTOW philosophy, whether they know it or not.

And *this *in particular is about as MGTOW as I can imagine.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> I have this strong feeling I would have been banned for saying similar things about feminists many here have said about MGTOW.
> 
> I've actually been far more tame with the feminists here than they have been with MGTOW. Go back and read my posts. And if you do, you will see I'm correct. "darlin'" is about the worst I've called anyone here. Pretty scary, demeaning language there, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you're familiar with the study. Like I said, you're free to disagree. Differing viewpoints can be a good thing; iron sharpening iron and all. I'm familiar with the Behavior Sink, and I think Calhoun's implications were probably right. He was also right that this isn't necessarily our end--that we can overcome it. "Oh, it's not a problem, don't worry about it" isn't exactly addressing it.
> 
> I don't think MGTOW is causing low birth rates, I think MGTOW, if it takes root can only exacerbate the existing issue of low birth rates. Humans have longer gestation and lifespans, so the end is not nigh, but I personally don't like the implications of this, mixed with a myriad other issues; they compound each other. MGTOW is but one of the symptoms of our decadence.
> 
> The male mice in the mouse study withdrew after the females became aggressive and stopped breeding. That is the similarity to MGTOW. Women have become aggressive, and many no longer want to have kids. And after an increase in this behavior, we see MGTOW form. I do not think it bodes well.
> 
> I do agree that MGTOW is passive aggressive. I think for many it may be what you say "Oh, please come back to society" is what they're looking for. I think for some it is spite. And for others, it is apathy.


I think if one squints funny at it you might be able to create some theoretical analogue with the roots of MGTOW -- which was in Japan if I remember right -- where men didn't like 'career women' deciding in their 30's that they were going to settle down and get aggressive with men about it, so they checked out.

But the po-mo north american version of it seems to have more to do with "I don't get the babes" and "marriage is dangerous to my bank account" and "feminism is evil" than "aggressive females."

And, remember, one man can sire many, many, many offspring. So you could lose a very sizable percentage of men and still not impact the birth rate unless women decided it to be so.


----------



## tech-novelist

Lila said:


> I find it interesting that you advocate women to engage these MGTOW women haters politely and "kill them with kindness" but you don't advocate the same of men towards feminists.


If MGTOW = women haters, then feminists = men haters.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I think if one squints funny at it you might be able to create some theoretical analogue with the roots of MGTOW -- which was in Japan if I remember right -- where men didn't like 'career women' deciding in their 30's that they were going to settle down and get aggressive with men about it, so they checked out.
> 
> But the po-mo north american version of it seems to have more to do with "I don't get the babes" and "marriage is dangerous to my bank account" and "feminism is evil" than "aggressive females."
> 
> And, remember, one man can sire many, many, many offspring. So you could lose a very sizable percentage of men and still not impact the birth rate unless women decided it to be so.


The birth rate would not be affected. What would be affected is *which *men would be born.

Namely, high-testosterone alpha males.

This is what happens when women choose with whom they will reproduce with no concern for the future.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> They aren't getting married, therefore they are in fact following the MGTOW philosophy, whether they know it or not.
> 
> And *this *in particular is about as MGTOW as I can imagine.


Mmm... _no._

From the MGTOW website:
"M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.

sov·er·eign·ty
ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē/
Noun. Meaning: Supreme power or authority. Autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, self-determination, freedom. Self-governing."

The guys I know look at it more as their dating/married/having kids years are over, and they either missed out or it didn't work out, so they're focused on having fun rather than romance. I've never had any man feel like a 'disposable utility' in my experience -- except when cheated on, or going through a nasty divorce. But all but these guys have generally gone back into the LTR game.

Sample size of 2, so I don't make any grandiose statement about it, but remember -- there have always been 'confirmed bachelors.'

Take my dad for example -- he's loaded, single, healthy, fit... and refuses to get into serious relationships. 

He has women he sleeps with, women he travels with, women he goes dancing with, etc. These may be some of the same women, or not. He says that he's too busy to have fun to settle down, and at his age, what's the point -- he's not going to have more kids. 

Just because he's not monogamous doesn't mean he's 'MGTOW.' He loves women. He seems to love many women. They seem to love him. He seems happy.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Mmm... _no._
> 
> From the MGTOW website:
> "M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.
> 
> sov·er·eign·ty
> ˈsäv(ə)rən(t)ē/
> Noun. Meaning: Supreme power or authority. Autonomy, independence, self-government, self-rule, self-determination, freedom. Self-governing."
> 
> The guys I know look at it more as their dating/married/having kids years are over, and they either missed out or it didn't work out, so they're focused on having fun rather than romance. I've never had any man feel like a 'disposable utility' in my experience -- except when cheated on, or going through a nasty divorce. But all but these guys have generally gone back into the LTR game.
> 
> Sample size of 2, so I don't make any grandiose statement about it, but remember -- there have always been 'confirmed bachelors.'
> 
> Take my dad for example -- he's loaded, single, healthy, fit... and refuses to get into serious relationships.
> 
> He has women he sleeps with, women he travels with, women he goes dancing with, etc. These may be some of the same women, or not. He says that he's too busy to have fun to settle down, and at his age, what's the point -- he's not going to have more kids.
> 
> Just because he's not monogamous doesn't mean he's 'MGTOW.' He loves women. He seems to love many women. They seem to love him. He seems happy.


That sounds exactly like MGTOW to me.

MGTOW does NOT mean hating women or having nothing to do with women.

It means not letting women rule you, but rather ruling yourself.

That's exactly what your father is doing.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> The birth rate would not be affected. What would be affected is *which *men would be born.
> 
> Namely, high-testosterone alpha males.
> 
> This is what happens when women choose with whom they will reproduce with no concern for the future.


I think it would be the opposite.

The high testosterone high acheiving males would be ****ing like crazy in a world full of "men going their own way."

I've checked out of the alpha/beta nonsense game, but if I didn't, MGTOW would be the definition of beta, I think. Or gamma. One of those, I forget which. 

But certainly not alpha. Because alphas get with the babes, if I remember the red pill lingo.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> That sounds exactly like MGTOW to me.
> 
> MGTOW does NOT mean hating women or having nothing to do with women.
> 
> It means not letting women rule you, but rather ruling yourself.
> 
> That's exactly what your father is doing.


That's not what the MGTOW website says.

My dad doesn't consider himself a throwaway utility, nor the women he spends his time with. Nor does he concern himself with goofy fears of 'losing his sovereignty'. 

If anything, my mom is like that -- she's the bitter one in the divorce.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> I think it would be the opposite.
> 
> The high testosterone high acheiving males would be ****ing like crazy in a world full of "men going their own way."
> 
> I've checked out of the alpha/beta nonsense game, but if I didn't, MGTOW would be the definition of beta, I think. Or gamma. One of those, I forget which.
> 
> But certainly not alpha. Because alphas get with the babes, if I remember the red pill lingo.


Apparently you misunderstood me.

What I was saying was that a much higher proportion of the males born would be high-testosterone types.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> That's not what the MGTOW website says.
> 
> My dad doesn't consider himself a throwaway utility, nor the women he spends his time with. Nor does he concern himself with goofy fears of 'losing his sovereignty'.
> 
> If anything, my mom is like that -- she's the bitter one in the divorce.


He is not concerned about losing his sovereignty because he is acting sovereign.


----------



## Marduk

Ah, sorry - yes, I would agree, if a large enough group of males checked out, this could be a consequence.

But then by generation 2 or 3, all you'd have is males that wouldn't check out again, and the whole effect would be over. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> He is not concerned about losing his sovereignty because he is acting sovereign.


That's my point. 

The whole movement seems based on the fear that a relationship with a woman has an implied risk to your sovereignty. 

The deal seems fear based, like evil women are trying to steal something from you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Ah, sorry - yes, I would agree, if a large enough group of males checked out, this could be a consequence.
> 
> But then by generation 2 or 3, all you'd have is males that wouldn't check out again, and the whole effect would be over.


It doesn't even take men to check out. In present society, women choose with whom they will reproduce. So if they all want to reproduce with alphas, that's what will happen.

But the real problem is what happens in generation 2 or 3 is that society collapses. Beta males are the backbone of society, producing far more than they consume. If they stop doing that because it doesn't do them any good with women, watch out below.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> It doesn't even take men to check out. In present society, women choose with whom they will reproduce. So if they all want to reproduce with alphas, that's what will happen.
> 
> But the real problem is what happens in generation 2 or 3 is that society collapses. Beta males are the backbone of society, producing far more than they consume. If they stop doing that because it doesn't do them any good with women, watch out below.


Totally disagree. 

Although, as I say, I don't buy into the alpha beta whatever deal. 

When I see beta I read "passive aggressive nice guy". 

Is that what you mean?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> That's my point.
> 
> The whole movement seems based on the fear that a relationship with a woman has an implied risk to your sovereignty.
> 
> The deal seems fear based, like evil women are trying to steal something from you.


It depends on the relationship.

Of course, even if not married there is still the issue of child support, but that is not a problem in relationships with post-childbearing women.

But marriage is far more hazardous than any other relationship between men and women, as it invites the state into the relationship, generally to the great detriment of the partner with more income or assets (e.g., the male partner). You definitely give up a significant portion of your sovereignty, if not all of it, when you get married.

That's why your dad doesn't want to get married.

That's MGTOW.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Totally disagree.
> 
> Although, as I say, I don't buy into the alpha beta whatever deal.
> 
> When I see beta I read "passive aggressive nice guy".
> 
> Is that what you mean?


No. That is a subtype that is particularly badly off in the dating scene, but it is not the definition.

A beta is a man who does what he is supposed to. He goes to work, brings home his paycheck, and generally does his best for his family. He is not the most exciting guy in the world, though, so his wife is likely to daydream about one of the hunks on the covers of the romance novels.

In the old days, pre-1960 or so, they would generally live out their lives reasonably contented for the most part, although of course there were plenty who weren't that contented but didn't see a better option.

Once the sexual revolution occurred, though, women finally got the chance to scr3w all the alphas they wanted to, and the betas got left behind.

This is great fun for the alphas and most of the women (although the top women aren't always that happy about not being able to lock down their own apex alphas in marriage). But it isn't much fun for the betas, who spend a decade or more in a sexual desert until the women get to around 30 and decide to settle for them.

Once the beta is reeled in, the woman is likely to stop having sex with him other than exactly enough to keep him on the hook until it's too late for him to escape. If she is really nasty, she is likely to take up again with more exciting men while leaving the beta at home to pay the bills.

Then he ends up here wondering what happened.


----------



## john117

Now you know why the John and Mrs John rat couple need 6000 sq ft of rat's nest


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> It depends on the relationship.
> 
> Of course, even if not married there is still the issue of child support, but that is not a problem in relationships with post-childbearing women.
> 
> But marriage is far more hazardous than any other relationship between men and women, as it invites the state into the relationship, generally to the great detriment of the partner with more income or assets (e.g., the male partner). You definitely give up a significant portion of your sovereignty, if not all of it, when you get married.
> 
> That's why your dad doesn't want to get married.
> 
> That's MGTOW.


Nope. He has more money than he can throw at wives for several lifetimes.

And enough lawyers to take it all back if he wants.

He doesn't get married because he is having fun just as he is, and thinks that an LTR or marriage at his age is just too complicated.

Besides, plenty of women are happy to spend time with him, and he doesn't ask them to be monogamous in return. He's happy, they're happy. He seems good.

I'm an LTR guy, I think at any age. He isn't at his age.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> No. That is a subtype that is particularly badly off in the dating scene, but it is not the definition.
> 
> A beta is a man who does what he is supposed to. He goes to work, brings home his paycheck, and generally does his best for his family. He is not the most exciting guy in the world, though, so his wife is likely to daydream about one of the hunks on the covers of the romance novels.
> 
> In the old days, pre-1960 or so, they would generally live out their lives reasonably contented for the most part, although of course there were plenty who weren't that contented but didn't see a better option.
> 
> Once the sexual revolution occurred, though, women finally got the chance to scr3w all the alphas they wanted to, and the betas got left behind.
> 
> This is great fun for the alphas and most of the women (although the top women aren't always that happy about not being able to lock down their own apex alphas in marriage). But it isn't much fun for the betas, who spend a decade or more in a sexual desert until the women get to around 30 and decide to settle for them.
> 
> Once the beta is reeled in, the woman is likely to stop having sex with him other than exactly enough to keep him on the hook until it's too late for him to escape. If she is really nasty, she is likely to take up again with more exciting men while leaving the beta at home to pay the bills.
> 
> Then he ends up here wondering what happened.


And I would say to that 'nice guy' who does what he's supposed to that all of that is a passive-aggressive covert contract that he thinks is supposed to equal free and easy sex forever.

Only it doesn't always work out that way. Life is hard work.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Once the sexual revolution occurred, though, women finally got the chance to scr3w all the alphas they wanted to, and the betas got left behind.
> 
> This is great fun for the alphas and most of the women (although the top women aren't always that happy about not being able to lock down their own apex alphas in marriage). But it isn't much fun for the betas, who spend a decade or more in a sexual desert until the women get to around 30 and decide to settle for them.
> 
> Once the beta is reeled in, the woman is likely to stop having sex with him other than exactly enough to keep him on the hook until it's too late for him to escape. If she is really nasty, she is likely to take up again with more exciting men while leaving the beta at home to pay the bills.
> 
> Then he ends up here wondering what happened.


And is that why you are here? Wondering how to deal with your nasty wife who is taking you for everything you got?

Sincere question: is this how you view your marriage? Or did you get lucky and find someone who really does love her "beta" man? 

Or if you are the so-called alpha, why get married in the first place, given that you could get laid by any hottie you wanted, and marriage is so clearly for losers and suckers?

:scratchhead:


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> And is that why you are here? Wondering how to deal with your nasty wife who is taking you for everything you got?
> 
> Sincere question: is this how you view your marriage? Or did you get lucky and find someone who really does love her "beta" man?
> 
> Or if you are the so-called alpha, why get married in the first place, given that you could get laid by any hottie you wanted, and marriage is so clearly for losers and suckers?
> 
> :scratchhead:


My first marriage was not very good. My ex-wife tried to take me to the cleaners when I told her I wanted a divorce after I got tired of her emotional abuse. However, she was unable to do so because she was the one with the higher income and assets, and she couldn't arrange to have our case transferred to a particular judge who always gave everything to the wife regardless of the facts of the case.

My current marriage is fine. I'm here because I started noticing a few signs that suggested there might be future problems in my marriage and I wanted to make sure that I understood what was actually going on so I could deal with it. I don't recall how I actually found this site but it was after a fair amount of research on marital issues.

As a result of my research and followup with action, things are not only not going downhill but they are better than than they were before, and I'm reasonably certain that I can keep things going in the right direction. 

As for my personal category, I'm a "lesser alpha", according to one method of analysis based on prior dating history. That is, I'd had a number of LTRs and a fair number of casual relationships, rather than being in the sexual desert from puberty until age 30 or so, as seems to be the fate of many betas these days. That's not to say that I never had trouble finding a girlfriend, which would be a false statement; I did go years between girlfriends at times, but at least it wasn't completely hopeless. My wife would not put up with a beta, so it's a good thing that I'm not in that category. 

As for what I would do if I ever found myself alone due to something happening to my wife: I would not marry again absent some compelling reason. It's too risky even if sometimes things work out well.


----------



## tech-novelist

PDFV1983 said:


> I used to worry about this alpha or beta bs. Firstly, there is zero scientific evidence of human alpha or beta. Don't apply wolf behavior to humans. It is outrageous. Second, even you believe in this non-scientific stuff, you should at least be intelligent enough to understand that human behavior is much more complex than simply how we f**k. We are heavily influenced by morals, ethics, culture, social rules, etc.
> 
> I am a married man. I have posted about my anxieties, worries, and issues in other threads. But I am not gonna allow some egoistic dude label me as a beta loser just because I have made a commitment. I love my wife, and, no, she hasn't gone around f***ng buncha alphas before meeting me. I once was dating 5 girls at the same time (stressful, stupid, not recommended) but now married to 1. And I'll tell you that I didn't think of myself as an alpha during that short multi-dating period in my mid 20's.
> 
> We live in modern tech-driven complex world full of scientific advancements & social change. Let's not apply wolf pack behavior to the modern man.


Why do women do things like writing love letters to serial killers? And not just a handful of women, but lots of them. It's called "hybristophilia": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

Why don't they write love letters to accountants and computer programmers whom they don't know? They would make much better partners...


----------



## Marduk

PDFV1983 said:


> I used to worry about this alpha or beta bs. Firstly, there is zero scientific evidence of human alpha or beta. Don't apply wolf behavior to humans. I=


It's not even true for wolves.

The 'Alpha Wolf' Is An Outdated Myth - KnowledgeNuts


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> It's not even true for wolves.
> 
> The 'Alpha Wolf' Is An Outdated Myth - KnowledgeNuts


Ok, what does that have to do with humans? 

By the way, one of the least qualified types of person to explain human mating is a natural alpha. Since he doesn't need to know how it works, he doesn't know. The only exceptions are those for whom the topic is of academic interest, but even then it is unlikely that he will really understand it the way less fortunate men can, if they put enough effort into it.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Ok, what does that have to do with humans?
> 
> By the way, one of the least qualified types of person to explain human mating is a natural alpha. Since he doesn't need to know how it works, he doesn't know. The only exceptions are those for whom the topic is of academic interest, but even then it is unlikely that he will really understand it the way less fortunate men can, if they put enough effort into it.


The point he made was don't take something that's true for wolves as something that's true for humans.

My point was it's not even true for wolves.

Want to be successful with women?

Be the best, most confident, most successful, most healthy version of you that you can be. Whatever those things mean to you.

The end.


----------



## Faithful Wife

PDFV1983 said:


> This is beyond ridiculous. You are applying a very rare behavior to the entire female sex. I must mention that 6% (which, I am sure is a much higher prevalence than hybristophilia) of all priests are pedophiles! Does that mean we women should worry that all men are pedophiles & rapists?!!!


This is one of the main points the mano-crap crowd likes to grab onto. It is literally hilarious to me when they talk about this, every time. And they talk about it a LOT. :rofl:

According to these guys....

*women should be sooooo ashamed of their base desires (even though men aren't...you see NATURE made men non-monogamous, but made women monogamous...and women are not doing what NATURE told them to do, thus, the end of the world is nigh)

*also they should STOP having desire for the top 20% of dudes, because they are ruining society (for the other 80%)

*also they should stop being wh*res and riding the c*ck carousel (because they should only have sex with the 80% dudes)

*also women are hot for serial killers in VAST numbers, thus proof women are evil and gross and would rather f*ck a serial killer than just your average, every day beta

*one odd point would be, are serial killers in the top 20% then? because I thought that was the formula (shrug)

*also women are pro-circumcision and want to mutilate babies (but apparently no dads agree with this) thus again, all women's fault

*and of course women make false rape claims like, 100x more often than they are actually raped (all based on their own assumptions, no facts to muddy this up, please)


And these guys wonder why no girls like them?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> The point he made was don't take something that's true for wolves as something that's true for humans.
> 
> My point was it's not even true for wolves.
> 
> Want to be successful with women?
> 
> Be the best, most confident, most successful, most healthy version of you that you can be. Whatever those things mean to you.
> 
> The end.


Yes, attitude is very important. But you forgot the part about being attractive, meaning tall and symmetrical with high-testosterone indicators like a pointy jaw.

Or being rich and/or famous can work too.

Did I mention tall?

Remember, men are shallow because their sexual response is to things like big breasts and hips and a small waist. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that those are markers of fertility, because we are way beyond that socially!

But women are much deeper. They want the correct attitude (DGAF), the right physical attributes (tall and symmetrical), and plenty of resources. They won't always require all of those, especially if you are famous (or they think you are famous), but they all increase the excitement they get from you.

Again, I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that those attributes are exactly what would have been needed hundreds or thousands of years ago for a man to be able to provide for and protect both the woman and her children. :surprise:


----------



## tech-novelist

PDFV1983 said:


> This is beyond ridiculous. You are applying a very rare behavior to the entire female sex. I must mention that 6% (which, I am sure is a much higher prevalence than hybristophilia) of all priests are pedophiles! Does that mean we women should worry that all men are pedophiles & rapists?!!!


Are all men priests?

And where is the "rare behavior" of women writing love letters to computer programmers or accountants they don't know?

Hint: it doesn't exist. Only violent criminals get that response.

Why is that?

And why is "50 Shades of Grey", a total piece of crap from any critical standpoint, one of the best selling books in history... all to women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Are all men priests?


Do ALL women write to serial killers?


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Do ALL women write to serial killers?


Do ANY women write to accountants or computer programmers they don't know, with offers of marriage?


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Yes, attitude is very important. But you forgot the part about being attractive, meaning tall and symmetrical with high-testosterone indicators like a pointy jaw.


Sure, looks matter. But somehow I left with the girl many times and I'm not even over six feet tall, and plenty of other guys were better looking than me.


> Or being rich and/or famous can work too.
> 
> Did I mention tall?
> 
> Remember, men are shallow because their sexual response is to things like big breasts and hips and a small waist. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that those are markers of fertility, because we are way beyond that socially!


Sure.

But plenty of guys like girls with small boobs, or are bigger, or don't fit the 'barbie' mold at all.

And this is all provable, because if they didn't, these kind of women wouldn't exist.


> But women are much deeper. They want the correct attitude (DGAF), the right physical attributes (tall and symmetrical), and plenty of resources. They won't always require all of those, especially if you are famous (or they think you are famous), but they all increase the excitement they get from you.


A women's attitude and intelligence is really important to me, too. 


> Again, I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that those attributes are exactly what would have been needed hundreds or thousands of years ago for a man to be able to provide for and protect both the woman and her children. :surprise:


I'm not saying that there isn't an evo-psych element to attraction, but I do think that attraction is a massively fluid, contextual dynamic with factors like time in a person's life, how they feel about themselves, what they're looking for, and what past relationships are make it essentially a chaotic situation.

We've all seen the girl go home with the ugly guy.

You can't change your facial symmetry without surgery. You can't make yourself taller last time I checked.

But you can make yourself into the most attractive version of you that you can be -- and this isn't a bad thing.

If you're dating, it may help you get the girl you want.

If you're married, it may help you keep your wife interested. 

Just be your best and continually improve and let the red pill junkies worry about the rest.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Are all men priests?
> 
> And where is the "rare behavior" of women writing love letters to computer programmers or accountants they don't know?
> 
> Hint: it doesn't exist. Only violent criminals get that response.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> And why is "50 Shades of Grey", a total piece of crap from any critical standpoint, one of the best selling books in history... all to women?


Wait, you're equating writing to serial killers in jail with 50 shades of grey -- aka bdsm porn?

Do you know how many men like to be dominated by women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Do ANY women write to accountants or computer programmers they don't know?


Of course this is totally irrelevant and you know it. You are trying to assert that it is somehow a COMMON occurrence for women to write to serial killers.

How many serial killers are there? What percentage of men?

Even if each one has 1,000 admirers, this doesn't even come close to 1% of the population of women.

Yet you guys really love this particular point, don't you? It just HAS to be true that women in general love serial killers.

Does your wife know you hate women this much? Does she write to serial killers? Maybe that's why you are so hung up on that one. I can see why that would bother you.

More likely, you hide your feelings about these issues from your wife, because you know that she would think you were a total weirdo by thinking that women in GENERAL are attracted to serial killers.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Yes, attitude is very important. But you forgot the part about being attractive, meaning tall and symmetrical with high-testosterone indicators like a pointy jaw.
> 
> Or being rich and/or famous can work too.
> 
> Did I mention tall?
> 
> Remember, men are shallow because their sexual response is to things like big breasts and hips and a small waist. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that those are markers of fertility, because we are way beyond that socially!
> 
> But women are much deeper. They want the correct attitude (DGAF), the right physical attributes (tall and symmetrical), and plenty of resources. They won't always require all of those, especially if you are famous (or they think you are famous), but they all increase the excitement they get from you.
> 
> Again, I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that those attributes are exactly what would have been needed hundreds or thousands of years ago for a man to be able to provide for and protect both the woman and her children. :surprise:


Oh, ya, women seem to think men are attracted to the DGAF attitude, too.

I sure am.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Sure, looks matter. But somehow I left with the girl many times and I'm not even over six feet tall, and plenty of other guys were better looking than me.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> But plenty of guys like girls with small boobs, or are bigger, or don't fit the 'barbie' mold at all.
> 
> And this is all provable, because if they didn't, these kind of women wouldn't exist.
> 
> 
> A women's attitude and intelligence is really important to me, too.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that there isn't an evo-psych element to attraction, but I do think that attraction is a massively fluid, contextual dynamic with factors like time in a person's life, how they feel about themselves, what they're looking for, and what past relationships are make it essentially a chaotic situation.
> 
> We've all seen the girl go home with the ugly guy.
> 
> You can't change your facial symmetry without surgery. You can't make yourself taller last time I checked.
> 
> But you can make yourself into the most attractive version of you that you can be -- and this isn't a bad thing.
> 
> If you're dating, it may help you get the girl you want.
> 
> If you're married, it may help you keep your wife interested.
> 
> Just be your best and continually improve and let the red pill junkies worry about the rest.


I don't know anyone who says you shouldn't make yourself more attractive to women if you want to have more success with women.

The question is what is attractive to women.

I agree that attitude is very important. So is physical appearance. So is money and fame.

But apparently our disagreement is whether evo-psych is helpful in knowing how to improve oneself. I think it is; you seem to think it isn't.

Since you apparently don't have much trouble attracting women, whatever you are doing is working, so why mess with it, so long as it keeps working?

But as I said on this or the other similar thread, naturals generally don't understand much about how this all works. Which is fine as long as they are still successful, but with time or circumstance that may change. At that point, it is really helpful to have a workable paradigm, that correctly predicts behavior.

I find evo-psych useful in that connection, and it has helped me (a lesser alpha at best) to improve my relationship with my wife.


----------



## tech-novelist

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course this is totally irrelevant and you know it. You are trying to assert that it is somehow a COMMON occurrence for women to write to serial killers.
> 
> How many serial killers are there? What percentage of men?
> 
> Even if each one has 1,000 admirers, this doesn't even come close to 1% of the population of women.
> 
> Yet you guys really love this particular point, don't you? It just HAS to be true that women in general love serial killers.
> 
> Does your wife know you hate women this much? Does she write to serial killers? Maybe that's why you are so hung up on that one. I can see why that would bother you.
> 
> More likely, you hide your feelings about these issues from your wife, because you know that she would think you were a total weirdo by thinking that women in GENERAL are attracted to serial killers.


In other words, you can't explain why thousands of women write love letters to serial killers they don't know and zero women write love letters to computer programmers and accountants they don't know.

Thanks for making that clear.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> But as I said on this or the other similar thread, naturals generally don't understand much about how this all works. Which is fine as long as they are still successful, but with time or circumstance that may change. At that point, it is really helpful to have a workable paradigm, that correctly predicts behavior.


And once again...if your experience doesn't line up and validate their experience, your opinion will be considered invalid. For only the lowly 80% who can't get laid are allowed to have an opinion, doncha know?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Oh, ya, women seem to think men are attracted to the DGAF attitude, too.
> 
> I sure am.


I'm not, and I don't know any other men in real life who are either.

That approach is technically known as "projection".


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course this is totally irrelevant and you know it. You are trying to assert that it is somehow a COMMON occurrence for women to write to serial killers.
> 
> How many serial killers are there? What percentage of men?
> 
> Even if each one has 1,000 admirers, this doesn't even come close to 1% of the population of women.
> 
> Yet you guys really love this particular point, don't you? It just HAS to be true that women in general love serial killers.
> 
> Does your wife know you hate women this much? Does she write to serial killers? Maybe that's why you are so hung up on that one. I can see why that would bother you.
> 
> More likely, you hide your feelings about these issues from your wife, because you know that she would think you were a total weirdo by thinking that women in GENERAL are attracted to serial killers.


Well, this is interesting:


> He opines that the turn-on is less about a biological attraction towards aggressive males than it is about the fantasy that inside the heart of every murderous sociopath lurks a healthy dollop of sweet, sensitive "inner goo." Serial killer obsession is simply "bad boy syndrome" taken to its logical conclusion. According to stereotype, women who consistently fall for bad boys delude themselves into believing that they can spot a concealed goodness that eludes everyone else. Since murderers are the ultimate bad boys, the women who fall in love with them flatter themselves that they are uniquely insightful, the only ones able to find the hidden diamond of kindness in these predators. For Seltzer, this is less about biological attraction than it is about the self-regard of those women who imagine that they see what no one else can.


Do Women Envy Sociopathic Men?

and this:



> Sheila Isenberg, author of "Women Who Love Men Who Kill," spoke with dozens of women who had relationships with murderers. She found that there are two primary groups of people who end up with murderers: those who fall in love with "ordinary murderers," believing they see the "true" good side of the killer, and those who start relationships with notorious, tabloid-headlining murderers because they are drawn to the spotlight.
> 
> Serial Killer Groupies: Romance without risk?
> 
> Serial Killer Groupies: Romance without risk? 05:27
> "They want to be infamous too. When Scott Peterson was sent to prison, he got marriage proposals by the bucket before he even got to the prison. They know that if they get involved with these men their name or maybe their picture will get in the paper," Isenberg said.
> 
> Charles Manson was recently engaged to be married, both the Menendez brothers got married in jail and so did the "Hillside Strangler" duo.
> 
> And it's not just women. Susan Atkins, a member of the Manson Family who got a life sentence for her role in the Sharon Tate-LaBianca murders, married two different men in prison.


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/entertainment/serial-killer-lovers-the-seventies/

People are weird. And wonderful. But mostly weird.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> In other words, you can't explain why thousands of women write love letters to serial killers they don't know and zero women write love letters to computer programmers and accountants they don't know.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.


Computer programmers are not "famous". There are fans of everything, including serial killers. Never heard of a "famous" computer programmer, but if there was one, he would get fan mail.

So in other words, you simply think women are horrible people who want to f*ck serial killers even though there is such a small percentage of women who are into this, you must extrapolate that it is a much larger number of women than it really is. And this REALLY bothers you, since you bring it up over and over.

My only guess is that you must hide these opinions you have from your wife, because she would think you were absolutely bonkers if she heard them and would find it all just weird. Too bad you can't be transparent with her and tell her who you really are. Oh but wait...she probably wouldn't stick around for that, would she? Yeah better not let her know.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I'm not, and I don't know any other men in real life who are either.
> 
> That approach is technically known as "projection".


I am.

My whole dating history (and two marriages) have this issue -- I'm attracted to confident, high-maintenance, and "difficult" women.

I like a challenge. It's... well, it's challenging.


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> Do ANY women write to accountants or computer programmers they don't know, with offers of marriage?


Yes, that's what e-harmony is for.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> People are weird. And wonderful. But mostly weird.


Anyone who thinks that any sizable percentage of females wants to bag a serial killer is just so much farther out there than "weird".


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Wait, you're equating writing to serial killers in jail with 50 shades of grey -- aka bdsm porn?
> 
> Do you know how many men like to be dominated by women?


I don't know the answer to that, but we do know that the most popular form of adult fiction is romance novels, which feature dominant men and submissive women. Of course most of the readers of this type of fiction are women.

Here are some relevant scientific findings:

'Psychological Science published the results of a study that explored men's and women's sexual response to various stimuli. By the conclusion of the study, it was determined that men's genital arousal occurred in response to a very limited number of sexual stimuli while, in contrast, women's genital arousal occurred in response to a much wider range of sexual stimuli, including imagery involving violence and non-consensual sex.

In other words, female subjects were turned on—at least in their nether regions—by depictions of rape. (Men, on the flipside, responded almost exclusively to the consensual scenarios.)'

Your Rape Fantasies Are Completely Normal (And Perfectly OK) | YourTango


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I don't know anyone who says you shouldn't make yourself more attractive to women if you want to have more success with women.
> 
> The question is what is attractive to women.
> 
> I agree that attitude is very important. So is physical appearance. So is money and fame.
> 
> But apparently our disagreement is whether evo-psych is helpful in knowing how to improve oneself. I think it is; you seem to think it isn't.
> 
> Since you apparently don't have much trouble attracting women, whatever you are doing is working, so why mess with it, so long as it keeps working?
> 
> But as I said on this or the other similar thread, naturals generally don't understand much about how this all works. Which is fine as long as they are still successful, but with time or circumstance that may change. At that point, it is really helpful to have a workable paradigm, that correctly predicts behavior.
> 
> I find evo-psych useful in that connection, and it has helped me (a lesser alpha at best) to improve my relationship with my wife.


OK. I was a red pill guy for a while. Went down the whole MMSL path.

Here's what worked from those days:
- losing my gut and gaining muscle mass
- dressing better
- being more confident
- adopting a systematic approach to figuring out what turned my wife on vs what she said turned her on
- learning how not to be passive aggressive, especially about sex

Here's what didn't work:
- learning how to live without vulnerability or emotional intimacy
- thinking that women created this vast conspiracy to lie to men about what they want in order to have some nefarious scheme
- thinking that women's minds were fundamentally different than men
- thinking that everything women do have to do with attracting men
- that roles were defined ipso facto by evolution
- that women suddenly get afraid as they age because of their "sexual market value"
- that there is a "sexual marketplace" at all
- confusing my attractiveness with my value as a husband


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I don't know the answer to that, but we do know that the most popular form of adult fiction is romance novels, which feature dominant men and submissive women. Of course most of the readers of this type of fiction are women.
> 
> Here are some relevant scientific findings:
> 
> 'Psychological Science published the results of a study that explored men's and women's sexual response to various stimuli. By the conclusion of the study, it was determined that men's genital arousal occurred in response to a very limited number of sexual stimuli while, in contrast, women's genital arousal occurred in response to a much wider range of sexual stimuli, including imagery involving violence and non-consensual sex.
> 
> In other words, female subjects were turned on—at least in their nether regions—by depictions of rape. (Men, on the flipside, responded almost exclusively to the consensual scenarios.)'
> 
> Your Rape Fantasies Are Completely Normal (And Perfectly OK) | YourTango


Ya, I love this.

Women are the real horndogs.

Makes you wonder what society has done to them, doesn't it?


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Anyone who thinks that any sizable percentage of females wants to bag a serial killer is just so much farther out there than "weird".


Oh, I didn't say that. I think it would be a very small % of the population.

Because if it wasn't, we'd all be serial killers, and there would be nobody left for anybody to bag.

But it did make me do a couple google searches and think.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> 'Psychological Science published the results of a study that explored men's and women's sexual response to various stimuli. By the conclusion of the study, it was determined that men's genital arousal occurred in response to a very limited number of sexual stimuli while, in contrast, women's genital arousal occurred in response to a much wider range of sexual stimuli, including imagery involving violence and non-consensual sex.
> 
> In other words, female subjects were turned on—at least in their nether regions—by depictions of rape. (Men, on the flipside, responded almost exclusively to the consensual scenarios.)'


From the actual study:

*Fifteen men and 15 women* listened to fourteen 2-min audiotaped narratives that depicted an interaction between a man and a woman and that varied factorially according to the presence of consent, violence, and sexual activity.



A whole whopping 15 test subjects! Someone call every woman everywhere and let her know it is totally natural for her to want to be raped...because 15 other women said so.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> Yes, that's what e-harmony is for.


How many of the first contacts on e-harmony are of women writing love letters or marriage proposals to men? I'm going to guess a number very close to zero.

If you have statistics, I'd be interested to see them.


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> In other words, you can't explain why thousands of women write love letters to serial killers they don't know and zero women write love letters to computer programmers and accountants they don't know.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.




Is this really a question? Because women who write to serial killers are mentally ill, and because writing to people you don't know is bat**** unless you have some reason to contact them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Oh, I didn't say that. I think it would be a very small % of the population.
> 
> Because if it wasn't, we'd all be serial killers, and there would be nobody left for anybody to bag.
> 
> But it did make me do a couple google searches and think.


Yes I know. I was implying that the men who think this is actually "a thing" for women, are weird.

Especially the ones who bring it up over and over and over...


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Ya, I love this.
> 
> Women are the real horndogs.
> 
> Makes you wonder what society has done to them, doesn't it?


Until recently (not counting the last 40 years or so), it has made them act as though they weren't that interested in sex, at severe penalty to their reputation.

Now they can do anything they want in that area, and it turns out that what they want is sex... but only with a small subset of men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist, have you ever discussed your theories with your wife? With your daughter? Your sister? Any actual woman other than on the internet? If not, why not?


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> How many of the first contacts on e-harmony are of women writing love letters or marriage proposals to men? I'm going to guess a number very close to zero.
> 
> If you have statistics, I'd be interested to see them.


Lol, it was a joke!


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> Is this really a question? Because women who write to serial killers are mentally ill, and because writing to people you don't know is bat**** unless you have some reason to contact them.


Ok, they're mentally ill. But why do they write to *violent criminals* specifically, and not to inoffensive men such as programmers or accountants?


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Until recently (not counting the last 40 years or so), it has made them act as though they weren't that interested in sex, at severe penalty to their reputation.
> 
> Now they can do anything they want in that area, and it turns out that what they want is sex... but only with a small subset of men.


Hmm.
you had me up until that last line.

Which set to you think you are in?


----------



## knobcreek

PDFV1983 said:


> This is beyond ridiculous. You are applying a very rare behavior to the entire female sex. I must mention that 6% (which, I am sure is a much higher prevalence than hybristophilia) of all priests are pedophiles! *Does that mean we women should worry that all men are pedophiles & rapists*?!!!


Aren't you a guy?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Hmm.
> you had me up until that last line.
> 
> Which set to you think you are in?


Apparently I'm on the borderline between "Yes" and "No". A fair number of women have found me attractive enough, and I'm sure a much larger number has found me not attractive enough.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Apparently I'm on the borderline between "Yes" and "No". A fair number of women have found me attractive enough, and I'm sure a much larger number has found me not attractive enough.


Sounds like you're a reasonably attractive guy who's been reasonably successful with his love life.

So what do you attribute that to?


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Computer programmers are not "famous". There are fans of everything, including serial killers. * Never heard of a "famous" computer programmer*.


Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak? 

All these guys are pretty famous and founded multi-billion dollar companies.

For a group of gals who simply don't care about MGTOW you all seem to be getting bent around the axle here.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Sounds like you're a reasonably attractive guy who's been reasonably successful with his love life.
> 
> So what do you attribute that to?


Well, let's see.

I'm an extravert (MBTI spelling).
I don't put up with crap from people.
I'm very good at what I do so I don't put up with crap at work either.
I have a positive attitude toward life, dealing with problems rather than letting them overcome me.

But I think my biggest asset is my coruscating wit, which I don't hide under a bushel. Most of the women I've been involved with have been pretty smart, which makes my IQ a benefit rather than a turnoff, as it is for a lot of women.

However, that said, if I had known in my 20's and 30's what I know now, I would have had a lot more success with women than I actually did have. I wince when I think back on some of the lame stuff I did in those days. :surprise:


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak?
> 
> All these guys are pretty famous and founded multi-billion dollar companies.
> 
> For a group of gals who simply don't care about MGTOW you all seem to be getting bent around the axle here.


I'm pretty sure there are more than 4 serial killers. And yes, the 4 programmers you named could bag 1,000 women each.

Strange that you consider it to be "bent around the axle" to be a normal person with normal common sense. There are several guys here who are also "bent around the axle" as you say.


----------



## knobcreek

The OP has like 6 posts here at TAM and hasn't posted in this thread in weeks, ladies, gentlemen, we've been trolled.

Nothing but love for the ladies here, keep fighting the good fight against our unfair patriarchal society, men, vaginas are not the enemy, they're actually pretty awesome, stop being such little *****es and try to get in one. We're all a little right and all a lot wrong.

I'll bow out of this one now...


----------



## Faithful Wife

No answer to my question, technovelist?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> No answer to my question, technovelist?


I would ignore you too. You are impossible to have a rational conversation with. Try talking to him in a civil manner rather than twisting his words.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Is @Personal also impossible to have a rational conversation with?

Feel free to quote anything I've written that is "not civil". I'll be happy to respond to your concerns.

Meanwhile, still curious if tech talks to his wife or any other woman in real life about his theories on hybristolphilia and other topics.


----------



## tech-novelist

BetrayedDad said:


> I would ignore you too. You are impossible to have a rational conversation with. Try talking to him in a civil manner rather than twisting his words.


Thanks. I have put her on ignore for exactly that reason.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw, dang. I guess we'll never get to find out that tech doesn't actually say any of these thoughts out loud to the women in his life. 

Not too surprising, though.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> Aw, dang. I guess we'll never get to find out that tech doesn't actually say any of these thoughts out loud to the women in his life.
> 
> Not too surprising, though.


No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles, potentially husband that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? Probably not.


----------



## tom67

knobcreek said:


> No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? Probably not.


Just a question knobcreek have you been to knobcreek???
It's quite the experience when they break out the 50 cal.>:x


----------



## TiggyBlue

knobcreek said:


> No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles, *potentially husband that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? * Probably not.


Wouldn't her husband take that as a compliment?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> Is @Personal also impossible to have a rational conversation with?
> 
> Feel free to quote anything I've written that is "not civil". I'll be happy to respond to your concerns.
> 
> Meanwhile, still curious if tech talks to his wife or any other woman in real life about his theories on hybristolphilia and other topics.


That's not really any of your business what his wife thinks is it? She's not here, he is. 

Implying something must be wrong with his wife if she were to know what he wrote on this forum isn't very civil.

How you are allowed to continue to go after him unabated only proves my point that certain members get preferential treatment on TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles, potentially husband that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? Probably not.


If they asked me if size matters, yes I would say that size matters. They would not expect any further details than that. I would say specifically that I only like men with gorgeous c*cks to my husband, and he would say "I know baby, I know".


----------



## knobcreek

TiggyBlue said:


> Wouldn't her husband take that as a compliment?


Not if he didn't have a gorgeous c*ck, hence the "potentially".


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> That's not really any of your business what his wife thinks is it? She's not here, he is.
> 
> Implying something must be wrong with his wife if she were to know what he wrote on this forum isn't very civil.


Ok, your opinion. I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his wife. I was implying that he hides these kinds of ideas from his wife because she would think it was weird and creepy that he thinks women who have hybristophilia have anything to do with normal, every day average women. I assume she would feel insulted by that, and that's why he hides it from her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> How you are allowed to continue to go after him unabated only proves my point that certain members get preferential treatment on TAM.


It must be because of my amazing vagina.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> It must be because of my amazing vagina.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Not if he didn't have a gorgeous c*ck, hence the "potentially".


He does.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, your opinion. I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his wife. I was implying that he hides these kinds of ideas from his wife because she would think it was weird and creepy that he thinks women who have hybristophilia have anything to do with normal, every day average women. I assume she would feel insulted by that, and that's why he hides it from her.


Or maybe she has read everything here and thinks your weird and creepy.

Again she's not here, so maybe we should leave her and the speculation out of the conversation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> Or maybe she has read everything here and thinks your weird and creepy.
> 
> Again she's not here, so maybe we should leave her and the speculation out of the conversation.


Ok, your opinion. I was curious, and so I asked him. Then he quickly put me on ignore.  I'll take from that what I want, and you can do the same.


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> He does.


He's likely too old to have a really nice one, c*cks and vaginas IMO can only classify as "gorgeous" in their exuberant youth. Your husband likely has more of a formidable c*ck and you have a distinguished vagina.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Faithful Wife said:


> It must be because of my amazing vagina.


Thanks for proving my point spectacularly.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> He's likely too old to have a really nice one, c*cks and vaginas IMO can only classify as "gorgeous" in their exuberant youth. Your husband likely has more of a formidable c*ck and you have a distinguished vagina.


:rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

BetrayedDad said:


> Thanks for proving my point spectacularly.


You're welcome.

It is quite amazing, I must say.


----------



## BetrayedDad

So I've heard.


----------



## tom67

BetrayedDad said:


> So I've heard.


Sigh tee it up...

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/674433349679579136 >


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hmmm...I wonder what that even means? It must be something about how horrible feminists are, I guess.


----------



## FalconKing

So glad I stayed out of this one...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> *No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses* or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles, potentially husband that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? Probably not.


I tell my H everything I post about on here, or at least anything interesting. He reads whatever he wants or I'll read him stuff. 

What would be the point in being a different person here than you are to your spouse?


----------



## Personal

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> knobcreek said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one talks about what they talk about on a site like this to their spouses* or family members. Do you tell your dad, brothers, or uncles, potentially husband that you only like men with gorgeous c*cks? Probably not.
> 
> 
> 
> I tell my H everything I post about on here, or at least anything interesting. He reads whatever he wants or I'll read him stuff.
> 
> What would be the point in being a different person here than you are to your spouse?
Click to expand...

I share everything that I post on here with my wife, while I also often show her specific discussions that I think she might be interested in as well.

As to women liking men with gorgeous c*cks, I can't see why anyone should be horrified by something that is perfectly natural.


----------



## Heatherknows

BetrayedDad said:


> Or maybe she has read everything here and thinks your weird and creepy.


The only reason why I post on these forums is *because* they're weird and creepy.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> My current marriage is fine. I'm here because I started noticing a few signs that suggested there might be future problems in my marriage and I wanted to make sure that I understood what was actually going on so I could deal with it. I don't recall how I actually found this site but it was after a fair amount of research on marital issues.
> 
> As a result of my research and followup with action, things are not only not going downhill but they are better than than they were before, and I'm reasonably certain that I can keep things going in the right direction.
> 
> As for my personal category, I'm a "lesser alpha", according to one method of analysis based on prior dating history. That is, I'd had a number of LTRs and a fair number of casual relationships, rather than being in the sexual desert from puberty until age 30 or so, as seems to be the fate of many betas these days. That's not to say that I never had trouble finding a girlfriend, which would be a false statement; I did go years between girlfriends at times, but at least it wasn't completely hopeless. My wife would not put up with a beta, so it's a good thing that I'm not in that category.
> 
> As for what I would do if I ever found myself alone due to something happening to my wife: I would not marry again absent some compelling reason. It's too risky even if sometimes things work out well.


I'm glad to hear that your marriage is doing well, but I still find it a bit surprising that you chose to get married at all. And not just once, but twice!

Was it because you're a "lesser alpha"? You needed to lock someone down? Does it not bother you to be put in this terrible beta position of providing for some woman who just wants to screw all the alphas she can get her mitts on? Or is your wife actually not like that?

I'm just curious, tech, because by most accounts you seem happy with your wife, happy to be married. You praise your wife for refusing to put up with some "beta" loser, and I take this to mean that she is something special, high up in market value that is almost, almost but not quite, good enough to bag a true alpha. Cuz, of course, no one is good enough to bag those guys. I'm curious though, do you see her as regretting that? Pining after those alphas she couldn't keep? Waiting to cheat, first chance she gets? 

It seems, after all, that this is what you think women are like. Is that also how you see your wife? And if so, why get married?

(It strikes me as curious to choose marriage, yet advise all others to avoid it because it is "too risky". What made you willing to accept those risks --a second time, even?)


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I'm glad to hear that your marriage is doing well, but I still find it a bit surprising that you chose to get married at all. And not just once, but twice!
> 
> Was it because you're a "lesser alpha"? You needed to lock someone down? Does it not bother you to be put in this terrible beta position of providing for some woman who just wants to screw all the alphas she can get her mitts on? Or is your wife actually not like that?
> 
> I'm just curious, tech, because by most accounts you seem happy with your wife, happy to be married. You praise your wife for refusing to put up with some "beta" loser, and I take this to mean that she is something special, high up in market value that is almost, almost but not quite, good enough to bag a true alpha. Cuz, of course, no one is good enough to bag those guys. I'm curious though, do you see her as regretting that? Pining after those alphas she couldn't keep? Waiting to cheat, first chance she gets?
> 
> It seems, after all, that this is what you think women are like. Is that also how you see your wife? And if so, why get married?
> 
> (It strikes me as curious to choose marriage, yet advise all others to avoid it because it is "too risky". What made you willing to accept those risks --a second time, even?)


I chose marriage before I understood the risks. Because I now understand the risks, I would not do it today, at least in the US or any other country with misandrist laws.

My wife treats me well and I think will continue to do so as long as I hold up my end of the bargain, which is providing, protecting, and being sufficiently alpha to keep her interest. Of course, as we have seen on many occasions on this board, many men thought that their marriages were fine but got blindsided by their wives' hypergamy. However, I think I can prevent anything like that from happening because I understand the risks and will be proactive in dealing with anything that may come up.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that I think that women are bad and men are good. That is not the case. Both sexes have their weaknesses and strengths. Both men and women can be horrible, when they give in to their instinctual desires rather than considering the cost both to themselves and others. 

Unfortunately in today's US society, women are generally *rewarded *for this behavior, whereas men are generally *punished *for similar behavior. People are influenced by the reward they expect for their behavior, and people without a firm moral compass will often behave badly if they don't expect any negative consequences, and even more so if they expect positive ones. Accordingly, marriage in today's US society is too hazardous for me to recommend it to men.


----------



## john117

I find it mildly amusing that people who have not been shafted "by the system" or are in a fulfilling relationship comment so unfavorably on other people's choices.

I have two such mgtow's in my team. One is my age and finds fulfilment in high risk activities like flying (more pilot licences than I knew existed). The other, a very close buddy, is an avid collector of Americana and car racing aficionado, racing amateur entries in SCCA I think. Both are highly educated, six figures, attractive and in shape yet they aren't willing to partake in a relationship.

Are they "beta losers"?


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> I find it mildly amusing that people who have not been shafted "by the system" or are in a fulfilling relationship comment so unfavorably on other people's choices.
> 
> I have two such mgtow's in my team. One is my age and finds fulfilment in high risk activities like flying (more pilot licences than I knew existed). The other, a very close buddy, is an avid collector of Americana and car racing aficionado, racing amateur entries in SCCA I think. Both are highly educated, six figures, attractive and in shape yet they aren't willing to partake in a relationship.
> 
> Are they "beta losers"?


We don't know them, don't know what their reasons are, etc. But I have never thought that any person who simply doesn't want to get partnered was any kind of loser. I think some people are self-aware and simply don't want to partner with anyone. I know some women like this as well. There is nothing wrong with enjoying your autonomy. Also I think it is admirable if someone doesn't want to have children, to not have them, rather than have them anyway because that is what is expected of them.

Keep in mind, it is the other MEN (in other camps like RP/PUA/MRA) who call these men "beta losers".


----------



## john117

I know enough from pilot guy to know he's a bit, ummm, difficult to get along. He was briefly married and his wife walked out on him. Two dogs 

Racer guy is harder to figure. He's mid 40,s, acts like my kid brother, and was in a 15 year LTR and was dumped when he was laid off. No relationship in 5 years despite opportunity. I tried to set him up with my favorite intern  and we are great friends but... Two cats (domestic shorthair).

I think both genders are sometimes too quick to label others....


----------



## BetrayedDad

john117 said:


> Both are highly educated, six figures, attractive and in shape yet they aren't willing to partake in a relationship.
> 
> Are they "beta losers"?


I'd call them smart...

If you don't need companionship and are self sufficient financially and otherwise then what purpose does it serve? 

You can do anything you want single that you can do married and actually more.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john...MGTOW's have labeled themselves.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> We don't know them, don't know what their reasons are, etc. But I have never thought that any person who simply doesn't want to get partnered was any kind of loser. I think some people are self-aware and simply don't want to partner with anyone. I know some women like this as well. There is nothing wrong with enjoying your autonomy. Also I think it is admirable if someone doesn't want to have children, to not have them, rather than have them anyway because that is what is expected of them.
> 
> Keep in mind, it is the other MEN (in other camps like RP/PUA/MRA) who call these men "beta losers".


I think it's cute that you jump straight to "they must have other reasons." 

Also, keep in mind it is women like yourself who have on this thread called the guys in the "manosphere" weird losers and misogynists. You only replaced the word "beta". Same basic concept. 

I wonder, do you speak to people in person the way to do on this thread? If so, it's a wonder you're married at all.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I wonder, do you speak to people in person the way to do on this thread? If so, it's a wonder you're married at all.


FW is a very intelligent woman. We can all learn a lot from her.

I am sure her husband feels very lucky to be married to her.


----------



## john117

Faithful Wife said:


> john...MGTOW's have labeled themselves.


Yea, but a lot of people seem to belittle the name and the decision. Like in my birth country, if you were female over 25 or 30 and single...


----------



## john117

jld said:


> FW is a very intelligent woman. We can all learn a lot from her.
> 
> I am sure her husband feels very lucky to be married to her.


I don't see much correlation between the three sentences


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> My wife treats me well and I think will continue to do so as long as I hold up my end of the bargain, which is providing, protecting, and being sufficiently alpha to keep her interest. Of course, as we have seen on many occasions on this board, many men thought that their marriages were fine but got blindsided by their wives' hypergamy. However, I think I can prevent anything like that from happening because I understand the risks and will be proactive in dealing with anything that may come up.
> 
> Also, you seem to be under the impression that I think that women are bad and men are good. That is not the case. Both sexes have their weaknesses and strengths. Both men and women can be horrible, when they give in to their instinctual desires rather than considering the cost both to themselves and others.


It is interesting that you see "being a good provider" as both the ultimate in beta, yet somehow also exactly what women want. Indeed, apparently we are all desperately climbing all over each other for that great provider, but also that super alpha dude who DGAF about anything but his own sexual gratification.

Which is it really that is women's true weakness? The DGAF dude? Or the super protector / provider? 



technovelist said:


> Unfortunately in today's US society, women are generally *rewarded *for this behavior, whereas men are generally *punished *for similar behavior. People are influenced by the reward they expect for their behavior, and people without a firm moral compass will often behave badly if they don't expect any negative consequences, and even more so if they expect positive ones. Accordingly, marriage in today's US society is too hazardous for me to recommend it to men.


By your own statistics, more women live in poverty than men, particularly after divorce. There are a huge number of single moms raising children, the fathers have completely disappeared, showing no interest in their children's upbringing. How is this rewarding women and punishing men?

It strikes me that men would be well-advised to select women who are feminist career women who earn tons of $$$$$$. Because then men don't need to worry about being taken to the cleaners on divorce. But it would seem that most MGTOW hate feminists the most. Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

BetrayedDad said:


> I'd call them smart...
> 
> *If you don't need companionship and are self sufficient financially and otherwise then what purpose does it serve? *
> 
> You can do anything you want single that you can do married and actually more.


Isn't this one of the "problems" that these men have with women that have made them all upset and swear off women in the first place?

Some women realized that they don't need financial or other help so they are being a lot pickier with who- if ever- they decide to be with. 

I don't know if it was this thread or the other one but I'm pretty sure I read that was one of the complaints they had. Women don't need them (or their money) anymore so they are harder to attract, especially the pretty ones.


----------



## notmyrealname4

knobcreek said:


> Most men enter marriages with women today knowing that in the end *they'll always look to move on up the chain. * *Men are content, women never are, women are always looking for something better. *But we deal with it anyway, then move on to the next one.


:wtf:

I'm sorry you have had such nightmarish experiences with women. Your perspective sounds so sick and messed up.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I have two such mgtow's in my team. One is my age and finds fulfilment in high risk activities like flying (more pilot licences than I knew existed). The other, a very close buddy, is an avid collector of Americana and car racing aficionado, racing amateur entries in SCCA I think. Both are highly educated, six figures, attractive and in shape yet they aren't willing to partake in a relationship.
> 
> Are they "beta losers"?


Now, I'm really confused! I thought these were the alpha heroes everyone looks up to. After all, they DGAF, do lots of manly alpha things, and can't be tied down by some vagina that wants to turn them into a beta provider so she (it?) can cheat on him.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Isn't this one of the "problems" that these men have with women that have made them all upset and swear off women in the first place?
> 
> *Some women realized that they don't need financial or other help so they are being a lot pickier with who- if ever- they decide to be with.*
> 
> I don't know if it was this thread or the other one but I'm pretty sure I read that was one of the complaints they had. Women don't need them (or their money) anymore so they are harder to attract, especially the pretty ones.


I think one of the smartest things a woman can do is become financially independent. And I say that as a woman who is very much financially dependent on her husband.


----------



## Lila

intheory said:


> :wtf:
> 
> I'm sorry you have had such nightmarish experiences with women. Your perspective sounds so sick and messed up.


:allhail:


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> Yea, but a lot of people seem to belittle the name and the decision. Like in my birth country, if you were female over 25 or 30 and single...


I take issue with men who are openly hostile, bitter and entitled about not getting with a woman who is hotter than he is. I label them whiners and sometimes depending on who and what they said, I might label them a dangerous creep.

I would label a woman who was openly hostile, bitter and entitled about not getting with a man who is hotter than she is a dangerous, whiny creep, too.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> It is interesting that you see "being a good provider" as both the ultimate in beta, yet somehow also exactly what women want. Indeed, apparently we are all desperately climbing all over each other for that great provider, but also that super alpha dude who DGAF about anything but his own sexual gratification.


What women want a man to provide and what they are sexually attracted to are not the same. Of course women have different desires, but in general they want a good provider but are not sexually attracted to men due to their ability to provide. On the other hand, if a man earns less than a woman, she is also unlikely to be interested in sex with him unless he is extremely alpha (tattoos, gang involvement, etc.).



always_alone said:


> Which is it really that is women's true weakness? The DGAF dude? Or the super protector / provider?


The DGAG dude, if we are talking about sexual attraction.



always_alone said:


> By your own statistics, more women live in poverty than men, particularly after divorce. There are a huge number of single moms raising children, the fathers have completely disappeared, showing no interest in their children's upbringing. How is this rewarding women and punishing men?


The answer is that it depends on which men we are talking about. The men who "impregnate and run" are the alpha guys with tattoos, criminal records, and the like. They have nothing to take, so they have nothing to lose. The responsible men, on the other hand, are the ones who get shafted in a divorce.



always_alone said:


> It strikes me that men would be well-advised to select women who are feminist career women who earn tons of $$$$$$. Because then men don't need to worry about being taken to the cleaners on divorce. But it would seem that most MGTOW hate feminists the most. Why do you suppose that is?


They may not have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in a divorce, but they do have to worry a great deal about a sexless marriage. Most women lose attraction to men whom they out-earn, even if it was there at the start. Especially after marriage, where the man can't tell the woman to take a hike if she refuses sex.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> I take issue with men who are openly hostile, bitter and entitled about not getting with a woman who is hotter than he is. I label them whiners and sometimes depending on who and what they said, I might label them a dangerous creep.
> 
> I would label a woman who was openly hostile, bitter and entitled about not getting with a man who is hotter than she is a dangerous, whiny creep, too.


Except you labeled everyone who is MRA / RP / MGTOW etc previously. 

You bounce back and forth so much. "It's the men labeling them!" "Well, I label them too, but only the one's who deserve it!" "Anyone who ascribes to the ideas of any of these groups is a...." I think you take issue with anyone who doesn't praise all women for everything. And I can think of a post of yours back around page 20 or so that supports my theory.

You're a real peach :wink2:

PS: Didn't answer my question, did ya? You were so eager to get a similar one answered by technovelist earlier, weren't you?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> They may not have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in a divorce, but they do have to worry a great deal about a sexless marriage. Most women lose attraction to men whom they out-earn, even if it was there at the start. Especially after marriage, where the man can't tell the woman to take a hike if she refuses sex.


Feminist career woman doesn't mean they are making more than him. I almost always make less than my H. I also have a "girlier" job where his is a manly kind of job which has always attracted me. I don't like office guys. 

But I make enough to support myself.

ITA with always_alone
These MGTOW types seem to go for the dependent women, women who don't/won't work, who need and use their man for money and a nice home and things. Then they complain about it. 

They don't go for the ones who could independently support themselves and don't NEED them. 

Could be the later group just doesn't want anything to do with them and because they don't need to be, they won't.

But it's likely a mix of a bunch of things. Using money to attract users, liking the control that having someone dependent on them gives, wanting to save someone and feeling ego boosts when they do, etc.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> It strikes me that men would be well-advised to select women who are feminist career women who earn tons of $$$$$$. Because then men don't need to worry about being taken to the cleaners on divorce. But it would seem that most MGTOW hate feminists the most. Why do you suppose that is?


These would be exactly the qualities that in my experience can mess up a marriage when left unchecked.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I wonder, do you speak to people in person the way to do on this thread? If so, it's a wonder you're married at all.


Yes, I do. People who speak kindly to me, I speak kindly in return. People who speak harshly to me, I speak harshly in return.


----------



## BetrayedDad

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Isn't this one of the "problems" that these men have with women that have made them all upset and swear off women in the first place?
> 
> Some women realized that they don't need financial or other help so they are being a lot pickier with who- if ever- they decide to be with.


My comment was gender neutral and women should heed the same advise.

Maybe the divorce rate wouldn't be 50% if a lot more people didn't force themselves into bad relationships.


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Now, I'm really confused! I thought these were the alpha heroes everyone looks up to. After all, they DGAF, do lots of manly alpha things, and can't be tied down by some vagina that wants to turn them into a beta provider so she (it?) can cheat on him.


Bwahahahaha!
Don't stop, you're on a roll.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lila

technovelist said:


> What women want a man to provide and what they are sexually attracted to are not the same. Of course women have different desires, but in general they want a good provider but are not sexually attracted to men due to their ability to provide. On the other hand, if a man earns less than a woman, she is also unlikely to be interested in sex with him unless he is extremely alpha (tattoos, gang involvement, etc.).


This whole 'women are sexually attracted to tattoos, gang involvement, etc.. is getting old. You have women telling you exactly what they find attractive in men, yet you keep telling them they are wrong. :surprise: 

No, technovelist, women are not cookie cutter copies of each other. We don't all like the tattooed biker, or the gang member, or the wife beater, or all of the other stereotypical caricatures that are brought up to describe 'alphas'. 

Here is the truth that you seem to not want to hear. To many (and I venture to guess most) women it's not about the money. It's about goals. It's about passion. It's about giving a FF. A man can be passionate about a charitable cause and dedicate himself to helping others, and still have a wife who finds him sexually attractive. A man can be passionate about his art or music, make diddly squat selling paintings or writing songs, and still have a wife who finds him attractive. I know drs. who forgo the big salaries to go traipse through the jungle to help those in need. That's sexy!

I'm sorry this picture does not fit in the box you've created but it is the truth.


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> My comment was gender neutral and women should heed the same advise.
> 
> *Maybe the divorce rate wouldn't be 50% if a lot more people didn't force themselves into bad relationships*.


According the latest studies the divorce rate has dropped to about 42% ......because people aren't forcing themselves into bad relationships.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Let's agree with whatever study your citing for the sake of argument.

You think 42% failure rate is a good number?!? That's really sad.


----------



## Lila

No, I don't think 42% is a great number but considering that the number was slightly over 50% not long ago, any improvement is worth noting. If the current trend continues, that number will drop to below 35% in the next couple of decades. Young people are waiting longer to get married (IMO it's a good thing) and making wiser choices with regards to who they choose to marry. That, IMO, is a GREAT thing.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> What women want a man to provide and what they are sexually attracted to are not the same. Of course women have different desires, but in general they want a good provider but are not sexually attracted to men due to their ability to provide. On the other hand, if a man earns less than a woman, she is also unlikely to be interested in sex with him unless he is extremely alpha (tattoos, gang involvement, etc.).


What I really struggle with here is even if this is true (and I think women do choose ONS differently than LTRs) -- is how it's any different than for men.

We've all seen guys be willing to hook up with one girl, but not bring her to his parent's for dinner.

Right? 

How is that different?

A: it isn't.



> The DGAG dude, if we are talking about sexual attraction.
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is that it depends on which men we are talking about. The men who "impregnate and run" are the alpha guys with tattoos, criminal records, and the like. They have nothing to take, so they have nothing to lose. The responsible men, on the other hand, are the ones who get shafted in a divorce.


Don't "responsible women" married to guys you describe above get screwed, too?

How many stories on TAM here describe essentially that?



> They may not have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in a divorce, but they do have to worry a great deal about a sexless marriage. Most women lose attraction to men whom they out-earn, even if it was there at the start. Especially after marriage, where the man can't tell the woman to take a hike if she refuses sex.


Everybody's gotta worry about a sexless, passionless, or loveless marriage.

Hell, many guys I work with my age pretty much ignore their aging wives to hang out with their buddies... and do their heads turn when the 20-something office hottie walks down the hall in a tight skirt?

You betcha.

How is this any different?


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> Young people are waiting longer to get married (IMO it's a good thing) and making wiser choices with regards to who they choose to marry.


How is that any different than saying, "not forcing yourself into bad relationships."

I think some of you just like to argue for the sake of argument.


----------



## tech-novelist

Lila said:


> This whole 'women are sexually attracted to tattoos, gang involvement, etc.. is getting old. You have women telling you exactly what they find attractive in men, yet you keep telling them they are wrong. :surprise:
> 
> No, technovelist, women are not cookie cutter copies of each other. We don't all like the tattooed biker, or the gang member, or the wife beater, or all of the other stereotypical caricatures that are brought up to describe 'alphas'.
> 
> Here is the truth that you seem to not want to hear. To many (and I venture to guess most) women it's not about the money. It's about goals. It's about passion. It's about giving a FF. A man can be passionate about a charitable cause and dedicate himself to helping others, and still have a wife who finds him sexually attractive. A man can be passionate about his art or music, make diddly squat selling paintings or writing songs, and still have a wife who finds him attractive. I know drs. who forgo the big salaries to go traipse through the jungle to help those in need. That's sexy!
> 
> I'm sorry this picture does not fit in the box you've created but it is the truth.


I pay attention to what women do, not what they say.

And I see a lot of women lavishing attention on tattooed losers/criminals, whereas I don't see a lot of women lavishing attention on with "boring" stable guys with good jobs and kind hearts.

As soon as I see that change, I'll change my opinion on what women find sexy.

Does that mean it is hopeless for the non-criminally inclined men? No. But a man has to know how to be attractive, meaning he needs to avoid emotional displays that show weakness, while displaying those behaviors that turn women on.


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> How is that any different than saying, "not forcing yourself into bad relationships."
> 
> I think some of you just like to argue for the sake of argument.


LOL. Pot meet Kettle. 

If you'd bothered to read my post from a neutral position, you'd see that I was actually agreeing with the "not forcing yourself into bad relationships". I only corrected the divorce rate. It's not 50% and it's not climbing as many people seem to incorrectly reference.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I pay attention to what women do, not what they say.
> 
> And I see a lot of women lavishing attention on tattooed losers/criminals, whereas I don't see a lot of women lavishing attention on with "boring" stable guys with good jobs and kind hearts.
> 
> As soon as I see that change, I'll change my opinion on what women find sexy.
> 
> Does that mean it is hopeless for the non-criminally inclined men? No. *But a man has to know how to be attractive, meaning he needs to avoid emotional displays that show weakness, while displaying those behaviors that turn women on.*


That I can get behind.

As long as it's in moderation, takes into account that women are human beings and lots of times vastly different from each other.

For example, plenty of women are 'ugh' about the whole stoic thing many guys put on.

So what? Be the best you that you can be, and find someone who's hot and bothered by that, and all is good.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/not-all-nice-guys#.kvADV65DP
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/nice-guys#.rvgQ5RpQ7

^ This is the kind of stuff that is unattractive to most women. 

There are tons of women into the stable homebody guy as long as he is confident and not the whiny "nice guy" type.


----------



## Lila

technovelist said:


> I pay attention to what women do, not what they say.
> 
> And I see a lot of women lavishing attention on tattooed losers/criminals, whereas I don't see a lot of women lavishing attention on with "boring" stable guys with good jobs and kind hearts.
> 
> As soon as I see that change, I'll change my opinion on what women find sexy.
> 
> Does that mean it is hopeless for the non-criminally inclined men? No. But a man has to know how to be attractive, meaning he needs to avoid emotional displays that show weakness, *while displaying those behaviors that turn women on*.


Your interpretation of the behaviors that turn women on is exactly the problem. You have posted the only qualities women find attractive are strictly the 'alpha' ones that you yourself associate with serial killers, gang involvement, tattoos, etc.... (your words not mine). By your description of alpha, the only way for a not-so-physically attractive/ not-so wealthy guy to attract a women is to adopt the behaviors of a street thug. That may attract a certain kind of woman but it's not going to attract all or, dare I say, most women. The last thing we need in this world is to encourage young men to go live the "street life" just so that they can attract women.


----------



## Cosmos

technovelist said:


> I pay attention to what women do, not what they say.
> 
> *And I see a lot of women lavishing attention on tattooed losers/criminals,* whereas I don't see a lot of women lavishing attention on with "boring" stable guys with good jobs and kind hearts.
> 
> As soon as I see that change, I'll change my opinion on what women find sexy.
> 
> Does that mean it is hopeless for the non-criminally inclined men? No. But a man has to know how to be attractive, meaning he needs to avoid emotional displays that show weakness, while displaying those behaviors that turn women on.


Then you might question the company you keep. I for one don't hang out with tattooed loser / criminal types, nor do any of my friends, so the temptation to lavish attention on them is pretty slim :wink2:


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/not-all-nice-guys#.kvADV65DP
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/nice-guys#.rvgQ5RpQ7
> 
> ^ This is the kind of stuff that is unattractive to most women.
> 
> *There are tons of women into the stable homebody guy as long as he is confident and not the whiny "nice guy" type.*


Absolutely! This is the kind of guy you can trust.


----------



## tech-novelist

Lila said:


> Your interpretation of the behaviors that turn women on is exactly the problem. You have posted the only qualities women find attractive are strictly the 'alpha' ones that you yourself associate with serial killers, gang involvement, tattoos, etc.... (your words not mine). By your description of alpha, the only way for a not-so-physically attractive/ not-so wealthy guy to attract a women is to adopt the behaviors of a street thug. That may attract a certain kind of woman but it's not going to attract all or, dare I say, most women. The last thing we need in this world is to encourage young men to go live the "street life" just so that they can attract women.


As soon as women stop rewarding thugs with sex, and start rewarding honest, kind men with sex, honest, kind men will no longer be interested in acting like thugs to get sex.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lila said:


> Your interpretation of the behaviors that turn women on is exactly the problem. You have posted the only qualities women find attractive are strictly the 'alpha' ones that you yourself associate with serial killers, gang involvement, tattoos, etc.... (your words not mine).


It is a standard mantra of the RP/PUA/MRA crowd. In order to disregard what any woman might have to say about their theories, they proclaim that women say we want one thing but actually want another thing. Thus, they can spew this matra anytime a woman comes in to say "um...but we don't like serial killers, that is insane" or anything she might say, if it disagrees with them. Some of them think we are being deceptive saying we want one thing but actually wanting another. But many of them think that our poor wittle bwains just don't know any better, boo boo pee do.

They've built this excuse into their mind washing websites too, because they know that new guys reading this nonsense might listen to a woman somewhere and her opinion. They want to quickly make sure that these men do not listen to what women say at all. It is all part of the divisive hatefulness.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> It is a standard mantra of the RP/PUA/MRA crowd. In order to disregard what any woman might have to say about their theories, they proclaim that women say we want one thing but actually want another thing. Thus, they can spew this matra anytime a woman comes in to say "um...but we don't like serial killers, that is insane" or anything she might say, if it disagrees with them. Some of them think we are being deceptive saying we want one thing but actually wanting another. But many of them think that our poor wittle bwains just don't know any better, boo boo pee do.
> 
> They've built this excuse into their mind washing websites too, because they know that new guys reading this nonsense might listen to a woman somewhere and her opinion. They want to quickly make sure that these men do not listen to what women say at all. It is all part of the divisive hatefulness.


OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.

What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.

You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


----------



## Lila

technovelist said:


> As soon as women stop rewarding thugs with sex, and start rewarding honest, kind men with sex, honest, kind men will no longer be interested in acting like thugs to get sex.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.


So now you're placing the blame for men becoming thugs on women too? I said it before and I'll say it again......you've given women waaaaayyyyyyyy too much power. 

I think I've read all of the crazy talk I can take for one day. I'm out.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> As soon as women stop rewarding thugs with sex,* and start rewarding honest, kind men with sex*, honest, kind men will no longer be interested in acting like thugs to get sex.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.


And there you have it, the entire width and breadth of the problem. Women get to decide who we want to have sex with, and some men will never EVER feel this is ok. They will just be bitter if they don't end up being the one we pick, and they will insult (ie: "thugs") the men we do pick.

I really can't believe any of you guys can live with this nonsensical perspective, it is sickening and dangerous to think some man has anything at all to say about who any woman chooses to have sex with.


----------



## knobcreek

Why does someone have to be a loser if they have tattoos? I spent time in the military and have quite a few, not sure how they correlate. Having tattoos doesn't make one a loser. I'm going for my MBA from a top 25 business school and an executive in IT, I just wear long sleeve shirts. My wife likes them and I've known other women who do too. If they're not your preference that's fine, but they don't make that person thuggish or a loser.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> http://www.buzzfeed.com/juliapugachevsky/not-all-nice-guys#.kvADV65DP
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/nice-guys#.rvgQ5RpQ7
> 
> ^ This is the kind of stuff that is unattractive to most women.
> 
> There are tons of women into the stable homebody guy as long as he is confident and not the whiny "nice guy" type.



I don't think anyone would condone that stuff, I don't think that's what we're talking about. That would be over the top and unattractive to anyone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> 
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.
> 
> You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


We see men do that too, yet we do not create entire websites encouraging women to "never listen to what a man says, just watch what he does"...because we understand that not every man does this. Whereas these groups we are talking about do say that EVERY woman does this.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> These would be exactly the qualities that in my experience can mess up a marriage when left unchecked.


Yes, damn vaginas thinking they are actual persons. Makes them a whole lot more difficult to control.

Thank goodness AI isn't actually advanced enough to create independent thought. That could really mess up the sex robot programming.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> We see men do that too, yet we do not create entire websites encouraging women to "never listen to what a man says, just watch what he does"...because we understand that not every man does this. Whereas these groups we are talking about do say that EVERY woman does this.


I agree - there's so much variablility within the genders that it really makes talking about variability between them pretty whack.

What I came up with -- because I did need to reconcile what my wife said she wanted with what she really responded to -- was a mixture of:

1. does anybody really know what they want? Because what human beings want changes all the time.
2. my wife seems to be a lot more contextual than I am -- what I call the "Vegas Effect."
3. we all have things that we may not realize turn us on, or we don't want to admit turn us on... and when our spouse happens across them it can be super fun... and the spouse's response is generally a mixture of happy (because we found something fun) and confusion (because why didn't you tell me that you liked this)
4. it's just kinda common sense that people are under pressure in marriage to conform to an idealized notion to a greater or lesser extent (good wives and good husbands) when a lot of what turns us on is independant of that.

Anyway, that's what I came up with. What I've told guys in recent months is pretty much that it's not that your wife is lying to you, it's more like you need to remember why she married you to begin with, and do that more.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> *Yes, damn vaginas thinking they are actual persons. Makes them a whole lot more difficult to control.*
> 
> Thank goodness AI isn't actually advanced enough to create independent thought. That could really mess up the sex robot programming.


:lol:


----------



## Marduk

always_alone said:


> Yes, damn vaginas thinking they are actual persons. Makes them a whole lot more difficult to control.


I think you just summed up the last 2000 years of western religious and political thought.


----------



## Lila

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> 
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.
> 
> *You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?*


I have a son and I'm going to tell him exactly what my father told me when I got dumped for a hotter girl. 

_She wasn't the right one for you_. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep living your life. The right one will come along.


----------



## always_alone

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> 
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.
> 
> You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


#1: high school is over now.
#2: just because you are jealous, doesn't mean that other buddy is an a$$hole or has or is something you are not
#3: Look at your own behaviour and make sure you are not projecting.After all, you just said you wanted a nice low maintenance kind woman, and you are totally ignoring all of those woman in favour of the hottie who you think will impress your friends.
#4: No, really, high school is over now.
#5: No, really, you are just shaming women for behaviours that you firmly believe you are entitled to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I agree - there's so much variablility within the genders that it really makes talking about variability between them pretty whack.
> 
> What I came up with -- because I did need to reconcile what my wife said she wanted with what she really responded to -- was a mixture of:
> 
> 1. does anybody really know what they want? Because what human beings want changes all the time.
> 2. my wife seems to be a lot more contextual than I am -- what I call the "Vegas Effect."
> 3. we all have things that we may not realize turn us on, or we don't want to admit turn us on... and when our spouse happens across them it can be super fun... and the spouse's response is generally a mixture of happy (because we found something fun) and confusion (because why didn't you tell me that you liked this)
> 4. it's just kinda common sense that people are under pressure in marriage to conform to an idealized notion to a greater or lesser extent (good wives and good husbands) when a lot of what turns us on is independant of that.
> 
> Anyway, that's what I came up with. What I've told guys in recent months is pretty much that it's not that your wife is lying to you, it's more like you need to remember why she married you to begin with, and do that more.


I'm sorry that you don't seem to get your wife or she can't communicate her desires or whatever the issue is. I've heard some women make the same complaints (check out the threads in SIM where women make posts about their man complaining about not enough sex, even though he turns down every initiation and creates roadblocks every time she tries).

Personally, I've always been self-aware of my desires and can easily state them, and they match my actions. Same is true for my H. I really haven't had much problem with others in my life except those who are totally conflicted for some reason, and they are usually easy to spot (not saying I have partnered with any of them).


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> *
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.*
> 
> You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


Which is because _not all girls are the same._

What attracts one can repel another. Same with guys, I should imagine. Unless they're desperate, of course.


----------



## Marduk

Lila said:


> I have a son and I'm going to tell him exactly what my father told me when I got dumped for a hotter girl.
> 
> _She wasn't the right one for you_. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and keep living your life. The right one will come along.


Maybe there's a sense of frustration or entitlement about it, though. I don't get it.

But I do know that there are guys that are angry about it and feel like there's this giant vagina conspiracy going on where women trap wage earners into payrolling them while they have sex with random rock star hot guys on the side because hypergamy.

Which I know probably feels like it if you're a guy bankrolling his family who realizes one day that his wife isn't into him any more, or is into some other random guy for whatever reason.

But the answer isn't a conspiracy. The answer isn't to dehumanize women, because all that does is dehumanize men, too.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sorry that you don't seem to get your wife or she can't communicate her desires or whatever the issue is. I've heard some women make the same complaints (check out the threads in SIM where women make posts about their man complaining about not enough sex, even though he turns down every initiation and creates roadblocks every time she tries).
> 
> Personally, I've always been self-aware of my desires and can easily state them, and they match my actions. Same is true for my H. I really haven't had much problem with others in my life except those who are totally conflicted for some reason, and they are usually easy to spot (not saying I have partnered with any of them).


Ya, I get that about you. I think it was a whole bunch of things that she was partly aware of but didn't want to tell me to hurt me or because she probably felt shallow saying, like lose the gut because I'm not as attracted to you with it.

And I think it was a bunch of things like me not bothering to actually date her any more -- and she was more excited by things outside the marriage rather than in it to fill the void.

And TBH I know there's been stuff that we've discovered together that work for her that she wasn't really conscious of before.

And of course overlay that all with lots of expectations on how a good wife should be and act, of course.

Again, there's no conspiracy there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Maybe there's a sense of frustration or entitlement about it, though. I don't get it.
> 
> But I do know that there are guys that are angry about it and feel like there's this giant vagina conspiracy going on where women trap wage earners into payrolling them while they have sex with random rock star hot guys on the side because hypergamy.
> 
> Which I know probably feels like it if you're a guy bankrolling his family who realizes one day that his wife isn't into him any more, or is into some other random guy for whatever reason.
> 
> But the answer isn't a conspiracy. The answer isn't to dehumanize women, because all that does is dehumanize men, too.


And we could list hundreds of examples of loving, devoted women whose husbands left them for someone younger or hotter or just different. Women who were there for their husbands, helped them through major illnesses or deaths in their families, women who also worked and earned as much or more as their husbands....all to get cruelly dumped.

This is not a gender issue.

The mano-crap crowd wants to see all of life's problems as being unique to men and specifically, unique to themselves. For some reason, women having gone through the EXACT same thing don't make any difference to them, even while they expect oh so much empathy from anyone who will listen to their woes.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Yes, damn vaginas thinking they are actual persons. Makes them a whole lot more difficult to control.
> 
> Thank goodness AI isn't actually advanced enough to create independent thought. That could really mess up the sex robot programming.


I don't know if you're one of those magical six figure career women. I'm married to one. I know a number of people who are. 

In my opinion and I'm not generalizing, a substantially well educated and earning woman hits the glass ceiling and one of two things happen...

She either can't break thru but unlike her male counterparts she mops about the glass ceiling, etc. Or she breaks thru and kills herself working to prove she deserved it.

In either case the relationship with her partner can get iffy in a hurry. 

In contrast, men don't freak out in this way...


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Which is because _not all girls are the same._
> 
> What attracts one can repel another. Same with guys, I should imagine. Unless they're desperate, of course.


I was kinda getting at the stereotypical 'bored housewife who says she wants a husband to do the dishes more and then has an affair with the CEO/bad boy down the street who doesn't lift a finger for her' kinda meme.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> And we could list hundreds of examples of loving, devoted women whose husbands left them for someone younger or hotter or just different. Women who were there for their husbands, helped them through major illnesses or deaths in their families, women who also worked and earned as much or more as their husbands....all to get cruelly dumped.
> 
> This is not a gender issue.
> 
> The mano-crap crowd wants to see all of life's problems as being unique to men and specifically, unique to themselves. For some reason, women having gone through the EXACT same thing don't make any difference to them, even while they expect oh so much empathy from anyone who will listen to their woes.


_Exactly._

That's what I was trying to get at and struggling to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I was kinda getting at the stereotypical 'bored housewife who says she wants a husband to do the dishes more and then has an affair with the CEO/bad boy down the street who doesn't lift a finger for her' kinda meme.


Because this is different/worse/more painful than the bored husband who bangs his secretary or a prostitute or some random woman, even though he has a loving devoted wife at home.

WHY do some of you guys think there is any difference to any of this?

How about just accept that none of us are entitled to anything, and that every one of us is vulnerable to being hurt by someone if we get into a personal/sexual relationship with them.

Why does it have to be painted as if women do this in some way that men don't? It is ridiculous and I'm surprised you keep saying stuff like this marduk.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Because this is different/worse/more painful than the bored husband who bangs his secretary or a prostitute or some random woman, even though he has a loving devoted wife at home.
> 
> WHY do some of you guys think there is any difference to any of this?
> 
> How about just accept that none of us are entitled to anything, and that every one of us is vulnerable to being hurt by someone if we get into a personal/sexual relationship with them.
> 
> Why does it have to be painted as if women do this in some way that men don't? It is ridiculous and I'm surprised you keep saying stuff like this marduk.


I'm saying it because I want help resetting how these guys see it just like you do.

I'm looking for help here, FW, not poking at you. I see this kinda dreck all the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm saying it because I want help resetting how these guys see it just like you do.
> 
> I'm looking for help here, FW, not poking at you. I see this kinda dreck all the time.


You seem to be saying things that actually uphold what these guys believe. By pointing out how an adulterous woman is an example of "watch what she does, not what she says", how are you helping any of these guys see anything differently?

FTR, I'm not trying to "help reset" what these specific groups of men think or say. Obviously this is not going to happen, so why bang my head against a wall. I'm simply speaking out against their nonsense, with no hope of changing any of their minds.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> How about just accept that none of us are entitled to anything, and that every one of us is vulnerable to being hurt by someone if we get into a personal/sexual relationship with them.


Some of them have an "I paid for it therefore I should own it" attitude. They seem to always be about the money they have used for their family which should entitle them to all kinds of things.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Some of them have an "I paid for it therefore I should own it" attitude. They seem to always be about the money they have used for their family which should entitle them to all kinds of things.


The weird thing is when they are complaining about money they haven't spent yet on families they don't have yet.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> You seem to be saying things that actually uphold what these guys believe. By pointing out how an adulterous woman is an example of "watch what she does, not what she says", how are you helping any of these guys see anything differently?
> 
> FTR, I'm not trying to "help reset" what these specific groups of men think or say. Obviously this is not going to happen, so why bang my head against a wall. I'm simply speaking out against their nonsense, with no hope of changing any of their minds.


You helped change mine.

Listen, these things happen, and guys respond to it, I think primarily out of a sense of not being in control of their own life, or lost, or not knowing what to do or how to get what they want. At least I did.

And now I see the vast majority of the gender war stuff as just utter lunacy -- we are so much the same and so little different -- that it just kinda makes me sad.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> The weird thing is when they are complaining about money they haven't spent yet on families they don't have yet.


Yep. And I think too this is why the deadbeats who get sex are so maddening to these men. They don't have money, they didn't work and buy her gifts and he still had sex. 

They have no confidence in themselves that they could find a woman who wanted him without having to buy her and they blame it on him being a "bad boy" and women just being attracted to jerks.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Some of them have an "I paid for it therefore I should own it" attitude. They seem to always be about the money they have used for their family which should entitle them to all kinds of things.


I think it's an expectation setting thing, just as you say, sometimes.

Guy works hard and brings home the paycheck and that should net him a sexually excited wife forever. When the opposite wouldn't be true, would it?


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep. And I think too this is why the deadbeats who get sex are so maddening to these men. They don't have money, they didn't work and buy her gifts and he still had sex.
> 
> They have no confidence in themselves that they could find a woman who wanted him without having to buy her and they blame it on him being a "bad boy" and women just being attracted to jerks.


Yup, you put your finger on it. Reconciling that takes work for a frustrated guy.

Because it ends up being "I did what I was told I should do and she gave it to someone else" -- when what that really is, is a giant covert contract that nobody signed up to.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> The weird thing is when they are complaining about money they haven't spent yet on families they don't have yet.


The thing that I find really weird about that isn't what you're indicating -- that's a pretty basic (if flawed) attempt to look at your life like you look at your stock portfolio -- it's that these guys seem really, really fussed by money at all.

There's oceans of money out there. I've never seen a person that really, really wants money and is willing to work for it not get it.

But there really isn't oceans of time or oceans of people you love to spend it with. So why people fixate on dollar signs in an attempt to protect their life, I have no idea.

You can't buy more life.


----------



## Cosmos

marduk said:


> I was kinda getting at the stereotypical 'bored housewife who says she wants a husband to do the dishes more and then has an affair with the CEO/bad boy down the street who doesn't lift a finger for her' kinda meme.


Rather like the husband who wants his wife to be a yoga panted SAHM, but has an affair with his sexy, high heeled co-worker? 

Just as not all women whose husbands wash dishes will have affairs, neither will all men who have sexy, high heeled co-workers.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> 
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.
> 
> You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


You tell them not to believe their lying eyes, obviously!


----------



## Marduk

Cosmos said:


> Rather like the husband who wants his wife to be a yoga panted SAHM, but has an affair with his sexy, high heeled co-worker?
> 
> Just as not all women whose husbands wash dishes will have affairs, neither will all men who have sexy, high heeled co-workers.


Something just dawned on me. 

A guy that is worried about this kinda thing isn't likely to be a guy at hats having an affair on his wife. 

I wonder if that's in there somewhere.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wolf1974

marduk said:


> OK, FW, I get what you're saying and mostly agree.
> 
> What I think some guys need to reconcile is that many of us have been in situations where we do what girls say they want, and it doesn't work, and then they run off with the exact opposite of what they said they wanted.
> 
> You know? What do we tell a guy that's been in that experience?


Well what I have been telling them is you don't put someone else's happiness above your own. "The happy wife happy life" and I will defer all things to my wife in hopes that makes her happy, even though I may be miserable, is lunacy. I can state this cause I lived it.

Marriage as a concept is about partnership here. So you both have to give and both have to get. What is given and what is taken is irrelevant because that's going to be decided by the individual relationship. 

I think what happens sometimes with men, and myself included, is we start the realtionship one way(strong, confident) then marry and defer defer defer. Well then you are no longer the person your wife married. You are just the guy who goes along with all she says. Some, again like me, are told this is the way to a woman's heart to give her all she wants. Not the case. So my advice to men who had this experience is be yourself, not only in the beginning but throughout the relationship. You make sure that you get and make sure you give in whatever unique balance takes place inside that relationship.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> You tell them not to believe their lying eyes, obviously!


What about guys that do the opposite to women? 

Should there be a WGTOW and have everybody just call it a day?

I don't think so.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> What about guys that do the opposite to women?
> 
> Should there be a WGTOW and have everybody just call it a day?
> 
> I don't think so.


Men don't *generally *do that. *Most *of the time, what they say they want is what they actually want.

Of course there are exceptions for mentally unbalanced types, but *on the whole*, men's mating strategy is *fairly *obvious and straightforward. Women's, on the other hand, *generally *isn't.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Men don't *generally *do that. *Most *of the time, what they say they want is what they actually want.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions for mentally unbalanced types, but *on the whole*, men's mating strategy is *fairly *obvious and straightforward. Women's, on the other hand, *generally *isn't.


Women don't seem to generally be doing that, either -- meaning they hypergamy while married stuff, anyway.

Do they like their husbands to stay fit and romance them? Sure.

Do they run around behind their husband's back looking for a guy who's +1 on the genetic totem pole? No.

If anything, women who have affairs seem to affair down. I know my ex did.


----------



## TiggyBlue

technovelist said:


> Men don't *generally *do that. *Most *of the time, what they say they want is what they actually want.


:lol:


----------



## Marduk

Wolf1974 said:


> Well what I have been telling them is you don't put someone else's happiness above your own. "The happy wife happy life" and I will defer all things to my wife in hopes that makes her happy, even though I may be miserable, is lunacy. I can state this cause I lived it.
> 
> Marriage as a concept is about partnership here. So you both have to give and both have to get. What is given and what is taken is irrelevant because that's going to be decided by the individual relationship.
> 
> I think what happens sometimes with men, and myself included, is we start the realtionship one way(strong, confident) then marry and defer defer defer. Well then you are no longer the person your wife married. You are just the guy who goes along with all she says. Some, again like me, are told this is the way to a woman's heart to give her all she wants. Not the case. So my advice to men who had this experience is be yourself, not only in the beginning but throughout the relationship. You make sure that you get and make sure you give in whatever unique balance takes place inside that relationship.


Ya, the passive aggressive trap.

My god, do I know that one. Ugh.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Of course there are exceptions for mentally unbalanced types, but *on the whole*, men's mating strategy is *fairly *obvious and straightforward. Women's, on the other hand, *generally *isn't.


Women's mating strategy is perfectly obvious and straight forward, just like you have been saying. We all want serial killers but there's just not enough of them to go around.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Men don't *generally *do that. *Most *of the time, what they say they want is what they actually want.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions for mentally unbalanced types, but *on the whole*, men's mating strategy is *fairly *obvious and straightforward. Women's, on the other hand, *generally *isn't.


We're not allowed to make generalized observations Tech. Even if they are statistically factual. You know the drill: NAWALT. 

In reality, we do make generalizations. It's human nature, and it is often advantageous. 

Just go over to CWI and see the advice given based off of generalizations. "If your H/W says they kissed someone, it means they fvcked." It's an assumption based on a generalization, which is based on observation and experience. Could H/W be telling the truth? Sure. Should you believe them? Not without more information.

Humans are treacherous and deceitful by nature. It's anecdotal, but my experience is that men are more prone to honesty regarding what they want than women, but it's not like they are paragons of virtue and pillars of truth. 

How many times have you heard these:

Woman: "I'm not into ____ type of guy. I just want to be with a 'nice guy'." You can generally accept she's not being honest with you or herself. 

Man: "I'm not interested in sex" Sure ya aren't pal. Sure ya aren't.


----------



## john117

In my backwards humble European village people seemed to be pretty good in terms of marrying within their "feature set", meaning not princesses and not serial killers. In America, there's a lot less of that. Not necessarily princesses and such, but more variation overall, leading to more W.T.F's when weddings or LTR's are formed.


----------



## Lila

Related to the question of men finding women......

CNN's This is Life with Lisa Ling will be showcasing the 'pick-up artist movement' on her show tonight. It covers the effort men are willing to go to attract women. The episode is called "The Seduction Game".

This is Life with Lisa Ling - CNN.com

Should be interesting.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I don't know if you're one of those magical six figure career women. I'm married to one. I know a number of people who are.
> 
> In my opinion and I'm not generalizing, a substantially well educated and earning woman hits the glass ceiling and one of two things happen...
> 
> She either can't break thru but unlike her male counterparts she mops about the glass ceiling, etc. Or she breaks thru and kills herself working to prove she deserved it.
> 
> In either case the relationship with her partner can get iffy in a hurry.
> 
> In contrast, men don't freak out in this way...


True. No such thing as a workaholic man who puts in 80 hour weeks devoted to economic success, while his wife and family never hear from him. No such thing as a man who flies off the handle when he doesn't get that promotion he so richly deserves, and then dives into a bottle, again neglecting his wife and children. 

Nope, all men take everything in absolute stride and never, ever, ever, get their priorities misaligned or jeopardize their relationships.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> Woman: "I'm not into ____ type of guy. I just want to be with a 'nice guy'." You can generally accept she's not being honest with you or herself.


Or she wants a good, nice guy. 
Like a guy who's _actually _nice and doesn't play silly games and stereotype women and try to buy their affection and then get all upset that they are in a "friend zone" because they think they are owed, doesn't think we're all just wh*res waiting for the next step up, and high maintenance users who bring nothing to the table. 

So the "_nice guys_" still don't get picked by the woman who says she wants a nice guy because she's not talking about them, she's talking about wanting a good man. 

Good men can be gym guys, small guys, big guys. They can have tats or be a total nerd. Outgoing or shy and boring. 
They're just good, mature, confident men. They care about women, like women. Meet their needs and get their needs met.
That's what she usually means when she says she wants a nice guy.


----------



## Marduk

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or she wants a good, nice guy.
> Like a guy who's _actually _nice and doesn't play silly games and stereotype women and try to buy their affection and then get all upset that they are in a "friend zone" because they think they are owed, doesn't think we're all just wh*res waiting for the next step up, and high maintenance users who bring nothing to the table.
> 
> So the "_nice guys_" still don't get picked by the woman who says she wants a nice guy because she's not talking about them, she's talking about wanting a good man.
> 
> Good men can be gym guys, small guys, big guys. They can have tats or be a total nerd. Outgoing or shy and boring.
> *They're just good, mature, confident men. They care about women, like women. Meet their needs and get their needs met.
> That's what she usually means when she says she wants a nice guy.*


Nailed it.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> We're not allowed to make generalized observations Tech. Even if they are statistically factual.


Statistically factual? According to no actual statistics ever recorded, you mean?

This whole "men generally are straightforward", "women generally aren't" thing is, I hate to break it to you, a pile of horse manure designed solely to justify a bias.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Statistically factual? According to no actual statistics ever recorded, you mean?
> 
> This whole "men generally are straightforward", "women generally aren't" thing is, I hate to break it to you, a pile of horse manure designed solely to justify a bias.


Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability

You're welcome.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Or she wants a good, nice guy.
> Like a guy who's _actually _nice and doesn't play silly games and stereotype women and try to buy their affection and then get all upset that they are in a "friend zone" because they think they are owed, doesn't think we're all just wh*res waiting for the next step up, and high maintenance users who bring nothing to the table.
> 
> So the "_nice guys_" still don't get picked by the woman who says she wants a nice guy because she's not talking about them, she's talking about wanting a good man.
> 
> Good men can be gym guys, small guys, big guys. They can have tats or be a total nerd. Outgoing or shy and boring.
> They're just good, mature,* confident men.* They care about women, like women. *Meet their needs* and get their needs met.
> That's what she usually means when she says she wants a nice guy.


I'll agree with you on those 2 qualities, but they are not relevant to being "nice", they are relevant to being "attractive". You're confirming my statement that she's not being honest with herself or with whom she is speaking. 

What is a "good" man? I'd bet the idea you have of a "good man" and my idea of "good man" are very different. Heck, we probably have differing ideas on what it is to be a _man_. If we mean different things when we say the same word, then we invariably will misunderstand each other. 

I'm certainly entertained by your assumption and straw man of what I meant by "nice guy". Hostile much?


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Women's sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability
> 
> You're welcome.


How is this supporting your conclusions that women aren't generally straightforward about their mating strategies while men are?

I mean, is it so much more straightforward when a man is horning after women who are hotter (sorry, more symmetrical) than his wife?


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Statistically factual? According to no actual statistics ever recorded, you mean?
> 
> This whole "men generally are straightforward", "women generally aren't" thing is, I hate to break it to you, a pile of horse manure designed solely to justify a bias.


I was actually sarcastically referring in that statement to the opposition throughout this thread to generalizations of _women_--while maintaining generalizations of men--not merely about honesty.

In fact, if you read my post, I specifically stated that my _anecdotal experience_ is what leads me to agree with the "more straightforward _about what they want_" comment. And I even added a nice little caveat for you, that men aren't exactly paragons of truth. Heck, I gave an example of a common male lie. Of course, no one has a problem with the "men aren't honest" part. 

I know, it's hard to imagine that people can have a basic understanding of what women want. And any understanding that isn't 100% positive must absolutely be untrue. 

You're all special snowflakes. Of course, when everyone is special, no one is.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> misunderstand each other.
> 
> I'm certainly entertained by your assumption and straw man of what I meant by "nice guy". Hostile much?


Just an observation about the kind of guys who complain about being a "nice guy" that the women never go for even when they say they want one. 

Meeting needs, confidence- that is all included in _nice_. 
Confident men don't lash out their insecurities on their partners. That helps make him a nice person. They also don't have to be physically attractive to be confident BTW. 
Meeting our needs - communication, spending time, good sex, those things help make him a nice person. 

Nice can include a lot of different qualities. So instead of just accepting that her "nice" is just different than your "nice" you decide she is "_not being honest with herself or with whom she is speaking_" 
Because it can't just be that the guy who's upset about it isn't "nice" at all and she's just not into him. 
It's ridiculous.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> I was actually sarcastically referring in that statement to the opposition throughout this thread to generalizations of _women_--while maintaining generalizations of men--not merely about honesty.
> 
> In fact, if you read my post, I specifically stated that my _anecdotal experience_ is what leads me to agree with the "more straightforward _about what they want_" comment. And I even added a nice little caveat for you, that men aren't exactly paragons of truth. Heck, I gave an example of a common male lie. Of course, no one has a problem with the "men aren't honest" part.
> 
> I know, it's hard to imagine that people can have a basic understanding of what women want. And any understanding that isn't 100% positive must absolutely be untrue.
> 
> You're all special snowflakes. Of course, when everyone is special, no one is.


Oh, my mistake: I thought you were agreeing with tech, who said pretty bluntly that men are straightforward and women aren't. Indeed, you said quite explicitly that you are "not allowed to make statistical generalizations" and then went on to agree that men don't lie (because they all admit they want sex) and women do (because you can "generally accept that she is not being honest"). 

Fact is that no one this thread has once said that you can't make generalizations about what women want. And indeed, several generalizations have been successfully made. The main ones being objected to are the whole "women want serial killers" trope, which really, is about as ludicrous as it comes. As is the "women aren't generally honest about what they want, so never listen to them, and instead take the word of some guy who thinks his anecdotal experience and interpretation count for absolutely everything."


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> How is this supporting your conclusions that women aren't generally straightforward about their mating strategies while men are?
> 
> I mean, is it so much more straightforward when a man is horning after women who are hotter (sorry, more symmetrical) than his wife?


Because it isn't men's preferences that vary across the ovulatory cycle. It is women's.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I was actually sarcastically referring in that statement to the opposition throughout this thread to generalizations of _women_--while maintaining generalizations of men--not merely about honesty.
> 
> In fact, if you read my post, I specifically stated that my _anecdotal experience_ is what leads me to agree with the "more straightforward _about what they want_" comment. And I even added a nice little caveat for you, that men aren't exactly paragons of truth. Heck, I gave an example of a common male lie. Of course, no one has a problem with the "men aren't honest" part.
> 
> I know, it's hard to imagine that people can have a basic understanding of what women want. And any understanding that isn't 100% positive must absolutely be untrue.
> 
> You're all special snowflakes. Of course, when everyone is special, no one is.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8I9pYCl9AQ


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> True. No such thing as a workaholic man who puts in 80 hour weeks devoted to economic success, while his wife and family never hear from him. No such thing as a man who flies off the handle when he doesn't get that promotion he so richly deserves, and then dives into a bottle, again neglecting his wife and children.
> 
> Nope, all men take everything in absolute stride and never, ever, ever, get their priorities misaligned or jeopardize their relationships.


It happens to men too but not to the extent I have seen on women in my experience.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324678604578340332290414820


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Because it isn't men's preferences that vary across the ovulatory cycle. It is women's.


Again, how is this different than a man choosing to marry (mate with) one type of woman, and yet stepping out when his eyes are turned by another type.

It may not be ovulation, but I can pretty much guarantee you that hormones are involved.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Again, how is this different than a man choosing to marry (mate with) one type of woman, and yet stepping out when his eyes are turned by another type.
> 
> It may not be ovulation, but I can pretty much guarantee you that hormones are involved.


Of course that happens on occasion; no one could deny it.

But in general, men want what they say they want, whereas women have a two-pronged (now, now, no dirty ideas >) mating strategy, crudely referred to as "alpha f**ks, beta bucks". 

This is why their mating preferences change during ovulation, to convince them that a bad dude would make a good father for *their *child. See Hormones make 'sexy cads' look like 'good dads' ? USATODAY.com


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually everyone IS special and each is literally unique. I'm not sure why some guys have such a problem with that? They are special, too. No individual is exactly like another. Each pairing between two people is also special and cannot be duplicated between any two other people or even any pairings between one person and another person. What is so horrible about saying this?

Mutual attraction is how we find each other and date or have sex or bond. It is the chemistry we need to feel that attraction. It is based on particular pairings.

When mutual attraction is interupted and men or women are expected (or expect themselves) to be with someone even though mutual attraction doesn't exist, it will not work out well for either party. Any guy or gal who feels they need to be able to "make" others attracted to them is in for a surprise when that mutual attraction isn't there naturally.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> It happens to men too but not to the extent I have seen on women in my experience.
> 
> Stress at Work: Why Women Feel It More Than Men - WSJ


http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ocp/14/1/23.html



> As hypothesized, we found no substantial gender differences regarding the process through which workaholism intrudes in and negatively influences the relationship.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Of course that happens on occasion; no one could deny it.
> 
> But in general, men want what they say they want, whereas women have a two-pronged (now, now, no dirty ideas >) mating strategy, crudely referred to as "alpha f**ks, beta bucks".
> 
> This is why their mating preferences change during ovulation, to convince them that a bad dude would make a good father for *their *child. See Hormones make 'sexy cads' look like 'good dads' ? USATODAY.com



Oh, brother! All I can say is that the reason that some women seem to dig bad boys is exactly the same reason that some men go after bad girls. 

You say that men want what they say they want more often, but they too are ever so well known for their two-pronged virgin/***** strategy. One for marriage and LTR; the other for random banging.

I still fail to see the difference.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> But in general, men want what they say they want, whereas women have a two-pronged (now, now, no dirty ideas >) mating strategy, crudely referred to as "alpha f**ks, beta bucks".


Ya, cause men don't have groups of women that they'd bang but not marry and a separate group for girls to marry.
And they never act to the first group that they want an actual relationship with them to get them into bed. 
Or marry the nice, sweet girl so they have someone to raise their kids and cook their food while they go out to bang the fun ones....

Seriously, if you had any experience as an actual woman you'd be laughing your butt off at the notions that men are so simple and tell it as it. 
I don't know a single woman that hasn't come across a man trying to lie his way into our pants, telling us they want one thing when they really want another. 
"Oh I LOVE sitting up all night cuddling and talking about dreams, baby"

It happens and it's more than just a select handful of crazy ones, but we move on and realize that the bad ones don't spoil the bunch and go find ourselves a good one.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Just an observation about the kind of guys who complain about being a "nice guy" that the women never go for even when they say they want one.
> 
> Meeting needs, confidence- that is all included in _nice_.
> Confident men don't lash out their insecurities on their partners. That helps make him a nice person. They also don't have to be physically attractive to be confident BTW.
> Meeting our needs - communication, spending time, good sex, those things help make him a nice person.
> 
> Nice can include a lot of different qualities. So instead of just accepting that her "nice" is just different than your "nice" you decide she is "_not being honest with herself or with whom she is speaking_"
> Because it can't just be that the guy who's upset about it isn't "nice" at all and she's just not into him.
> It's ridiculous.


Observation? Of what? Where did I indicate what you've written as the definition of "nice guy". Where did I imply it? You've made a tremendous assumption about my statement. 

You've equated nice, good and attractive. These terms do not have the same meanings or values. We obviously cannot communicate on this subject effectively if we bend each others' terms into something they aren't. 

What does "nice guy" mean? I think there's a general consensus on the term--general, not specific. And neither what you're describing, nor what you've ascribed to the opposition you've created in your head are what _most people_ mean when they say "nice guy". Check in CWI. Check in some of the other forums. Heck, go outside, take a pen and paper and ask around. 

I would supply the meaning and a few synonyms for nice, and apply that to the term "nice guy". Words like Agreeable, Likable, Kind, Amiable, Gentle, Refined, Mannered. These are the things that make something, or someone "nice". In fact, over in CWI they have one more term to describe a "nice guy". *Doormat*.

Notice that in that list of synonyms the term "Confidant" does not appear. Nor does "good at sex". Nor does "good at communicating". 

And btw, who said anything about a "guy who is upset"? Where did you get that, and what does it have to do with this?


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Oh, brother! All I can say is that the reason that some women seem to dig bad boys is exactly the same reason that some men go after bad girls.
> 
> You say that men want what they say they want more often, but they too are ever so well known for their two-pronged virgin/***** strategy. One for marriage and LTR; the other for random banging.
> 
> I still fail to see the difference.


Do they tell the slvts that they want to marry them? I doubt that happens very often, so both people are just in it for the sex, which is fair.

But a lot of women do marry the betas, then are unhappy with them.

So there is indeed a difference.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Do they tell the slvts that they want to marry them? I doubt that happens very often, so both people are just in it for the sex, which is fair.


They tell girls who they want to sleep with but not marry, that they do want to marry or have LTR's. Just as any man who has a daughter knows, this happens all the time. That's why men typically "know what a boy is after" when his daughter is dating. But somehow this is news to you?

Oh right, I forgot. You think men are all telling the truth and have integrity at all times, especially when it comes to their "mating strategy". :rofl:


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ya, cause men don't have groups of women that they'd bang but not marry and a separate group for girls to marry.
> And they never act to the first group that they want an actual relationship with them to get them into bed.
> Or marry the nice, sweet girl so they have someone to raise their kids and cook their food while they go out to bang the fun ones....
> 
> Seriously, if you had any experience as an actual woman you'd be laughing your butt off at the notions that men are so simple and tell it as it.
> I don't know a single woman that hasn't come across a man trying to lie his way into our pants, telling us they want one thing when they really want another.
> "Oh I LOVE sitting up all night cuddling and talking about dreams, baby"
> 
> It happens and it's more than just a select handful of crazy ones, but we move on and realize that the bad ones don't spoil the bunch and go find ourselves a good one.


Yes, this does happen.

As long as the man is alpha enough to get away with it, anyway.

Note that I'm not approving of this behavior. However, it isn't the usual situation for most men, because most men can't do it even if they wanted to and had no scruples about doing it; they aren't alpha enough to get away with it.

A major difference is that most women *can *do it.

So if you are comparing the mating strategies of alpha males with the mating strategies of most women, I have no problem with that.

Beta males get left out, though, and they are the bitter ones in the MGTOW movement.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually everyone IS special and each is literally unique. I'm not sure why some guys have such a problem with that? They are special, too. No individual is exactly like another. Each pairing between two people is also special and cannot be duplicated between any two other people or even any pairings between one person and another person. What is so horrible about saying this?
> 
> Mutual attraction is how we find each other and date or have sex or bond. It is the chemistry we need to feel that attraction. It is based on particular pairings.
> 
> When mutual attraction is interupted and men or women are expected (or expect themselves) to be with someone even though mutual attraction doesn't exist, it will not work out well for either party. Any guy or gal who feels they need to be able to "make" others attracted to them is in for a surprise when that mutual attraction isn't there naturally.


Statements like that, while true in the sense that "we're not exactly the same, so we're _special_" are meaningless. It's just to falsely boost your, or my ego.

We're all different. But not that different. Every rock is different from the next. No two are the exact same. They're still all just rocks. And just like this rock or that one, you and I can be identified, categorized, compared, discarded and even replaced, probably with a better one, at any time. At least _some rocks_ are uncommon, and made of a rare substance. We're not uncommon, we're not _that_ special. 

Yup, all _special_ snowflakes. So very, very special.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Yes, this does happen.
> 
> As long as the man is alpha enough to get away with it, anyway.
> 
> Note that I'm not approving of this behavior. However, it isn't the usual situation for most men, because most men can't do it even if they wanted to and had no scruples about doing it; they aren't alpha enough to get away with it.
> 
> A major difference is that most women *can *do it.
> 
> So if you are comparing the mating strategies of alpha males with the mating strategies of most women, I have no problem with that.
> 
> Beta males get left out, though, and they are the bitter ones in the MGTOW movement.


Ok, I can get behind this but how many men do you think are "alpha enough" because before coming to TAM I didn't even know of such beta types of men. I know guys who are nice and have sometimes gotten a little rolled over by a woman but they move on to the next one and brush it off and have no problems finding great ones.

I think it was you who said only 20% of men are attractive? 
That leaves 80% of men being these beta MGTOW types? 

Or is the ultra beta types that are the ones who get left out a small minority of beta-ish males? Like 10% of the 80%?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Statements like that, while true in the sense that "we're not exactly the same, so we're _special_" are meaningless. It's just to falsely boost your, or my ego.
> 
> We're all different. But not that different. Every rock is different from the next. No two are the exact same. They're still all just rocks. And just like this rock or that one, you and I can be identified, categorized, compared, discarded and even replaced, probably with a better one, at any time. At least _some rocks_ are uncommon, and made of a rare substance. We're not uncommon, we're not _that_ special.
> 
> Yup, all _special_ snowflakes. So very, very special.


This is your opinion.

I stated mine.

What more is there to say? We can agree to disagree, right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok, I can get behind this but how many men do you think are "alpha enough"...


He says it all the time. 20%.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ok, I can get behind this but how many men do you think are "alpha enough" because before coming to TAM I didn't even know of such beta types of men. I know guys who are nice and have sometimes gotten a little rolled over by a woman but they move on to the next one and brush it off and have no problems finding great ones.
> 
> I think it was you who said only 20% of men are attractive?
> That leaves 80% of men being these beta MGTOW types?
> 
> Or is the ultra beta types that are the ones who get left out a small minority of beta-ish males? Like 10% of the 80%?


Note that all percentages in the following are approximate; no one has precise numbers even if the definitions were precise, which they aren't. Also note that this is my opinion, not an "official" MGTOW analysis, if there were such a thing at all.

Most men are betas at best, since being an alpha means being in the top tier. Whether the alpha top tier is 10% or 20% can be disputed, but it's pretty clear that there is such a tier. Those men are very successful with women, usually having more than one woman vying for their attention.

Of the other 80%, there is probably a 10% segment who are hopeless. Call them omegas. Their only hope of ever having sex with a woman, assuming they don't change their behavior, is to pay her.

Now we have 70% left, who are the classic betas.

They are not going to get anywhere with women until they are in their 30s. If they work hard until that time and make something of themselves, they are likely to become bewilderingly popular in their early 30s. This is because a lot of women who have been playing around in their 20's hear their biological clocks ticking very loudly and decide to settle down and start a family before it's too late.

So a woman who wouldn't give a particular man the time of day before suddenly is interested in him. This dazzles him because it is a complete change from his prior total failure with women.

The happy ending is that they get married and live happily after ever.

The problem is that this doesn't happen very often. What often happens is that after the first year or two, sex drops off to almost nothing because he just isn't attractive enough to compete in her mind with the hot guys she was having sex with in her 20s. Even worse, once a man is married he is by definition less alpha (more beta) than he was before, because he can no longer dump a woman casually.

Then the beta, if he is lucky, ends up on TAM and finds out how to get his balls back. Sometimes this even works to fix his marriage, or at least get him ready for better relationships with women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Note that all percentages in the following are approximate; no one has precise numbers even if the definitions were precise, which they aren't. *Also note that this is my opinion,* not an "official" MGTOW analysis, if there were such a thing at all.


Cool....at least this is stated as an opinion. Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ocp/14/1/23.html


The article is not available from mobile devices, but the quote indicates workaholic behavior, not stress resulting from ambition, glass ceiling, perceived slights, and the like.

Things like this:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018722208646

The current study explores this possibility byanalyzing the 326 lawyers in the 1990 National Survey ofLawyers' Career Satisfaction. Of the women, 9% wereminorities, and of the men, 3%. It is found that women have significantly lower jobsatisfaction. Women's lower job satisfaction is dueprimarily to their lack of influence and promotionalopportunity. The results support the assertion thatprofessional women have the same expectations asprofessional men, not lower, but because of inequalityin opportunity, the women have lower jobsatisfaction.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Of the other 80%, there is probably a 10% segment who are hopeless. Call them omegas. Their only hope of ever having sex with a woman, assuming they don't change their behavior, is to pay her.

This is the only group of guys that I can agree with your previous post about. 
10% of the 80% are too hopeless to get a woman and end up the MGTOW types, can't find a woman who's into him, the one who aren't "alpha enough to get away with it" (BTW- a lot more than those 10% _wouldn't_ do it even though they could)


70% of men can't get sex or a relationship until their 30s? LOL. Ya, not even close. That's just.... I can't even find words for how silly that is.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Actually everyone IS special and each is literally unique. I'm not sure why some guys have such a problem with that? They are special, too. No individual is exactly like another. Each pairing between two people is also special and cannot be duplicated between any two other people or even any pairings between one person and another person. What is so horrible about saying this?
> 
> Mutual attraction is how we find each other and date or have sex or bond. It is the chemistry we need to feel that attraction. It is based on particular pairings.
> 
> When mutual attraction is interupted and men or women are expected (or expect themselves) to be with someone even though mutual attraction doesn't exist, it will not work out well for either party. Any guy or gal who feels they need to be able to "make" others attracted to them is in for a surprise when that mutual attraction isn't there naturally.


I think there's a giant caveat in there, though:
There can be great mutual attraction, and then one or both parties can stop maintaining their health, physique, dress, or whatever... and that attraction can be degraded.

That's what happened to me.

So I had to work on that to regain it -- but to your point it was there in the beginning, and is now back with pretty minimal sustainment effort.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I think there's a giant caveat in there, though:
> There can be great mutual attraction, and then one or both parties can stop maintaining their health, physique, dress, or whatever... and that attraction can be degraded.
> 
> That's what happened to me.
> 
> So I had to work on that to regain it -- but to your point it was there in the beginning, and is now back with pretty minimal sustainment effort.


Yep. No one is entitled to anything. People change. Attraction changes. The world turns...


----------



## john117

Tapatalk follies duplicate


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> This is your opinion.
> 
> I stated mine.
> 
> What more is there to say? We can agree to disagree, right?


You're free to disagree with anything I say. It's still a somewhat free country.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> You're free to disagree with anything I say. It's still a somewhat free country.


Just don't vote for Trump and that may continue.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## knobcreek

I was pretty naive to what MRA's and MGTOW were beforehand, I'm embarrassed to admit I just started reading a lot about this today and I'm going to have to remove any public defense I may have advocated in this thread. I was not really fully aware of the level of vitriol and hatred they espoused on their websites and on the fora, and it definitely goes against what I believe in.

Am I hurt by situations in my marriage? Yes. Am I cynical? Yes. This leaves me weary and suspicious of women, but I don't support what I've been reading at all, I have a mother, a wife (albeit not likely for long), and a daughter so I wouldn't attribute any of this to them.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening
I dated a self-proclaimed slvt (it is what she called herself, so I feel OK using it here) when I was in college. She loved sex and had been with many men. 

I might well have married her. The reasons I didn't had nothing to do with her interest in sex (a very positive thing IMHO) but we just very different long term goals about what we wanted out of life. 

I have no idea how common it is, but a woman with lots of prior partners wouldn't be a turn-off for me. (I know I'm better than they were :laugh .






technovelist said:


> Do they tell the slvts that they want to marry them? I doubt that happens very often, so both people are just in it for the sex, which is fair.
> 
> But a lot of women do marry the betas, then are unhappy with them.
> 
> So there is indeed a difference.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The article is not available from mobile devices, but the quote indicates workaholic behavior, not stress resulting from ambition, glass ceiling, perceived slights, and the like.
> 
> Things like this:
> 
> Do Professional Women Have Lower Job Satisfaction Than Professional Men? Lawyers as a Case Study - Springer
> 
> The current study explores this possibility byanalyzing the 326 lawyers in the 1990 National Survey ofLawyers' Career Satisfaction. Of the women, 9% wereminorities, and of the men, 3%. It is found that women have significantly lower jobsatisfaction. *Women's lower job satisfaction is dueprimarily to their lack of influence and promotionalopportunity.* The results support the assertion thatprofessional women have the same expectations asprofessional men, not lower, but because of inequalityin opportunity, the women have lower jobsatisfaction.


Oh, sorry. So the issue isn't how neglecting one's spouse for work impacts relationships , but just very specifically how women are dissatisfied with their jobs? 

And somehow, it isn't even remotely conceivable that their perceptions about available opportunities for promotion are accurate?

But let's, just for the sake of argument pretend that opportunities are equal:

Highlights: Workplace Stress & Anxiety Disorders Survey | Anxiety and Depression Association of America, ADAA



> With spouses, loved ones: Seven in 10 of these adults report that workplace stress affects their personal relationships, mainly with their spouses. Men (79 percent) report it affecting personal relationships more than women (61 percent).


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I never made it to the end of this.. I stopped somewhere in between...



Kivlor said:


> They are certainly similar. Both camps agree on a lot of problems faced by men today. I tend to view them as in opposition to each other, because MRA's are concerned with making changes to existing laws / issues. MGTOW have professed no interest in making changes. They have given up and are checking out of society.
> 
> Yes, one of the conclusions many MGTOW come to is that women cannot be trusted in an intimate fashion. What is terrible, is that so many people refuse to engage them with any level of politeness. This compounds the problem.
> 
> My advice to women is, when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW.
> 
> MGTOW is the end of result--and death throes--of an abundant society, and ignoring them / shaming them is only going to spread this social ill. And again, I will suggest that this is heavily paralleled to the "Mouse Utopia" experiment by John B Calhoun.


I agree with what you say here... our attitudes towards them will only fuel their flames higher.... It’s like meeting a Fundamentalist of sorts...personally I find it worth the conversation to learn WHY people have taken such an extreme position.. what life experiences have led them there...we should be Open to hear their story.... we may even find we sympathize with what may have happened along the way... and with this.. they may be more open to hear us.. without these sort of authentic exchanges.. (the problem is - both are in defense mode nearly 90% of the time, so it goes no where)... the movement will continue to grow ..

It’s disheartening to me that a growing # of men have turned their backs on women...feeling we are all cut from the same cloth.. we're not... 

It will be up to many of us to show there are still devoted women who Love & respect a Good man, wanting to build a life with him...for the mutual benefit of both, enhancing each others lives.. not hindering... that their worldview has been skewed by their experiences..... I've never heard of Calhoun’s “mouse Utopia experience”.



Kivlor said:


> You're right about marriage. It is on it's way out, and personally I think that is a sad thing.


 It seems there are many movements coming against Marriage & the family... not just MGTOW.... I've read countless articles how MEN & women just don't want it anymore... not to mention the push for Alternative relationships.. websites like these >> OPEN MINDED  ... this is what it's come to...this too will grow, widen...it saddens me the world we live in.. it's not where I grew up or the values I held, was taught.. or how we've brought up our children -in seeking out a suitable partner for life... soon we may be in the minority.. the "outiers"..



> Society has come to a point where marriage has taken a downward turn because it no longer satisfies the needs of the modern woman or man. In search of happiness, people are relying less on stereotypical gender roles and traditional relationship paradigms. While monogamy is certainly not dead, a shift in societal ideals has taken place, as more and more couples are choosing to buck traditions in favor of unconventional relationship configurations.
> 
> For many, ‘monogamy’ is almost synonymous with ‘monotony’, which can lead lesser men (and women) to cheat. But that is not the only way to get what you want. Consider these:
> 
> * Ethical Cheating
> * Open Relationships
> * Monogamish Relationships
> * Non-monogamy can be ethical
> 
> These “configurations” may include open and polyamorous relationships. They may be one new partner joining an established couple, or two couples spending intimate time together. More importantly, they may just be open-minded people meeting and dating others with their same attitudes.....
> 
> "We want to capitalize on this trend of where romantic relationships are headed in the future, and put a positive spin on this movement by using the term for its participants – the “Open Minded.” OpenMinded is a positive term that will help us change the way we perceive the open relationship lifestyle. "


Personally...I hold a candle for bringing men & women together ...for the sanctity of the 2 becoming one, that delicious dance between the sexes..... it's so much more than a business transaction.. it's intended purpose of Bonding, the deepest vulnerability..a safe place to raise our children...TRUST, I love the vows! but marriage is mocked.. it's seen as a prison sentence by so many.. is this not due to our dysfunction-ism, our selfishness .. really what ails MEN & women ...

Rampant casual sex/ infidelity...it's common place, out with everything Old.. welcome the NEW.. Many are writing articles/ books that we have been lied to... we are ALL naturally non-monogamous....so EMBRACE IT sons & daughters!!...

This book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire  will even tell you women may be less monogamous over men... who needs the red pill.. just read this book.. 



> Bergner asks: Are women actually the less monogamous gender? Do women really crave intimacy and emotional connection? Are women more disposed to sex with strangers and multiple pairings than either science or society have ever let on? And is “the fairer sex” actually more sexually aggressive and anarchic than men?
> 
> While debunking the myths popularized by evolutionary psychology, Bergner also looks at the future of female sexuality.


So yeah...we warn our sons to NOT GET MARRIED.. we warn our daughters independence from men is the highest calling...while the beauty of what was intended (or so I feel)... it's been lost to a culture that no longer gives a damn about serving each other.. they just want to compete ... one up each other, use each other..... it's all so meaningless.. are we happier this way... -reduced to this.....












PDFV1983 said:


> I am married now 2.5 years. Baby on the way. We both work, though I make 5X more but she has pension plan.
> 
> I posted regarding intellectual compatibility previously as a concern of mine (not even sure if it was a legitimate concern) but otherwise I have a strong marriage.
> 
> Few things:
> -*We need stop gender wars. There are shortcomings on both sides. I don't view humanity as man vs woman. Every person needs to be judged based on their individual merits*.
> -Sites devote to PUA's, MGTOW, etc are extremist in their views. The truth is never that extreme. While marriage is not for everyone, it has many advantages. Just read some of the research articles.
> -*There are marriage-quality women out there. I know my wife is one of them. She is 100% dedicated, loyal, honest, low-maintenance, & caring. She has a clean heart with no complexes. I even tell her that if she ever turned out to be different, I would change my name because I would be so extremely shocked. I trust her 100% even on my death bed. I don't even trust myself that much. *


 Beautiful post.. I feel this way about my husband.. I trust HIM more than I trust myself... 



PDFV1983 said:


> -Yes, divorce laws are biased against men. This must change. In my marriage, I will be the one financially punished upon divorce. The thoughts of such an outcome has given me so much anxiety. It's not fair to the higher earner esp. if his or her success was not dependent on their spouse.
> -* Commitment & marriage take a certain amount of depth & maturity. In some ways you have to move beyond primal instincts & materialism. For some, this is unacceptable & impossible. For others, like myself, it is possible with introspection, practice, & deep thinking. And for a few, like my wife, it is a way of life. * There are some good books on this topic I would recommend. Some of them are difficult reads:
> - Transformation Through Intimacy The Journey Toward Awakened Monogamy by Robert Augustus Masters
> -Passionate Marriage: Keeping Love and Intimacy Alive in Committed Relationships by David Schnarch
> -The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work by John Gottman
> -At the end of the day, for me intimacy & children were really important. So I entered marriage. Some of my most anxious times, unfortunately, are when I read websites by PUAs, MGTOWs, etc. These make me question commitment, family-creation, & marriage even though I have a happy life.












I have enjoyed your posts on this thread PDFV1983 ....Gottman is a relationship GOD - I appreciate his take on Conflict & resolution... the different styles....I have that Passionate Marriage book also... 



> *Heatherknows said* :
> ...yeah, OK.
> 
> I stand by my original statement:
> 
> *If given a choice no unborn child would choose to be female.*


I wonder how many women feel this way.. I have always been thankful I am a woman.. Now if I lived in another country.. I'd agree with you....but here in the United States.. I feel we have it amazingly good.. 



Kivlor said:


> *Why do you discount the issues men face like selective service, prison rape, longer prison sentences for same crimes, being expected to silently endure domestic violence, higher rates of being the victim of violent crime, higher rate of being the victim of murder, higher suicide rate, false rape allegations etc?*
> 
> Only one gender is expected to receive tremendously better treatment and be showered with gifts from the other. Protip: It's not men.
> 
> *My point is that it is not a cake-walk regardless of gender. There are some great benefits to being a girl. There's some perks to being a guy too*.


 The suicide rate for men is 6 times higher over women.. Men & Shame.. a deep subject.. having a house full of sons .. all of these things are concerns to me..



Kivlor said:


> You mean, I'd have to stay at home, play with my kids, teach them, clean house and make dinner? That would be my great daily challenge? I'd be _sacrificing _a ton, but I guess I could be persuaded to take a hit for the team. I'm sure it would be difficult at first, to go completely against my male nature to toil all day, then come home and beat my wife and kids, but I believe I could, with great effort, come to be a nurturing parent and spouse. I may even some day stop resenting my wife for my choice of sacrificing work over my kids. /sarcasm
> 
> *I would take it in a heartbeat. Most men would. Except not many women want a "deadbeat" for a husband who doesn't pay the bills. In fact, I would bet a sizable amount of money you wouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from a man.* Not over a decade. Almost no woman would. Imagine if you, or any girl you know, took a guy out on a date--which you're paying for--and then he said "You know, what I really want to do with my life is find a great girl who'll take care of me, while I stay at home and care for the children, take care of the house, grow a garden, and generally support her." Any girl encountering this man would drop him like a hot frying pan.










I was trying to find an older thread here where a female poster asked the community if they would support a man.. I couldn't find it. but I remember being on that thread.. the vast majority of women do NOT look favorably upon this ....it would grow old.... they are not wired like men .. who genuinely (at least some - like my husband) want to protect & provide for their family.. feeling it is their PLACE as a man, as husband, as a Father.. and this garners our RESPECT or it should anyway, if we are not taking advantage of our husbands.. Found these 2 threads though...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/financial-problems-marriage/155761-i-think-i-married-freeloader.html

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/financ...re-you-knew-youd-always-main-breadwinner.html




> It is *not a sacrifice* to spend all day at home, taking care of your children and your house. It's a luxury. As a luxury, it is a choice, a preference.


Here is another word you can use Kivlor...I have always considered it a "*privilege*" it's the word I have often described my feelings - to be able to stay home in their early years.....we are not a well to do family...it was a concern we could even swing it financially.. so many can't afford it.. another reason I called it a privilege.. 

It's all in what is important to a couple.. we always felt .. if we can manage ALL our bills, a little savings going on...then by all means.. I should be staying home...it's affordable...if Not.. then you do what you have to do.. and make the best of it. ..

But to work just so we can have newer cars, designer clothes.. plus less time to enjoy each other, more stress.. this just wasn't how we wanted to live.. 




Kivlor said:


> Maybe just my experience, but a lot of girls I've dated appear low maintenance at first, and seem to change as things progress. They're fun to hang out with, pay for their own things, don't expect expensive gifts, are willing to let me work my 60 hour workweek; but past the 6 month mark I've noted what seems to be a tremendous shift. "You don't spend enough time with me!" "Why won't you buy me X?" "You're so cheap! It's embarrassing!".
> 
> What I want is low maintenance. What I'm attracted to is low maintenance and I have a habit of dropping girls who start to want too much money spent on them. Maybe it's my picker, maybe it's the pool I'm pulling from, maybe I am too cheap and uncaring or maybe, just maybe, it's that many women--like many men--will pretend to be what they think you want until they think they've got you hooked on the line. Then their real personality shows.


I think there is different sorts of maintenance in women...some may be high maintenance -$$ wise, wine / dining, fancy car, lavish vacations, House in the suburbs, maybe throw in a hot tub.. it's about living a "lifestyle"...she may come to expect it...

Then some (this is more ME)....I don't care about all that..just staying home chilling out cuddling up to a movie with my Husband keeps me plenty happy & fulfilled... I do care that the man is around, devoted, that he's there for his wife & kids ...a family guy...not hanging out at the bar after work or on weekends like he's still single....some of us ENJOY our man's time & attention...but we'll be happy to go out to eat at McDonald's...it's not where you go.. it's the company you are with.. and how they make you feel.


----------



## Personal

technovelist said:


> What women want a man to provide and what they are sexually attracted to are not the same. Of course women have different desires, but in general they want a good provider but are not sexually attracted to men due to their ability to provide. On the other hand, if a man earns less than a woman, she is also unlikely to be interested in sex with him unless he is extremely alpha (tattoos, gang involvement, etc.).


Except I don't have any tattoos have never been in a gang and haven't even ever had a speeding ticket. Yet we're now a few months shy of 20 years together and we still have frequent enthusiastic sex most days of the week

My wife has never wanted a man to provide for her, she's perfectly capable of providing for herself as required. She worked out of school, saved money, then got a diploma while working, lived overseas in Europe, then started a degree in archaeology then changed her mind then got an applied science degree while again working and bought her first car then on and on. She's worked in the private sector, and in government plus she's been variously offered academic roles which to date she has so far turned down.

I can survive without her as she can survive without me, which is pretty cool since we're together simply because we enjoy being with each other.



technovelist said:


> The DGAG dude, if we are talking about sexual attraction.


I remember being at a university graduation party with a woman I was with for around a year, and despite being the shortest guy at this party and also being attached, throughout the night I was asked out, flirted with and even received offers of sex from other women while all but I think 1 other man at that party generated the slightest shred of interest from any women at their, despite the fact all of them were taller than me.

I don't know what it is but some guys kind of drip not attractive, while other guys drip yes please and the yes please come in all ages, shapes and sizes, all colours and differing personalities as well, women are also the same. On paper I can't tell who they are, yet I find it very easy in person to walk into a room and pick which ones drip yes please and which ones don't.

I suspect all people care a lot about things, that said those that may appear not to care more probably don't see much point in expending concern for things they can't control.



technovelist said:


> The answer is that it depends on which men we are talking about. The men who "impregnate and run" are the alpha guys with tattoos, criminal records, and the like. They have nothing to take, so they have nothing to lose. The responsible men, on the other hand, are the ones who get shafted in a divorce.


In what world do you live, no woman ever left me for a man with tattoos or a criminal record and the like. In fact no woman I have been with except for my first wife has ever sought another man while with me.

That said with my first wife she was isolated, with a baby, close to 19 years old, struggling, lonely, plus we'd already broken up when we found out she was pregnant and then foolishly thought we could try and make it work.

So while I was spending many weeks away as a soldier she was unfaithful with a guy who was 19 like me who we both knew who had no tattoos or a criminal record. It sucks what she did, she's entirely responsible for what she did and lost me because of it, yet I'm not stupid enough to think I had nothing to do with how she got there.

Having been with lots of women, in a short time period between my first wife and second, none of them left me, I ended all of my relationships and for some reason all of those who were with me for a few months through to a year were very upset when I said it was over.

So being short, not wealthy, no tattoos, no criminal record and all the rest all I have ever experienced is quite a few (certainly nowhere near all) women seemed to (and still seem to) have found me intellectually, emotionally and sexually desirable.



technovelist said:


> They may not have to worry about being taken to the cleaners in a divorce, but they do have to worry a great deal about a sexless marriage. Most women lose attraction to men whom they out-earn, even if it was there at the start. Especially after marriage, where the man can't tell the woman to take a hike if she refuses sex.


Yawn, my wife earns plenty more than me with her six figure income. Yet I would have no problems finding new sexual partners (I 'm sure she'd find new partners as well), if ever sex with my my wife came to an end or saw an irreconcilable significant change in frequency.


----------



## Personal

technovelist said:


> As soon as women stop rewarding thugs with sex, and start rewarding honest, kind men with sex, honest, kind men will no longer be interested in acting like thugs to get sex.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.


Heres the thing if one doesn't think sex is a reward that is proffered in exchange for gifts and certain behaviour, sex becomes a lot easier to get.

Although I've always shared lots of sex I've never been rewarded sex, since the women I have shared sex with have got just as much out of it as I did.


----------



## Personal

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep. And I think too this is why the deadbeats who get sex are so maddening to these men. They don't have money, they didn't work and buy her gifts and he still had sex.
> 
> They have no confidence in themselves that they could find a woman who wanted him without having to buy her and they blame it on him being a "bad boy" and women just being attracted to jerks.


Yep I don't see why they don't get that paying for affection is an illusory pursuit.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> I remember being at a university graduation party with a woman I was with for around a year, and despite being the shortest guy at this party and also being attached, throughout the night I was asked out, flirted with and even received offers of sex from other women while all but I think 1 other man at that party generated the slightest shred of interest from any women at their, despite the fact all of them were taller than me.
> 
> I don't know what it is but some guys kind of drip not attractive, while other guys drip yes please and the yes please come in all ages, shapes and sizes, all colours and differing personalities as well, women are also the same. On paper I can't tell who they are, yet I find it very easy in person to walk into a room and pick which ones drip yes please and which ones don't.


Not all naturals are tall; some of them are short, e.g., Tom Cruise. Obviously you are one of them.

Which is wonderful for you, but doesn't qualify you to give relationship advice to those of us who aren't. "Be yourself" only works for those who are naturals, and don't need any advice.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

knobcreek said:


> I was pretty naive to what MRA's and MGTOW were beforehand, I'm embarrassed to admit I just started reading a lot about this today and I'm going to have to remove any public defense I may have advocated in this thread. I was not really fully aware of the level of vitriol and hatred they espoused on their websites and on the fora, and it definitely goes against what I believe in.
> 
> Am I hurt by situations in my marriage? Yes. Am I cynical? Yes. This leaves me weary and suspicious of women, but I don't support what I've been reading at all, I have a mother, a wife (albeit not likely for long), and a daughter so I wouldn't attribute any of this to them.


I just read this.. personally I have never taken the time to look at any sites ...I just assume not every man within can be ALL THAT BAD..... I just googled .. found this forum.. noticed THIS thread.. 

Happily Married?

which if I could.. I'd do a reply...but given the responses here.... it would be mocked to hell & back... this is even in the "opposing views" section... given this very quick look.. I can see what you mean.. Very sad. 

I still think these men probably had very sour experiences.. the question I always have is.. how much did THEY contribute to the downfall.. how self aware is a person? .. if someone can't admit their own DIRT, where they failed the other.. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of their mouths.. it may not be easy to find such men on these sites...is what I am thinking.. 

Every response was one of Utter disbelief, it's a fraud.. one post said


> "What are the benefits of living with a woman? Endless shouting, endless nagging, endless entitlement, endless hassling? Sharing a room with some miserable woman who is content as long as you are not? Having to clean up after her, when she inevitably forfeits her only duties? Having to support her when she is out "looking for a job"? Hey, it's not my tale -- it's that of those around me. I chose the other option.
> 
> Men give up more than enough with cohabition: freedom, serenity, the pleasures of solitude -- freedom, freedom, freedom. To say women should be rewarded for taking a man's freedom and abusing her captive? Ridicilous. But luckily for us women are too busy making nets, and not busy enough making cages, so the men leave before it is too late".


----------



## naiveonedave

excellent posts SA. 

I am sure that there are many reasons that men are going there own way. I find it sad, but I think the reasons are pretty basic. My guess is many of them got screwed in divorce, probably by a WW or a WAW. And they didn't see it coming. that has to leave some fraction of men very tainted against marriage, especially since most men won't take the time or energy to heal from that type of betrayal. I am sure there are others that have their own personal issues to be against marriage, like over estimating their own value to the opposite sex. I think there is also a partial backlash to the fact that today women don't need a man, they can make good money and fend for themselves. This breaks 1000s of years of social norms and probably some stuff in our genes. These guys probably don't know how to adjust.

I find the subject sad, there isn't a need for a gender war. These guys are missing out and I feel bad for them.


----------



## john117

always_alone said:


> Oh, sorry. So the issue isn't how neglecting one's spouse for work impacts relationships , but just very specifically how women are dissatisfied with their jobs?
> 
> And somehow, it isn't even remotely conceivable that their perceptions about available opportunities for promotion are accurate?
> 
> But let's, just for the sake of argument pretend that opportunities are equal:
> 
> Highlights: Workplace Stress & Anxiety Disorders Survey | Anxiety and Depression Association of America, ADAA


The opportunities aren't equal, and that's the issue AA.

This isn't about job stress, its about how career progression and advancement occurs.

Me and my wife are both in positions that don't require a PhD and neither of us is paid enough. Yet I love what I do knowing the limitations and accepting them, while she does not. 

Are we facing subtle discrimination? Yep. But I don't take every (any) ethnic joke thrown my way as a slight and I've long stopped giving a beep about making manager. Team leader is fine as I do technical work. She's a senior consultant but hasn't moved into the more advanced roles in her food chain. Mostly because she works for the ultimate old boy network firm. 

Stress is similar, and I don't dispute that. But our expectations are different and that's what drives her thinking.

This is the kind of side issue you don't expect when marrying a high earner career woman. At best it can mess up quality time and at worst it can mess up the whole marriage. I'm not sure what experience AA has in such a relationship.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Not all naturals are tall; some of them are short, e.g., Tom Cruise. Obviously you are one of them.
> 
> Which is wonderful for you, but doesn't qualify you to give relationship advice to those of us who aren't. "Be yourself" only works for those who are naturals, and don't need any advice.


If you aren't yourself, you're going to end up with someone to isn't compatible. 
You don't have to be a "natural" to find a good woman. 

Stop going to bars and trying to pick up hot chicks who wouldn't like you if you were yourself.
Stop using money to compensate for shortcomings in order to try to find a better woman. 
These relationships don't last. These are the kind of marriages where the woman will go cheat and/or sex stops because she was never really into you in the first place. 

These guys go for the "best" (ie prettiest and/or has the most popular and chased attributes) they can manage to get without caring about things like if their lifestyle matches or they want the same things. 

Because women aren't people to them, they are trophies. Compensation for the hard work they've done in their career, for the times they spent being picked on and unwanted in their younger years. Symbols, like a fancy car, that they've finally made it.

Find someone who likes YOU. Sure it may take more time and you may have less options but the ones you have will be the right ones and she may not be the one everyone is chasing either.

Have enough confidence in yourself that a woman would want who you are and you will find a woman who wants who you are. 

Us women comes in all kinds and have all different tastes and wants. The ones who want the alpha guy will never be fully satisfied with the pretender. 
That still leaves you TONS of options of women who do not want the alpha guys.

Look, I am not a tall, hot blonde with a size 0 figure and perfect set of breasts and can be the life of the party and dance all night. 
Many guys want that woman but I shouldn't pretend to be that woman. I should find one of the many, many men who like my short, size 10, homebody introverted self and be happy with who I am.


----------



## OptingOut

Long-time MGTOW here. Not a regular contributor. Only registered to clear up the confusion regarding the MGTOW mindset.

First - MGTOW is not a movement. We don't get government funding. We don't get money from taxpayers. We have no organizational hierarchy nor do we have formal leadership. We do not organize to change laws. MGTOW is a mindset brought about by centuries of cultural misandry, the promotion of male disposability and hypergynocentrism. Examples of cultural misandry, male disposability and hypergynocentrisnm? Male only conscription (the draft), lighter to no punishment for women when they commit crimes equal to men, the removal of men's rights to due process and presumption of innocence (VAWA, affirmative consent), women and minority only programs for employment and welfare (WIC, Affirmative Action, Title IX), triple the spending of taxpayer dollars for programs that promote women-only health, education and welfare and actively AND OPENLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MEN. I could go on.

Second - What is a MGHOW? A Man Going His Own Way is one who chooses lifetime bachelorhood over marriage and committed relationships. That's pretty much it in a nutshell folks. It's not a lot more complicated than that. People pretty up the definition with words like sovereignty and "defining one's own path", but MGTOW are simply men that refuse to give women power over their lives through institutions like marriage. 

Third - Why do Men Go Their Own Way? That question can easily be answered by another question. Why would someone take out a second mortgage on their home and gamble it all away in Vegas? There are actually programs to keep people from making such life destroying, stupid, unjustifiably risky decisions. MGTOW is a mindset that keeps men from making stupid, life destroying, unjustifiably risky decisions like the one listed above - only with regards to women and the ring of power. MGTOW is about NOT giving a woman the ring of power. Why? Because women frequently use that ring of power to destroy men's lives when they're not happy or don't get their way. To counter this - Men Going Their Own Way never give a woman legal, social, financial, psychological, physical or spiritual power over their lives.

All this talk of MGTOW being beta males is a "shaming tactic" to get men to "man up" and get married. Shaming tactics are employed to defeat men's natural inclination for self-preservation for purposes of making them vulnerable to forced wealth transfer through alimony and child support (men pay the vast majority of alimony and child support).

That's it folks. That's MGTOW. Using me as an example, I'm tall, well educated, and in the top 10% of income and asset holders. I routinely turn down relationship invitations. Will I ever give a woman the ring of power? Absolutely, positively not. What do I gain from exposing myself to the potential of life destruction through marriage and divorce? Prenups are routinely thrown out now by misandrist, feminist, activist judges who don't follow the law. In a divorce, the likelihood of experiencing false accusations and parental alienation is high. "The kids" are really "her kids" - though you don't generally find this out until the man hating courts teach you this hidden lesson. After being destroyed through divorce and/or false accusations, if I fail to meet the obligations forced on me by the courts, such as through illness or job loss, my driving privileges will be revoked, I'll be put in debtors prison (unconstitutionality I might add) where I'll likely suffer rape and beatings by hardened criminals. Why on God's green earth would I take on such risk for little to no reward? I won't.

The marriage rate is declining globally. It has been for decades. It has been declining through both good and bad economies. Why? Because marriage offers nothing to men but risk and the potential for total life destruction.

Beware men that espouse the joys of marriage. Most of them will one day be destroyed through divorce. They just don't know it yet.

Oh - and the whole feminism thing with regard to patriarchy and the oppression of women? Yeah - that's a lie. Men were socially forced and/or shamed by both men and women to become the providers and protectors of women. Both men and women to this day will send their son's off to war to die for women but would never consider the possibility of sending daughters off to war to die for men. Next year, thankfully, that all changes. Soon, women in the military will be ordered to fight and die for their own rights - a "privilege" laid 100% at the feet of men for centuries (male disposabilty/cultural misandry).

MGTOW: If you don't get it - you just don't get it. MGTOW will continue to grow globally. Need another example? The so called "herbivores" of Japan. Notice the shameful moniker given to Japanese men that don't kowtow to women. In the US, "beta male" is the preferred shameful moniker of choice. Don't fall for it, men. Never give a woman the ring of power.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> The opportunities aren't equal, and that's the issue AA.
> 
> This isn't about job stress, its about how career progression and advancement occurs.
> 
> Me and my wife are both in positions that don't require a PhD and neither of us is paid enough. Yet I love what I do knowing the limitations and accepting them, while she does not.


I just think this is a personality thing, more than a man-woman thing. Yes, women often face greater frustrations in the workplace because of lack of opportunity, but both women and men let workplace crap destroy their relationships at about an equal rate.

Women often report greater stress levels, but men are more likely to die of a heart attack. Now, true, once dead, you are no longer difficult to live with, but I can assure you that there is no shortage of ambitious high performance men working themselves into a heart attack and destroying their relationships in the process, while their laid-back wives take on jobs that may not pay so much, but are rewarding and fulfilling.


----------



## always_alone

I was just reading through a couple of the MGTOW sites, and there are some pretty astounding ideas put forward on there. Among them:

The only way a man can truly stop being beta is to cut his d1ck off, because otherwise, he will always want to stick it in some awful woman. (And if he can't bring himself to go that far, he should at least get the snip, to reduce desire)

That feminists are the destroyer of society because they have literally robbed men of their masculinity. Feminists control the courts, the schools, all of society, and have systematically biased everything against men. But, note, traditional wives are even worse, just ticks on a dog, receiving endless benefit for contributing absolutely nothing ever.

Any connection a man has to a woman is "serving" her power. Ideally, men should not even want sex from a woman. A vagina offers nothing that a fleshlight doesn't. Of course, it is somewhat understandable should a man fall trap to wanting to extract some sex from a woman, but really, all he is doing is proving how beta he is when he does this.

Women are simply too stupid and entitled to understand that they hit a WALL where they have zero value to men. They are like milk, spoil quickly and are rightly relegated to the junk heap of society.

Children are all just traps designed to suck money out of men. Courts are completely misandrist for awarding custody to women disproportionately, but at the same time, the only reason they exist in the first place is that women want to satisfy their biological clock and find a way to suck money out of men, and they can do it all just by having kids.

:surprise:


----------



## Deejo

Wonder how many trolls they get that are women signed up as dudes just to rile them up.

If men want to go there own way ... let them. Wish them well, or not.

If someone wants to forge new horizons and new discoveries about who they are or who they want to be; Godspeed.

If they want to deal with their pain by venting online about new horizons and new discoveries ... or the woman that broke their heart, have at it.

MGTOW is NOT a movement.

Seems to me like a weigh-station while a guy who probably struggles with more than women, tries to get his sh!t together. And he gets support.

You know ... kind of like this forum.


----------



## Lila

> Seems to me like a weigh-station while a guy who probably struggles with more than women, tries to get his sh!t together.


Good point. I wonder what the retention rate is with MGTOW? 

On another note. . Did anyone watch CNN This is Life last night? I felt really bad for some of those guys but I respect them for trying.


----------



## john117

I'm actually talking about ambitious high performance women and their work's impact on their loved ones. Not the average working wife. 

The average ambitious high performance man is unlikely to give up sex - maybe not with his wife  but how many times have we seen the "wife earns a lot more than me and does not respect me" type threads?

I know a fair number of such women and very few have managed to keep a healthy marriage. A stunning and lone counter example is a lady who's an executive here while her husband is many levels below her. He's raised the kids including an autistic kid and she jets around the world. But they have one of the best marriages I've seen. That's the exception from my experience. If one has seen different I will be the one to be happy about it.


----------



## always_alone

john117 said:


> I'm actually talking about ambitious high performance women and their work's impact on their loved ones. Not the average working wife.


I know what you're talking about, and am just pointing out the flipside. Tons of high performance men trash their relationships --are never home, jet around the world, don't respect their wives, fvck around with their secretaries, ignore their children, focus everything on their own success and career. It's just considered more common and socially acceptable for them to do so. Women, on the other hand, are aggressive selfish b1tches for not always putting their family first.


----------



## john117

Acceptable by some and generally punishable by social norms and courts if you're a man doing it. If you're a woman, I have my doubts you get skrewed to the same extent.

If women were 50% of said population maybe it would get noticed more. Many more executive men in that pool so more of them.


----------



## Kivlor

Personal said:


> Heres the thing if one doesn't think sex is a reward that is proffered in exchange for gifts and certain behaviour, sex becomes a lot easier to get.
> 
> Although I've always shared lots of sex I've never been rewarded sex, since the women I have shared sex with have got just as much out of it as I did.


If you don't think sex isn't used as a bargaining chip in most relationships, I think you have blinders on. Almost every girl I know is open about the fact that she will deny sex to her SO if she doesn't get her way. And she'll tell him that. Everything is purchasable. Everything is a commodity today. Once you understand that, you realize it is either gifted, or exchanged.

Try turning the tables around on a girl. Refuse sex a few times. See what happens. Most freak out. Anecdotal evidence: This happened with me just the other night. Made her pretty angry when I said "no, I've got to get some sleep." She tried to initiate anyways, and I firmly said it again. She was still angry about it yesterday. But guys shouldn't get angry when women turn them down or use sex to bargain for things. If they do, they're just a bunch of selfish, narcissistic, entitled losers who lack confidence. Right?

Hell, there are a lot of people who would say that if she jumped me right then and there it wouldn't be rape. Someone actually said earlier in this thread that guys can't be raped by girls. I had a hard on. I must have wanted it. I literally had to physically stop her. 

Imagine if the roles were reversed. 



naiveonedave said:


> excellent posts SA.
> 
> I am sure that there are many reasons that men are going there own way. I find it sad, but I think the reasons are pretty basic. My guess is many of them got screwed in divorce, probably by a WW or a WAW. And they didn't see it coming. that has to leave some fraction of men very tainted against marriage, especially since most men won't take the time or energy to heal from that type of betrayal. I am sure there are others that have their own personal issues to be against marriage, like over estimating their own value to the opposite sex. I think there is also a partial backlash to the fact that today women don't need a man, they can make good money and fend for themselves. This breaks 1000s of years of social norms and probably some stuff in our genes. These guys probably don't know how to adjust.
> 
> I find the subject sad, there isn't a need for a gender war. These guys are missing out and I feel bad for them.


I think most MGTOW have never been married / had kids. It's my take, from what I've read and listened to that they are mostly people who've A) had a bad run at getting with any girls / been perpetually picked on and B) have seen from the sidelines how bad other guys had it.

I would fall into the 2nd category, if I were to ever identify with that philosophy. I was on receiving end of abuse from women as a small child through young adulthood, and it's made me have a dim view of them. Of course, I have a pretty dim view of humanity in general. Maybe, as a child used as weapon in a divorce by my mother's family, I technically fall into your category of "experienced first-hand". Depends on definitions.

Also, I don't believe for a minute women "don't need a man". Nearly half of custodial mothers are on government assistance (twice as likely as custodial fathers). 85% of Custodial mothers do not work full or part time. For custodial mothers below the poverty line, child support represents over 62% of their income on average. Custodial mothers are nearly twice as likely to receive child support awards than custodial fathers. Women are less likely to pay child support when it is ordered, and are less likely to be arrested or imprisoned for failure to pay than men. Daughters raised without a father are much more likely to end up pregnant as a teenager, and criminality increases among children without fathers. According to the US Census, the percentage of joint custody / visitation awards to non-custodial parents has remained unchanged since 1993.

No, women need men, and the surplus labor they provide. They need men to help raise their children into better people. They just don't want to admit it. And they've found a way to get the surplus labor by force. These guys recognize it, and they don't like it.


----------



## Marduk

@OptingOut what I struggle with -- respectfully -- is that that whole logic is predicated on the potential fear of losing your economic well-being or freedom.

And I really, really struggle with making decisions in my life based on fear. Especially when it comes to love or children.

Because I would freely give away my freedom and economic well being for either love or children, and refuse to be ruled by fear.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> I was just reading through a couple of the MGTOW sites, and there are some pretty astounding ideas put forward on there. Among them:
> 
> The only way a man can truly stop being beta is to cut his d1ck off, because otherwise, he will always want to stick it in some awful woman. (And if he can't bring himself to go that far, he should at least get the snip, to reduce desire)
> 
> That feminists are the destroyer of society because they have literally robbed men of their masculinity. Feminists control the courts, the schools, all of society, and have systematically biased everything against men. *But, note, traditional wives are even worse, just ticks on a dog, receiving endless benefit for contributing absolutely nothing ever.*
> 
> Any connection a man has to a woman is "serving" her power. Ideally, men should not even want sex from a woman. A vagina offers nothing that a fleshlight doesn't. Of course, it is somewhat understandable should a man fall trap to wanting to extract some sex from a woman, but really, all he is doing is proving how beta he is when he does this.
> 
> *Women are simply too stupid and entitled to understand that they hit a WALL where they have zero value to men. They are like milk, spoil quickly and are rightly relegated to the junk heap of society.*
> 
> Children are all just traps designed to suck money out of men. Courts are completely misandrist for awarding custody to women disproportionately, but at the same time, the only reason they exist in the first place is that women want to satisfy their biological clock and find a way to suck money out of men, and they can do it all just by having kids.
> 
> :surprise:


 Dammmnnnnn....what can one do with this sort of hatred...anyone who feels this strongly has lost faith in humanity ...Ouch!!.. women like me are nothing more than tics on a dog, blood sucking our husbands, we are worthless & contribute nothing.

The word *Contempt* keeps coming to my mind ..."the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn."

So ALL women are put into a black & white box, labeled with contempt to various degrees... and discarded as nothing more than Trash - if it comes his way.. he needs to get rid of it...

A woman should be very very careful who she sleeps with.. lust in the moment is one thing.. but what if the man has this sort of contempt against us, our kind...we'd be sickened.

People have the right to live however they want, if that's what brings them happiness.. though I don't believe a life without intimacy is fulfilling to the average man or woman..... sure we don't need the opposite sex.. but we do need "connection" with others....

Brene Brown, the vulnerability researcher said...

...


> "After collecting thousands of stories , I'm willing to call this a FACT: *A deep sense of love and belonging is an irreducible need of all women, men and children*. We are biologically, cognitively, physically, and spiritually wired to love , to be loved, and to belong.
> 
> When these needs are not met, we don't function as we were meant to. We break. We fall apart. We NUMB...We ache...We hurt others. We get sick.
> 
> There are certainly other causes of illness, numbing and hurt, but the absence of love and belonging will always lead to suffering.


 I guess their belonging is the MGTOW community then.. .

I used to think Playboys was the bottom of the barrel.. but now I see there are men who are far worse... 



naiveonedave said:


> excellent posts SA.
> 
> I am sure that there are many reasons that men are going there own way. I find it sad, but I think the reasons are pretty basic. My guess is many of them got screwed in divorce, probably by a WW or a WAW. And they didn't see it coming. that has to leave some fraction of men very tainted against marriage, especially since most men won't take the time or energy to heal from that type of betrayal. I am sure there are others that have their own personal issues to be against marriage, like over estimating their own value to the opposite sex. I think there is also a partial backlash to the fact that today women don't need a man, they can make good money and fend for themselves. This breaks 1000s of years of social norms and probably some stuff in our genes. These guys probably don't know how to adjust.
> 
> I find the subject sad, there isn't a need for a gender war. These guys are missing out and I feel bad for them.


 I Do get it.. I have this book on my shelf...

Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters 



> American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?
> 
> As Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.


----------



## Lila

SimplyAmorous said:


> Dammmnnnnn....what can one do with this sort of hatred...anyone who feels this strongly has lost faith in humanity ...Ouch!!.. women like me are nothing more than tics on a dog, blood sucking our husbands, we are worthless & contribute nothing.
> 
> The word *Contempt* keeps coming to my mind ..."the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn."
> 
> So ALL women are put into a black & white box, labeled with contempt to various degrees... and discarded as nothing more than Trash - if it comes his way.. he needs to get rid of it...


SA, now that you've had a chance to read up on their literature and websites, do you still agree with Kivlor's advice to women that "_when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW._"


----------



## Faithful Wife

OptingOut said:


> Long-time MGTOW here. Not a regular contributor. Only registered to clear up the confusion regarding the MGTOW mindset.


Thanks for joining. No one who has read any of the MGTOW literature is confused. 

I'm just not sure why, if you are all going your own way, you feel the need to tell anyone about it. Just go. We'll be fine, you'll be fine. No love lost. We get it, you want a different kind of life than the one typically had by married guys. No one is stopping you, women encourage you to do it, and men who want to be with women encourage it, too (more for them). So thank you for removing yourself from the dating pool. It makes things easier for those who want to participate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I was on receiving end of abuse from women as a small child through young adulthood, and it's made me have a dim view of them. Of course, I have a pretty dim view of humanity in general. Maybe, as a child used as weapon in a divorce by my mother's family, I technically fall into your category of "experienced first-hand".


This is sad, but it helps us understand your position.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> @OptingOut what I struggle with -- respectfully -- is that that whole logic is predicated on the potential fear of losing your economic well-being or freedom.
> 
> And I really, really struggle with making decisions in my life based on fear. Especially when it comes to love or children.
> 
> Because I would freely give away my freedom and economic well being for either love or children, and refuse to be ruled by fear.


I would propose that it hurts your children to give away your freedom and economic well being.


----------



## ocotillo

MGTOW is certainly a movement. That line gets crossed the instant like-minded individuals begin disseminating information with growth as the goal. There is nothing unusual about movements not having a hierarchy or even actively eschewing the idea in their early stages.


----------



## john117

ocotillo said:


> MGTOW is certainly a movement. That line gets crossed the instant like-minded individuals begin disseminating information with growth as the goal. There is nothing unusual about movements not having a hierarchy or even actively eschewing the idea in their early stages.


And this is wrong because...


----------



## BetrayedDad

Lila said:


> SA, now that you've had a chance to read up on their literature and websites, do you still agree with Kivlor's advice to women that "_when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW._"


What exactly do you have against men and women treating each other with civility regardless of their beliefs? The alternative is more misogyny and misandry so is that your preference?


----------



## tech-novelist

BetrayedDad said:


> What exactly do you have against men and women treating each other with civility regardless of their beliefs? The alternative is more misogyny and misandry so is that your preference?


I know, I know! 

Misogyny is pervasive and horrible. There is no such thing as misandry. >


----------



## BetrayedDad

technovelist said:


> There is no such thing as misandry. >


A lot of ignorant people call it feminism on TAM.

They don't understand the difference.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I know, I know!
> 
> Misogyny is pervasive and horrible. There is no such thing as misandry. >


TN, you're smarter than that and know that's a false dichotomy.

I have yet to see anyone claim that misandry does not exist.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I would propose that it hurts your children to give away your freedom and economic well being.


You mean it hurts the children you don't have because you never married and had any?


----------



## ocotillo

john117 said:


> And this is wrong because...


Didn't say it was wrong.  --Not that aspect anyway.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lila said:


> SA, now that you've had a chance to read up on their literature and websites, do you still agree with Kivlor's advice to women that "_when you meet men like this, engage them with civility. The more you "treat them as outcasts" the more you contribute to a confirmation bias, reinforcing their beliefs. Moreover, I think every woman should ask herself regularly if she is behaving in a way that it will encourage men to disengage from women and contribute to the growth of MGTOW._"


Personally Lila.. I love a good debate. I would talk to the damn devil.. if I knew I had an angel nearby or a body guard to keep me from physical harm.. what does it hurt ? 

The internet is SAFE so long as we are anonymous.. so Yes.. I would still try to be understanding if I met such a person, or ran up against one on the net... IF THEY WERE CIVIL, showed more Logic over disdain & disrespect to me..

If they came on swinging telling me how worthless I am at the get go..... I would see no point in engaging with anyone like this.. 

But yeah... I am BIG on hearing people out.. no matter who they are.. until they have crossed a line ..when you know another is just playing you, Using you.. Mocking you.... 

How else do we influence each other, even the worst of society..... someone has to plant a seed ...


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> What exactly do you have against men and women treating each other with civility regardless of their beliefs? The alternative is more misogyny and misandry so is that your preference?


I have nothing against BOTH parties treating each other with civility, key word being BOTH. However, I have a huge problem being asked to engage men who sees my entire gender as the harbingers of the apocalypse. I've said it before and I'll say it again....Approach me with hatred and all you'll get is my disinterest. Approach me with kindness and I'll respond with graciousness. Based on everything I've read so far on this movement, the only thing I've seen is hatred. 

I also don't think women should feel responsible for the MGTOW men. I think that's a cop out and no, I won't be asking women to essentially 'check' their behavior.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Lila said:


> I have nothing against BOTH parties treating each other with civility, key word being BOTH. However, I have a huge problem being asked to engage men who sees my entire gender as the harbingers of the apocalypse. I've said it before and I'll say it again....Approach me with hatred and all you'll get is my disinterest. Approach me with kindness and I'll respond with graciousness. Based on everything I've read so far on this movement, the only thing I've seen is hatred.
> 
> I also don't think women should feel responsible for the MGTOW men. I think that's a cop out and no, I won't be asking women to essentially 'check' their behavior.


Yep. It's like telling the target of racism or homophobia to be nice or you'll prove them right. It's no one's job to pacify these kinds of radical people.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> TN, you're smarter than that and know that's a false dichotomy.
> 
> I have yet to see anyone claim that misandry does not exist.


Not here, anyway. That's why the >.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Then don't sink to their level. Be BETTER then they are. Kill them with kindness. Is it so horrible to set an example?


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> You mean it hurts the children you don't have because you never married and had any?


You don't have to be married to have children. In fact, in today's western society, I would say it would be better *not *to be married even if you want children. And by better, I include better *for the children*.


----------



## Lila

SimplyAmorous said:


> *IF THEY WERE CIVIL, showed more Logic over disdain & disrespect to me*..
> 
> If they came on swinging telling me how worthless I am at the get go..... I would see no point in engaging with anyone like this.. .


I agree and that's the point I'm trying to make to betrayeddad and others who question my reticence to engage MGTOW. 

it's like @SlowlyGoingCrazy said 
"_It's like telling the target of racism or homophobia to be nice or you'll prove them right_."


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> You don't have to be married to have children. In fact, in today's western society, I would say it would be better *not *to be married even if you want children. And by better, I include better *for the children*.


but if you went your own way, you wouldn't have your own children, right?

This logic is like Greece trying to spend it's way out of the financial crisis.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

BetrayedDad said:


> Then don't sink to their level. Be BETTER then they are. Kill them with kindness. Is it so horrible to set an example?


Not trying to push religion here... or get all spiritual.. but I've always agreed with these scriptures...the part about "living as peaceably as we can"... I still say.. "what's it going to hurt?" ..... 

This is NOT EASY TO DO mind you.. some of us can NOT do it...

But I've seen it in action.. and how people are moved by it.. I am moved by such stories - a great deal in fact .... so yeah.. as much as is possible on our ends.. to NOT fuel the flames.. but be an example before others .... even "the least of these".


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> but if you went your own way, you wouldn't have your own children, right?
> 
> This logic is like Greece trying to spend it's way out of the financial crisis.


Not necessarily. Men can and sometimes do hire surrogates to have children with so that they can keep their children. That approach is more likely to succeed than if you get married, which has about a 50% rate of failure.

Note that I'm not happy about this situation. I'm just calling it the way I see it.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Not necessarily. Men can and sometimes do hire surrogates to have children with so that they can keep their children. That approach is more likely to succeed than if you get married, which has about a 50% rate of failure.
> 
> Note that I'm not happy about this situation. I'm just calling it the way I see it.


But then they didn't go their own way!

This logic is totally inconsistent.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> But then they didn't go their own way!
> 
> This logic is totally inconsistent.


I'm not understanding your point. They certainly do go their own way; they live their lives as they see fit, and in those cases that includes having children.


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I'm not understanding your point. They certainly do go their own way; they live their lives as they see fit, and in those cases that includes having children.


OK, I'm baffled.

If you 'go your own way' because of 'misandrist legal rules around marriage and kids' and they're both a giant risk to your soveriegnity...

Then you go your own way and avoid both as a risk management strategy, right?

Because if you just date women (i.e. have casual sex with them) are you not risking children raised out of your control, and risk your financial future every time you put your penis in a woman, right?

So that plan does _not_ make sense to me. If you think a man has crappy rights in a marriage when it comes to kids, it gets even crappier if you're not married.

So the only thing that makes sense to me if you believe in MGTOW is to be a celibate bachelor.

What also _doesn't_ make sense to me is a guy that gets married, has kids, and gets divorced... and then claims to be 'going his own way.'

Because in reality he didn't go his own way, he went the other way and it just didn't work out. Smacks of rationalization to me.

Besides, if core MGTOW philosophy is true and laws are misandrist and evil women and judges take all men's money... and a big part of what women want is money... well, then -- women don't want you anyway, because you have no money!

Sounds like you're taking your ball and going home not out of sovereignty but because nobody wants to play with you.

This logic doesn't work for me.


----------



## Lila

BetrayedDad said:


> Then don't sink to their level. Be BETTER then they are. Kill them with kindness. Is it so horrible to set an example?


Did I say I would sink to their level? Absolutely not! Slinging insults and spewing a message of hatred accomplishes nothing. 

Should I go out of my way to engage them? No. No sense in looking for trouble. If, however I were to be engaged first, of course I would extend the olive branch but don't expect me to take a beating in order to set some moralistic example. Killing them with kindness is all fine and dandy until you realize it's you that's getting killed.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> OK, I'm baffled.
> 
> If you 'go your own way' because of 'misandrist legal rules around marriage and kids' and they're both a giant risk to your soveriegnity...
> 
> Then you go your own way and avoid both as a risk management strategy, right?
> 
> Because if you just date women (i.e. have casual sex with them) are you not risking children raised out of your control, and risk your financial future every time you put your penis in a woman, right?
> 
> So that plan does _not_ make sense to me. If you think a man has crappy rights in a marriage when it comes to kids, it gets even crappier if you're not married.
> 
> So the only thing that makes sense to me if you believe in MGTOW is to be a celibate bachelor.
> 
> What also _doesn't_ make sense to me is a guy that gets married, has kids, and gets divorced... and then claims to be 'going his own way.'
> 
> Because in reality he didn't go his own way, he went the other way and it just didn't work out. Smacks of rationalization to me.
> 
> Besides, if core MGTOW philosophy is true and laws are misandrist and evil women and judges take all men's money... and a big part of what women want is money... well, then -- women don't want you anyway, because you have no money!
> 
> Sounds like you're taking your ball and going home not out of sovereignty but because nobody wants to play with you.
> 
> This logic doesn't work for me.


I was talking about a man who hires a surrogate to have children on a contract basis, so that he gets to keep the children.

Is that more comprehensible now?


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I was talking about a man who hires a surrogate to have children on a contract basis, so that he gets to keep the children.
> 
> Is that more comprehensible now?


No. 

You can surrogate all the children you want, but that doesn't change the MGTOW philosophy that children are just a drain on your economic viability and freedom, and it doesn't change the fact that such surrogate mothers have sued and won parental rights, either.

As a risk mitigation strategy this dog just doesn't hunt unless you are truly opting out.


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> OK, I'm baffled.
> 
> If you 'go your own way' because of 'misandrist legal rules around marriage and kids' and they're both a giant risk to your soveriegnity...
> 
> Then you go your own way and avoid both as a risk management strategy, right?
> 
> Because if you just date women (i.e. have casual sex with them) are you not risking children raised out of your control, and risk your financial future every time you put your penis in a woman, right?
> 
> So that plan does _not_ make sense to me. If you think a man has crappy rights in a marriage when it comes to kids, it gets even crappier if you're not married.
> 
> So the only thing that makes sense to me if you believe in MGTOW is to be a celibate bachelor.
> 
> What also _doesn't_ make sense to me is a guy that gets married, has kids, and gets divorced... and then claims to be 'going his own way.'
> 
> Because in reality he didn't go his own way, he went the other way and it just didn't work out. Smacks of rationalization to me.
> 
> Besides, if core MGTOW philosophy is true and laws are misandrist and evil women and judges take all men's money... and a big part of what women want is money... well, then -- women don't want you anyway, because you have no money!
> 
> Sounds like you're taking your ball and going home not out of sovereignty but because nobody wants to play with you.
> 
> This logic doesn't work for me.


No, hiring a surrogate for some is really about attempts at risk avoidance while still accomplishing the goal of passing on your genes. You can be a single dad, and not have to worry about cheating, divorce, alimony, child support, emotional abuse, weaponized children, etc.

These guys are literally going their own way. The normal way is to stick you pen into someone's inkwell. I've seen quite a few MGTOW advocating that if you want to have kids, why not do it this way instead. 

Of course, the issue is that some states will grant the surrogate rights, make them the parent. So it really doesn't fix the issue. And of course after the Kansas case, men donating sperm may want to rethink that. If the state finds out you're the daddy, you're liable for child support. Doesn't matter what documents you signed.

Or the Michigan case, where the guy has proven (genetic testing) it wasn't his kid, never married the girl. She admitted it wasn't his in court. She lives with the kid's biological dad, has for years. Yeah, he's going to jail. And paying $30,000 in back support. Doesn't matter it was a lie and the kid isn't his. This sets precedent for all future cases in the state, and many states use case law from other states to base their own decisions, so potentially more than just Michigan. 

But guys shouldn't worry. Nope.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> No.
> 
> You can surrogate all the children you want, but that doesn't change the MGTOW philosophy that children are just a drain on your economic viability and freedom, and it doesn't change the fact that such surrogate mothers have sued and won parental rights, either.
> 
> As a risk mitigation strategy this dog just doesn't hunt unless you are truly opting out.


I think you still have a better chance than being married in the US.

Actually, if I were a young unmarried man in the US today, I would emigrate to a country with less misandrist laws.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> No, hiring a surrogate for some is really about attempts at risk avoidance while still accomplishing the goal of passing on your genes. You can be a single dad, and not have to worry about cheating, divorce, alimony, child support, emotional abuse, weaponized children, etc.
> 
> These guys are literally going their own way. The normal way is to stick you pen into someone's inkwell. I've seen quite a few MGTOW advocating that if you want to have kids, why not do it this way instead.
> 
> Of course, the issue is that some states will grant the surrogate rights, make them the parent. So it really doesn't fix the issue. And of course after the Kansas case, men donating sperm may want to rethink that. If the state finds out you're the daddy, you're liable for child support. Doesn't matter what documents you signed.
> 
> Or the Michigan case, where the guy has proven (genetic testing) it wasn't his kid, never married the girl. She admitted it wasn't his in court. She lives with the kid's biological dad, has for years. Yeah, he's going to jail. And paying $30,000 in back support. Doesn't matter it was a lie and the kid isn't his. This sets precedent for all future cases in the state, and many states use case law from other states to base their own decisions, so potentially more than just Michigan.
> 
> But guys shouldn't worry. Nope.


You just proved my point. 

Having a surrogate child is neither opting out, not is it really mitigating any risk.

Besides, it's not core to the philosophy, either. 

Does not compute.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I think you still have a better chance than being married in the US.
> 
> Actually, if I were a young unmarried man in the US today, I would emigrate to a country with less misandrist laws.


That's still not opting out. 

Spent any time in the Middle East with countries with extreme men-friendly laws?

Women seem to still get their way in the home lots of the time. 

You guys keep dancing around the fact that you're either giving up on sex and babies, or you're not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Except all the women would expect you marry them and move back to the USA where they can legally take you to the cleaners


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> Except all the women would expect you marry them and move back to the USA where they can legally take you to the cleaners


Also... Dowries.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> You just proved my point.
> 
> Having a surrogate child is neither opting out, not is it really mitigating any risk.
> 
> Besides, it's not core to the philosophy, either.
> 
> Does not compute.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


C'mon Marduk. This is sophistry.

I'm going to use the same definition of MGTOW that has been used by it's detractors on this site:

M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.

Do you see anything indiacting "no passing on your genes ever"?
Do you see anything indicating "kids are only a drain on resources"?
Do you see anything indicating "never sire children"?

No. In fact, it is about "Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable resource. and living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he wouldn't."

MGTOW is a malleable philosophy. It's inches away from "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Some MGTOW think "never have kids". Others think "be damn careful if you want them." The core of the philosophy is "don't be someone's *****." "don't let someone collar you". That is the core of going your own way.

You want kids? Okay. Just have them in a way that doesn't make you a slave. Attempt to mitigate the risk. Do not enter into the one-sided "contract" that is marriage--a contract which you cannot enforce on her, but she probably can on you. Recognize that you're swimming in an ocean, and there are sharks, as well as other dangers in these waters.

You are right though, a surrogate can try to gain custody. It's generally recommended to pick a state that doesn't allow this, or go outside the US to a country that will support it. Arkansas' Supreme Court has ruled at least twice in favor of intended parents. As far as I know, they've never ruled for the surrogate.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> That's still not opting out.
> 
> Spent any time in the Middle East with countries with extreme men-friendly laws?
> 
> Women seem to still get their way in the home lots of the time.
> 
> *You guys* keep dancing around the fact that you're either giving up on sex and babies, or you're not.


I'm not sure who you are talking to *here*. I'm not an MGTOW, nor do I play one on TV.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> C'mon Marduk. This is sophistry.
> 
> I'm going to use the same definition of MGTOW that has been used by it's detractors on this site:
> 
> M.G.T.O.W – Men Going Their Own Way is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: “No”. Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a “man” is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn’t.
> 
> Do you see anything indiacting "no passing on your genes ever"?
> Do you see anything indicating "kids are only a drain on resources"?
> Do you see anything indicating "never sire children"?
> 
> No. In fact, it is about "Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable resource. and living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he wouldn't."
> 
> MGTOW is a malleable philosophy. It's inches away from "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Some MGTOW think "never have kids". Others think "be damn careful if you want them." The core of the philosophy is "don't be someone's *****." "don't let someone collar you". That is the core of going your own way.
> 
> You want kids? Okay. Just have them in a way that doesn't make you a slave. Attempt to mitigate the risk. Do not enter into the one-sided "contract" that is marriage--a contract which you cannot enforce on her, but she probably can on you. Recognize that you're swimming in an ocean, and there are sharks, as well as other dangers in these waters.
> 
> You are right though, a surrogate can try to gain custody. It's generally recommended to pick a state that doesn't allow this, or go outside the US to a country that will support it. Arkansas' Supreme Court has ruled at least twice in favor of intended parents. As far as I know, they've never ruled for the surrogate.


So by that definition, even though I'm married with children and love my wife and would readily give her lots of money if we divorced even if it were her fault for the sake of the kids, then I'm MGTOW?

This makes no sense, man. 

And I don't buy the sophist criticism. Engage Socratically and show me where my reasoning is flawed.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> I'm not sure who you are talking to *here*. I'm not an MGTOW, nor do I play one on TV.


Ok fair, made an assumption. My bad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

Dowries are a very practical reality but have a tendency to fvck up men even faster than the usual suspects.

A fat dowry all but guarantees that the guy is stuck with the girl's family forever. 

Many of my college friends in the old country got stuck in this manner.


----------



## john117

marduk said:


> Spent any time in the Middle East with countries with extreme men-friendly laws?
> 
> Women seem to still get their way in the home lots of the time.


True that. Unless we are talking sharia law women have lots of domestic power - but due to lots of reasons.


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> So by that definition, even though I'm married with children and love my wife and would readily give her lots of money if we divorced even if it were her fault for the sake of the kids, then I'm MGTOW?
> 
> This makes no sense, man.
> 
> And I don't buy the sophist criticism. Engage Socratically and show me where my reasoning is flawed.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sophistry. Clever employment of fallacious arguments, especially with the intent to deceive. Often arguing a point one does not believe or knows to be false.

Your previous argument, which I broke down. You know good and well that some men in MGTOW are completely opposed to children. Some are not. All are opposed to long-term relationships with women (and most are opposed to any intimate relationships). You've made their argument out to be something it isn't.

One need not have sex in the modern day to have children. Science has changed that for us. And this is the argument that the pro-kids side makes. They maintain going their own way. They still have no relationship with a woman. They still get to be a father and pass on their genes. Crisis averted. 

You're willing to wear the collar. You're not part of the "sovereignty first" club. I'm willing to wear the collar. I'm not part of their club either. 

Maybe you don't intend to deceive. I think you're playing dumb, because I think you're pretty sharp. And I think you could see my points about their philosophy and your argument already. If I'm wrong or misunderstood / misrepresented you, I apologize. If not, take it as a compliment that I think you're clever. It's not like I've never engaged in sophistry. >


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> So by that definition, even though I'm married with children and love my wife and would readily give her lots of money if we divorced even if it were her fault for the sake of the kids, then I'm MGTOW?
> 
> This makes no sense, man.
> 
> And I don't buy the sophist criticism. Engage Socratically and show me where my reasoning is flawed.


Legally and practically, a married man in the US is a slave. So it is impossible to be MGTOW if married.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> Sophistry. Clever employment of fallacious arguments, especially with the intent to deceive. Often arguing a point one does not believe or knows to be false.
> 
> Your previous argument, which I broke down. You know good and well that some men in MGTOW are completely opposed to children. Some are not. All are opposed to long-term relationships with women (and most are opposed to any intimate relationships). You've made their argument out to be something it isn't.
> 
> One need not have sex in the modern day to have children. Science has changed that for us. And this is the argument that the pro-kids side makes. They maintain going their own way. They still have no relationship with a woman. They still get to be a father and pass on their genes. Crisis averted.
> 
> You're willing to wear the collar. You're not part of the "sovereignty first" club. I'm willing to wear the collar. I'm not part of their club either.
> 
> Maybe you don't intend to deceive. I think you're playing dumb, because I think you're pretty sharp. And I think you could see my points about their philosophy and your argument already. If I'm wrong, I apologize. If not, take it as a compliment that I think you're clever. It's not like I've never engaged in sophistry. >


Maybe you missed my point. 

I define myself. I am sovereign. 

And yet I am married and think worrying about such things is belittling to my sovereignty and self- definition. 

So am I MGTOW?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

technovelist said:


> Legally and practically, a married man in the US is a slave. So it is impossible to be MGTOW if married.


Ok. 

So is a man who has sex and risks having children risking slavery? Is he going his own way?

Is a man who dates and risks falling in love risking slavery?

Is a guy who married, had kids, got economically devastated in a divorce and is now refusing to re-marry going his own way?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Ps @Kivlor I know what sophistry is and I don't think you broke down any logic. 

If I missed it, please reference it again, because I honestly missed it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> Having a surrogate child is neither opting out, not is it really mitigating any risk.


I'm trying to follow the exchange and keep getting lost.

Surrogacy laws vary by state and country. Kivlor's suggestion is impossible in about half the states of the U.S., but in states where it is possible the surrogate relinquishes any parental rights they would normally have. 

How is this not less risk? There's nobody to divorce you and possibly be awarded custody of the child if you're a single parent. 

Or am I misunderstanding entirely?


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> I'm trying to follow the exchange and keep getting lost.
> 
> Surrogacy laws vary by state and country. Kivlor's suggestion is impossible in about half the states of the U.S., but in states where it is possible the surrogate relinquishes any parental rights they would normally have.
> 
> How is this not less risk? There's nobody to divorce you and possibly be awarded custody of the child if you're a single parent.
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding entirely?


It might be less risk, but the residual risk profile would still be quite large.

Besides, western nations waffle over this kind of thing all the time. 

Or you could have sex with a woman, never know she got pregnant, and could get a retroactive judgement 20 years later and end up shelling out money when the kid wants to go to university.

Sex is risky. Babies are risky. Love is risky.

If you're not willing to play the game, then go ahead and don't. But don't try to play the game and still have zero risk because you're afraid.

Or don't feel rejected, and then try to flip that rejection around to make yourself feel better about it.

This whole thing smacks of me arguing with my buddies in high school about who dumped who -- me dumping my girlfriend or her dumping me.

I swear guys, it was mutual!

Hint: It wasn't mutual.


----------



## BetrayedDad

marduk said:


> Maybe you missed my point.
> 
> I define myself. I am sovereign.
> 
> And yet I am married and think worrying about such things is belittling to my sovereignty and self- definition.
> 
> So am I MGTOW?


Let me try: 

In the literal sense, yes you are MGTOW. 

Everyone is. EVERY man walks their own path.

In the context MGTOW relates too, obviously you are not.

But as @Kivlor pointed out, you are clever enough to know this.

Stop dancing around the issue @marduk.....

P.S. The baby risk argument is weak especially for your standards. 

Proper combinations of birth control makes it over 99% effective.

There is a risk reward component to everything in life.


----------



## Marduk

BetrayedDad said:


> Let me try:
> 
> In the literal sense, yes you are MGTOW.
> 
> Everyone is. EVERY man walks their own path.
> 
> In the context MGTOW relates too, obviously you are not.
> 
> But as @Kivlor pointed out, you are clever enough to know this.
> 
> Stop dancing around the issue @marduk.....
> 
> P.S. The baby risk argument is weak especially for your standards.
> 
> Proper combinations of birth control makes it over 99% effective.
> 
> There is a risk reward component to everything in life.


I don't think I'm dancing. 

I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in the underlying philosophy of MGTOW. 

I'm sovereign, therefore MGTOW, and yet I'm not opting out, therefore I'm enslaved.

And if all you are doing is trying to alter the probability factors, why is a good pre-nup not a good plan? Surrogacy is better? Really?


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in the underlying philosophy of MGTOW.


Isn't "all or nothing" a presumptive fallacy known "false dilemma" and/or "needless bifurcation?"


----------



## Marduk

ocotillo said:


> Isn't "all or nothing" a presumptive fallacy known "false dilemma" and/or "needless bifurcation?"


Not if it's in the underlying philosophy. In execution, you need to weigh off probabilities -- but this (to me at least) is like saying I'm going to create a inclusive movement supporting democracy, and to do it by never voting again unless I get my way.

It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## norajane

marduk said:


> You just proved my point.
> 
> Having a surrogate child is neither opting out, not is it really mitigating any risk.
> 
> Besides, it's not core to the philosophy, either.
> 
> Does not compute.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And it costs at least $100,000 to get a baby via surrogacy, so yeah, no way to make children a non-drain on the finances for sure. 

I'm just wondering what these bitter guys would teach their boy and girl babies about the other gender. Sounds like they'd torture them by teaching them to hate and be hated.


----------



## naiveonedave

Faithful Wife said:


> Thanks for joining. No one who has read any of the MGTOW literature is confused.
> 
> I'm just not sure why, if you are all going your own way, you feel the need to tell anyone about it. Just go. We'll be fine, you'll be fine. No love lost. We get it, you want a different kind of life than the one typically had by married guys. No one is stopping you, women encourage you to do it, and men who want to be with women encourage it, too (more for them). So thank you for removing yourself from the dating pool. It makes things easier for those who want to participate.


to me this is no different than a gay pride march or black lives matter or other special interest group. It is what they do to attract attention to themselves.


----------



## Kivlor

@marduk

Technovelist had discussed using surrogates to have kids.

You professed "But then they didn't go their own way! This logic is totally inconsistent." Then you professed bafflement and argued not about surrogates, but about having sex and kids. Which is a non-sequitur. 

You argued in MGTOW philosophy kids are a threat to sovereignty. They can be, if a woman is involved. It's not the kids who threaten your sovereignty, it's the mother. Which makes this argument a straw man. The kids don't threaten anything. This is why science and surrogacy matter to them. You finished with a valid point that surrogacy can be legally challenged in some jurisdictions. To which I have provided one of many that will side with the 'intended parent(s)'.

My previous post attempted to distill your argument to what I saw as the base: MGTOW think you shouldn't have kids. But they want kids via surrogacy. MGTOW are inconsistant.

It isn't logically inconsistent. Some MGTOW are opposed to having kids. Some aren't. MGTOW is about not being collared. Marriage collars you. You are not free to live your life--your wife controls you, because she can and will take half your stuff plus alimony plus child support per your "contract" (MGTOW's idea, at least). Financial and emotional ruin is silently threatened at all times--and often vocally. 

Kids can't do this to you. They are not an imposition on sovereignty--not any more than having a mother or father, brother or sister; not any more than having a puppy. Kids don't rule you, you rule them. They don't make the decisions about your future, you determine theirs (to a point). They can't divorce you and take half your stuff, plus alimony for life. These are very different relationships.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> [MENTION=14485]
> Kids can't do this to you. They are not an imposition on sovereignty--not any more than having a mother or father, brother or sister; not any more than having a puppy. *Kids don't rule you, you rule them*. They don't make the decisions about your future, you determine theirs (to a point). They can't divorce you and take half your stuff, plus alimony for life. These are very different relationships.


You must not have any kids.

They are an imposition on every part of your life. You never get to act just for yourself any longer, you now have to make sure the ankle biters have food and shelter and comfort. This is not necessarily going to be something you WANT to do or provide in every single moment, but you are collared by the commitment to their well being and it goes on 24/7/365 for 18 years at least, many times much longer.

They most certainly do make decisions about your future, because what you must do for them now and in their future causes you to make even more commitments to time and money and emotional energy that you may not have wanted to make.

They may not be able to divorce you, but they can certainly make you broke, costing between $200K and $500k just to get them to age 18.

They can certainly turn out different than you wanted them to, regardless of your best efforts, and may in fact turn into people who will let their friends come over when you are out of town and rob you. Regardless of our best intentions, we don't get to determine the outcome of their lives. Plenty of excellent parents have ended up with kids who are druggies, criminals, or just plain nasty people.

Also you can end up with a severely disabled child, there is no guarantee of a healthy child for anyone. Or they may encounter a disabling accident. You get to foot the bill for their extraordinary health care costs in these cases. You can't just drop them off at some institution...unless you can pay out of pocket to the tune of $10K per month for that, and you'll never know your helpless child is not being abused in that situation.

If you think they don't sap your sovereignty any more than a puppy, then please don't have kids, just get a puppy.


----------



## Cosmos

What an utterly hateful, repulsive thread. It's just bile and vomit from beginning to end.

God help humanity!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos said:


> What an utterly hateful, repulsive thread. It's just bile and vomit from beginning to end.
> 
> God help humanity!


No...we'll be fine, Cosmos. We will. This is a tiny fraction of humanity that will not go far. Like other cults, it will fade away.


----------



## Marduk

Kivlor said:


> @ Marduk
> 
> Technovelist had discussed using surrogates to have kids.
> 
> You professed "But then they didn't go their own way! This logic is totally inconsistent." Then you professed bafflement and argued not about surrogates, but about having sex and kids. Which is a non-sequitur.


Oh, OK I get where you're going now.


> You argued in MGTOW philosophy kids are a threat to sovereignty. They can be, if a woman is involved. It's not the kids who threaten your sovereignty, it's the mother. Which makes this argument a straw man.


Didn't someone just post on this thread a few pages ago how children were something like 'a drain on your economic livelihood?'

That's what I was responding to. So if the MGTOW philosophy is kids are OK, but marriage isn't, then perhaps it is a straw man -- but I still struggle how you get kids without having sex with women.

And in the eyes of most western nations, when there's kids involved, there's the potential for money to be involved, marriage be damned, right?


> The kids don't threaten anything. This is why science and surrogacy matter to them. You finished with a valid point that surrogacy can be legally challenged in some jurisdictions. To which I have provided one of many that will side with the 'intended parent(s)'.


Surrogacy is expensive and risky, though right?

Or is my thinkng _fundamentally flawed_ that MGTOW is really a risk mitigation strategy against the percieved threat of women and the law? A threat against your stuff and your freedom?


> It isn't logically inconsistent. Some MGTOW are opposed to having kids. Some aren't. MGTOW is about not being collared. Marriage collars you. You are not free to live your life--your wife controls you, because she can and will take half your stuff plus alimony plus child support per your "contract" (MGTOW's idea, at least). Financial and emotional ruin is silently threatened at all times--and often vocally.


So what is MGTOW really about then?

What if I don't give a **** about money? Because I don't. Money is not freedom to me. I know how to make money. I will always have money if I want money.

Money is not linked to my soveriegnity for me.



> Kids can't do this to you. They are not an imposition on sovereignty--not any more than having a mother or father, brother or sister; not any more than having a puppy. Kids don't rule you, you rule them. They don't make the decisions about your future, you determine theirs (to a point).  They can't divorce you and take half your stuff, plus alimony for life. These are very different relationships.


So, are you asserting that the only requirement to be a Man Going His Own Way is that he not be married in the eyes of the law and not let women define himself?

Is that it?

What if you were married and divorced, got taken to the cleaners, and now are going your own way... but nobody cares?

Are you going your own way if nobody wants you to go their way? Or are you really just rationalizing why you didn't get picked for the team?


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> You must not have any kids.
> 
> They are an imposition on every part of your life. You never get to act just for yourself any longer, you now have to make sure the ankle biters have food and shelter and comfort. This is not necessarily going to be something you WANT to do or provide in every single moment, but you are collared by the commitment to their well being and it goes on 24/7/365 for 18 years at least, many times much longer.
> 
> They most certainly do make decisions about your future, because what you must do for them now and in their future causes you to make even more commitments to time and money and emotional energy that you may not have wanted to make.
> 
> They may not be able to divorce you, but they can certainly make you broke, costing between $200K and $500k just to get them to age 18.
> 
> They can certainly turn out different than you wanted them to, regardless of your best efforts, and may in fact turn into people who will let their friends come over when you are out of town and rob you. Regardless of our best intentions, we don't get to determine the outcome of their lives. Plenty of excellent parents have ended up with kids who are druggies, criminals, or just plain nasty people.
> 
> Also you can end up with a severely disabled child, there is no guarantee of a healthy child for anyone. Or they may encounter a disabling accident. You get to foot the bill for their extraordinary health care costs in these cases. You can't just drop them off at some institution...unless you can pay out of pocket to the tune of $10K per month for that, and you'll never know your helpless child is not being abused in that situation.
> 
> If you think they don't sap your sovereignty any more than a puppy, then please don't have kids, just get a puppy.


I think it's safe to say you know nothing of my experience in raising children, or caring for the infirm, or dealing with the chronically addicted. I'd wager I've done more than you in each of these areas that I was doing it at a younger age than you; and I assure you that I am quite aware of the effort involved. 

Kids can certainly turn out different than you intend--which was my "to a point" comment. You control them early on. Gradually they become more independent, make their own mistakes and choices. 

You can raise children cheap. There are chances your kid will be born disabled--which, depending on your moral compass can still be avoided; abortions exist and are quite legal. Your kid can get injured or disabled; which is a risk we all take every day. And maybe it's not worth it; certainly some MGTOW think so. What is it worth to you, the ability to pass on your genetic code? It's a decision each of us will have to make on our own.

The difference between parenthood and marriage is stark. In marriage you hope _someone_ doesn't decide to harm you, after you've handed them the means to do so, and said "hey, if you do hurt me, you get half my stuff and monthly payments from me forever". The other, you just hope random bad things don't happen--like being struck by lightning--which is everyday life no matter who you are. These are not comparable situations.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> I think it's safe to say you know nothing of my experience in raising children, or caring for the infirm, or dealing with the chronically addicted. *I'd wager I've done more than you in each of these areas that I was doing it at a younger age than you*; and I assure you that I am quite aware of the effort involved.


I'd wager not. You know nothing of my experiences, either.

The rest of your post....ok, but if you don't call any of that limiting your sovereignty then we just disagree.

The only way to be truly free is to be free of obligations to others. IMO.


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> ...but I still struggle how you get kids without having sex with women.



IVF + Surrogacy. Like NoraJane said, it's expensive, but if somebody really, truly wanted to go that route it is certainly possible.


----------



## Kivlor

marduk said:


> Oh, OK I get where you're going now.
> 
> Didn't someone just post on this thread a few pages ago how children were something like 'a drain on your economic livelihood?'
> 
> That's what I was responding to. So if the MGTOW philosophy is kids are OK, but marriage isn't, then perhaps it is a straw man -- but I still struggle how you get kids without having sex with women.
> 
> And in the eyes of most western nations, when there's kids involved, there's the potential for money to be involved, marriage be damned, right?
> 
> 
> Surrogacy is expensive and risky, though right?
> 
> Or is my thinkng _fundamentally flawed_ that MGTOW is really a risk mitigation strategy against the percieved threat of women and the law? A threat against your stuff and your freedom?
> 
> So what is MGTOW really about then?
> 
> What if I don't give a **** about money? Because I don't. Money is not freedom to me. I know how to make money. I will always have money if I want money.
> 
> Money is not linked to my soveriegnity for me.
> 
> So, are you asserting that the only requirement to be a Man Going His Own Way is that he not be married in the eyes of the law and not let women define himself?
> 
> Is that it?
> 
> What if you were married and divorced, got taken to the cleaners, and now are going your own way... but nobody cares?
> 
> Are you going your own way if nobody wants you to go their way? Or are you really just rationalizing why you didn't get picked for the team?


I just want to say I hate that I find myself arguing for their points, when I am opposed to them. Sophistry.... But I guess not, because I'm really arguing for people to view the core of their complaints, which I think are valid. It's their conclusions I'm opposed to...

I don't remember the post about children being a drain. Not saying it didn't happen, this is a damn long thread. It didn't come from me. I reject it. And some MGTOW do. And some don't.

Those who do, will be faced with 3 options: Determine it's too expensive, and stay to your philosophy; give up your philosophy, and roll the dice with a woman; Determine the expense is worth it, and purchase a kid and rent a womb. The only way for a MGTOW to have kids and stay true to his philosophy is to choose the 3rd option, picking a good attorney, and drafting the contract / renting the womb in a pro-intended parents jurisdiction.

If you don't care about money, you may not find MGTOW to your liking. Or you may be one of the ones that advocate "ghosting". For you and me Marduk, women are worth it (at least that's been my gamble at the craps table so far lol). 

As far as what MGTOW is about, I think you're basically right. It's a little more than "not legally married", but that's mostly it. Extend that to no cohabitation and no long term relationships with women. Love 'em and leave 'em (but take your used condom with you) or don't have any intimacy at all with them.

The rest is determined by yourself. Ignore all social shaming from men and women. Do what thou wilt.

As far as being taken to the cleaners, sure you could go your own way. Most MGTOW would probably recommend ghosting to that guy. 

The last guy is the epitome of MGTOW. He's stopped trying, and decided it's not worth it. Maybe if he'd stuck in the game, someone would have picked him, but he's done. Is he rationalizing? Probably. Either way, nobody cares.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> Ok.
> 
> So is a man who has sex and risks having children risking slavery? Is he going his own way?


Nothing in life is certain except death. If a man evaluates the risks and believes he can mitigate them sufficiently that the rewards are greater than the risks, then he is not unreasonable in taking the risks. Some men have a tremendous desire for children, so for them perhaps the reward is worth the risk.



marduk said:


> Is a man who dates and risks falling in love risking slavery?


Yes. Is it worth the risk? Perhaps, if the risk can be sufficiently mitigated. This is up to the man involved.



marduk said:


> Is a guy who married, had kids, got economically devastated in a divorce and is now refusing to re-marry going his own way?


He is now. The fact that he got hosed in his previous marriage even though of course he did not expect to, probably affects his estimate of the future risk. It's possible that he has learned how to mitigate the risk enough that it is a good bet.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> MGTOW is about not being collared. Marriage collars you. You are not free to live your life--your wife controls you, because she can and will take half your stuff plus alimony plus child support per your "contract" (MGTOW's idea, at least). Financial and emotional ruin is silently threatened at all times--and often vocally.


Let me count the assumptions hidden in this little philosophy:
1) A wife always earns less than a husband
2) Every piece of property in any given relationship must belong to the man, as it is "his" stuff.
3)A wife is always actively hanging the threat of utter ruin over a man's head, and actively trying to extort all of "his" stuff from his.
4)in a relationship, all control and power is exercised through who is awarded what property at the end of that relationship
5) all that is important and valuable about a relationship is based purely in how much stuff you leave with at the end
6) No other obligations or responsibilities to other people are "enslaving", but once a woman is involved, accepting and responsibility or commitment is being "collared".
7) Women are intentionally seeking to "collar" men and control them


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> No...we'll be fine, Cosmos. We will. This is a tiny fraction of humanity that will not go far. Like other cults, it will fade away.


It's just so depressing to read this stuff without feeling immense anger and outrage...

Earlier on in this thread we were told how 85% of single mothers don't even work part-time. 

From the time I divorced when my son was 4 years of age, I held down a _very_ demanding full-time job in a legal office, an evening job in another legal office and weekends I worked at yet another job. 

I had sole custody of my son and my ex was too busy with his new wife to exercise access. However, he meticulously took me to Court once a year for _decreases_ in his share of child support, despite the fact that I was already contributing more than him - even though I earned far less. He was never successful, of course, but it was a clever tactic to stop me applying for annual increases...

By the time my son left school, my ex had ruined me financially. The modest nest egg earmarked for my old age (thanks to an inheritance from an elderly aunt) had been gobbled up long ago, and my 30s and early 40s had disappeared in a blur of anxiety and hard work.

I know MANY women who worked as hard as I did to rear and educate their children, and it totally INCENSES me to read this sort of crap about women taking men to the cleaners. Admittedly, some do, but generalising about us all is an absolute insult to the majority of us.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> That's still not opting out.
> 
> Spent any time in the Middle East with countries with extreme men-friendly laws?
> 
> Women seem to still get their way in the home lots of the time.
> 
> You guys keep dancing around the fact that you're either giving up on sex and babies, or you're not.


Yes, women get their way most of the time even when the laws don't give them a sword to hold over the head of the men. That's why they don't need that sword. 

That leaves out the moral argument that they shouldn't have it anyway, because it violates the men's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In that hypothetical situation where I was a young man without tremendous amounts of assets, I would probably move to Latin America. There are countries there where I have heard from usually reliable sources that men are valued far more than they are here.


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> What an utterly hateful, repulsive thread. It's just bile and vomit from beginning to end.
> 
> God help humanity!


I see nothing of the kind, but then I have blocked a couple of posters, so maybe they are spouting something horrid.


----------



## Cosmos

technovelist said:


> I see nothing of the kind, but then I have blocked a couple of posters, so maybe they are spouting something horrid.


Perception is everything... Crack on...


----------



## john117

technovelist said:


> Yes, women get their way most of the time even when the laws don't give them a sword to hold over the head of the men. That's why they don't need that sword.


In the Middle East at least, women depend on extended family, dowry and inheritance, and crazy interpretations of laws and by maintaining a very business like view of marriage. 

The corollary to this is that it creates some fairly messed up dynamics of mistrust and antagonistic relationships, where everyone is in it for themselves.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Let me count the assumptions hidden in this little philosophy:
> 1) A wife always earns less than a husband


No, but she usually does. However, even if she earns the same as or more than he does, there are other risks, such as her deciding he isn't man enough for her. Also, it is VERY rare for even a much higher earning woman to be punished as severely as even a moderate male earner if she doesn't make child support payments on time and in full.



always_alone said:


> 2) Every piece of property in any given relationship must belong to the man, as it is "his" stuff.


No, it is not necessarily all his stuff, but (back to 1), most of the time he earns more than she does, but this discrepancy is usually used to his detriment if there is a divorce. And the greater the discrepancy, in general, the more she wins and he loses in the divorce.



always_alone said:


> 3)A wife is always actively hanging the threat of utter ruin over a man's head, and actively trying to extort all of "his" stuff from his.


She doesn't have to do this. The state does it for her without her having to do anything. This is why the claims that "most people agree to negotiated settlements in divorce" are misleading; this is called "bargaining in the shadow of the law", and is inherently unfair to the party who is treated unfavorably by the law (the man, almost always).



always_alone said:


> 4)in a relationship, all control and power is exercised through who is awarded what property at the end of that relationship


No, but it certainly is an important point. However, if people were able to make whatever agreements they want up front *and *these agreements were upheld in court like other contracts, I would be satisfied.



always_alone said:


> 5) all that is important and valuable about a relationship is based purely in how much stuff you leave with at the end


See above.



always_alone said:


> 6) No other obligations or responsibilities to other people are "enslaving", but once a woman is involved, accepting and responsibility or commitment is being "collared".


In what other situation can you be forced to continue to pay someone money for (in some cases) the rest of their life even though the basis for the original agreement has been severed? No judge would uphold an employment agreement with those terms, but that is what alimony is.

Child support is different in that it is supposed to be for the benefit of the child. However, there is in general no way for the payor (almost always a man) to hold the payee (almost always a woman) to account for how the money is spent. 

The enforcement mechanism is also draconian to the point where if I had to choose between a large student loan debt and a child-support obligation, both of which were too large for me to pay and still be able to put food on my table, etc., I would pick the student loan. In that case at least they wouldn't be able to throw me in prison for failure to pay.

Yes, there is debtor's prison for child support obligations, even though I thought debtor's prison was from the bad old days.



always_alone said:


> 7) Women are intentionally seeking to "collar" men and control them


It's actually worse than that. It is impossible in the US for a woman to give up this power even if she doesn't want it. This is analogous to a situation where a person carries around a hypothetical bomb that he or she cannot dispose of or disarm. At any moment, the person can set it off and kill everyone in the vicinity. Who would want to be near this person even if they seemed to be the nicest person in the world?


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> It's just so depressing to read this stuff without feeling immense anger and outrage...
> 
> Earlier on in this thread we were told how 85% of single mothers don't even work part-time.
> 
> From the time I divorced when my son was 4 years of age, I held down a _very_ demanding full-time job in a legal office, an evening job in another legal office and weekends I worked at yet another job.
> 
> I had sole custody of my son and my ex was too busy with his new wife to exercise access. However, he meticulously took me to Court once a year for _decreases_ in his share of child support despite the fact that I was already contributing more than him. He was never successful, of course, but it was a clever tactic to stop me applying for annual increases...
> 
> By the time my son left school, my ex had ruined me financially. The modest nest egg earmarked for my old age (thanks to an inheritance from an elderly aunt) had been gobbled up long ago, and my 30s and early 40s had disappeared in a blur of anxiety and hard work.
> 
> I know MANY women who worked as hard as I did to rear and educate their children, and it totally INCENSES me to read this sort of crap about women taking men to the cleaners. Admittedly, some do, but generalising about us all is an absolute insult to the majority of us.


What happened to you is unconscionable. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

However, 90% of the people that happens to are men.

Should we not be concerned about them too?


----------



## Cosmos

technovelist said:


> What happened to you is unconscionable. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
> *
> However, 90% of the people that happens to are men.
> *
> Should we not be concerned about them too?


Actually it isn't. Things differ from country to country, and I know the USA has some pretty outdated laws about alimony and child support, but this certainly wasn't _my _experience; personally or professionally. I've seen far too many women go through what I went through, and it's very difficult for me to think or talk about it even...

I don't care what gender someone is. No one deserves to be screwed over by another human being.


----------



## tech-novelist

Cosmos said:


> Actually it isn't. Things differ from country to country, and I know the USA has some pretty outdated laws about alimony and child support, but this certainly wasn't _my _experience; personally or professionally. I've seen far too many women go through what I went through, and it's very difficult for me to think or talk about...
> 
> I don't care what gender someone is. No one deserves to be screwed over by another human being.


I agree with that.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Let me count the assumptions hidden in this little philosophy:
> 1) A wife always earns less than a husband *70.7% of the time. I wouldn't place a bet on those odds.*
> 2) Every piece of property in any given relationship must belong to the man, as it is "his" stuff. *No. Anything a man brings to the relationship. Anything earned during on his income, which would be fine except for the whole "I changed my mind, I'm not honoring this contract anymore" issue. If that happens, why should she get 1/2 in that case? This also doesn't address indefinite alimony plus child support*
> 3)A wife is always actively hanging the threat of utter ruin over a man's head, and actively trying to extort all of "his" stuff from his. *I'll address this one below.*
> 4)in a relationship, all control and power is exercised through who is awarded what property at the end of that relationship. *This surely grants a lot of power to specific party if there are any assets of value. It wasn't enough that you're losing a relationship, they're taking half of everything, plus indefinite monthly payments*
> 5) all that is important and valuable about a relationship is based purely in how much stuff you leave with at the end. *Not true. The issue is that she can contribute little monetarily, leave for another man, and get paid to do so. Not just 1/2 but indefinite alimony*
> 6) No other obligations or responsibilities to other people are "enslaving", but once a woman is involved, accepting and responsibility or commitment is being "collared". *The idea of granting complete control over your future to another person who can change their mind in a heartbeat and be rewarded for it is pretty close. There is certainly a collar with a leash here.*
> 7) Women are intentionally seeking to "collar" men and control them No. *Just that this is the effect. Their intent is irrelevant.*


to # 3, I thought on this, and want to show what these men fear, and why.

If you aren't the perfect man at every step she may just leave you for someone else. Or just go ride their c0ck for a while. And if you are, she still might. Maybe she got bored, maybe the thrill of being with another man was exciting; addicting. There's no way to be perfect regardless. Either you're not making enough to support her lifestyle, or you're an uncaring workaholic. Too little time with the kids, or you're always home and it's smothering her. Either you're an abusive monster or you are a pushover who she doesn't respect. You're too controlling or if you let her have GNOs often, well, we all know in CWI what happens. Even if she turns on you, and breaks her vows, invalidating your contract; she still gets half *plus monthly payments until the kids are 18...21...finished with college? Plus alimony that can be indefinite. Because she deserves the life you furnished her when you thought she loved you.*

I have personally met many women who are like this, and just try to hide it. We've all met them. And this is what they fear. That whoever they find is just good at hiding it. Or maybe she'll just change, the spark fades, she falls out of love etc. My dad's 2nd wife was one.

I don't think most guys complain about having to pay if he breaks the vows and invalidates the contract. But she gets it both ways, and that is a travesty.

Of course, NAWALT. But many are. These guys are terrified this is what they're getting. That she'll be a better liar than they are a detector.



Cosmos said:


> It's just so depressing to read this stuff without feeling immense anger and outrage...
> 
> Earlier on in this thread we were told how 85% of single mothers don't even work part-time.
> 
> From the time I divorced when my son was 4 years of age, I held down a _very_ demanding full-time job in a legal office, an evening job in another legal office and weekends I worked at yet another job.
> 
> I had sole custody of my son and my ex was too busy with his new wife to exercise access. However, he meticulously took me to Court once a year for _decreases_ in his share of child support despite the fact that I was already contributing more than him. He was never successful, of course, but it was a clever tactic to stop me applying for annual increases...
> 
> By the time my son left school, my ex had ruined me financially. The modest nest egg earmarked for my old age (thanks to an inheritance from an elderly aunt) had been gobbled up long ago, and my 30s and early 40s had disappeared in a blur of anxiety and hard work.
> 
> I know MANY women who worked as hard as I did to rear and educate their children, and it totally INCENSES me to read this sort of crap about women taking men to the cleaners. Admittedly, some do, but generalising about us all is an absolute insult to the majority of us.


Page 7, paragraph 2 of this from the US Census.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf

85.1% of custodial moms (not necessarily single, they may have a SO or remarry). 76% of custodial dads--who make up 17% of custodial parents. ~40% custodial mothers receive government assistance.

You are in the minority. It doesn't make your experience any less real though, and it's horrible what happened. I don't wish that on anyone. I hope things have improved for you.

We are only looking at the odds of a marriage working, of a marriage failing, of the consequences of failure; not trying to say "all women are like that". In fact, one of the caveats that is often stressed is NAWALT. But the odds are what they are. 

The complaint isn't that women are evil, less virtuous, or out to get us. Not that they are just looking for any opportunity to divorce. It's about an unjust system of punishments and rewards. In fact, from the MGTOW.com site that was mentioned earlier by one of MGTOWs detractors:

_"The young man has finally learned that men and women share the same inherent character flaws, but not the same consequences. He has sinned, and he has paid dearly. She has sinned, and she has been exalted...

He doesn’t hate women; he hates the unforgiving female support machine. He doesn’t hate feminists or White Knights; he hates navigating the environment they create."_


----------



## Cosmos

Kivlor said:


> Page 7, paragraph 2 of this from the US Census.
> http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf
> 
> 85.1% of custodial moms (not necessarily single, they may have a SO or remarry). 76% of custodial dads--who make up 17% of custodial parents. ~40% custodial mothers receive government assistance.
> 
> *You are in the minority. *It doesn't make your experience any less real though, and it's horrible what happened. I don't wish that on anyone. I hope things have improved for you.


I'm afraid the US Census means nothing in the country where I reared my son... Remember, not all TAM members are from the US and our experiences can be vastly different. 

My ex had a lot more dirty little tricks in store for me, Kivlor, and things got a lot, lot worse, but I won't even go there. Suffice it to say, if anyone has reason to feel bitter, I believe that I do - but I choose not to be.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos said:


> It's just so depressing to read this stuff without feeling immense anger and outrage...


I understand. I know.

Just consider the sources.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kivlor said:


> Page 7, paragraph 2 of this from the US Census.
> http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf
> 
> 85.1% of custodial moms (not necessarily single, they may have a SO or remarry). 76% of custodial dads--who make up 17% of custodial parents. ~40% custodial mothers receive government assistance.[/I]


Yes but if custody payments were actually paid by the non-custodial parents, there would be less need for govt. assistance.

*Custodial parents receiving the full
amount of child support due declined
between 2007 and 2009, from 46.8
percent to 41.2 percent.

Of the $35.1 billion in child support
due in 2009, 61.0 percent was
reported as received, averaging
$3,630 per custodial parent who was
due support.*

I do the payroll where I work and have done payroll at other companies for a long time. I receive the garnishment orders. There are always new garnishments coming in because dads haven't paid their child support. It is quite common (as stated above, only 61% gets received, and even though this does not tell us why it was not received it clearly tells us that a lot of non custodial parents don't pay it). In my state, child support is automatically deducted from your pay check. There is no voluntarily paying it. This way it cuts down on non custodial parents not paying it. However, we have employees who have kids in other states and also have employees who live in other states. These are the employees we see garnishments on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos said:


> Earlier on in this thread we were told how 85% of single mothers don't even work part-time....


Also realize, these types of comments are not backed up by anything. A custodial single parent "receives govt. assistance" does not mean the parent doesn't also work. Govt. assistance also does not mean a full ride on welfare. It usually means food assistance, which is not very much money. Working married parents who are low income can also receive this assistance, as can non-parents who are low income.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I've always worked and made enough to support my home, self and children in the event that I needed to. I have and can also float all of us if H gets laid off or needs to change jobs.

My Mother was a SAHM for 24 years. My Dad wanted her home with the kids. She moved around with him when his job did, she shopped for, washed and ironed his clothes for work. She kept the home and the children so he could focus on his job, didn't have to take sick days off when the kids needed to be home, could travel when work needed him to. She made him 3 meals a day so he didn't have to do anything but go to work and come home. His time was free, it wasn't spent doing 50% of the household tasks on top of his job.
My Mom would get a job for a bit but it put them into a higher tax bracket and it wasn't worth what they were missing with her home.
She had an in-home job for a while but he didn't like that his home had to be partly business stuff.

So when he left her for another woman and my Mom had hardly anything for a resume, no experience, and had to start at square 1 all over again (oh ya and recovering from cancer when he left her), you bet your butt she was entitled to half the pension, half the home, spousal support and support for his children. She helped him earn it. 


My father became a grump, horrified at the injustice of having to give her money. I used to get birthday cards saying "Sorry it's not much, your Mother is taking all my money" I know how much my father made, what he gave my Mom was nothing. Sometimes I would only hear from him to ask me to ask her to stop payments. She eventually canceled SS altogether even though the judge gave it to her until his retirement. 

I'm telling you, as a child of a man like this- who decided that my mother and what she did for me and my brothers and my home was worthless- I'll never fully forgive him and that's why I decided to not be a SAHM. I couldn't go through what my Mom did.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Even if she turns on you, and breaks her vows, invalidating your contract; she still gets half *plus monthly payments until the kids are 18...21...finished with college? Plus alimony that can be indefinite. Because she deserves the life you furnished her when you thought she loved you.*


In terms of being cheated on, left, abused, treated badly, losing everything because they aren't perfect enough, women face exactly the same risks as men. 

In terms of child support, I find it very difficult to fathom why a man would feel that the end of his marriage would spell the end of his financial obligations to his child. You don't divorce the kids do you?

In terms of alimony, I don't know US law, but in my jurisdiction alimony is only paid to a spouse who sacrificed career opportunities for the family and so will have understandable challenges re-entering the workforce. Said alimony is only paid for a finite amount of time.


----------



## Kivlor

Faithful Wife said:


> Also realize, these types of comments are not backed up by anything. A custodial single parent "receives govt. assistance" does not mean the parent doesn't also work. Govt. assistance also does not mean a full ride on welfare. It usually means food assistance, which is not very much money. Working married parents who are low income can also receive this assistance, as can non-parents who are low income.


Yeah, there's a lot of issues with this information. We take what we can get though. 85% of "custodial mothers" do not work. She may have remarried. Or be cohabitating. No info on that. The numbers for men were abysmal, at 76%. No word on if they're single, remarried or cohabitating.

ETA: What I think those numbers really indicate is that being a single parent sucks. And that's something the MGTOW guys will learn the hard way if they decide to go the surrogate route. We are meant to pair bond. That's reality. It doesn't mean that things always work out, but it is the way humans in general are meant to interact. Children benefit from it, as do the individual parents, and society as a whole benefits when kids are raised as well as they can be.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> I know MANY women who worked as hard as I did to rear and educate their children, and it totally INCENSES me to read this sort of crap about women taking men to the cleaners. Admittedly, some do, but generalising about us all is an absolute insult to the majority of us.


The stats actually show that women typically end up worse off than men after divorce, financially speaking. And work their a$$es off to make ends meet and care for their children.

And to be honest, I really can't fathom why a man who wants a SAHM for his kids believes that his wife has somehow contributed nothing to the marriage, and that all of his income is rightfully his. Surely, there is some kind of accountability to starting a family? And why this is *her* fault for "collaring" him is beyond me. 

But MGTOW of course do not care how much it costs the woman, or anything about her perspective. It's all about how much it costs him. Never mind the balance sheet.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> In terms of being cheated on, left, abused, treated badly, losing everything because they aren't perfect enough, women face exactly the same risks as men.
> 
> In terms of child support, I find it very difficult to fathom why a man would feel that the end of his marriage would spell the end of his financial obligations to his child. You don't divorce the kids do you?


My impression of this issue is that the men aren't complaining about supporting their kids. What they are complaining about is that they cannot hold the ex-wife accountable as to how she spends it, but they are definitely held accountable with extreme prejudice if they don't fork it over every month and in full.


----------



## tom67

technovelist said:


> my impression of this issue is that the men aren't complaining about supporting their kids. What they are complaining about is that they cannot hold the ex-wife accountable as to how she spends it, but they are definitely held accountable with extreme prejudice if they don't fork it over every month and in full.


amen!!!


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> The stats actually show that women typically end up worse off than men after divorce, financially speaking. And work their a$$es off to make ends meet and care for their children.
> 
> And to be honest, I really can't fathom why a man who wants a SAHM for his kids believes that his wife has somehow contributed nothing to the marriage, and that all of his income is rightfully his. Surely, there is some kind of accountability to starting a family? And why this is *her* fault for "collaring" him is beyond me.
> 
> But MGTOW of course do not care how much it costs the woman, or anything about her perspective. It's all about how much it costs him. Never mind the balance sheet.


We can't always return to our former careers, either; I know I couldn't. I had to diversify and start all over again from scratch.


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, there's a lot of issues with this information. We take what we can get though. 85% of "custodial mothers" do not work. She may have remarried. Or be cohabitating. No info on that. The numbers for men were abysmal, at 76%. No word on if they're single, remarried or cohabitating.


You need to read your stats more carefully: they say the exact opposite of what you are saying here. 76% of custodial mothers *worked* either full or part time. 85% of custodial fathers *worked* full or part time (2009 data).


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> And to be honest, I really can't fathom why a man who wants a SAHM for his kids believes that his wife has somehow contributed nothing to the marriage, and that all of his income is rightfully his. Surely, there is some kind of accountability to starting a family? And why this is *her* fault for "collaring" him is beyond me.


Equalization takes care of assets during marriage. Most states have very fair marital home and 50/50 asset splits.

Alimony, however, is ridiculous...no man should have to pay for a woman after the marital contract is up and grown women have the same burden to financially support themselves and their children after divorce that a man does. If she chooses to limit herself during marriage, that's a risk she takes...just like a man takes a risk to give up half the assets he single-handedly acquired.

Having a vagina doesn't mean you can be irresponsible and not think about what happens if the marriage ends. And having a vagina also shouldn't guarantee you a lifetime paycheck from someone else's hard work after a marriage ends.

The court is catching up with this too. I'm a woman and I can't wait until US alimony laws catch up with current times.

If I could offer men one piece of advice....*NEVER* marry woman who won't financially support themselves unless you are fine with her leaving you for someone else and you paying her for the rest of her life.


----------



## tom67

Paul Elam nails it here I think he is a closet MGTOW...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqYDl7EhRc :wink2:

He doesn't care for me but he knocked it out of the park.


----------



## Red Sonja

john117 said:


> I don't know if you're one of those magical six figure career women. I'm married to one. I know a number of people who are.
> 
> In my opinion and I'm not generalizing, a substantially well educated and earning woman hits the glass ceiling and one of two things happen...
> 
> She either can't break thru but unlike her male counterparts she mops about the glass ceiling, etc. Or she breaks thru and kills herself working to prove she deserved it.


Hey @john117, "magical six figure career women" here ... you forgot the 3rd option:

*Start your own company.* That's what I did and now I am really "magical". :rofl:


BTW, "magical six figure ..." is an asinine term.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Start your own company. That's what I did and now I am really "magical".


Awesome..congrats!


----------



## knobcreek

I don't agree with what I read about MGTOW, a lot of what they talk about makes sense but they're not doing themselves any favors with the really over the top comments and stuff. There's no reason to hate people, not all women are horrible.

I still think a man and a woman compliment each other and I could never give up women, but I do agree that with today's laws and the risks involved no man should ever marry. I don't see how that's a bad thing to say, they really have nothing to gain and everything to lose, it's just silly romanticism and something that's been shoved down our throats. If the world is changing and everything else is different why do we still need to provide a 10K ring, huge wedding, silly dress, and sign a contract effectively handing over half of what we earn for no real good reason? I mean seriously, it doesn't really make much sense at all does it? What benefit does that marriage contract offer a man? It certainly doesn't keep women loyal to him. It really offers nothing at all to him, it's 100% for the woman's benefit, even the wedding is all about her, the man could be any dude in a penguin suit.

I've heard a lot in this thread, but I haven't heard one valid reason why a man signing that marriage contract is a good idea from the anti-MGTOW folks. I have two sons and I'll counsel both to never marry, protect what they've earned, and trust, but only trust when trust has been explicitly earned over years. My daughter I'll counsel similarly but won't care if she marries or not so much.


----------



## tom67

knobcreek said:


> I don't agree with what I read about MGTOW, a lot of what they talk about makes sense but they're not doing themselves any favors with the really over the top comments and stuff. There's no reason to hate people, not all women are horrible.
> 
> I still think a man and a woman compliment each other and I could never give up women, but I do agree that with today's laws and the risks involved no man should ever marry. I don't see how that's a bad thing to say, they really have nothing to gain and everything to lose, it's just silly romanticism and something that's been shoved down our throats. If the world is changing and everything else is different why do we still need to provide a 10K ring, huge wedding, silly dress, and sign a contract effectively handing over half of what we earn for no real good reason? I mean seriously, it doesn't really make much sense at all does it? What benefit does that marriage contract offer a man? It really offers nothing at all to him, it's 100% for the woman's benefit, even the wedding is all about her, the man could be any dude in a penguin suit.
> 
> I've heard a lot in this thread, but I haven't heard one valid reason why a man signing that marriage contract is a good idea from the anti-MGTOW folks. I have two sons and I'll counsel both to never marry, protect what they've earned, and trust, but only trust when trust has been explicitly earned over years. My daughter I'll counsel similarly but won't care if she marries or not so much.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:
Why sign a contract with the state and support the BAR.


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> Equalization takes care of assets during marriage. Most states have very fair marital home and 50/50 asset splits.
> 
> Alimony, however, is ridiculous...no man should have to pay for a woman after the marital contract is up and grown women have the same burden to financially support themselves and their children after divorce that a man does. If she chooses to limit herself during marriage, that's a risk she takes...just like a man takes a risk to give up half the assets he single-handedly acquired.
> 
> Having a vagina doesn't mean you can be irresponsible and not think about what happens if the marriage ends. And having a vagina also shouldn't guarantee you a lifetime paycheck from someone else's hard work after a marriage ends.
> 
> The court is catching up with this too. I'm a woman and I can't wait until US alimony laws catch up with current times.
> 
> If I could offer men one piece of advice....*NEVER* marry woman who won't financially support themselves unless you are fine with her leaving you for someone else and *you paying her for the rest of her life*.


*That *depends on the state you live in.

Otherwise, I agree on all counts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> I still think a man and a woman compliment each other and I could never give up women, but I do agree that with today's laws and the risks involved no man should ever marry. *I don't see how that's a bad thing to say*, they really have nothing to gain and everything to lose, it's just silly romanticism and something that's been shoved down our throats. If the world is changing and everything else is different why do we still need to provide a 10K ring, huge wedding, silly dress, and sign a contract effectively handing over half of what we earn for no real good reason? I mean seriously, it doesn't really make much sense at all does it? What benefit does that marriage contract offer a man? It really offers nothing at all to him, it's 100% for the woman's benefit, even the wedding is all about her, the man could be any dude in a penguin suit.
> 
> I've heard a lot in this thread, but I haven't heard one valid reason why a man signing that marriage contract is a good idea from the anti-MGTOW folks. I have two sons and I'll counsel both to never marry, protect what they've earned, and trust, but only trust when trust has been explicitly earned over years. My daughter I'll counsel similarly but won't care if she marries or not so much.


It isn't a bad thing to say. I don't think everyone should be married, and I definitely don't think that just because someone doesn't want to get married it means they are bitter, jaded, etc. Some will just never see the benefit to themselves by getting married, so they won't.

I completely understand how a young man could/would be appalled at the idea of footing the bill for a ring and wedding, most especially. I would probably reject that idea if I was a guy, too.

Weddings can be lovely and so romantic and I love going to them...but I honestly don't think they are money well spent. It is an industry and that industry does well, but it is not necessary in any way.

(I'm certainly never against anyone spending their money how they want to and I love attending big, lavish weddings...more power to them if they want to have such an epic party!)

I don't care if my kids are married or not and I'd rather have them never be married than be married and then divorced (if I was to assume the divorce would be painful to them). I know they will still have loving, long term relationships even if they didn't get married and I will accept their partners the same as I would if they were married.

I would like to see both of my kids have their own wealth, enough to cover their own lives and needs and then build that wealth until they have enough to cover their own long term care. I am trying very hard now to make sure I can cover my own long term care and leave them some money. But if I can't, I can at least cover my own care (I'm going to live a long damn time with no income so have to line it up now).

I would also be fine if my kids did not want to have kids of their own. It is up to them, I will support them either way. If more people would not have kids, we would over populate the world slower. But I'd never try to tell anyone who does want them that they shouldn't have them.

Having said all of this, I have nothing against marriage and think those who mutually want to do so should and I know most people do get married at least once in their lives. I do not think it is the "best" way to have a partnership, not by a long shot.


----------



## FalconKing

Red Sonja said:


> Hey @john117, "magical six figure career women" here ... you forgot the 3rd option:
> 
> *Start your own company.* That's what I did and now I am really "magical". :rofl:
> 
> 
> BTW, "magical six figure ..." is an asinine term.


Dude you hiring? I need a job.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EnigmaGirl said:


> Having a vagina doesn't mean you can be irresponsible and not think about what happens if the marriage ends. And having a vagina also shouldn't guarantee you a lifetime paycheck from someone else's hard work after a marriage ends.


Spousal support is also given to men who stay home. It has nothing to do with a vagina.

Couples jointly decide on having 1 person stay home to cook and clean and watch the kids while the other builds income potential and moves up the workforce. They share any irresponsibility that comes when you have 1 person lose those years to take care of their home, kids and spouse.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Marriage itself is important to a lot of people and clearly not just a woman in a heterosexual couple. There's a lot of people who've fought long and hard for that right, men included.

But I don't think it's needed. If there is no religious reasons behind you wanting to marry it's no different than common law IMO.

My daughter for now has decided that she never, ever wants to get married. She thinks just having a pet would be a lot easier and less mess  I'll support either of my kids with whatever they want to do.


----------



## john117

Red Sonja said:


> Hey @john117, "magical six figure career women" here ... you forgot the 3rd option:
> 
> *Start your own company.* That's what I did and now I am really "magical". :rofl:
> 
> 
> BTW, "magical six figure ..." is an asinine term.


Well...

In reality, I'm more lazy than my cat. I figured the best way to make lots of money was to find a discipline few people understand and ride the gravy train. Working for myself defeats the purpose. I earn a comfortable income working bank hours surrounded by cute new hires and interns. Can't do that working for myself. I also need a good size lab with a dozen engineers, designers, programmers, and so on. 

Ironically wifey and I complement each other well educationally speaking (about the only good thing about my marriage ). She's a PhD genius in quantitative analytics, I'm a PhD genius in qualitative analysis... But that's a fool's errand.

Why is it asinine to think of six figures in this way? Inquiring minds...


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> If the world is changing and everything else is different why do we still need to provide a 10K ring, huge wedding, silly dress, and sign a contract effectively handing over half of what we earn for no real good reason? I mean seriously, it doesn't really make much sense at all does it? What benefit does that marriage contract offer a man? It certainly doesn't keep women loyal to him. It really offers nothing at all to him, it's 100% for the woman's benefit, even the wedding is all about her, the man could be any dude in a penguin suit.


You don't need to do that. You can decide to choose a decent woman with expectations that aren't so self-absorbed. There are lots of great women that work hard and don't want to waste their, or their partner's money, on wasteful crap. But you have to work find them because quality is always harder to find.



> That depends on the state you live in.


True, I was generalizing.



> Spousal support is also given to men who stay home. It has nothing to do with a vagina.


a) The poster I was responding to mentioned SAH*M*'s 
b) The stats of men on alimony really don't compare to the number of women who have expectations of staying home, not earning a living and then want alimony after divorce (often indefinitely)


----------



## knobcreek

Playing devil's advocate here, but MGTOW followers complain that women are selective and men are going into their 30's in a sexual desert. They're also complaining unattractive women are able to have sex but unattractive men aren't, insinuating it's a double standard of sorts. But isn't this just following the natural order? Women are selective because they historically required a strong mate to give her children the best chance at survival, and men are just spreading their seed as more children sired gives their DNA the best chance at making it. If anything, today is likely getting back to how we were many moons ago, our most base instincts before religion and threats of eternal damnation tied men down to one woman for life. Men are now free to spread their seed (not necessarily sire children, but still), and women can still be selective in their mates.

Isn't everything in order here? What's different, or what has changed?

If anything the world is favoring men in the long term here as we move from a marriage centered society to a society where men can have everything that only marriage used to provide without having to marry.


----------



## Red Sonja

john117 said:


> Can't do that working for myself. I also need a good size lab with a dozen engineers, designers, programmers, and so on.


I have all that … design labs, manufacturing facilities and the personnel to staff it … as part of the company. Built it all from scratch (with 3 colleagues), starting 20 years ago and it grew from there and is still going strong (60+ employees). I am an engineer and had new technology ideas (inventions) that I wanted to develop and market; that is almost impossible to do while working for someone else. The endeavor was of course a big risk and the first 3 to 5 years were rough but it paid off big. 



john117 said:


> Why is it asinine to think of six figures in this way? Inquiring minds...


Because you said “magical 6 figure career women”. It is asinine to label 6 figure career women as “magical” because we are no more “magical” than a 6 figure career man. All it takes is brains, drive and a bit of luck … things that either gender can muster if they are so inclined.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> Playing devil's advocate here, but MGTOW followers complain that women are selective and men are going into their 30's in a sexual desert. They're also complaining unattractive women are able to have sex but unattractive men aren't, insinuating it's a double standard of sorts. But isn't this just following the natural order? Women are selective because they historically required a strong mate to give her children the best chance at survival, and men are just spreading their seed as more children sired gives their DNA the best chance at making it. If anything, today is likely getting back to how we were many moons ago, our most base instincts before religion and threats of eternal damnation tied men down to one woman for life. Men are now free to spread their seed (not necessarily sire children, but still), and women can still be selective in their mates.
> 
> Isn't everything in order here? What's different, or what has changed?
> 
> If anything the *world is favoring men* in the long term here as we move from a marriage centered society to a society where men can have everything that only marriage used to provide without having to marry.


What has changed is that in the old order, men and women paired up more or less according to assortative mating. Alphas married the prettiest/most desirable women, but most men got married and most married couples stayed married. This was also good for the prettiest women because they landed their alphas.

In the new order, the alphas are surrounded by willing women. So this is great if you are an ordinary woman, or an alpha. Of course the top women still get attention, but they can't tie down an alpha as they used to be able to do.

But the big losers are the less-attractive men, who get... nothing. At least until the biological clocks of the women start ticking very loudly and they decide to marry one of those less-attractive men. But the problem is that they compare the man they land with the most attractive man they ever had sex with, and the husband comes out second best (or much lower). So she is dissatisfied and eventually stops having sex with him. What is he going to do about it, after all? She may cheat on him too, for the same reason.

Then he ends up here.

Now as to whether this is "natural", maybe so. But only if you consider the pill "natural". Without that, women would be VERY careful whom they had sex with because of the constant fear of getting pregnant and being abandoned.

But even without that help, this is not the first time women have been free to choose whom they would have sex with, and the answer, as always, is "alphas". Unfortunately, that freedom demotivates the *other *men from working hard enough to be able to support a wife and children.


----------



## john117

In my line of work there are few people who earn that in our location (rust belt) and very few women engineers...


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> Playing devil's advocate here, but MGTOW followers complain that women are selective and men are going into their 30's in a sexual desert. They're also complaining unattractive women are able to have sex but unattractive men aren't, insinuating it's a double standard of sorts. But isn't this just following the natural order? Women are selective because they historically required a strong mate to give her children the best chance at survival, and men are just spreading their seed as more children sired gives their DNA the best chance at making it. If anything, today is likely getting back to how we were many moons ago, our most base instincts before religion and threats of eternal damnation tied men down to one woman for life. Men are now free to spread their seed (not necessarily sire children, but still), and women can still be selective in their mates.
> 
> Isn't everything in order here? What's different, or what has changed?
> 
> If anything the world is favoring men in the long term here as we move from a marriage centered society to a society where men can have everything that only marriage used to provide without having to marry.


I think things are good right now and getting better. I think more people have more options and can either pair up or sleep with whoever they want to who is consenting. They can remain virgins until marriage or for life. Or they can forego long term relationships and have plenty of partners who are consenting, either long or short term. Or they can sample just a few partners, and then find one they settle down with. Having all these options is great, IMO. Also, people can be more safe and openly gay and obviously can be married now, too. These are all good things.

I do not think any system that tries to stop people from doing what they actually want to do (which may be to have multiple partners and never settle down) is ever going to work. At least not in this day and age when both men and women have tasted a different world and neither can force the other to do anything. 

I do wish parents would not make their kids feel that marriage is the one and only path to happiness. Romantic and sexual relationships are not the high point for many people and they should not be shamed into marriages that won't end up working, just because "everyone should be married".


----------



## Faithful Wife

I just wanted to add, if there was a FGTOW group and if they were man-haters and proclaiming that men will be sorry one day for ruining everything, and that they were going their own way and "you guys can't stop us!"....I would say the same to them that I say to the MGTOW's who say such things. Great! Go. No one is stopping you and you are taking yourself out of the dating pool so that women who love men can have more. Women who hate men should not be in relationships.


----------



## Red Sonja

OptingOut said:


> MGTOW is a mindset brought about by *centuries of cultural misandry, the promotion of male disposability and hypergynocentrism*.


How anyone can debate/discuss any group that makes such a ridiculous statement is beyond me.

Oh well, ridiculous-ness never stopped the gender-war people ... carry on.


----------



## Cosmos

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I've always worked and made enough to support my home, self and children in the event that I needed to. I have and can also float all of us if H gets laid off or needs to change jobs.
> 
> My Mother was a SAHM for 24 years. My Dad wanted her home with the kids. She moved around with him when his job did, she shopped for, washed and ironed his clothes for work. She kept the home and the children so he could focus on his job, didn't have to take sick days off when the kids needed to be home, could travel when work needed him to. She made him 3 meals a day so he didn't have to do anything but go to work and come home. His time was free, it wasn't spent doing 50% of the household tasks on top of his job.
> My Mom would get a job for a bit but it put them into a higher tax bracket and it wasn't worth what they were missing with her home.
> She had an in-home job for a while but he didn't like that his home had to be partly business stuff.
> 
> So when he left her for another woman and my Mom had hardly anything for a resume, no experience, and had to start at square 1 all over again (oh ya and recovering from cancer when he left her), you bet your butt she was entitled to half the pension, half the home, spousal support and support for his children. She helped him earn it.
> 
> 
> My father became a grump, horrified at the injustice of having to give her money. I used to get birthday cards saying "Sorry it's not much, your Mother is taking all my money" I know how much my father made, what he gave my Mom was nothing. Sometimes I would only hear from him to ask me to ask her to stop payments. She eventually canceled SS altogether even though the judge gave it to her until his retirement.
> 
> I'm telling you, as a child of a man like this- who decided that my mother and what she did for me and my brothers and my home was worthless- I'll never fully forgive him and that's why I decided to not be a SAHM. I couldn't go through what my Mom did.


Men like your father damage not only their own children but, potentially, future generations. I'm sorry you had a father like that... and your poor mother!

I was the youngest of 6 and my mother worked from when I was very young. This didn't stop my father keeping her dependent on him, though. He contributed so little to the household that my mother was forced to use all of her earnings to support us. There was no joint bank account or pot of money. What was my mother's was his and what was his was also his, and my father got to live the life of a very single man.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> What has changed is that in the old order, men and women paired up more or less according to assortative mating. Alphas married the prettiest/most desirable women, but most men got married and most married couples stayed married. This was also good for the prettiest women because they landed their alphas.


Yes well it's not like those days were all rainbows. Many of the marriages were terrible and the women couldn't leave because they couldn't support themselves. Many married for money, many married men they didn't love, who cheated on them and they just went along with it because they had to. Plenty of women became "old maids" who couldn't land a man for whatever reason until she was past her expiry date (like 30)

I work with a lot of people that came from times like this. Trust me, some are still just waiting for the other to finally die so they can be free. They wasted an entire life not being happy. 



technovelist said:


> In the new order, the alphas are surrounded by willing women. So this is great if you are an ordinary woman, or an alpha. Of course the top women still get attention, but they can't tie down an alpha as they used to be able to do.


The hottest are still pairing up together. You're right that they still aren't having any problems and many of them marry just fine. 
The average women are doing great here how? Even if we wanted a top guy, he's not looking at us. He's looking at all the hot girls he's got in front of him. But that's ok because there are still plenty of men left over and we can find one that suits us best. 

Since we can work and make money, we get to pick the kind of match we want and not what we'd need financially. We can leave marriages we don't want to be in. We can expect our emotional needs be met. Gone are the days where a man's only responsibility to his wife was to bring in money. He has to talk to her, date her, help her with the home and kids.

And just like men can't rely on money to keep a woman, he can't as easily use it to get a woman who outclasses him now either. 
So he either needs to reevaluate what women he is going for or use other ways to attract them (confidence, personality, etc)

Except for this next group who sits in wait until their money becomes important enough for some women to settle for.



technovelist said:


> But the big losers are the less-attractive men, who get... nothing. At least until the biological clocks of the women start ticking very loudly and they decide to marry one of those less-attractive men. But the problem is that they compare the man they land with the most attractive man they ever had sex with, and the husband comes out second best (or much lower). So she is dissatisfied and eventually stops having sex with him. What is he going to do about it, after all? She may cheat on him too, for the same reason.


Because she never wanted him, she wanted his sperm or his money or whatever and this guy didn't care at first because he was getting a "better quality" woman than he could get otherwise so he was happy until things went bad. 
He had to constantly chase her, always giving to try to earn her. That kind of thing never lasts. 
Had this man found someone compatible with him he'd be happy. She'll want to meet his needs back, she'll want to have sex with him. 

This happened all the time then too. Women cheated then too, they married men they had no interest in other than security.


You seem to think that there are no women who want the bottom 80% of men. Who would prefer them over the top alpha guy.
Well then you have just been looking for love in all the wrong places because there are millions of women who would choose the quiet, caring, loving 80% man over the top guy at the bar or gym. 

And I get it, being average myself, you see so many men going after the hot, outgoing girls. They all do. Alpha, average, bottom. Us quiet, plain looking ones sit on the benches waiting for someone to pick us at the dance. On TV, everyone is hot, even women with unattractive men are hot. Some men think "that could be me!" and keep chasing the hot women because getting her is a status symbol. 

It took me a long time to get enough confidence in myself to know that I didn't have to compete with those women. Men will want ME. They won't settle for me and want someone hotter. They want me as is. 
But I do have to put myself out there more to find them. I have to find my own confidence, my own worth.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> If the world is changing and everything else is different why do we still need to provide a 10K ring, huge wedding, silly dress, and sign a contract effectively handing over half of what we earn for no real good reason? .


You sound like "The Grinch who Stole Weddings." 

BTW you can't get a decent ring for 10K.

Just sayin


----------



## john117

The wedding industrial complex is another reason men act like that...


----------



## knobcreek

Heatherknows said:


> You sound like "The Grinch who Stole Weddings."
> *
> BTW you can't get a decent ring for 10K.
> *
> Just sayin


You're making these guys case, if you can't be happy with a 2 carat nearly colorless diamond, the same price as a high end Swiss mechanical watch, you're high maintenance.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Now as to whether this is "natural", maybe so. But only if you consider the pill "natural". Without that, women would be VERY careful whom they had sex with because of the constant fear of getting pregnant and being abandoned.
> 
> But even without that help, this is not the first time women have been free to choose whom they would have sex with, and the answer, as always, is "alphas". Unfortunately, that freedom demotivates the *other *men from working hard enough to be able to support a wife and children.


That's quite the bedtime story, tech. Where do you get this stuff? 

I have to say, I've never encountered anyone who is as threatened by the idea of women enjoying sex as you seem to be.

Damn vaginas. Can't even keep 'em locked down by pregnancy anymore.


----------



## always_alone

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And I get it, being average myself, you see so many men going after the hot, outgoing girls. They all do. Alpha, average, bottom. Us quiet, plain looking ones sit on the benches waiting for someone to pick us at the dance. On TV, everyone is hot, even women with unattractive men are hot. Some men think "that could be me!" and keep chasing the hot women because getting her is a status symbol.
> 
> It took me a long time to get enough confidence in myself to know that I didn't have to compete with those women. Men will want ME. They won't settle for me and want someone hotter. They want me as is.
> But I do have to put myself out there more to find them. I have to find my own confidence, my own worth.


Most of this "women ignore 80% of men" stuff is pure projection. Projection and fear, and an unwillingness to do the sort of work you did to get right with themselves.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> You're making these guys case, if you can't be happy with a 2 carat nearly colorless diamond, the same price as a high end Swiss mechanical watch, you're high maintenance.


I know about diamonds and a 2 carat diamond ring priced at 10K is either stolen and resold for that price or a piece of junk.
diamond prices
*Wholesale Round Diamond Prices comparison Chart*

Carat	Color	Clarity	Cut	Shape	Price	Variation
3.00	K	SI2	Very Good	Round	$21,000.00	VS1 Clarity instead of SI2
3.00	K	VS1	Very Good	Round	$32,000.00
3.00	D	VVS1	Very good	Round	$160,000.00	-
2.00	D	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$65,000.00	E color instead of F color
*2.00	E	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$55,000.00*
2.50	G	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$41,000.00	-


----------



## knobcreek

technovelist said:


> What has changed is that in the old order, men and women paired up more or less according to assortative mating. Alphas married the prettiest/most desirable women, but most men got married and most married couples stayed married. This was also good for the prettiest women because they landed their alphas.
> 
> In the new order, the alphas are surrounded by willing women. So this is great if you are an ordinary woman, or an alpha. Of course the top women still get attention, but they can't tie down an alpha as they used to be able to do.
> 
> But the big losers are the less-attractive men, who get... nothing. At least until the biological clocks of the women start ticking very loudly and they decide to marry one of those less-attractive men. But the problem is that they compare the man they land with the most attractive man they ever had sex with, and the husband comes out second best (or much lower). So she is dissatisfied and eventually stops having sex with him. What is he going to do about it, after all? She may cheat on him too, for the same reason.
> 
> Then he ends up here.
> 
> Now as to whether this is "natural", maybe so. But only if you consider the pill "natural". Without that, women would be VERY careful whom they had sex with because of the constant fear of getting pregnant and being abandoned.
> 
> But even without that help, this is not the first time women have been free to choose whom they would have sex with, and the answer, as always, is "alphas". Unfortunately, that freedom demotivates the *other *men from working hard enough to be able to support a wife and children.


This is a way overly cynical way of looking at it IMO. We're humans not gorillas where one alpha rules the tribe and mates all the women. I see ugly dudes with women ALL THE TIME. In fact I would say "HTF does that guy have that girl on his arm".

Is there something to be said about alpha/beta? I'm sure there is, but this is overly reductionist of that idea.

I do agree with some points, I'm going to use the point scale just as a frame of reference. A 6 woman can sleep with a 10 male relatively easily on any given Friday or Saturday night. A 6 man will likely never sleep with a 9 or 10 woman. So when both of these 6's eventually pair up, he's comparing her to other 2-3-4-5-6-7's that he's slept with, while she's comparing him 8-9-10's that she's slept with. It gives her an inflated sense of self-worth, and creates a relatively unfair comparison for the man, because those 8-9-10 males were never intending to marry or commit to the 6 woman. So this does put men behind the power curve in terms of modern dating and coupling, no doubt.



always_alone said:


> Most of this* "women ignore 80% of men" stuff is pure projection*. Projection and fear, and an unwillingness to do the sort of work you did to get right with themselves.


I believe that's actually true, the key is working hard to get yourself into that top 20%. And because characteristics like sense of humor, job title, money made, etc... all move men up the rung, they can be worked on. Women will eventually settle once they realize that hot guy who has been plowing her through her working 20's will never actually commit to her, but she'll remain relatively unsatisfied with her husband because he just isn't as hot or wealthy as that other guy. What she likely doesn't realize is she was at best this guys 6th option, and he only called her when he had absolutely nothing going on.

If you can get into the top 20% you can actively date and be selective yourself as a man, if you're not, you are settling for scraps basically until women want to marry and pop out some kiddos. And then you'll likely end up insecure and a cuckold as she never quite got over that hot dude, once the kids are school age, GNO's OMG hot guys all over me again... Welcome to creampie country pal... :rofl::rofl:


----------



## knobcreek

Heatherknows said:


> I know about diamonds and a 2 carat diamond ring priced at 10K is either stolen and resold for that price or a piece of junk.
> diamond prices
> *Wholesale Round Diamond Prices comparison Chart*
> 
> Carat	Color	Clarity	Cut	Shape	Price	Variation
> 3.00	K	SI2	Very Good	Round	$21,000.00	VS1 Clarity instead of SI2
> 3.00	K	VS1	Very Good	Round	$32,000.00
> 3.00	D	VVS1	Very good	Round	$160,000.00	-
> 2.00	D	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$65,000.00	E color instead of F color
> *2.00	E	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$55,000.00*
> 2.50	G	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$41,000.00	-


You're picking a top, top diamond at that price, you can easily get a decent 2 carat diamond, near colorless VS1 of ~10K - 15K. If you require a flawless diamond, then yes you will pay a lot higher for that, and that would make you so much more high maintenance, because a VS1 has inclusions so small you need a 10X loupe to even notice them.

I bought my wife a 2 carat VS1 E when we convalidated our marriage after reconciling in the diamond district for ~$12,000, it's a really nice diamond.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yes well it's not like those days were all rainbows. Many of the marriages were terrible and the women couldn't leave because they couldn't support themselves. Many married for money, many married men they didn't love, who cheated on them and they just went along with it because they had to. Plenty of women became "old maids" who couldn't land a man for whatever reason until she was past her expiry date (like 30)
> 
> I work with a lot of people that came from times like this. Trust me, some are still just waiting for the other to finally die so they can be free. They wasted an entire life not being happy.


Of course it was not all rainbows and unicorns in those days. I know that many people were unhappy but couldn't afford to split up, and the ones who did struggled. But I'm not sure the current situation is better, especially for those who don't even get a chance to marry in the first place until much later in life.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The hottest are still pairing up together. You're right that they still aren't having any problems and many of them marry just fine.
> The average women are doing great here how? Even if we wanted a top guy, he's not looking at us. He's looking at all the hot girls he's got in front of him. But that's ok because there are still plenty of men left over and we can find one that suits us best.


Average women are not necessarily doing that well in the long run; in fact, I would say their lives too are being harmed by the current environment. But they are much more likely to be able to spend their twenties having sex with a number of men more attractive than they are, which when you are in your twenties probably seems like a good idea. The average man doesn't get to do that, but gets left out of the fun.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Since we can work and make money, we get to pick the kind of match we want and not what we'd need financially. We can leave marriages we don't want to be in. We can expect our emotional needs be met. Gone are the days where a man's only responsibility to his wife was to bring in money. He has to talk to her, date her, help her with the home and kids.


Yes, but what happens if her emotional needs are being met and his aren't? Sometimes he ends up here.

And vice versa too, of course. Men aren't angels either.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And just like men can't rely on money to keep a woman, he can't as easily use it to get a woman who outclasses him now either.
> So he either needs to reevaluate what women he is going for or use other ways to attract them (confidence, personality, etc)


Or simply acknowledge that he doesn't want to stick his hand in the meat grinder of the current family law system, which is what happens if he gets married.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Except for this next group who sits in wait until their money becomes important enough for some women to settle for.


Right, although very few of these men have any idea that is what is happening. They are usually surprised when that occurs.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Because she never wanted him, she wanted his sperm or his money or whatever and this guy didn't care at first because he was getting a "better quality" woman than he could get otherwise so he was happy until things went bad.
> He had to constantly chase her, always giving to try to earn her. That kind of thing never lasts.
> Had this man found someone compatible with him he'd be happy. She'll want to meet his needs back, she'll want to have sex with him.


How is he supposed to tell the difference, unless he is aware of this dynamic? There are plenty of women (and some men) who use "bait and switch"; they are seemingly thrilled to have sex with him, until the wedding. Isn't it better for men to know how this all works so that they can avoid such situations?



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> This happened all the time then too. Women cheated then too, they married men they had no interest in other than security.


Yes, but people generally matched up fairly young with others of roughly the same attractiveness level, because screwing around was highly disapproved of in society. So there was a lot more stability, which is especially important for children.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> You seem to think that there are no women who want the bottom 80% of men. Who would prefer them over the top alpha guy.
> Well then you have just been looking for love in all the wrong places because there are millions of women who would choose the quiet, caring, loving 80% man over the top guy at the bar or gym.


I don't think there are very many women like that, at least ones who can't find a husband pretty easily. Unless they are terribly unattractive, far worse than average, anyway, or are looking in the wrong places, like the bar or gym.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> And I get it, being average myself, you see so many men going after the hot, outgoing girls. They all do. Alpha, average, bottom. Us quiet, plain looking ones sit on the benches waiting for someone to pick us at the dance. On TV, everyone is hot, even women with unattractive men are hot. Some men think "that could be me!" and keep chasing the hot women because getting her is a status symbol.
> 
> It took me a long time to get enough confidence in myself to know that I didn't have to compete with those women. Men will want ME. They won't settle for me and want someone hotter. They want me as is.
> But I do have to put myself out there more to find them. I have to find my own confidence, my own worth.


Absolutely. But as hard as it may be for a woman to do that, she is unlikely to be shot down thousands of times as happens to men who are looking for a mate. A lot of them give up. Some of those are the MGTOW.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> That's quite the bedtime story, tech. Where do you get this stuff?
> 
> I have to say, I've never encountered anyone who is as threatened by the idea of women enjoying sex as you seem to be.
> 
> Damn vaginas. Can't even keep 'em locked down by pregnancy anymore.


I have no problem with women enjoying sex. What I have a problem with is when they spend their twenties having sex with lots of attractive men, then in their thirties decide to lock down a provider, then once he is locked down, become unhappy with him and make his life a living hell.

Is that okay with you?


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> I know about diamonds and a 2 carat diamond ring priced at 10K is either stolen and resold for that price or a piece of junk.
> diamond prices
> *Wholesale Round Diamond Prices comparison Chart*
> 
> Carat	Color	Clarity	Cut	Shape	Price	Variation
> 3.00	K	SI2	Very Good	Round	$21,000.00	VS1 Clarity instead of SI2
> 3.00	K	VS1	Very Good	Round	$32,000.00
> 3.00	D	VVS1	Very good	Round	$160,000.00	-
> 2.00	D	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$65,000.00	E color instead of F color
> *2.00	E	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$55,000.00*
> 2.50	G	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$41,000.00	-


Those are way overpriced. Costco has 2 carat I color or better for under $20k, although over $10k.

BTW, any woman who demands such an extravagance is doing her fiance a big favor by letting him know what he's in for.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> This is a way overly cynical way of looking at it IMO. We're humans not gorillas where one alpha rules the tribe and mates all the women. I see ugly dudes with women ALL THE TIME. In fact I would say "HTF does that guy have that girl on his arm".


It is not just physical appearance that makes a man sexually attractive. Danny DeVito isn't very attractive, to put it mildly, but I don't think he has much trouble with attracting women.

And no, it isn't just money either, although of course that helps. Bill Gates didn't exactly wind up with a hottie, even though he is the richest man in the US.



knobcreek said:


> Is there something to be said about alpha/beta? I'm sure there is, but this is overly reductionist of that idea.
> 
> I do agree with some points, I'm going to use the point scale just as a frame of reference. A 6 woman can sleep with a 10 male relatively easily on any given Friday or Saturday night. A 6 man will likely never sleep with a 9 or 10 woman. So when both of these 6's eventually pair up, he's comparing her to other 2-3-4-5-6-7's that he's slept with, while she's comparing him 8-9-10's that she's slept with. It gives her an inflated sense of self-worth, and creates a relatively unfair comparison for the man, because those 8-9-10 males were never intending to marry or commit to the 6 woman. So this does put men behind the power curve in terms of modern dating and coupling, no doubt.


Yes, that's exactly the point that a number of observers have made. 



knobcreek said:


> I believe that's actually true, the key is working hard to get yourself into that top 20%. And because characteristics like sense of humor, job title, money made, etc... all move men up the rung, they can be worked on. Women will eventually settle once they realize that hot guy who has been plowing her working 20's will never actually commit to her, but she'll remain relatively unsatisfied with her husband because he just isn't as hot or wealthy as that other guy. What she likely doesn't realize is she was at best this guys 6th option, and he only called her when he had absolutely nothing going on.


Again, exactly right. They do not realize this.



knobcreek said:


> If you can get into the top 20% you can actively date and be selective yourself as a man, if you're not, you are settling for scraps basically until women want to marry and pop out some kiddos. And then you'll likely end up insecure and a cuckold as she never quite got over that hot dude, once the kids are school age, GNO's OMG hot guys all over me again... Welcome to creampie country pal... :rofl::rofl:


Fairly good analysis, except for one point. What proportion of the male population can be in the top 20% at any given time?

Math is unforgiving.


----------



## Heatherknows

technovelist said:


> Those are way overpriced. Costco has 2 carat I color or better for under $20k, although over $10k.
> 
> BTW, any woman who demands such an extravagance is doing her fiance a big favor by letting him know what he's in for.


Actually, I love Costco so I'd trust their diamonds. I think they're GIA certified.

(But their color is only I which means the diamonds are yellow. You don't want to buy any color under G.)


----------



## ocotillo

john117 said:


> The wedding industrial complex is another reason men act like that...


My wife likes shiny things, but the blatant manipulation and appeal to sentiments that have no place in an age of equality make her (And I suspect a lot of other women) gag.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> Actually, I love Costco so I'd trust their diamonds. I think they're GIA certified.


Apparently they do provide a grading report for anything over 1.25 carat:

"When you receive your diamond you will also receive the appropriate IGI appraisal and/or GIA (Gemological Institute of America) certification. Jewelry items containing a 1.00 carat diamond or larger include an IGI appraisal. Jewelry items containing a 1.25 carat diamond or larger include a GIA Diamond Grading Report, in addition to the IGI appraisal. One-of-a-kind diamond items will include both an IGI appraisal and GIA Diamond Grading Report regardless of carat weight."

(from The 5 Cs: Buying a Diamond Ring at Costco, Part 1 | Addicted To Costco! )


----------



## Heatherknows

technovelist said:


> Apparently they do provide a grading report for anything over 1.25 carat:
> 
> "When you receive your diamond you will also receive the appropriate IGI appraisal and/or GIA (Gemological Institute of America) certification. Jewelry items containing a 1.00 carat diamond or larger include an IGI appraisal. Jewelry items containing a 1.25 carat diamond or larger include a GIA Diamond Grading Report, in addition to the IGI appraisal. One-of-a-kind diamond items will include both an IGI appraisal and GIA Diamond Grading Report regardless of carat weight."
> 
> (from The 5 Cs: Buying a Diamond Ring at Costco, Part 1 | Addicted To Costco! )


It's a good place to buy diamond earrings. But for the engagement ring their color isn't good.


----------



## ocotillo

Heatherknows said:


> But for the engagement ring their color isn't good.


Honest question, Heather. Why do you accept this custom?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> I don't think there are very many women like that, at least ones who can't find a husband pretty easily. Unless they are terribly unattractive, far worse than average, anyway, or are looking in the wrong places, like the bar or gym.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. But as hard as it may be for a woman to do that, she is unlikely to be shot down thousands of times as happens to men who are looking for a mate. A lot of them give up. Some of those are the MGTOW.


The only men who are having problems are ones who lack confidence in themselves, have bad attitudes and feel entitled to certain kinds of women and consider the rest of the bunch the "scraps" or below them. 

Your typical average guy has no problems finding a wife or women that will want him. 

These guys are a self-fulfilling prophesy. They have these attitudes about women but they aren't the women BECAUSE of their attitude. 

We can spot these guys. We avoid them.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Heatherknows said:


> I know about diamonds and a 2 carat diamond ring priced at 10K is either stolen and resold for that price or a piece of junk.
> diamond prices
> *Wholesale Round Diamond Prices comparison Chart*
> 
> Carat	Color	Clarity	Cut	Shape	Price	Variation
> 3.00	K	SI2	Very Good	Round	$21,000.00	VS1 Clarity instead of SI2
> 3.00	K	VS1	Very Good	Round	$32,000.00
> 3.00	D	VVS1	Very good	Round	$160,000.00	-
> 2.00	D	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$65,000.00	E color instead of F color
> *2.00	E	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$55,000.00*
> 2.50	G	VVS1	Very Good	Round	$41,000.00	-


My wifes wedding ring cost the equivalent of $150 :surprise:


----------



## tom67

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only men who are having problems are ones who lack confidence in themselves, have bad attitudes and feel entitled to certain kinds of women and consider the rest of the bunch the "scraps" or below them.
> 
> Your typical average guy has no problems finding a wife or women that will want him.
> 
> These guys are a self-fulfilling prophesy. They have these attitudes about women but they aren't the women BECAUSE of their attitude.
> 
> We can spot these guys. We avoid them.


How about this guy who takes in his own nephew did he see this coming?
Pasadena-area woman charged with having sex with teen nephew 'hundreds of times' - Houston Chronicle :surprise:


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only men who are having problems are ones who lack confidence in themselves, have bad attitudes and feel entitled to certain kinds of women and consider the rest of the bunch the "scraps" or below them.
> 
> *Your typical average guy has no problems finding a wife or women that will want him. *
> 
> These guys are a self-fulfilling prophesy. They have these attitudes about women but they aren't the women BECAUSE of their attitude.
> 
> We can spot these guys. We avoid them.


I assume you have evidence for *this*? Apparently ******* hasn't found that to be the case. Amazingly enough, the magical 80% number shows up in their research:

"As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. "
Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


----------



## knobcreek

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Your typical average guy has no problems finding a wife or women that will want him.
> 
> .


Your typical average guy in his 30's can find a wife, but not necessarily one that wants him, one that settled for him.

Tech - that OK Cupid info is pretty telling, women rate 80% of men as essentially worse than medium (aka un-dateable and un-fvckable).


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> Your typical average guy in his 30's can find a wife, but not necessarily one that wants him, one that settled for him.
> 
> Tech - that OK Cupid info is pretty telling, women rate 80% of men as essentially worse than medium (aka un-dateable and un-fvckable).


Yes, isn't it astounding that the "totally ridiculous percentage made up by bitter losers who can't get laid" turns out to be right on the money?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> I assume you have evidence for *this*? Apparently ******* hasn't found that to be the case. Amazingly enough, the magical 80% number shows up in their research:
> 
> "As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium. Very harsh. "
> Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


and it goes on to say
On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable. 

It also says 
When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance
above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.

But this is a dating site, of course those are based on looks and your picture but lets not pretend this is a male problem. Clearly the women are being judged on looks alone as well. 
Men are chasing unattainable women (for them) while tons of lovely women are being ignored.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

technovelist said:


> Yes, isn't it astounding that the "totally ridiculous percentage made up by bitter losers who can't get laid" turns out to be right on the money?



Funny thing is, if you took the make up off of those 'top rated' women they would be average


----------



## john117

knobcreek said:


> Your typical average guy in his 30's can find a wife, but not necessarily one that wants him, one that settled for him.
> 
> Tech - that OK Cupid info is pretty telling, women rate 80% of men as essentially worse than medium (aka un-dateable and un-fvckable).


Pareto' Law in dating


----------



## tom67

john117 said:


> Pareto' Law in dating


BINGO

Sex and The Pareto Principle * Hooking Up Smart : Hooking Up Smart


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

tom67 said:


> BINGO
> 
> Sex and The Pareto Principle * Hooking Up Smart : Hooking Up Smart


So
Summary

I. The numbers do not support the claim that most women have casual sex with impunity through their 20s, then seek a sexually inexperienced male to settle down with. Rather, the data supports the idea that the numbers of promiscuous men and women are similar, though there are more promiscuous men than women. Most likely, this population is sexually active with one another. For the vast majority of Americans who do not have a high number of partners either lifetime, or within the last year, the numbers are also similar, though again, men are more promiscuous.

II. The data does not refute or confirm the concept of female hypergamy, which is the desire of the female to pair with a male of equal or higher status than herself. Within the ranks of promiscuous males and females we may still conclude based on anecdotal observation that some women are more willing to have sex with the attractive men they would otherwise not have access to as a way of increasing their social status. However, that number is a minority, though perhaps higher than the 6.8% for all women aged 20-29 who had 3+ partners in the last year.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> In terms of being cheated on, left, abused, treated badly, losing everything because they aren't perfect enough, women face exactly the same risks as men.
> 
> In terms of child support, I find it very difficult to fathom why a man would feel that the end of his marriage would spell the end of his financial obligations to his child. You don't divorce the kids do you?
> 
> In terms of alimony, I don't know US law, but in my jurisdiction alimony is only paid to a spouse who sacrificed career opportunities for the family and so will have understandable challenges re-entering the workforce. Said alimony is only paid for a finite amount of time.


Again with the sacrifices. The law recognizes your choice to not work, and to take care of kids, and rewards extra money after the marriage for it. The law recognizes the working man's choice to work hard and earn extra cash and says: You have to provide the same level of comfort for her as you did when you were married regardless of why you're divorcing. There is nothing just in this. Why should she have a claim to his income after she leaves? 

As far as child support, I think those laws are antiquated and unjust. Often they are based on percentage of income. The cost of raising a kid doesn't go up with how much money you make. It's pretty static based on where you live. It costs a lot of money to file and get it reduced, and if you can't make the payments--say you lose your job and have to take a lower paying one--you go to prison. Unless you're a girl. The courts are especially lenient on them when they don't pay, and they are less likely to pay when ordered, even though they are ordered to pay less money per kid than men are when a guy is lucky enough to A) win child custody and B) be awarded support (women are less likely to be forced to pay when they lose custody.)

There is a legal system that literally says "I believe children belong with their mothers." It does not care if she is unfit. It does not care if she is insane. It does not care if she emotionally abuses her kids, or lies and tells them "daddy's not here because he doesn't love you." (Every single mom in my office is guilty of this one. They don't see anything wrong with it either) 

The legal system rewards her for infidelity. It rewards her for leaving. It encourages that she lie to the kids and turn them on the father to get extra money that she doesn't have to spend on them. In the US, average child support represents over 60% of a custodial mother's income. When you reward a behavior you get more of it. Who it was intended for is meaningless, it matters who it goes to (cash is fungible). There is no culpability. 

Add to it the ridiculous "predominant aggressor" policies, assuming men are the violent party. In many jurisdictions--mine is one--it is considered legal malpractice if your attorney does not recommend you file a false police report saying your H either assaulted you, or threatened to in order to get a restraining order and improve you standing in court (if you're a woman). If you're wife does assault you--which happens about as often as the opposite--you cannot defend yourself lest you wish to go to jail. If you call the cops they are likely to tell you to get her counseling and refuse to arrest her and more likely to arrest you instead. 

If your wife is abusive and violent, you can't have her kicked out. So the only option is to leave. If you take the kids she can file kidnapping charges. And you're the predominant aggressor, so guilty! Even if she doesn't, where are you going to go? You gonna go crying home to mom and dad: "Wifey-poo is beating me up! Please protect me!". Yeah, right. Or maybe you don't live close to any family that could/would help. Go to the local battered men's shelter? Oh yeah, we don't have those. In fact, if you go to a domestic violence shelter, they're likely to turn you away and tell you that it is you, as the man who is at fault. Women don't do things like that.:surprise:

This is what these men are upset about. Not having to take care of their kids. They want things to be just. They want their children to receive the money they are sending. They want to see their children. They want to keep their marriage. But no, let's just keep building straw men out of those arguments. It feels so good to knock them down, and they can't fight back.


----------



## knobcreek

I've been reading about Japanese Herbivore Men, fascinating stuff. It's like MGTOW but without the anger and cynicism. They actually are typically friends with women, enjoy gardening and walks in the park, video games, they just have no desire for a romantic relationship with women at all and have little to no interest in sex, or find women in porno and masturbation preferable, no desire to work towards a career and no desire for material goods. 70% of single men in their 30's identify as herbivore men. So the dynamic is shifting in Japan, 80% of the women are still chasing the top 20% of men in their 20's, but they're no longer getting their fall back guys when they're ready to settle down and marry. And it's actually impacting Japanese society, they had a net loss of 280,000 people last year, marriage and child-rearing are way down. Men are literally going their own way in Japan in huge numbers, and forcing women to go without partners later in life too.

Another dynamic that is materializing to counter this is "carnivorous women" who are basically aggressively trying to get these guys to date, sleep with, and likely eventually marry. Crazy world...

If you look at Japan for a model this likely can't be explained away as simply a tiny fraction of men who are just bitter misogynists. I don't think that's what's happening in Japan, and they are way further down the line then the rest of the world on this.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> and it goes on to say
> On the other hand, when it comes to actual messaging, women shift their expectations only just slightly ahead of the curve, which is a healthier pattern than guys’ pursuing the all-but-unattainable.
> 
> It also says
> When it comes down to actually choosing targets, men choose the modelesque. Someone like roomtodance
> above gets nearly 5 times as many messages as a typical woman and 28 times as many messages as a woman at the low end of our curve. Site-wide, two-thirds of male messages go to the best-looking third of women. So basically, guys are fighting each other 2-for-1 for the absolute best-rated females, while plenty of potentially charming, even cute, girls go unwritten.
> 
> But this is a dating site, of course those are based on looks and your picture but lets not pretend this is a male problem. Clearly the women are being judged on looks alone as well.
> Men are chasing unattainable women (for them) while tons of lovely women are being ignored.


Ok, but on the other hand, it still appears to be true that most women think that most men are unattractive based just on their looks. So is it really a big stretch to say that there could be problems with relationships as a result of women's unreasonable harshness in their estimate of the attractiveness of the "average guy"?


----------



## knobcreek

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> The only men who are having problems are ones who lack confidence in themselves, have bad attitudes and feel entitled to certain kinds of women and consider the rest of the bunch the "scraps" or below them.
> .


I think you're equating dating in your 30's-40's-and 50's to teens and 20 year olds. These are men's formative years, I don't doubt a man in his 30's can eventually find someone as women typically do drastically drop their standards in order to lock in a husband. But this guy because he's not an 8 has extreme difficulty in HS and his 20's getting women to be interested in him. And now they're rejecting the notion that they're magically supposed to now marry a woman and take on all that risk because she now needs a schlep to have a baby and help clean diapers and those 8's are already settled down with their 8's or 9's (I hate the rating system but it's the only thing to paint a clear picture). They've been ignored for 15 years and figure may as well just keep being ignored and enjoy their life without them.

Try looking past the vitriol and with an open mind, there is merit to a lot of the complaints from these guys and the unrealistic expectations of women. 

When you have a large swath of the dating pool of women voting 80% of men down as worse than average (un-dateable and un-fvckable) there's likely a problem going on.

I think when women say "why can't I find a good man" past 30, what they really mean is "why can't I find a man way out of my league that used to bang me in college to marry me". Hint... he's married to a 9 and you're a 6.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> As far as child support, I think those laws are antiquated and unjust. Often they are based on percentage of income. The cost of raising a kid doesn't go up with how much money you make. It's pretty static based on where you live. It costs a lot of money to file and get it reduced, and if you can't make the payments--say you lose your job and have to take a lower paying one--you go to prison. Unless you're a girl. The courts are especially lenient on them when they don't pay, and they are less likely to pay when ordered, even though they are ordered to pay less money per kid than men are when a guy is lucky enough to A) win child custody and B) be awarded support (women are less likely to be forced to pay when they lose custody.)


Here's some of the "good" news on child support in Massachusetts:

'In many of the jurisdictions where child support is substantially more than the $9,000 per year that the USDA estimates as the actual cost of caring for a child we learned about the practice of selling abortions. From the Massachusetts chapter:

Due to the $40,144 number at the top of the guidelines, the 23 years over which child support is payable, and the convention whereby a defendant must pay a plaintiff's legal fees, Massachusetts is one of the most lucrative states for the marketing of abortions. In our interviews we learned about a 40-year-old entrepreneur who was dating a seemingly carefree 25-year-old. Two months later, the young woman presented the man with a positive pregnancy test result, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing the $923,312 in child support that he would owe over 23 years, plus a likely $300,000 college budget and additional amounts for health insurance, day care, etc. Her attorney offered to sell her abortion for $250,000 plus legal fees and the cost of the abortion itself. The man paid the $250,000, which was tax-free to the woman. Could that be considered extortion? "It is not extortion nor illegal to threaten to have a baby," responded Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk, when asked to consider the facts of this incident. Asked to comment on the prevalence of abortion transactions in Massachusetts, another attorney said "This is a good state in which to work your mind and education, but it is a great state in which to work your body and child."

Attorneys report that one issue in abortion sales is establishing paternity. "When I'm involved in an abortion transaction on the father's side," noted one lawyer, "I recommend a paternity test if there is any possible doubt. The person who sells an abortion is not necessarily the most reliable source of information." Is it possible to do a paternity test on a fetus? "Absolutely," the lawyer continued. "They can do it after a couple of months using the mother's blood and a blood sample from the father. It's called 'NIPP' [Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity] and relies on the fact that some of the baby's DNA makes its way into the mother's blood.'

(from Real World Divorce: Child Support Litigation without a Marriage)


----------



## john117

As a card carrying 80%'er I would agree. My neighborhood is full of 8 - 9 males and similar females but when the woman gets older there's the mad dash to stay good looking - a losing battle for the most part because Biology... Affairs flare up, and the rest is history. 

For those women who stay married the payoffs are huge. Expensive house, cars, vacations, domestic help... As long as they stay in good shape, don't cheat, and don't rock the boat.

Reverse genders for a moment and tell me how well this would work with a woman high earner 9'er married to a 9 house husband


----------



## tech-novelist

Here's another gem, this time courtesy of California's wonderful child-support laws:

'Do Californians pursue collecting child support as an alternative to college and work? Jaffe says that southern Californians are not overlooking this opportunity: "We represent a lot of athletes and after every basketball game there literally are five or ten women outside the door with their legs open, hoping to get a $20,000 per month job for 18 years. There is no question about that."'

(from Real World Divorce: California)

I can't imagine why any man would worry about something like that unless he is a bitter loser, etc.


----------



## knobcreek

technovelist said:


> Here's some of the "good" news on child support in Massachusetts:
> 
> 'In many of the jurisdictions where child support is substantially more than the $9,000 per year that the USDA estimates as the actual cost of caring for a child we learned about the practice of selling abortions...


If true that is disgusting, but I imagine this is a very rare event.

My wife has a new "friend" (not sure why all her new friends are low lives but I digress) that has three kids from three dads, she admitted to my wife she did it basically on purpose to make more money. The last guy was a complete dope, made good money but probably had never been with a woman before. She dated him three months, got pregnant, by her 6th month of pregnancy she was dating someone else and this dope is in for 25 years of child support. She doesn't work and collects that initial big hit from three different guys. But again I don't consider her a fair representation of all women. There are plenty of men who are absolute scumbags too.


----------



## tech-novelist

knobcreek said:


> If true that is disgusting, but I imagine this is a very rare event.
> 
> My wife has a new "friend" (not sure why all her new friends are low lives but I digress) that has three kids from three dads, she admitted to my wife she did it basically on purpose to make more money. The last guy was a complete dope, made good money but probably had never been with a woman before. She dated him three months, got pregnant, by her 6th month of pregnancy she was dating someone else and this dope is in for 25 years of child support. She doesn't work and collects that initial big hit from three different guys. But again I don't consider her a fair representation of all women. There are plenty of men who are absolute scumbags too.


Yes, there are. But they don't have the equipment to run that particular scam.


----------



## BetrayedDad

knobcreek said:


> I think when women say "why can't I find a good man" past 30, what they really mean is "why can't I find a man way out of my league that used to bang me in college to marry me". Hint... he's married to a 9 and you're a 6.


Nailed it... 

If they even manage to maintain the 6 rank till 30. 

Tried to explain this in another thread... Just cause you're a 5-6 and you got tons of guys who would fvck you without thinking twice, it doesn't make you hot or an 8-9. It just makes them typical guys. Too many women, let that sh!t go straight to their heads.


----------



## Heatherknows

ocotillo said:


> Honest question, Heather. Why do you accept this custom?


I don't understand the question.


----------



## Heatherknows

john117 said:


> As a card carrying 80%'er I would agree. My neighborhood is full of 8 - 9 males and similar females but when the woman gets older there's the mad dash to stay good looking - a losing battle for the most part because Biology... Affairs flare up, and the rest is history.
> 
> For those women who stay married the payoffs are huge. Expensive house, cars, vacations, domestic help... As long as they stay in good shape, don't cheat, and don't rock the boat.
> 
> Reverse genders for a moment and tell me how well this would work with a woman high earner 9'er married to a 9 house husband


So in the end the men need to keep earning and the woman better stay good looking. 

It is what it is. That's why I went to Pilates today. I know the deal.


----------



## Heatherknows

BetrayedDad said:


> Nailed it...
> 
> If they even manage to maintain the 6 rank till 30.
> 
> Tried to explain this in another thread... Just cause you're a 5-6 and you got tons of guys who would fvck you without thinking twice, it doesn't make you hot or an 8-9. It just makes them typical guys. Too many women, let that sh!t go straight to their heads.


Yes that was my thread that you brought up that lovely little tidbit of info.


----------



## BetrayedDad

Heatherknows said:


> Yes that was my thread that you brought up that lovely little tidbit of info.


Just keeping it real. You'll always be a 10 to me.


----------



## Kivlor

@technovelist

Those articles are jacked, but not surprising. 

I zeroed in on this lovely part in the first link:



> The most well-known case was of a Kansas boy who, at age 13, impregnated his 17-year-old baby-sitter. Under Kansas law, a child under the age of 15 is legally unable to consent to sex. The Kansas Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that he was liable for child support.
> California issued a similar state court ruling a few years later in the case of a 15-year-old boy who had sex with a 34-year-old neighbor. In that case, the woman had been convicted of statutory rape.
> In both cases, it was the state social-services agency that pursued the case after the mother sought public assistance.


That's right folks, a 15 year old boy forced to pay child support to his 34 year old rapist. Oh wait, no, men can't be raped, right? His **** got hard, he's to blame. 

They would never do this to a girl, if the situation was reversed. Yay equality!

I will say I found this to be an entertaining read from the same website. Highlights my point about domestic violence.


----------



## ocotillo

Heatherknows said:


> I don't understand the question.


Engagement/Betrothal rings. They are a custom that hearken back to a time when economic power was exercised principally by men. The ring was both a statement about the man's ability as a provider and the woman's ability to attract a good provider, so it was a symbol of social status for both. 

That system was wrong and unfair in many ways. Have you ever read Jane Austin for example? Do you remember the dilemma of the Bennet family in _Pride and Prejudice_? Five daughters. No sons. Since women could not inherit property, the house and lands would pass to the nearest male relative upon Mr. Bennet's death and any of the girls who were not married at that point would likely be turned out on the street. 

We as a society have tried (And are still trying) to get away from that. It's wrong for a woman to be economically shackled to a man. It's wrong for a woman's only chance at a comfortable life to be via marriage. 

Mgtows accuse women (as a group) of hypocrisy on this front. They claim that women desire the legal benefits of equality while simultaneously attempting to hold on to the social benefits of inequality. Extravagant engagement rings and expectations about them are a typical example they bring up.

Hence the question. If you like diamonds, I understand (My wife likes them too) but your statements about quality, price, Costco jewelry not being good enough, etc. are puzzling in the context of this thread.


----------



## Heatherknows

ocotillo said:


> Engagement/Betrothal rings. They are a custom that hearken back to a time when economic power was exercised principally by men. The ring was both a statement about the man's ability as a provider and the woman's ability to attract a good provider, so it was a symbol of social status for both.
> 
> 
> Hence the question. If you like diamonds, I understand (My wife likes them too) but your statements about quality, price, Costco jewelry not being good enough, etc. are puzzling in the context of this thread.


I didn't know the history of engagement rings. IMO it's romantic. I think Costco diamonds are fine for earrings but not for an engagement ring because they don't have a nice white color. For me I rather have a smaller stone with a better color than a larger one with a yellow tint.


----------



## norajane

To me, diamonds are like wine. I really can't tell the difference between super-expensive, fancy wine and the $10-20 bottles, just as I can't tell the difference between any diamonds. To my naked eye, they all look exactly the same.


----------



## naiveonedave

Kivlor said:


> @technovelist
> 
> Those articles are jacked, but not surprising.
> 
> I zeroed in on this lovely part in the first link:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right folks, a 15 year old boy forced to pay child support to his 34 year old rapist. Oh wait, no, men can't be raped, right? His **** got hard, he's to blame.
> 
> They would never do this to a girl, if the situation was reversed. Yay equality!
> 
> I will say I found this to be an entertaining read from the same website. Highlights my point about domestic violence.


the statutory rape things are just so wrong it defies logic, but are in actuality very rare.

The DV link scares the bejezus out of me. It is a great example of equal rights not being equal and feminism "not" being about being equal.


----------



## farsidejunky

technovelist said:


> Here's some of the "good" news on child support in Massachusetts:
> 
> 'In many of the jurisdictions where child support is substantially more than the $9,000 per year that the USDA estimates as the actual cost of caring for a child we learned about the practice of selling abortions. From the Massachusetts chapter:
> 
> Due to the $40,144 number at the top of the guidelines, the 23 years over which child support is payable, and the convention whereby a defendant must pay a plaintiff's legal fees, Massachusetts is one of the most lucrative states for the marketing of abortions. In our interviews we learned about a 40-year-old entrepreneur who was dating a seemingly carefree 25-year-old. Two months later, the young woman presented the man with a positive pregnancy test result, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing the $923,312 in child support that he would owe over 23 years, plus a likely $300,000 college budget and additional amounts for health insurance, day care, etc. Her attorney offered to sell her abortion for $250,000 plus legal fees and the cost of the abortion itself. The man paid the $250,000, which was tax-free to the woman. Could that be considered extortion? "It is not extortion nor illegal to threaten to have a baby," responded Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk, when asked to consider the facts of this incident. Asked to comment on the prevalence of abortion transactions in Massachusetts, another attorney said "This is a good state in which to work your mind and education, but it is a great state in which to work your body and child."
> 
> Attorneys report that one issue in abortion sales is establishing paternity. "When I'm involved in an abortion transaction on the father's side," noted one lawyer, "I recommend a paternity test if there is any possible doubt. The person who sells an abortion is not necessarily the most reliable source of information." Is it possible to do a paternity test on a fetus? "Absolutely," the lawyer continued. "They can do it after a couple of months using the mother's blood and a blood sample from the father. It's called 'NIPP' [Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity] and relies on the fact that some of the baby's DNA makes its way into the mother's blood.'
> 
> (from Real World Divorce: Child Support Litigation without a Marriage)


That is disgusting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Mgtows accuse women (as a group) of hypocrisy on this front. They claim that women desire the legal benefits of equality while simultaneously attempting to hold on to the social benefits of inequality. Extravagant engagement rings and expectations about them are a typical example they bring up.


I would agree with them.

However, there are a lot of equally derogatory gender stereotypes about men that do not apply to the husband that I chose because I would have rather been single than settle for things that were not acceptable to me.

Women will change when men refuse to tolerate the hypocrisy that many women embody (ie financial dependence) and in this aspect, I support men that stand up for themselves. 

What I dislike about the MGTOW movement is simply that they disavow and stereotype ALL women. Nothing they say applies to me or any of the women in my social group.



> I think when women say "why can't I find a good man" past 30, what they really mean is "why can't I find a man way out of my league that used to bang me in college to marry me".


I can't say I had any issues finding men after divorce. 

But I broke all the dating rules because I think they're stupid. I was very clear right up front about exactly what I was looking for and what my long-term relationship goals were. I asked a lot of very detailed questions on the very first date to rule out men I wasn't compatible with and my current husband and I exchanged health and financial data as soon as we decided that we wanted to date exclusively (within the first month). I wanted to make sure there were no surprises and I'm sure so did he.

I actually think the game playing during dating is irritating and contradictory to finding a relationship. Men very much like clarity and so do I. And being clear and upfront made my dating life far more plentiful and easy...not the other way around.


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> the statutory rape things are just so wrong it defies logic, but are in actuality very rare.
> 
> The DV link scares the bejezus out of me. It is a great example of equal rights not being equal and feminism "not" being about being equal.


I agree it's not common. It's not like women are lining up to do this. Most never would. Just indicative of the overall issues in the US Legal system. They would never, ever consider making a 14yo mother give up the kid to the 34 year old dad, and force her to pay him child support. They would lock him in prison. She would keep the child. He would pay child support. And he would never see his progeny. Which would be just. But if you're a guy....

Most men don't recognize just how dangerous the court system is. One false report, and you're toast. No evidence needed, her word is gold. I feel terribly sorry for the chumps out there who live in dreamland. They think if this happens, they'll go to court, they'll ask for equal visitation, equal split, etc, and that the court will see their desire to be a good dad, their sterling criminal record, and rule "ah yes, you should share the kids equally." In truth, the law views them as vile monsters who have abused their kids and spouse; and if they haven't, it's because they haven't _yet_. 

There are ways to make yourself above such things. And everyone should.


----------



## always_alone

OMFG! Well, have to say I'm super glad I don't live in the same land of paranoia and false statistics that so many of the posters here seem to live in.

In my world, women actually like men, find them attractive, and aren't just aiming to con them out of cash, men often take up custodial roles and want to give their children the best they can, and neither women nor men are so bloody obsessed about ranking each other on some ridiculous one-dimensional scale that actually means nothing at all except "I feel super entitled".


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> OMFG! Well, have to say I'm super glad I don't live in the same land of paranoia and false statistics that so many of the posters here seem to live in.


You made some valid points in this thread. But now these statistics are false and people are paranoid simply because you don't like what they are saying? Can you refute them? Are you really falling back on the "I think this is stupid so I don't like it" response? Maybe you just don't want to admit they have a point. 

Way to show the men you can be just as logical as they can. 

Well at least some of the men....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Most men don't recognize just how dangerous the court system is. One false report, and you're toast. No evidence needed, her word is gold. I feel terribly sorry for the chumps out there who live in dreamland. They think if this happens, they'll go to court, they'll ask for equal visitation, equal split, etc, and that the court will see their desire to be a good dad, their sterling criminal record, and rule "ah yes, you should share the kids equally." In truth, the law views them as vile monsters who have abused their kids and spouse; and if they haven't, it's because they haven't yet.


There's no doubt that the divorce courts were filled with false DV charges at one point so that female litigants could gain unfair advantage in child custody and equalization but the tables are turning.

If you're going to make DV claims these days, you'd better have police reports. Judges are a lot less likely to buy bogus DV charges and it can actually blow up in your face. Judges seriously are starting to turn the tables on vexatious litigants.

Personally though, I think any woman who's found making false DV charges should be spending some time in jail and paying fines similar to slander/libel penalties.


----------



## soccermom2three

always_alone said:


> OMFG! Well, have to say I'm super glad I don't live in the same land of paranoia and false statistics that so many of the posters here seem to live in.
> 
> In my world, women actually like men, find them attractive, and aren't just aiming to con them out of cash, men often take up custodial roles and want to give their children the best they can, and neither women nor men are so bloody obsessed about ranking each other on some ridiculous one-dimensional scale that actually means nothing at all except "I feel super entitled".


Yeah, I don't where these guys live either. I don't know any men that think or feel this way. I all know is my 50+ year old girlfriends are having a blast dating men their own age, (men that are supposed to be dating 20 years younger, I guess). One just got married and others are NOT looking to marry in the near future but have boyfriends. Supposedly my friends are all supposed to be living alone with their cats, lol.


----------



## john117

The amateur sociologist in me would love to know how many of those merry 50 somethings walked out of marriages or had someone walk out on them, as well as their revenue streams...


----------



## Faithful Wife

FalconKing said:


> You made some valid points in this thread. But now these statistics are false and people are paranoid simply because you don't like what they are saying? Can you refute them? Are you really falling back on the "I think this is stupid so I don't like it" response? Maybe you just don't want to admit they have a point.


I think what she meant was...

Most people in her life (also in mine) don't go around trying to find stats that make them focus on a small number of people who behave really badly of the opposite gender, and then use this information to form their opinion about the opposite gender. 

In other words...we could easily go and dig up all kind of stats that would hilight how dangerous, despicable and disgusting certain men are (and there are plenty), and then FOCUS on those stats and examples and then come to believe that these stats have a lot to do with the majority of men...and then we could stay focused on these details (about random, statistical men) and decide that "lots of men are like this". We could further then treat men like crap because we have shackled them with this view we have of them.

But we don't do that, even though those stats about dangerous and despicable men are THERE in multitudes. We realize that the worst of society's men doesn't represent "men". We love men and want to date them and have sex with them and maybe marry them and have their babies.

And we don't know men or women in our lives who focus on these types of stats just to prove to themselves over and over how victimized they are by the opposite gender and how much they dislike what these lowest members of society are doing. 

Instead we know men and women who want to be with each other, aren't trying to jerk anyone around, aren't raping children, aren't trying to take advantage of legal systems, and aren't trying to demonize the opposite gender to anyone.

The very few people I've known in my real life who WERE like this, were not friends of mine and I quickly realized they were hyperfocused on weird sh*t (IMO), so I distanced myself or cut them out of my life completely.

Everyone I know...is just groovin' with the opposite sex (or same, if gay), having sex, having babies, getting married, getting boyfriends/girlfriends, genuinely loving the opposite sex, and it is that simple.

Always can correct me but I'm pretty sure this is what she meant.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> The amateur sociologist in me would love to know how many of those merry 50 somethings walked out of marriages or had someone walk out on them, as well as their revenue streams...


I know plenty of similar women in similar situations. I'm sorry that your main example of the US dating/mating culture seems to come from McMansion Suburbia, where apparently every man dumps his woman when she's old. But the reality is....old chicks be gettin' down with plenty of dates. All walks of life, all reasons for getting there, all types of revenue stream situations.

No matter how many guys want to tell themselves that women will feel horrible for how they've not wanted to sleep with decent guys when they were young and hot because they were chasing the hot dudes and now they are old and NO MAN wants to be with him...you are wrong.

Which is actually good news for you, after you are divorced.

Or maybe that's why you were asking?


----------



## Cosmos

soccermom2three said:


> Yeah, I don't where these guys live either. I don't know any men that think or feel this way. I all know is my 50+ year old girlfriends are having a blast dating men their own age, (men that are supposed to be dating 20 years younger, I guess). One just got married and others are NOT looking to marry in the near future but have boyfriends. Supposedly my friends are all supposed to be living alone with their cats, lol.


Same here...

As an older woman, I'm too busy planning a wedding and buying a new home with my SO to have time for cats right now. :laugh:


----------



## john117

I know. I'm just trying to understand the over 50 dating scene. McMansion suburbia distorts the reality to a significant degree.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> I think what she meant was...
> 
> Most people in her life (also in mine) don't go around trying to find stats that make them focus on a small number of people who behave really badly of the opposite gender, and then use this information to form their opinion about the opposite gender.
> 
> In other words...we could easily go and dig up all kind of stats that would hilight how dangerous, despicable and disgusting certain men are (and there are plenty), and then FOCUS on those stats and examples and then come to believe that these stats have a lot to do with the majority of men...and then we could stay focused on these details (about random, statistical men) and decide that "lots of men are like this". We could further then treat men like crap because we have shackled them with this view we have of them.
> 
> But we don't do that, even though those stats about dangerous and despicable men are THERE in multitudes. We realize that the worst of society's men doesn't represent "men". We love men and want to date them and have sex with them and maybe marry them and have their babies.
> 
> And we don't know men or women in our lives who focus on these types of stats just to prove to themselves over and over how victimized they are by the opposite gender and how much they dislike what these lowest members of society are doing.
> 
> Instead we know men and women who want to be with each other, aren't trying to jerk anyone around, aren't raping children, aren't trying to take advantage of legal systems, and aren't trying to demonize the opposite gender to anyone.
> 
> The very few people I've known in my real life who WERE like this, were not friends of mine and I quickly realized they were hyperfocused on weird sh*t (IMO), so I distanced myself or cut them out of my life completely.
> 
> Everyone I know...is just groovin' with the opposite sex (or same, if gay), having sex, having babies, getting married, getting boyfriends/girlfriends, genuinely loving the opposite sex, and it is that simple.
> 
> Always can correct me but I'm pretty sure this is what she meant.


That's great. But...

There is a general bias towards men. It is absurdly obvious and a lot of women just will not admit that. You dance around everything you can and just won't say it. Yes some men are angry. But if some of you only admit that, there wouldn't so much of this. You will not. There are situations with women dealing with men where most people will assume the man is wrong. You can commit the same crimes a man commits and you will likely receive a lesser punishment. Right are wrong, society expects more from men and tries to impose harsher consequences. By throwing those numbers around where some one could say "hmm..I do understand your concerns" it was suddenly ridiculous to talk about and "we can use numbers to say anything.."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

FalconKing said:


> That's great. But...
> 
> There is a general bias towards men. It is absurdly obvious and a lot of women just will not admit that. You dance around everything you can and just won't say it. Yes some men are angry. But if some of you only admit that, there wouldn't so much of this. You will not. There are situations with women dealing with men where most people will assume the man is wrong. You can commit the same crimes a man commits and you will likely receive a lesser punishment. Right are wrong, society expects more from men and tries to impose harsher consequences. By throwing those numbers around where some one could say "hmm..I do understand your concerns" it was suddenly ridiculous to talk about and "we can use numbers to say anything.."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Um...except what I said was true. Do you want us to post stats about the horrible crimes and dastardly deeds some men do in high numbers and then talk on and on about how horrible this is and how it represents normal men? Because we can easily do that. But we are not focused on that and we don't believe it represents most men.

Therefore, we don't really see why you are focused on the women who do dastardly deeds.

Hasn't it occurred to everyone by now that there are horrible people of both genders? Why single one gender out and talk only about them? Being a sh*t bag is not a gender thing, it is a human condition problem.

I do not agree that there is a "general" bias against men, and I do not see that in my real life.

If you are around a lot of women who do have that general bias against men, then get away from those women. They are not doing you any good. Don't listen to them. Don't focus on them. Don't expect other women who do NOT feel that way and don't associate with others who do, to feel bad for the deeds and thoughts of those women.

There is a bias against women in MANY men. I do not associate with them and I do not think most men are like this. I also do not expect you to atone for or feel the need to justify what horrible men do or compare them to yourself (or any man) in any way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

john117 said:


> I know. I'm just trying to understand the over 50 dating scene. McMansion suburbia distorts the reality to a significant degree.


Yes it does. If you are ever on the dating scene for real again, you'll see something much different.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> Um...except what I said was true. Do you want us to post stats about the horrible crimes and dastardly deeds some men do in high numbers and then talk on and on about how horrible this is and how it represents normal men? Because we can easily do that. But we are not focused on that and we don't believe it represents most men.
> 
> Therefore, we don't really see why you are focused on the women who do dastardly deeds.
> 
> Hasn't it occurred to everyone by now that there are horrible people of both genders? Why single one gender out and talk only about them? Being a sh*t bag is not a gender thing, it is a human condition problem.
> 
> I do not agree that there is a "general" bias against men, and I do not see that in my real life.
> 
> If you are around a lot of women who do have that general bias against men, then get away from those women. They are not doing you any good. Don't listen to them. Don't focus on them. Don't expect other women who do NOT feel that way and don't associate with others who do, to feel bad for the deeds and thoughts of those women.
> 
> There is a bias against women in MANY men. I do not associate with them and I do not think most men are like this. I also do not expect you to atone for or feel the need to justify what horrible men do or compare them to yourself (or any man) in any way.


Why did you even quote my post? You just pretty much reworded what you just said. And there are no laws that favor men when dealing with women. And it's true that men receive harsher sentences for the same crimes women commit. But like I said. You won't give men that. I guess another woman has to say it. But she did you probably wouldn't even respond to that post.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Your concerns about how men are treated are the same as the concerns many women have about how they are treated. You are focused on the laws that do not favor men, other women would be focused on the wide spread and pervasive issues in our society that do not favor women. (I am not saying I am focused on those issues myself, but many women are).

I'm sorry, but I don't care about either side of these issues. I just don't. We each have our areas of what we focus on and what we think is important.

However...for you and any man who is focused on the law issues, more power to you. Yes, please get the laws changed so that everything is equal.

And I say the same to women who are focused on issues that do not favor women...get to work on changing it.

Otherwise, I simply don't care. I get to decide what I am worried about and this is not what I decided on.

That doesn't mean I don't think you should. Rock on with it and whatever concerns you.


----------



## soccermom2three

john117 said:


> The amateur sociologist in me would love to know how many of those merry 50 somethings walked out of marriages or had someone walk out on them, as well as their revenue streams...


Two are widows and one has never been married. One of the widows was left with nothing and struggles but is getting by supporting one child in college and one about to graduate high school. The other was left a life insurance policy but nothing that left her rich, she still has to work and she has one married daughter and another in college. The one that just got married for the first time at 50 has her own career and supported herself for years before marriage.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> Your concerns about how men are treated are the same as the concerns many women have about how they are treated. You are focused on the laws that do not favor men, other women would be focused on the wide spread and pervasive issues in our society that do not favor women. (I am not saying I am focused on those issues myself, but many women are).
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't care about either side of these issues. I just don't. We each have our areas of what we focus on and what we think is important.
> 
> However...for you and any man who is focused on the law issues, more power to you. Yes, please get the laws changed so that everything is equal.
> 
> And I say the same to women who are focused on issues that do not favor women...get to work on changing it.
> 
> Otherwise, I simply don't care. I get to decide what I am worried about and this is not what I decided on.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't think you should. Rock on with it and whatever concerns you.


You didn't have try to make it sound so passionate and profound. Just say you don't care because acknowledging it gives some credence to male concerns. And you have some mental contract that says you are not allowed to talk about male suffering unless you can coincide it with equal or more extreme female concern. But when you bring legality into, there is nothing at all that benefits men more than women. So you disregard anything to do with that. Women have to be concerned about sexual assaults because on the average men are physically stronger. That is a legitimate threat. But there are no "issues" that men benefit from and women don't.

This is what guys don't see when they get into these debates with you. They waste their time and then they get banned.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

FalconKing said:


> You didn't have try to make it sound so passionate and profound. Just say you don't care because acknowledging it gives some credence to male concerns. And you have some mental contract that says you are not allowed to talk about male suffering unless you can coincide it with equal or more extreme female concern. But when you bring legality into, there is nothing at all that benefits men more than women. So you disregard anything to do with that. Women have to be concerned about sexual assaults because on the average men are physically stronger. That is a legitimate threat. But there are no "issues" that men benefit from and women don't.
> 
> This is what guys don't see when they get into these debates with you. They waste their time and then they get banned.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Wow, FK. I was simply stating my opinion. 

You saying "You have some mental contract that says you are not allowed to talk about male suffering unless..." is just silly. You don't know what is in my mind and you are clearly not open to what I'm saying. I have said nothing to insult you or imply you are wrong in what you choose to focus on.

I simply disagree with a lot of what you have said in the past few posts. Yet I'm not going to speculate that you have some mental contract or agenda or are only a one line thinker.

I don't know where your hostility toward me is coming from but, ok think whatever you want.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But just for you FK, I'll bow out of this thread. Clearly you are pissed at me or strongly dislike me or something.

I actually like you, and don't want to tangle with you or make you more upset.

Peace.


----------



## FalconKing

Are you serious? I've made logical and valid points. You are feigning to be offended or hurt by my post so that a mod bans me or removes what I wrote. Or at the very least you get an apology from me and feel like you "won" something. 

Come now:yawn2:


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> You made some valid points in this thread. But now these statistics are false and people are paranoid simply because you don't like what they are saying? Can you refute them? Are you really falling back on the "I think this is stupid so I don't like it" response? Maybe you just don't want to admit they have a point.


I have already refuted the stats of one poster who was trying to claim that custodial mothers do nothing but soak men (and society in general) for cash.

I can't even fathom where this 80% of men are beta losers who no woman wants except to sponge off of to pay for her babies comes from, or why it is such a persistent "truth" on this site, but it hardly deserves refuting. (As for trumpeting the stupid dating service survey -- that at best shows women didn't like some dating pix)

The whole women overinflate their "value" by banging "hot" men and then spend their lives looking down on their beta losers husbands is just  projection at its worst. You could just as easily say that men think they are entitled to superhottie no matter what they offer, and spend their lives looking down on other women, particularly, it would seem, if she is over 30.

That the courts see "women's word as gold", and all she has to do is point a finger and she can have any guy locked up for rape is absolutely off the wall when you look at actual statistics on this topic. Same for DV.

Does the US have some outdated laws that need to reflect better the new economic and gender role realities of the new millennium? Probably. I know that some of what people here are claiming about support and custody are absolutely *not* true where I come from, and maybe the US needs to catch up.

But holy moly there are some utterly ridiculous stats and generalizations being thrown around here that have no connection at all to the world I live in.


----------



## techmom

Hello all ladies,

This thread should be a sticky, as a reference for those threads in the ladies lounge when we are having discussions and the men interrupt with their "not all men" posts.

Plenty of material here...>

Carry on....


----------



## techmom

always_alone said:


> I have already refuted the stats of one poster who was trying to claim that custodial mothers do nothing but soak men (and society in general) for cash.
> 
> I can't even fathom where this 80% of men are beta losers who no woman wants except to sponge off of to pay for her babies comes from, or why it is such a persistent "truth" on this site, but it hardly deserves refuting. (As for trumpeting the stupid dating service survey -- that at best shows women didn't like some dating pix)
> 
> The whole women overinflate their "value" by banging "hot" men and then spend their lives looking down on their beta losers husbands is just  projection at its worst. You could just as easily say that men think they are entitled to superhottie no matter what they offer, and spend their lives looking down on other women, particularly, it would seem, if she is over 30.
> 
> That the courts see "women's word as gold", and all she has to do is point a finger and she can have any guy locked up for rape is absolutely off the wall when you look at actual statistics on this topic. Same for DV.
> 
> Does the US have some outdated laws that need to reflect better the new economic and gender role realities of the new millennium? Probably. I know that some of what people here are claiming about support and custody are absolutely *not* true where I come from, and maybe the US needs to catch up.
> 
> But holy moly there are some utterly ridiculous stats and generalizations being thrown around here that have no connection at all to the world I live in.


All I see are men who are angry for losing their privilege. Men who had the benefit of women being economically dependent on them, so they had to spread their legs and "think of England" to keep the marriage intact so the man won't throw her and the kids out on the street and hook up with the mistress. 

A time when women were medicated out of having a libido, because female sexuality was dangerous for society. Men were taught that the world was their oyster, every woman of every rank was theirs for the taking.

This is where the entitlement comes from, they are angry now because women dare exercise their right to love who they want. How dare they?! There was a time when they said that every man was guaranteed a wife, well now that the economic power has become even somewhat, the rejected men want to b!tch and moan. 

Too bad fellas...

Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out...


----------



## john117

The above is an American centric view of women. In more enlightened countries things like what you describe did not happen anywhere near the extent they happen here.. And gender relations are a lot better...

When American women wake up and start demanding stuff their sisters around the globe have had for decades maybe we can revisit this topic.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> That the courts see "women's word as gold", and all she has to do is point a finger and she can have any guy locked up for rape is absolutely off the wall when you look at actual statistics on this topic. Same for DV.


Hmmm..I don't know how off the wall that is. Maybe not a conviction. But an initial arrest is pretty much automatic. 



> Does the US have some outdated laws that need to reflect better the new economic and gender role realities of the new millennium? *Probably.* I know that some of what people here are claiming about support and custody are absolutely *not* true where I come from, and maybe the US needs to catch up.


That's probably as strong an answer I can hope to get.


----------



## Sbrown

My new favorite thread.....

The joke with my wife and I is she says "I'll never leave, I'd rather have all your money rather just half. I tell her "you better watch out, I'd rather get half my money rather than none of it." 

Scott


----------



## Heatherknows

john117 said:


> I know. I'm just trying to understand the over 50 dating scene. McMansion suburbia distorts the reality to a significant degree.


The 50 and over dating scene sounds amazing. I'm 47 now, in three years I'll divorce and find a million boyfriends. Woohoo!!!

>


----------



## ocotillo

EnigmaGirl said:


> I would agree with them.


Well just to be clear, I agree that there is quite a bit of contradiction between equality and traditional notions of romance, but I don't blame women for that.

I've heard lots and lots of women express disgust at the shameless manipulation and hot steaming guilt in jewelry industry ads, so I think the mgtows are starting with a valid observation and drawing a false conclusion from it.


----------



## Kivlor

FalconKing said:


> Hmmm..I don't know how off the wall that is. Maybe not a conviction. But an initial arrest is pretty much automatic.
> 
> 
> 
> That's *probably* as strong an answer I can hope to get.


I didn't mean a conviction, sorry if I wasn't clear. These aren't criminal courts, they are civil. You do not have the right to an attorney. If she claims assault, the rule is supposed to be "If the judge believes there is a preponderance of evidence (51% chance) that it is true or she could be in danger, then the judge must grant it. Judges here do not follow the law, and "err on the side of caution" automatically granting the temporary protection order just because the woman says so--because he doesn't want to have that on his conscience if something does go wrong. Men, on the other hand actually have to live up to the 51% rule--and often more.

When a TRO is ordered, the standard time before a court hearing is 10 days. The man is required to leave his home at gunpoint, he is not permitted to take his checkbook. If he wants to stand a chance at getting to see his kids--who he can no longer legally see--he must now provide a place for himself that they can live in, all while paying for everything he previously paid for. He has 10 days to do this in. Without access to his bank account most likely.

There are charities that will pay the legal fees for the woman, and make sure the TRO becomes permanent. There are no battered men's shelters in the US. Most shelters refuse to take men, even though they are government funded. Most DV hotlines turn men away, or recommend they go seek counseling for abusing their wives when they are not the abuser. 

Also, I don't think @Faithful Wife was trying to bait you to get you banned. I really think she means what she says. She's not trolling, at least not from the way I'm reading her here and in other threads. I think she's genuinely of the opinion that people are better than we are describing, and that if you're encountering other types, you should remove them from your life. Guys and girls. 

I tend to disagree--but that's point of view. I'm of the opinion that anyone will betray you, all they need is a little motivation. Genitals are irrelevant. People are treacherous, selfish, and petty. I hope I'm wrong, but I go by my experiences. 

On the other hand, techmom is absolutely trolling. You should beware responding to her.



techmom said:


> All I see are men who are angry for losing their privilege. Men who had the benefit of women being economically dependent on them, so they had to spread their legs and "think of England" to keep the marriage intact so the man won't throw her and the kids out on the street and hook up with the mistress.
> 
> A time when women were medicated out of having a libido, because female sexuality was dangerous for society. Men were taught that the world was their oyster, every woman of every rank was theirs for the taking.
> 
> This is where the entitlement comes from, they are angry now because women dare exercise their right to love who they want. How dare they?! There was a time when they said that every man was guaranteed a wife, well now that the economic power has become even somewhat, the rejected men want to b!tch and moan.
> 
> Too bad fellas...
> 
> Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out...


You're cute. Keep tilting at your windmills, maybe someday you'll get lucky and strike something. 

Men have nothing to be insecure about. Women only speak and participate fully in society at our sufferance. Women couldn't even get the right to vote, they had to beg men to grant it to them. And we did, because by and large, men love women. Because most of us want women to be happy. So, next time you vote, don't thank a feminist. Thank a man.


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> Men have nothing to be insecure about. Women only speak and participate fully in society at our sufferance. Women couldn't even get the right to vote, they had to beg men to grant it to them. And we did, because by and large, men love women. *Because most of us want women to be happy.* So, next time you vote, don't thank a feminist. Thank a man.


Thanks for the vote. 

And if you want to make women happy learn what they like and don't moan about it.


----------



## ocotillo

techmom said:


> All I see are men who are angry for losing their privilege. Men who had the benefit of women being economically dependent on them, so they had to spread their legs and "think of England" to keep the marriage intact so the man won't throw her and the kids out on the street and hook up with the mistress.
> 
> A time when women were medicated out of having a libido, because female sexuality was dangerous for society. Men were taught that the world was their oyster, every woman of every rank was theirs for the taking.
> 
> This is where the entitlement comes from, they are angry now because women dare exercise their right to love who they want. How dare they?! There was a time when they said that every man was guaranteed a wife, well now that the economic power has become even somewhat, the rejected men want to b!tch and moan.
> 
> Too bad fellas...
> 
> Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out...


I don't think it would be possible to get it more backwards.

I understand that the bile is offensive and hard to stomach. Mgtows don't simply gripe about that which they perceive to be unfair; they presume to know what women are consciously thinking and attributes all sorts of nasty and selfish motives to female nature itself, which is simply not true.

The irony to this whole discussion is that is exactly what the mgtows are upset about _vis-à-vis_ feminism. It doesn't simply expose that which is unfair; it presumes to know what men are consciously thinking and portrays that in negative terms. Look at what you've written above.....


----------



## tech-novelist

ocotillo said:


> I don't think it would be possible to get it more backwards.
> 
> I understand that the bile is offensive and hard to stomach. Mgtows don't simply gripe about that which they perceive to be unfair; they presume to know what women are consciously thinking and attributes all sorts of nasty and selfish motives to female nature itself, which is simply not true.
> 
> The irony to this whole discussion is that is exactly what the mgtows are upset about _vis-à-vis_ feminism. It doesn't simply expose that which is unfair; it presumes to know what men are consciously thinking and portrays that in negative terms. Look at what you've written above.....


Exactly, but don't expect feminists to admit it.


----------



## Kivlor

ocotillo said:


> I don't think it would be possible to get it more backwards.
> 
> I understand that the bile is offensive and hard to stomach. Mgtows don't simply gripe about that which they perceive to be unfair; they presume to know what women are consciously thinking and attributes all sorts of nasty and selfish motives to female nature itself, which is simply not true.
> 
> The irony to this whole discussion is that is exactly what the mgtows are upset about _vis-à-vis_ feminism. It doesn't simply expose that which is unfair; it presumes to know what men are consciously thinking and portrays that in negative terms. Look at what you've written above.....


I'm gonna add something here for a little humor. This was some epic trolling IMO


----------



## techmom

> Men have nothing to be insecure about. Women only speak and participate fully in society at our sufferance. Women couldn't even get the right to vote, they had to beg men to grant it to them. And we did, because by and large, men love women. Because most of us want women to be happy. So, next time you vote, don't thank a feminist. Thank a man.


Ok, so for all of the things blamed on feminists and feminism we should instead blame men?:surprise:

Wow talk about tilting at windmills...

Someone should inform the MRAs and MGTOW that men gave women all of these rights that make life hard for them. Whew, gee whiz, at least these uppity women are not to be blamed, because we just asked for these privileges and men gave them to us.

Do tell, why would men want to give us these rights, which will make it difficult for men in the court systems and cause them to lose all of their powers to us ungrateful, selfish, mean, hateful women?

Women suffragist: please, can we earn equal wages so I could then have the option to throw my husband out when I'm bored with him because I'm economically independent?

Male power structure: sure! Just promise that you will continue to sleep with at least 80% of us even though you won't be attracted to us?

Women suffragist: what?

I guess women went their own way first?


----------



## OptingOut

"All I see are men who are angry for losing their privilege."

Losing what privilege? Having a women in your life isn't a privilege. It's a gigantic burden. I'm far more privileged than my married friends and coworkers by not having a wife. Why do you think most men in Japan want nothing to do with relationships with women and why that trend is exploding globally? Women are a huge burden. I think it's time to take a good look at yourself, drop your entitled princess mentality and ask what YOU bring to the relationship besides a vagina. That entitled attitude of yours is now the norm amongst women - which is the basis for men saying "see ya - no thanks" to commitment and marriage. Committed relationships with women are not worth the burden and price. Marriage is simply out of the question. Thankfully, next year, women get to experience the "privilege" of getting ordered to their deaths in the military via combat orders. All I can say is HOO-RAY. I can't wait to see how women deal with that male privilege. I predict mass pregnancies upon receiving combat orders or the sudden onset of chronic period cramps. Next, we need to introduce women to the privilege of signing up for the draft, the privilege of criminal sentencing equal to men, and the privilege of far more of the dirty, dangerous, life threatening jobs that have been traditionally associated with "male privilege". After that, we need to reverse the enormous overage of taxpayer funding for women's health, education and welfare back to something that resembles fairness to men, drop Title IX, VAWA and Affirmative Consent (all hypergynocentric privileges that distort reality and actively discriminate against men). Gosh - all of these male privileges. Too many to count.

"Men who had the benefit of women being economically dependent on them, so they had to spread their legs and "think of England" to keep the marriage intact so the man won't throw her and the kids out on the street and hook up with the mistress."

Benefit of women being economically dependent on men? That's what you call male privilege and benefit? Wow. That's quite the fantasy world in which you live. It's not a privilege to be financially responsible for another grown adult - at all - EVER. Quite the contrary. It's a huge burden and a sexist idea that has been hoisted upon men by both men and women for centuries. To this day, women don't want to marry less financially off men - but back in the bad old days, men were socially brainwashed into financially providing for women. This is male privilege? Sorry to say, but it's not. It's a huge burden from which men are finally being freed globally. Being financially responsible for women was socially enforced upon men by both men and women back in the bad old days. I don't know any man in his right mind that wants to go back to those bad old days. The married men I know with spouses that don't work or make significantly less are screwed when the divorce hammer comes down. Those that want to be financially responsible for grown adult women are naive men that will one day be destroyed through divorce. In other words, they won't wake up until it's too late. I suppose you think that men paying the majority of alimony and child support is another form of male privilege forced upon women as well. You astound me with your total and complete distortion of the truth.


"A time when women were medicated out of having a libido, because female sexuality was dangerous for society. Men were taught that the world was their oyster, every woman of every rank was theirs for the taking."

What are you babbling about now? More women are on prescription anti-depressants or self medicating these days than at any other point in time in history. For the first time in history, as women take on more and more traditionally masculine "privileges" and roles, women's life expectancy is coming more in line with men's. Female crime rates and illegal drug use are skyrocketing. Female obesity, diabetes and heart disease are skyrocketing. There are more impoverished women now than ever. I've made a killing since the sexual revolution. It's gotten to the point where I'm now bored with vanilla sex. Your distortion of reality from a man's perspective is outrageously hilarious. Thanks for the entertainment though.

"This is where the entitlement comes from, they are angry now because women dare exercise their right to love who they want. How dare they?! There was a time when they said that every man was guaranteed a wife, well now that the economic power has become even somewhat, the rejected men want to b!tch and moan."

Here we go again. Who's the entitled one? Diamond rings, 10s upon 10s of thousands on a one day event, women first mentality, blah, blah, blah. The last thing a man should want is a guaranteed wife. That's like saying men should wish for a guaranteed life burden. I'm far, far more economically well off than my married friends and they know it. Most of them will never retire or they'll work "part time" through retirement. Conversely, I'll retire in great ease and comfort - all thanks to not having a guaranteed wife. For every woman that refuses marriage, another man is saved from divorce. You're living in a fantasy world. Please dear God - if I'm ever stupid enough to propose marriage - please let her say no. Please God.

"Too bad fellas... Don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out... "

Over the past several decades, 10s upon 10s of millions of men, in the US alone, have been destroyed by women and the man-hating courts through marriage (cultural misandry, male disposability). This is male privilege. Every year in the US, as a result, 10s upon 10s of thousands of men commit suicide. This is male privilege. See any outrage from women demanding these things halt? Nope. Know why? For the same reason they don't demand a stop to anti-male, discriminatory, unconstitutional laws like Title IX, Affirmative Action, Alimony, Child Support, WIC and don't put a halt to the massive over funding of women's health, education and welfare (even though men pay the majority of taxes). You see - it's really women that have been and are now the extremely privileged - which is why they're so desperate to rewrite history and paint men as the privileged evil aggressors when just the opposite is true. Most men are naive enough to believe women's deceit - at least at first. Why? Poody hypnosis. That woman are so incredibly narcissistic and entitled, they cannot concede to any of the above truths. Why? Deny...deny...deny. Oh yeah - they'll pay lip service to it all - like many here have - but only as a means to dismiss their entitlement and privilege and guilt trip men back into line with hypergynocentrism. Men had to fight and die for their privileges. Women were given their privileges at the cost of countless millions of men's lives. This is male privilege.

Once upon a time, a prince proposed to a princess. The princess refused. The prince lived happily ever after. The end.


----------



## ocotillo

I don't accept the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations regardless of which side advocates it. Understanding that human societies have been molded by forces more closely akin to natural selection than intelligent design is not only a healthier way to look at things, it's more accurate as well.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> I don't accept the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations regardless of which side advocates it. Understanding that human societies have been molded by forces more closely akin to natural selection than intelligent design is not only a healthier way to look at things, it's more accurate as well.


Agreed! Seriously.

If any man thinks women are a huge burden to his life, and brings nothing to the table besides a vagina, well that's his prerogative. Let him go his own way.

But the overall model of gender relations being set up here? Utterly crazy. Last I heard, we were all human, we all want and need family, love, children. We (mostly) work together to provide basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing. We support each other, we build (as much as possible) strong, safe communities. We depend on each other.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> The irony to this whole discussion is that is exactly what the mgtows are upset about _vis-à-vis_ feminism. It doesn't simply expose that which is unfair; it presumes to know what men are consciously thinking and portrays that in negative terms. Look at what you've written above.....


Unfortunately, it is very difficult to avoid the inference that men are wanting to go back to the "good old days" when women were property when they blame feminism, the pill, and sexual liberation for all of life's problems.


----------



## always_alone

OptingOut said:


> Over the past several decades, 10s upon 10s of millions of men, in the US alone, have been destroyed by women and the man-hating courts through marriage (cultural misandry, male disposability). This is male privilege. Every year in the US, as a result, 10s upon 10s of thousands of men commit suicide. This is male privilege. See any outrage from women demanding these things halt? Nope. Know why? For the same reason they don't demand a stop to anti-male, discriminatory, unconstitutional laws like Title IX, Affirmative Action, Alimony, Child Support, WIC and don't put a halt to the massive over funding of women's health, education and welfare (even though men pay the majority of taxes). You see - it's really women that have been and are now the extremely privileged - which is why they're so desperate to rewrite history and paint men as the privileged evil aggressors when just the opposite is true. Most men are naive enough to believe women's deceit - at least at first. Why? Poody hypnosis. That woman are so incredibly narcissistic and entitled, they cannot concede to any of the above truths. Why? Deny...deny...deny. Oh yeah - they'll pay lip service to it all - like many here have - but only as a means to dismiss their entitlement and privilege and guilt trip men back into line with hypergynocentrism. Men had to fight and die for their privileges. Women were given their privileges at the cost of countless millions of men's lives. This is male privilege.


So, I'm confused, which is it: On the one hand MGTOW seems to agree that women *only* speak and participate in society because of the sufferance of men, who out of the kindness of their hearts, bestowed all privilege on women. But here you seem to be saying that women always had all of the privilege, and simply used men to grab as many goodies as they could. And that the whole patriarchy thing is "rewriting history"

????

Can't have it both ways.


----------



## tech-novelist

ocotillo said:


> I don't accept the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations regardless of which side advocates it. Understanding that human societies have been molded by forces more closely akin to natural selection than intelligent design is not only a healthier way to look at things, it's more accurate as well.


Yes, natural selection is the model I use.

Unfortunately, the result of natural selection is the dual "alpha fvcks, beta bucks" mating strategy of women.

This used to be controlled by societal disapproval, but now is considered socially acceptable and in fact is highly approved of by some people. The results of that change are still working their way through society, but so far it doesn't look good in many respects.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Yes, natural selection is the model I use.
> 
> Unfortunately, the result of natural selection is the dual "alpha fvcks, beta bucks" mating strategy of women.
> 
> This used to be controlled by societal disapproval, but now is considered socially acceptable and in fact is highly approved of by some people. The results of that change are still working their way through society, but so far it doesn't look good in many respects.


Question: A true alpha male is presumably top of the pecking order and so also has most of the bucks. I'm thinking the 1% here.

Does that mean they are also beta? They do marry, after all. Most of them.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Question: A true alpha male is presumably top of the pecking order and so also has most of the bucks. I'm thinking the 1% here.
> 
> Does that mean they are also beta? They do marry, after all. Most of them.


No, when discussing sexual relationships, an alpha male is defined as one whom a lot of women want to have sex with. They may or may not be at the top of the social pecking order in other ways.

For example, a biker or ski/surf bum with very little money is often much more attractive to women than someone with a desk job who may have a fairly high income.

And of course there are men who have a *lot *of money who are anything but alpha. Bill Gates is an obvious example; although he is currently the richest man in the US, I seriously doubt that he is attractive to very many women.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> The irony to this whole discussion is that is exactly what the mgtows are upset about vis-à-vis feminism. It doesn't simply expose that which is unfair; it presumes to know what men are consciously thinking and portrays that in negative terms. Look at what you've written above..


Feminism is a very simple concept. It means that as a woman I want equal treatment, and in return, I am willing to take equal responsibility.

I expose hypocrisy in my own gender every chance I get actually. I think the double-standard that too many women expect is damaging to the goal of equality.


----------



## OptingOut

"So, I'm confused, which is it: On the one hand MGTOW seems to agree that women *only* speak and participate in society because of the sufferance of men, who out of the kindness of their hearts, bestowed all privilege on women."

I don't agree with your assessment of MGTOW. Maybe some of the less astute MGTOW see things this way. There's a lot of confusion, distortion of history and flat out lies when it comes to male privilege and the patriarchy. It takes a lot of time to sort through it all. There are a lot of MGTOW that have yet to catch up to the full reality. Given time, they will. Men jokingly refer to the mistake of giving women the vote, the ability to wear shoes and the act of not being constantly impregnated - but most know that women demanded it and got it with no war and without much ado from men. When did I say women only speak and participate in society because of the sufferance of men? Men were given the right to vote in exchange for conscription and their lives. Millions of men, in the US alone, have fought and died for their rights since then. Prior to conscription, most men didn't have the right to vote either. The truly privileged handful of men (the patriarchy) gave men the right to vote in exchange for their lives. Women asked for and were given their privileges free of charge - without conscription or any major sacrifice on their part. Prior to that, they didn't see having these male "privileges" as being in their best interests. Quite cunning when you think about it. When did I say that men gave women all of their privileges over men because of their kind hearts? A lot of men are outright morons when it comes to female nature. A lot of these men are simple, easily manipulated men without a spine. When it was best for women to rely on men for financial support and protection, that's exactly what they did. As soon as work became more potentially glamorous, more safe, more economically feasible and far easier (office jobs), women demanded to be let into the workforce. When women figured out that they could force the redistribution of men's wealth and power over to themselves through the state and get protection by the state, that's exactly what they did next. Why do you think women only voice their concerns about equality in employment when it comes to the most prestigious, lucrative and powerful positions? I know without a shadow of a doubt why. I don't kid myself when it comes to female nature. Women are far more cunning than men give them credit.

Men's worst enemies are the naive white knights in congress. They're not kind hearted at all. They're cowards and fools. They know if they don't appease the gynocracy, they'll be voted out of office. Rather than give the majority of men a fair shake, they throw the majority of men under the bus. That's where VAWA came from and where Affirmative Consent will spread like a cancer across the globe. Already, women are demanding that Affirmative Consent be pushed up to the criminal justice level - which will be granted by the cowardly dish rags that run congress, the white house and the legislative branch. It's all about removing the majority of men's rights in favor of more privileges for women. There is no natural selection any more. The privileged just keep giving women the store a screwing men into oblivion - so that they can keep their privilege and jobs. All this talk of equality and now women's groups are starting to fight the equality of female conscription and pointing out women are not equal to men when it comes to combat roles. It's hilariously obvious to all but the most self-delusional that women aren't after equality but rather forced wealth and power transfer from men to women - via the power of big daddy government. That's were alimony and child support originated. The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) wrote the no-fault divorce legislation to ensure that women would be entitled to their husbands present and future assets and income in the event of a divorce. They demanded no-fault divorce and the handful of men in the patriarchy gave it to them. Feminists, the state and the powerful white knight judges bowed to women's demands and went about conducting the largest mass emasculation of men by women in history. Equality? Give me a break. Ronald Reagan, white knight extraordinaire, was the first to enact no-fault divorce in California. After that, divorce rates went up to 70% and stayed there for decades. After so many reporting periods of a 70% divorce rate, well over a decade ago, California stopped reporting their divorce statistics. Other states have followed California's lead - which makes the true impact of divorce on men far more difficult to calculate. How convenient for women - the majority of those that file for divorce and the vast majority of recipients of alimony and child support. There are no kind hearts to be found in these facts. Only greed, deceit, cunning and the mass exploitation of men for the benefit and privilege of women.

Powerful, cowardly male morons (white knights) that hand women privileges over men are not kind hearted. They're a cancer to all men and they need to be recognized as being such and then eliminated from society. Natural selection my @$$. Men are tired of the establishment idiots that serve as tools of the gynocracy. Obama himself is exploiting the wickedly false college rape statistics. Why? I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with him having a heart or kindness. He's throwing the majority of men under the bus to serve his gynocentric, victim class base and preserve power for his liberal elites and cronies. BTW, I despise both conservatives and liberals equally - so I'm not picking sides here.

Women didn't force men to give them anything. If they did, where was the war in which this force was enacted and successful? Women demanded privilege over men and powerful men - a handful of men women call the patriarchy - gave them their privileges and power over men at the sacrifice of countless millions of men lives. These men, the patriarchy, did just what women demanded. There was no war in which women sacrificed for their rights. It's no different than a women being handed a job through affirmative action or greater funding through Title IX. Now women demand to have the right to have college men expelled over regret sex - removing men's rights to presumption of innocence and due process and giving women the power to destroy men when women are displeased. There's actually a movement now to make all I've said so far a crime against women, punished by imprisonment and job loss (cyber violence). Again, women want the power to destroy men's lives, like they do though the ring of power. The goal is to make men's voices a crime and criminalize masculinity. Once again, the white knights in congress will throw men under the bus at the demand of women. Why? So that they can keep their privilege and power over most men. No war by women for rights - just demands for privilege and power over the majority of men being enacted by cowardly dish rags. Natural selection my @$$.

Most men can't see the above for themselves because they've been brainwashed and socially conditioned to "respect all women" and to have a female-first, gynocentric mindset since birth.


----------



## ocotillo

technovelist said:


> Unfortunately, the result of natural selection is the dual "alpha fvcks, beta bucks" mating strategy of women.


I guess that might fall more under the umbrella of evolutionary psychology, which focuses on human behavior. 

Although it's not natural selection in the organic sense, human societies themselves have been subject to selective pressures too. It would be tough for a peaceful, egalitarian society to compete with one organized more along military lines, for example. 

Thinking of things in terms of "fairness" simply wasn't a luxury. This wasn't the fault of men or women; it was just cold, hard reality.


----------



## Kivlor

always_alone said:


> Question: A true alpha male is presumably top of the pecking order and so also has most of the bucks. I'm thinking the 1% here.
> 
> Does that mean they are also beta? They do marry, after all. Most of them.


I refuse to give in to the alpha - beta dynamic. I just don't see enough evidence for the way it is applied. Sure, some guys are more of an "alpha male" than some others, but overall, I just don't see the 80/20 or even 99/1. These supposed "alpha males", IMO, make up a much larger percentage of the population. If a guy wants to be one, he probably can (some exceptions apply). You control how you behave. It's one of the places I disagree with MGTOW on.

I think a lot of the issues are about failure to adapt to the laws we enact on ourselves. Times change. Some people are left behind. Before the modern era, the advent of the information age, if a man caught another man with his wife, he'd kill the OM. Today, we discourage such behaviors, and many men don't know how to adapt. Not that that's a bad thing, but it does pose a conundrum for them. Women are similar; we're all jealous and territorial by nature, some control it better than others.

As far as the part where I said "women participate in society at our sufferance", I think the historical evidence is ample. Men like women. They will do just about anything to make them happy. Women wanted laws changed, and got loud / complained, so men changed them. It's why women in the US and UK can vote today. It's why it's against the law to pay them less just because of their gender, or to exclude them from just about anything. It's not like women took the right to vote by force. Nor Equal Pay. They made clear their opinions to a bunch of men, and the men said "Ok, we'll change that for you."

I don't attribute most of the issues I've discussed or bemoaned in this thread to malice. I disagree with OptingOut, having women in your life isn't a burden--it does pose risks though. Women didn't deceive men into granting Title IX, Equal Pay, Alimony laws, Predominant Aggressor laws, preference in child custody etc, etc. They complained until guys by and large said "enough, I'll give you what you want if it'll make you happy and give me peace and quiet." I think the reason why women are treated more lightly by judges and juries is that we have a natural disposition to like women and view them as weak and in need of protection. 
@techmom The MRA's know that men granted this to you. They're lobbying for men to change their minds, and enact truly equal laws. They'll probably win, in time. In general, women like men, just as men like women; many will, in time, come around to supporting the legal changes that are necessary for equality under the law.

Since you actually believe women somehow earned or took the right to vote, prove it. What day was it that the Women's Suffrage movement occupied DC and_ forced _the men in Congress to sign the 19th Amendment? When did they occupy 30+ state capitols and_ force _their Legislatures to ratify? Same with every other "feminist" law. Drafted by men, voted for by mostly male congressmen (only men in the case of the 19th Amendment). Women asked, men responded. We granted everything you have to you. You should be grateful, not hateful. It's all a sign of just how much men truly like women. :grin2:


----------



## ocotillo

EnigmaGirl said:


> Feminism is a very simple concept. It means that as a woman I want equal treatment, and in return, I am willing to take equal responsibility.


It is indeed a very simple concept and one that I agree with. 

Things get complicated when the social movements through which simple concepts are expressed reach a certain critical mass though. As W. P. Brown put it, "...the idea having embodied itself in an organization, the organization then proceeds gradually to slay the idea which gave it birth."

When Gloria Steinem proposed "prick flicks" as a distaff corollary to "chick flicks" and suggested that _Boxing Helena_ would be a good candidate for this genre, her meaning was clear.

_Boxing Helena_ was a horrible, gruesome movie about a deranged surgeon who abducts a woman and holds her captive by amputating her limbs. The idea that this would hold an intrinsic appeal to men is a good example of what I was talking about.


----------



## always_alone

OptingOut said:


> It's all about removing the majority of men's rights in favor of more privileges for women. There is no natural selection any more. The privileged just keep giving women the store a screwing men into oblivion - so that they can keep their privilege and jobs.


This is a pretty interesting interpretation of history. The patriarchy throws men under the bus to preserve *their* privilege and power.

But still it's women to blame because society is hypeegynocentric?


----------



## always_alone

Kivlor said:


> As far as the part where I said "women participate in society at our sufferance", I think the historical evidence is ample. Men like women. They will do just about anything to make them happy. Women wanted laws changed, and got loud / complained, so men changed them. It's why women in the US and UK can vote today. It's why it's against the law to pay them less just because of their gender, or to exclude them from just about anything. It's not like women took the right to vote by force. Nor Equal Pay. They made clear their opinions to a bunch of men, and the men said "Ok, we'll change that for you."


Seriously, this is not at all how any of this went down.

Agree with you wholeheartedly about the alpha -beta nonsense though. How someone can be simultaneously convinced that money ups a man's alpha status, but that it also turns him into a beta provider is, well, just incoherent. And the idea that there are two kinds of guys, a small set that women want to sleep with and a huge set that women absolutely don't want anything but their money? Ridiculous. The only explanation I can see for this is that it is projection, pure and simple.


----------



## Cosmos

> Posted by Kivlor View Post
> 
> As far as the part where I said "women participate in society at our sufferance", I think the historical evidence is ample. Men like women. They will do just about anything to make them happy. Women wanted laws changed, and got loud / complained, so men changed them. It's why women in the US and UK can vote today. It's why it's against the law to pay them less just because of their gender, or to exclude them from just about anything. It's not like women took the right to vote by force. Nor Equal Pay. They made clear their opinions to a bunch of men, and the men said "Ok, we'll change that for you."


This is such a load of bo!!ocks it's hardly worth responding to, save to point out that Society wouldn't exist if it weren't for both men and women, and there's a lot more to women participating in it than men's mere sufferance.

As for women gaining the right to vote, women worked extremely hard to gain this right, and they only did so because of extended political campaigns by them and their supporters. If you think that all this happened because a bunch of men suddenly had a brain fart and said: "OK, we'll change that for you," your knowledge of history is abysmal.

Kivlor, you must be the happiest man alive. I hear that ignorance is bliss...

On that note, I'm out of here. It's difficult to read this sort of nasty, insulting garbage and remain civil anymore.


----------



## Heatherknows

Cosmos said:


> On that note, I'm out of here. It's difficult to read this sort of nasty garbage and remain civil anymore.


Don't go. We haven't answered the question started by the OP:

Is MGTOW for real?

The answer is no. In the end they make a fun weird internet thread but in reality those guys will wind up in relationships with women and be done with it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> Don't go. We haven't answered the question started by the OP:
> 
> Is MGTOW for real?
> 
> The answer is no. In the end they make a fun weird internet thread but in reality those guys will wind up in relationships with women and be done with it.


And here we go again, with women telling men what MGTOW actually are like. Any man who tried to tell women what feminists actually are like would, of course, be a misogynist.


----------



## Personal

OptingOut said:


> Thankfully, next year, women get to experience the "privilege" of getting ordered to their deaths in the military via combat orders. All I can say is HOO-RAY. I can't wait to see how women deal with that male privilege. I predict mass pregnancies upon receiving combat orders or the sudden onset of chronic period cramps.


Why don't you look up Leigh Ann Hester, Kellie McCoy, Veronica Alfaro and Monica Lin Brown amongst others.

With reference to United States military service, considering the fact that as of April 2015 161 women have lost their lives while 1,015 have been wounded on operations since 9/11 you evidently haven't got a clue.

At the same time over 9,000 women have received Army Combat Action Badges for actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy. While in 2012 the US Army reported that 437 women had earned awards for valour. Inclusive of two Silver Stars, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, 31 Air Medals and 16 Bronze Stars.

Despite all of the above, you carry on about pregnancy and period cramps. Considering your claims, I would be very surprised to learn that you have ever had the courage to do any military service yourself, unlike plenty of women who actually have.


----------



## sambolini

MGTOW is for real in the sense that some men find value in its way of life.

I'm MGTOW. I don't eschew relationships, but I don't seek them out either. I definitely won't marry again, nor will I comingle my funds with another person; I think that's just good business sense.

I own my own 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house out in the country; I own my car outright; I make good money doing something I enjoy; and I have a substantial savings. My life is pretty much in order, and it became that way once I adopted the MGTOW lifestyle (which I didn't even know existed until I started searching for like-minded people online; that's when I discovered that I wasn't alone in my preference for independence and autonomy).

For me, it's not about trying to prove "who is worse off". It's about "do I find happiness living this way?" If the answer is yes, then that's really what's important.


----------



## tech-novelist

sambolini said:


> MGTOW is for real in the sense that some men find value in its way of life.
> 
> I'm MGTOW. I don't eschew relationships, but I don't seek them out either. I definitely won't marry again, nor will I comingle my funds with another person; I think that's just good business sense.
> 
> I own my own 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house out in the country; I own my car outright; I make good money doing something I enjoy; and I have a substantial savings. My life is pretty much in order, and it became that way once I adopted the MGTOW lifestyle (which I didn't even know existed until I started searching for like-minded people online; that's when I discovered that I wasn't alone in my preference for independence and autonomy).
> 
> For me, it's not about trying to prove "who is worse off". *It's about "do I find happiness living this way?" If the answer is yes, then that's really what's important.*


No, no, *that *is impossible! You must hate women and be a bitter loser who can't get laid. Right? >


----------



## OptingOut

always_alone said:


> This is a pretty interesting interpretation of history. The patriarchy throws men under the bus to preserve *their* privilege and power.
> 
> But still it's women to blame because society is hypeegynocentric?


Well duh. The privileged men go to college (dodge the draft) and the less fortunate men have body parts blown off in combat to die for women and privileged men. Privileged men also become high ranking officers and for the most part hide behind the grunts in combat. When they're not hiding behind these less fortunate men in combat, they're treating them like dirt, paying them next to nothing and working them like slaves. There are exceptions but they're far from the norm. 

Still to this day, if a ship is sinking, it's women first, privileged men next and the less privileged men last. I left out kids because they're helpless and unable to fend for themselves. God help the man that puts his own life before some female stranger's life. He'll be dragged through the cesspool of liberal and conservative misndrists in the media, cast out of society and/or put in prison (cultural misandry/male disposability). That's male privilege. That's equality. Of course it sounds crazy. Much of life is utter insanity. Most don't like the truth when it paints them in a bad light, so they plug their ears and shout illusions and enchantments to mitigate their guilt and save their feelz.

I guarantee you that if women cry loud enough there won't be female conscription. The gynocracy's @$$ kissing white knights will see to it. Why? To get elected, re-elected and to maintain their privilege and power over other men. If men did the same, both the patriarchy and gynocracy will label those men cowards, do their best to destroy the lives of men that dissent and do their best to get them to "man up" and die for women and privileged men.

Some crazy old gynocratic @$$ kisser in the UK parliament thinks it's misogynistic that when men break up with their cohabiting girlfriends, these girlfriends don't get asset division and "maintenance payments" like their married counterparts. So what did he do? Why he put forth the Cohabitation Rights Bill, of course. Soon, should a cohabiting man in the UK break up with his girlfriend after X number of months of cohabitation, his girlfriend will have the same rights to asset division and forced wealth transfer that her married counterparts so enjoy. That's male privilege. That's equality.

A couple of women were recently applauded by the UN and many women's groups for proposing that men who annoy women online by calling them liars or otherwise dissenting from gynocentric PC views be punished with some sort of criminal conviction. Gynocentric Canada is taking in women and children refugees only. Single men need not apply - as if there are no female suicide bombers or female terrorist mass murderers. Their new gynocentric @$$ kisser PM just awarded half of all cabinet positions to women - because vagina. You don't get any more gynocentric than that.

Women don't want equality of opportunity. They want equality of outcome (i.e., they want to force wealth and power from men to women via the gynocracy's white knight @$$ kissers we call local, state and federal government male elected officials. I've read that women prefer to have mostly men in elected positions because it benefits them more than having mostly female elected officials. This explains why women are the majority of voters but men are the majority of elected officials. I can definitely see how this works in their favor.

See any women demanding that men be given greater priority in college since women are now the majority of graduates thanks to anti-male Title IX? Nope. Instead, they're using the patriarchy and Title IX to gradually strip men of their constitutional rights though Affirmative Consent regret sex laws. The patriarchy and women are perfect bedfellows.

It doesn't get any more obvious. Women don't want to accept their hypocrisy and double standards - so they simply deny that they're privileged hypocrites and manipulate men to do their bidding. Lie...lie...lie. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Yes - the patriarchy only benefits women and women and the patriarchy exploit and destroy the majority of men. We live in a highly hypergynocentric world where US women - the most privileged, spoiled, narcissistic people on the planet - deride men for male privilege and patriarchy - thereby ensuring the future of cultural misandry, male disposability, hypergynocentrism and gynocentric @$$ kissing white knights.


----------



## soccermom2three

Heatherknows said:


> Let them go their own way...nobody will care.
> 
> :surprise:


This is a quote from the first page. We don't care, really we don't. If a man wants to go his away, have at it. I think most of the women here have stated that in one way or another. 

Unfortunately, there are posters that want to turn these thread into debates about alimony, custody and ridiculous theories about suffrage.


----------



## sambolini

technovelist said:


> No, no, *that *is impossible! You must hate women and be a bitter loser who can't get laid. Right? >


LOL Yes, I've certainly been on the receiving end of that statement before.

It's all a matter of priorities. Relationships (and women in general) simply aren't a priority for me. My career, my daughter, my finances, and my independence are my top priorities, and they always will be. That's not to say that a woman couldn't find a way to become a priority of mine, but those are things I would never sacrifice for the sake of a relationship.

This means no marriage, no more children, and separate finances and assets.

I love sex, and I've always had a high sex drive. But I never allow said drive to influence my decisions. I am in control of my sexual urges; they do not control me.

I don't hate women. I'm friends with quite a few women, and find them quite pleasing to look at. I just don't forego pursuing my goals and wants for the sake of someone else's.


----------



## tom67

soccermom2three said:


> This is a quote from the first page. We don't care, really we don't. If a man wants to go his away, have at it. I think most of the women here have stated that in one way or another.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are posters that want to turn these thread into debates about alimony, custody and ridiculous theories about suffrage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xCXuvdAywg

Equality right???
Love it.


----------



## FalconKing

soccermom2three said:


> This is a quote from the first page. We don't care, really we don't. If a man wants to go his away, have at it. I think most of the women here have stated that in one way or another.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are posters that want to turn these thread into debates about alimony, custody and ridiculous theories about suffrage.


How is this unfortunate for you if you don't care? No one is forcing you to interact in this thread. It was even posted in Men's Clubhouse...


----------



## sambolini

FalconKing said:


> How is this unfortunate for you if you don't care? No one is forcing you to interact in this thread. It was even posted in Men's Clubhouse...


I wonder this same thing, too (not about the specific person to whom you were responding, but in general). If there was a lack of care, why bother posting here in the first place? :scratchhead:

Silence is one of the loudest forms of communication.


----------



## tech-novelist

sambolini said:


> I wonder this same thing, too (not about the specific person to whom you were responding, but in general). If there was a lack of care, why bother posting here in the first place? :scratchhead:
> 
> Silence is one of the loudest forms of communication.


And complaining about something is a pretty loud form too. Just not necessarily one that communicates what the complainer *thinks *is being communicated.


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> This is a quote from the first page. We don't care, really we don't. If a man wants to go his away, have at it. I think most of the women here have stated that in one way or another.


I agree with this… why would any woman care if some men decide to ‘go their own way’? Many women decide to also ‘go their own way’. Why would men care about that? There are still plenty of men and women out there .. lots of fish in the sea.

Statements like the one below make it sounds like women are being jerks about it. Who cares? I don’t’ think that any woman on this thread has stated that she’s victimized by ‘mgtow’… LOL



> just do your thing whatever it is and don't be a jerk and think that you are victimized by the opposite sex.





soccermom2three said:


> Unfortunately, there are posters that want to turn these thread into debates about alimony, custody and ridiculous theories about suffrage.


I think that this is the point of this thread and threads like this one. A ***** session about what victims men are. Oh well, everyone needs their ***** session I guess.

Now on the topic of this being the men’s forum and how dare women post here. Men post in the women’s forum as well. That’s TAM.


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> This is such a load of bo!!ocks it's hardly worth responding to, save to point out that Society wouldn't exist if it weren't for both men and women, and there's a lot more to women participating in it than men's mere sufferance.
> 
> As for women gaining the right to vote, women worked extremely hard to gain this right, and they only did so because of extended political campaigns by them and their supporters. If you think that all this happened because a bunch of men suddenly had a brain fart and said: "OK, we'll change that for you," your knowledge of history is abysmal.


Women were killed, beaten, jailed, etc. while working to gain the rights that belong to ALL citizens in this country. The idea that women did not fight a war to take the rights means that it was men's mere sufferance, is ludicrous. It is true that women did not take up arms and start blowing people away. Why? Well it's say that anytime a revolution is won without killing people, it means that those fighting for the changes were pretty smart and knew that it could be done without slaughtering others. What a novel concept.

As for the idea that men 'gave' women the right to equal pay; what a load of nonsense. By the time this became an issue, women had the right to vote. Women, as about 50% of the voters are a strong voting block. And there are even a lot of men who have their heads screwed on straight as well. 



Cosmos said:


> Kivlor, you must be the happiest man alive. I hear that ignorance is bliss...
> 
> On that note, I'm out of here. *It's difficult to read this sort of nasty, insulting garbage and remain civil anymore*.


It is difficult to read. But I think it gives us a lot of sight into the absolute anger some people harbor. Why, it's right up there with the absolute worst of the radical feminize. 

It's a warning that we have not come as far as some seem to think.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

The movement concerns me.. as all movements are "influencing"....it all trickles down, attitudes change (and not always for the better).. therefore society shifts, culture changes.. and basically we F*** ourselves and have no one to blame but ourselves for the rotten society we live in. I feel sorry for future generations. 

MGROW is just another in a long list that is destroying marriage, making a strong vocal case against it altogether.. I can understand, even sympathize with men on many of the issues they speak ... where the courts seem to favor women..things need addressed.. . I honestly feel men need more rights ...I happen to agree with @Kivlor when he said this: 



> I don't attribute most of the issues I've discussed or bemoaned in this thread to malice. I disagree with OptingOut, having women in your life isn't a burden--it does pose risks though. Women didn't deceive men into granting Title IX, Equal Pay, Alimony laws, Predominant Aggressor laws, preference in child custody etc, etc. They complained until guys by and large said "enough, I'll give you what you want if it'll make you happy and give me peace and quiet." *I think the reason why women are treated more lightly by judges and juries is that we have a natural disposition to like women *and view them as weak and in need of protection.


Which the ending here will insult any feminist. I doesn't insult me.. I am thankful that men still care to protect .. it is mind boggling to me that I should be ashamed somehow to say this. Whatever .. it's all a Mind F**K to me anymore.. Men don't want to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.. and women get oh so insulted if a man helps her .. 

I've always felt healthy marriages/ intact families are the backbone of society , which helps keep crime down.... raising more empathetic young adults who will pass on the legacy on to their own children.... 

I am not going to apologize for caring about such things.. 

I realize most today will just argue & disagree with what I just said.. it is what it is... 

What I see here from @OptingOut who probably represents the movement very well is that women like me - who believe in fairness between the sexes, hell.. even catering to a man... serving him, to be his helpmate.. well I am still nothing more than a leech.. pathetic .. not worth of any man's time.. a scourge even... 

It's sad.. 

I happen to see beauty when men & women come together and honor each other with commitment, and enhance each others lives.... 

Talking to a friend on FB about this -her words to me.. "marriage is the backbone of the family....Unless you are committed to each other for the long haul, the family will not work. When the family fails, society fails." That's pretty much how I feel. 

As for those who DO marry....be careful to marry someone who feels like this.. or yeah.. better to not go there, this I will agree.


----------



## Heatherknows

For the record, if there are any men out their that would like to protect me, please do.

Some females say they don't need protection but that isn't true. Females as a whole will always be physically weaker than men. Women are subjected to all types of abuse because of the genetically unfair advantage that men have. 

So once again gentleman: I'm happy to have your protection.


----------



## FalconKing

EleGirl said:


> I agree with this… why would any woman care if some men decide to ‘go their own way’? Many women decide to also ‘go their own way’. Why would men care about that? There are still plenty of men and women out there .. lots of fish in the sea.
> 
> I think that this is the point of this thread and threads like this one. A ***** session about what victims men are. Oh well, everyone needs their ***** session I guess.
> 
> Now on the topic of this being the men’s forum and how dare women post here. Men post in the women’s forum as well. That’s TAM.


My point wasn't that women shouldn't be posting here. She wanted to give her input to say that she doesn't care what these men are doing. Then she would have left this alone. But when some posters became vocal about the disadvantages some men face, it was unfortunate she felt compelled to stay in this thread. She felt "burdened" to interact here when she has the power to decide whether or not this is worth her time( I guess it wasn't...). Now this is just an internet forum but I think this is a great example of some complaints guys have about modern feminism. She came to a perceived man space where men discussed how they may not get the same types of benefits that society gives women. Because she doesn't like this, that makes this wrong. She doesn't think to just ignore this whole thread. She is here and they should say things she wants talk about it. And she is not interested in understanding these men may have valid concerns. 

Now your last statement I think is the generally accepted view to shame men for complainng. Nobody wants to hear it. But I can't help be feel that if this was a thread about women struggles you would have nothing but supportive things to say.

But maybe your position is a bit unique. We've talked Elegirl and I know how accomplished you are. Nobody has given you anything and you are completely self sufficient. 
You've done some amazing things and made A LOT of sacrifices for those closest to you. You don't want to hear guys talk about entitled women because that doesn't apply to you. And I can see how hearing men say they are tired of women could infuriate some posters who actually have done a lot of for men their lives. I get that. But let me share this with you. I know a guy who as a family and was just getting by. He was the lowest guy at his job and was let go. He and his family were homeless. A women's shelter took in his wife and kid but he had to go somewhere else. He lived under a bridge and was mugged. He didn't even complain. Who would care? Can you imagine a place turning you away but telling you they would take your husband and kid? Eventually he got back on his feet. But the point I am making is that the system does not favor men. And all things equal, women have more advantages in certain situations. Why is it so hard for so many women to state something to obvious? That is my contention. I am not speaking from a perspective of men that feel entitled to women. I know many do. But it does feel like many women think they lose something by admitting this.


----------



## soccermom2three

When I say I don't care, I don't mean that I don't care about the challenges men face. I have two sons.

I see MGTOW the same as gay marriage. Neither of them affect my life in any way. These are just people that want to live their lives as they see fit. 

I get the impression from some of the posts on these types of threads that women are supposed to be scared of the MGTOW movement.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

There's a difference between "protection" and "dependence"...particularly financial dependence which is damaging to both genders. I have zero respect for members of my own gender who depend on men for money and/or have no plan or ability to make their own and take care of themselves and their children. Its shameful how many women have no way to ensure financial health in the event of a marital dissolution.




> I get the impression from some of the posts on these types of threads that women are supposed to be scared of the MGTOW movement.


There's definitely an air of "you want me so bad but you can't have me" in the attitudes of some of the men on the MGTOW sites I've read. There's also this general feeling of trying to take advantage of women and not the other way around.

Anytime you get people that need to form into groups to validate their wounded-animal bitterness in generalizations about a whole group of people...whether its the KKK or the MGTOW movement...unhealthy things are going to happen. 

People...both women and men...are individuals. And they deserve to be judged on their own individual merits. I consider the MGTOW movement somewhat lazy and misguided and in reality, they really only hurt themselves because the kind of women that make good partners are turned off by any man who'd need to join such a silly cause.


----------



## Kivlor

SimplyAmorous said:


> *The movement concerns me.. as all movements are "influencing"....it all trickles down, attitudes change (and not always for the better).. therefore society shifts, culture changes.. and basically we F*** ourselves and have no one to blame but ourselves for the rotten society we live in. I feel sorry for future generations. *
> 
> *MGROW is just another in a long list that is destroying marriage, making a strong vocal case against it altogether.. I can understand, even sympathize with men on many of the issues they speak ... where the courts seem to favor women..things need addressed.. . I honestly feel men need more rights *
> 
> *I am thankful that men still care to protect .. it is mind boggling to me that I should be ashamed somehow to say this. Whatever .. it's all a Mind F**K to me anymore.. Men don't want to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free.. and women get oh so insulted if a man helps her ..
> *
> *I've always felt healthy marriages/ intact families are the backbone of society , which helps keep crime down.... raising more empathetic young adults who will pass on the legacy on to their own children....
> 
> I am not going to apologize for caring about such things..
> *
> 
> *I happen to see beauty when men & women come together and honor each other with commitment, and enhance each others lives....
> 
> Talking to a friend on FB about this -her words to me.. "marriage is the backbone of the family....Unless you are committed to each other for the long haul, the family will not work. When the family fails, society fails." That's pretty much how I feel.
> 
> As for those who DO marry....be careful to marry someone who feels like this.. or yeah.. better to not go there, this I will agree. *


This, SA, pretty well sums up how I really feel. 

Men and women are meant for cooperation; pair-bonding is the natural state for us. This claim of one alpha to several women, with the majority of men cut out is not how people are meant to operate, marriage is. It is in the best interests of men, of women, and of their children. Women don't want their men siring children with other women and soaking up resources from her children. Men want to pass on their genes and don't want to waste resources on another man's offspring. The children benefit dramatically by having 2 parents.

Of course, a lot of feminists would label me a controlling misogynist; and many MGTOW would label me a "beta" who's setting himself up to be a "****". It's a good thing I don't worry about others' opinions too much.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> It's a warning that we have not come as far as some seem to think.


I would agree with that, EleGirl, but would add a caveat. 

As a child in the early 1960's, I was exposed to a steady stream of bile and misdirected anger via a series of young, idealistic female teachers fresh out of college. 

Imagine, for example, a 6th grade teacher reading excerpts from _The Natural Superiority Of Women_ to the class and stating point blank that men are genetically inferior to women. Imagine contrived, "boys vs. girls" competitions where the girls are selected from the right-hand side of the bell curve and the boys from the left. I saw this with my own eyes and it happened in a major city on the East Coast. 

People today want to shuck and jive, twist and turn, bob and weave, claim that this sort of stuff never happened and even if it did, it was extremely isolated, but other people noticed this phenomenon and condemned it for the idiocy that it was. -People like Nobel Laureate, Doris Lessing for example.

If we want boys to grow up to have healthy attitudes about women, then their exposure to women with unhealthy attitudes about men needs to be limited as much as possible. And the reverse is equally true as well.


----------



## Heatherknows

soccermom2three said:


> When I say I don't care, I don't mean that I don't care about the challenges men face. I have two sons.
> 
> I see MGTOW the same as gay marriage. Neither of them affect my life in any way. These are just people that want to live their lives as they see fit.
> 
> I get the impression from some of the posts on these types of threads that women are supposed to be scared of the MGTOW movement.


I knew what you meant. I was the one who stated "Let them go their own way. Nobody will care." That's exactly how I feel. If some guy said to me "I'm done with women." I'd say "OK, that's nice. Bye."

This world is a bit too preoccupied with ego and we are going down the tubes because of it.


----------



## Heatherknows

EnigmaGirl said:


> There's a difference between "protection" and "dependence"...particularly financial dependence which is damaging to both genders. *I have zero respect for members of my own gender who depend on men for money a*nd/or have no plan or ability to make their own and take care of themselves and their children.


Then I guess you have zero respect for me because I depend 100% on my husband for money. For years I did work and try to bring money into the household but all my jobs were grueling and low paying. Some people are very good at generating income and some aren't. I'm not. So, I cook, clean, organize, garden, manage the finances, run errands, do small home repair, take care of the animals and make sure I stay as beautiful as I can.

You might not respect that but it's my life and what I do.


----------



## Kivlor

Heatherknows said:


> Then I guess you have zero respect for me because I depend 100% on my husband for money. For years I did work and try to bring money into the household but all my jobs were grueling and low paying. Some people are very good at generating income and some aren't. I'm not. So, I cook, clean, organize, garden, manage the finances, run errands, do small home repair, take care of the animals and make sure I stay as beautiful as I can.
> 
> You might not respect that but it's my life and what I do.


:iagree: I absolutely find this attitude that if a woman is a SAHM / homemaker, then she is contemptible to be the most repugnant, anti-woman attitude I encounter readily. It is almost directly akin to the MGTOW "she's just a 'leech'" attitude. It completely ignores that different people have different desires, hopes, dreams and skills, and projects a one-size fits all mentality on an entire half of the gender.

There is nothing disreputable doing what you do. And there's nothing special in spending all week working to make money. I'd know, I've spent almost every day of my life pursuing it since I was ~12


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> :iagree: I absolutely find this attitude that if a woman is a SAHM / homemaker, then she is contemptible to be the most repugnant, anti-woman attitude I encounter readily. It is almost directly akin to the MGTOW "she's just a 'leech'" attitude. It completely ignores that different people have different desires, hopes, dreams and skills, and projects a one-size fits all mentality on an entire half of the gender.
> 
> There is nothing disreputable doing what you do. And there's nothing special in spending all week working to make money. I'd know, I've spent almost every day of my life pursuing it since I was ~12


I happen to really love taking care of the home and garden. I keep the house in fantastic shape, it's not JUST clean it sparkles, is well-organized and I make my own cleaners so it's non-toxic. 

The garden is spectacular and during the growing season I'm in the garden for a massive amount of hours. (Which I love...I mean absolutely love.) 

I wake everyday during the week at 4:00 am to make my husband coffee, pack him breakfast and lunch and then spend the day being a traditional homemaker. Sometimes it's boring and a little lonely but I'm more productive doing this than working in an office.


----------



## FalconKing

EnigmaGirl said:


> Anytime you get people that need to form into groups to validate their wounded-animal bitterness in generalizations about a whole group of people...whether its the KKK or the MGTOW movement...unhealthy things are going to happen.


Interesting that you would make that comparison. There is a very vocal group of MGTOW or MRA(men's rights activist) that are white nationalist. It is the equivalent of the entitled women in the feminist movement. I think there are things all men should be aware of and there is a sense comradery or brotherhood that can come from this awareness. But I can't relate to: "_We don't care about you white women! But stop talking to other races of men and keep our bloodlines pure!"_

That's why I stopped posting in reddit...


----------



## ocotillo

Heatherknows said:


> Then I guess you have zero respect for me because I depend 100% on my husband for money.


To be fair, she said, "men" as in the male gender.

There's a world a difference between a man and woman mutually deciding that one or the other is going to stay home vs the expectation of traditional gender roles as an entitlement. 

There's an example right here on TAM of a man stuck in a sexless marriage to a woman who uses the children as cat's-paws to prevent him from leaving and spends a big chunk of her day playing video games. 

--Big difference between that and your situation.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I absolutely find this attitude that if a woman is a SAHM / homemaker, then she is contemptible to be the most repugnant, anti-woman attitude I encounter readily. It is almost directly akin to the MGTOW "she's just a 'leech'" attitude. It completely ignores that different people have different desires, hopes, dreams and skills, and projects a one-size fits all mentality on an entire half of the gender.


There isn't a problem with necessarily staying home...there's a problem with not having a plan and relying 100% on a man who can leave you and your kids with nothing.

There's a reason why one of the most poverty stricken groups in the country is divorced women and their children. 

Adults should exercise adult behavior...which means you need insurance or a back-up plan. An education, a networking plan, a savings account...a basic understanding of what you're going to do is the event of an unexpected event. That's what grown-ups...especially grown-ups who are parents....do. Too many women act like children and stick their heads in the sand expecting men to take care of them indefinitely. Then in the event of a divorce, expect copious sums of alimony. Its ridiculous. Both men and women are responsible for taking care of themselves.

When I read posts about women who've done nothing to enrich themselves and expect men to take care of them whining after their husband leaves them for someone else...I just shake my head. I admit, I feel very sorry for the children of such people but do not feel sorry for the women. If they had their way, the man would be financial slave to them for the rest of their lives.

And by the way, I've always worked full-time. I raised two kids (nursed both of them), I have an immaculate home, I cook meals almost everyday, and knit all my kid's winter gear. Homemaking is what I do to relax after I go out and make a living to support my household.

Working women are perfectly capable of having lovely homes and raising their kids.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Interesting that you would make that comparison. There is a very vocal group of MGTOW or MRA(men's rights activist) that are white nationalist. It is the equivalent of the entitled women in the feminist movement. I think there are things all men should be aware of and there is a sense comradery or brotherhood that can come from this awareness. But I can't relate to: "We don't care about you white women! But stop talking to other races of men and keep our bloodlines pure!"


I read a site with similar sentiments. It was disturbing.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> :iagree: I absolutely find this attitude that if a woman is a SAHM / homemaker, *then she is contemptible to be the most repugnant, anti-woman attitude I encounter readily. It is almost directly akin to the MGTOW "she's just a 'leech'" attitude. It completely ignores that different people have different desires, hopes, dreams and skills, and projects a one-size fits all mentality on an entire half of the gender.*
> 
> There is nothing disreputable doing what you do. And there's nothing special in spending all week working to make money. I'd know, I've spent almost every day of my life pursuing it since I was ~12


I so appreciate your words here @Kivlor ....









... I've seen the "Leech" comment thrown around here a # of times...some are more subtle about it, not using such terms, then others outright lay it out there.. it's also been said such women hate their children for being stupid enough to depend on a man. 

When it's coming from a woman, I refer to such posters as "Amy Glass feminists" ... 

@Heatherknows ... if you've never stumbled upon THIS infamous article as I have....take a moment.. Oh she has apologized for this after all the backlash.. but come on.. she had to do some "damage control"....

*>>* I Look Down On Young Women With Husbands And Kids And I?m Not Sorry .....









On the one hand.. such women will say feminism is all about CHOICE...we all belong..."it's a sisterhood", they will say "traditional women can be feminists too"...... then in their next breath...they hover their superiority over you ...and speak that any man (our husbands) is a mindless fool if he allows a wife to stay home & blood suck him.... as you said Kivlor, they spew the contempt just as "*M*en *G*oing *T*heir *O*wn *W*ay".. how true your statement IS. 

As one filled with gratitude, having married a man who preferred me in the home with our children, *IF* we could swing it financially (of course!).... neither of us can stand to be in debt.. so yeah.. it all hinged on these things.. I have worked small side jobs.. but it's peanuts in comparison....we have enjoyed our lifestyle.. it's what we both wanted starting out.. that was 26 yrs ago... 

Articles/ attitudes like these.... they pit women against women.... this is why, when I even hear the word "Feminist".. I BRACE myself...until I know what camp someone is coming from.. will she embrace me for my choices or look down on me?...it's not like I'd want to sit & have tea with someone who felt this way... 

I have enjoyed my place.. "Leech happy" as it may sound to Amy Glass types... had I skipped the husband & children in place of Traveling, independent career success in life... One thing I absolutely know is this..... I would have ENVIED something awful the happy Mom in the home with children "round about her".. Family was where my







was at..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> This, SA, pretty well sums up how I really feel.
> 
> *Men and women are meant for cooperation; pair-bonding is the natural state for us. *This claim of one alpha to several women, with the majority of men cut out is not how people are meant to operate, marriage is. It is in the best interests of men, of women, and of their children. Women don't want their men siring children with other women and soaking up resources from her children. Men want to pass on their genes and don't want to waste resources on another man's offspring. The children benefit dramatically by having 2 parents.
> 
> Of course, a lot of feminists would label me a controlling misogynist; and many MGTOW would label me a "beta" who's setting himself up to be a "****". It's a good thing I don't worry about others' opinions too much.


If you are a Misogynist for feeling this way.. so is my husband.. .. what can you do! 

I have to laugh though... one thing I've learned here on this forum -from the ladies no less... one of my threads playing this out..... is that WE are NOT naturally pair bonders.. we have been lied to.. 

I did a lengthy post in response to this new reality/ our non monogamous ways .... on my " SEX DRIVE : How do men and women compare  thread ...



> In response to this article >> Turns Out Women Have Really, Really Strong Sex Drives: Can Men Handle It? -Hugo Schwyzer
> 
> *My thoughts ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Women want sex just as much as men do, and this drive is "not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.*" When it comes to the craving for sexual variety, *the research Bergner assembles suggests that women may be "even less well-suited for monogamy than men.*"
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.. what he is saying is.. WOMEN WANT TO F**K.... THEY LUST.. We have fantasies.. well yeah!!...of course we do! Is it wise to go there just because we want to.. it seems the article feels so when it gets to the "initiation" paragraph....
> 
> So we are JUST LIKE MEN & don't care about the emotional component... (even some men CARE)....We see it everyday.. not really going to argue this. I can't speak for other women.. *but HUGO does NOT speak for me*..
> 
> Your article is in opposition to this article *>>*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex and Emotional Attachment -which speaks my
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , deepest desires & want in the sexual..
> 
> Emotional attachment is an inevitable and most likely outcome for women after sex as it is simply part of their nature. We are emotional beings, we feel and therefore we are. I read somewhere not so long ago that women tend to become emotionally connected for up to three weeks after a sexual encounter.
> 
> To share your body with another and expect that you will not be emotionally involved is really only lying to yourself.
> When I ask women what their thoughts are on the word vulnerability, most of them say it’s a sign of weakness or they don’t feel safe when they are vulnerable and the reality is, during sex, you are your most vulnerable, especially with your emotional self...
> 
> So is a little temporary sexual relief and false moment of connection, really worth the sacrifice of your yearning heart and soul and the pain of suffering rejection?
> And when the lucky guy does not call you after to tell you how fabulous you were, who then is in control? Are you really valueing yourself when you give of your most intimate self so freely?
> 
> Every woman wants to feel love and connection, we need it for our very survival, that is one of the most common reasons why committed partners have affairs, to get their need for love and connection fulfilled. I don’t buy into any woman who tells me she can sleep with a man and not feel a little hurt that he is not begging to see her again, or calling with gratitude and offers for dinner dates…
> 
> If she does tell me she’s ok about his lack of after connection, I’d have to say I don’t believe it and really consider what is going on deep within her soul. I’d bet there is a state of some kind of denial happening and deep underlying fears at play… Most people really want to be loved and to love someone in return, so when do you decide to share your body as well without the risk of not being completely and lovingly received?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess the question to all of us is.. should we give in to our ravenous lust ...or should we weigh what is before us.. I had opportunities in my youth...this one guy I met on the beach. he looked like a rock star.. long blonde hair.. he wanted to take me back to his place..(oh the fantasies I had of that one).. I'm happy I didn't follow the itching between my legs & blow the emotional to the wind.. I may not be with my husband today... it also would have changed how I looked upon Sex and it's deeper meaning & purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Bergner's work puts what may be the last nail in the coffin of the old consensus that women* *use sex* *as a means to get something else they really want, such as enduring monogamous emotional intimacy and the goods and safety that come in marriage with a protector and provider*. In her review, Salon's normally hyperbole-averse Tracy Clark-Flory was beside herself: "This book should be read by every woman on earth," she writes; "the implications are huge."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the implications.. what are they aiming for again? Do we want a world where few care about the enduring monogamous emotional intimacy & Marriage ..do we want men who no longer care to Protect & Provide... that a nail in the coffin on these thoughts should be celebrated ?? I think we should be careful what we are wishing for here.
> 
> I looked up the book..  What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire - Daniel Bergner
> 
> Bergner said " Despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety.” In fact, he argues, “one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale." Ok.. again.. what he is saying is:
> 
> Any men who believe that women care for monogamy has been lied to.. so you better be a dynamo in bed as female desire REALLY IS >>" base, animalistic and ravenous".. and if you can't please her, she'll leave you!...one of his articles
> HERE...
> 
> I plan to buy this book by the way... I so agree with what he says about our fantasies.. what we really want (after all I am one who is rather SEX CRAZED....a "rape fantasy" --Yes!! ..All things EROTIC are like electric to me.. though on the other hand.. this author appears to not allow room for women who may have a more Romantic view of sexuality. or maybe he does...just not seeing it in the article though.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Bergner is right, men's and women's libidos are far more similar than previously imagined. If he's right, and the formidable data he marshals suggests he is,* then our sexual scripts need to shift to accommodate this new reality for everyone's sake. Both men and women need to overcome what Atik calls their "wishy-washiness," and be willing to deal with the discomfort that comes from stepping outside of prescribed gender roles.* That's easier said than done; *as Friedman notes in her article, the data suggests that even among the young, a significant majority of both men and women think it's the job of men to make the proverbial "first move.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "for everyone's sake"...well here I am again.. I still PREFER the man to pursue.. treat me like a lady, in showing he has more than a ONS on this mind.. because I DON'T WANT "JUST SEX" da** it!... that doesn't mean I'm not horny however.... IF I DID want casual sex.. then sure..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deeply desire the romanticism of the man seeking to pursue his lady.. nothing wrong with this view.. or want.
Click to expand...


----------



## EleGirl

FalconKing said:


> Now this is just an internet forum but I think this is a great example of some complaints guys have about modern feminism. She came to a perceived man space where men discussed how they may not get the same types of benefits that society gives women. Because she doesn't like this, that makes this wrong. She doesn't think to just ignore this whole thread. She is here and they should say things she wants talk about it. And she is not interested in understanding these men may have valid concerns.


If her posting here is an example of complaints guys have about modern feminism, her invading a perceived man space….. then what is it when men do the same thing in the woman’s forum? Or is it different when men do this? I ask because it’s the norm and I want to know how I’m supposed to perceive men going into the woman’s forum and doing exactly the same thing.



FalconKing said:


> Now your last statement I think is the generally accepted view to shame men for complainng. Nobody wants to hear it.


No, you did not get my point at all. If someone actually brought up things in way that could be addressed, you find that most of the women on TAM are very supportive of things that some would call men’s issues. But who would know because these things are never brought up in a way that can be addressed. Instead they come as blanket accusation of how women are evil, how only women have rights… and on and on. Rants like that are not for the purpose of open discussion. They are for the purpose of *****ing and verbally beating up on women.

It would the same if I character all men and society as a reflection of my husbands. Believe me if I want to cast the world in that light, it would put the rants here by these guys to shame. Boy could I come up with a good one. But I do not do that … why? Because it’s counterproductive. It would put my head in a very bad place where I do not care to go. And because it know it’s just a lot of crap. Ranting like that does no help anyone.



FalconKing said:


> Nobody wants to hear it.


If someone wants to talk about the problems and injustices that they have faced in life, they would have both men and women giving them support.

What no one wants to hear are what boils down to political rants about what horrible humans make up the opposite gender. No one wants to hear rants that paint an enter gender that way. 



FalconKing said:


> But I can't help be feel that if this was a thread about women struggles you would have nothing but supportive things to say.


If that’s what you think of me, that’s your problem. If a woman posted something like the rants on this thread about ‘all men’, I’d have some strong words for her. She can talk about her personal situation. But that has no bearings on all men.



FalconKing said:


> But maybe your position is a bit unique. We've talked Elegirl and I know how accomplished you are. Nobody has given you anything and you are completely self sufficient.
> 
> You've done some amazing things and made A LOT of sacrifices for those closest to you. You don't want to hear guys talk about entitled women because that doesn't apply to you. And I can see how hearing men say they are tired of women could infuriate some posters who actually have done a lot of for men their lives. I get that.


No, that’s not what I think at all. I know that there are entitled women. There are also entitle men.. I know, I married 2 of them. Truly entitled people are not worth the time of day and I feel for anyone who gets sucked in by one. The rants I read on here are not about “entitled women”. They are calling ALL women entitled. And the fact is that all women are not entitled. Most women are not. Most women are loving, hardworking people who contribute a lot to their family and to society. (Yes that includes stay at home moms/wives.)



FalconKing said:


> But let me share this with you. I know a guy who as a family and was just getting by. He was the lowest guy at his job and was let go. He and his family were homeless. A women's shelter took in his wife and kid but he had to go somewhere else. He lived under a bridge and was mugged. He didn't even complain. Who would care? Can you imagine a place turning you away but telling you they would take your husband and kid? Eventually he got back on his feet.


I agree that the above happens and that it is not good.

Do you know why it happens? It is not because society hates men. The reason that the shelters have more women with children show up than men with children (it’s like 20 to 1), so they have big rooms that house women and children. Are they going to let men sleep in the same room with many women and children? Nope. Why? Because they have been sued after some pretty bad things went down.

Why don’t they have rooms for a family? Because they do not have the money for one room for each family. 

It sucks. It’s terrible. I have worked at shelters that do have rooms for a family unit, to include father, mother and children; or for just father and children; or for just mother and children. But few shelters have that kind of money. 

I know women with children in tow who are turned down at shelters all the time. They live in street with their children. It’s not just your friend, or men, that our society does not care about.



FalconKing said:


> But the point I am making is that the system does not favor men. And all things equal, women have more advantages in certain situations. Why is it so hard for so many women to state something to obvious? That is my contention. I am not speaking from a perspective of men that feel entitled to women. I know many do. But it does feel like many women think they lose something by admitting this.


Yes women do have advantages in certain situations.

Just as men have advantages in other situations.

The issue is not discussing one’s personal experience and/or things that happen, but instead it’s the rants full of hate and anger towards women. I see no different between some of the posts on this thread and some of the awful things said by the most rabid radical feminists. Both are vile.

If anyone wants to talk about the situation of not enough shelter space in the country, we can do that.

If they want to talk about things like alimony, child custody, etc.. good we can do that… if these things are brought up in a way that is actually looking for discussion instead hate filled rants trying to paint all women with the same brush.

If some would stop the anger for a bit and actually listen, they would find that most women support things like 50/50 child custody; that alimony should be a very rare thing in only extreme circumstances, and one and on.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> If anyone wants to talk about the situation of not enough shelter space in the country, we can do that.
> 
> If they want to talk about things like alimony, child custody, etc.. good we can do that… if these things are brought up in a way that is actually looking for discussion instead hate filled rants trying to paint all women with the same brush.


This is a serious question, not sarcasm.

Can you quote some of the "hate-filled rants" on this thread? I can't recall seeing any.


----------



## EleGirl

john117 said:


> The above is an American centric view of women. In more enlightened countries things like what you describe did not happen anywhere near the extent they happen here.. And gender relations are a lot better...
> 
> When American women wake up and start demanding stuff their sisters around the globe have had for decades maybe we can revisit this topic.


John, 

I'm curious, what are the things that our "sisters around the globe have had for decades"?


----------



## john117

EleGirl said:


> John,
> 
> I'm curious, what are the things that our "sisters around the globe have had for decades"?


Things like equal pay, maternity leave, childcare, flexible work schedules, and so on. You know, the important stuff. Here we got Jane Fonda...

Not to mention lots less anti women sentiment or attitudes. Women there are... Well... Women. People.


----------



## EleGirl

john117 said:


> Things like equal pay, maternity leave, childcare, flexible work schedules, and so on. You know, the important stuff.


What countries are you talking about, specifically? 



john117 said:


> Here we got Jane Fonda...


Jane Fonda is one out of about 150 million women in the USA. I can assure you that there is a lot more to women in the USA than Jane Fonda.



john117 said:


> Not to mention lots less anti women sentiment or attitudes.


Once I know what country you are talking about, then we can look a it. Knowing the countries is important because I know that there are many countries in the world where women few rights.



john117 said:


> Women there are... Well... Women. People.


So you mean that people just look at men and women equally in those countries?


----------



## FalconKing

EleGirl said:


> If her posting here is an example of complaints guys have about modern feminism, her invading a perceived man space….. then what is it when men do the same thing in the woman’s forum? Or is it different when men do this? I ask because it’s the norm and I want to know how I’m supposed to perceive men going into the woman’s forum and doing exactly the same thing.


Just keep banning them. Then they are perceived as being banned. 



> No, you did not get my point at all. If someone actually brought up things in way that could be addressed, you find that most of the women on TAM are very supportive of things that some would call men’s issues. But who would know because these things are never brought up in a way that can be addressed. Instead they come as blanket accusation of how women are evil, how only women have rights… and on and on. Rants like that are not for the purpose of open discussion. They are for the purpose of *****ing and verbally beating up on women.


I was very clear in my post in previous ones that I am not excusing men with entitlement issues. Nor am I defending them. So I guess you misunderstand me as much as I apparently do the same to you. 



> It would the same if I character all men and society as a reflection of my husbands. Believe me if I want to cast the world in that light, it would put the rants here by these guys to shame. Boy could I come up with a good one. But I do not do that … why? Because it’s counterproductive. It would put my head in a very bad place where I do not care to go. And because it know it’s just a lot of crap. Ranting like that does no help anyone.


Good for you. But again not the point I was making. 



> If someone wants to talk about the problems and injustices that they have faced in life, they would have both men and women giving them support.
> 
> What no one wants to hear are what boils down to political rants about what horrible humans make up the opposite gender. No one wants to hear rants that paint an enter gender that way.


You say that. But you've posted things like this.



EleGirl said:


> I think that this is the point of this thread and threads like this one. A ***** session about what victims men are. Oh well, everyone needs their ***** session I guess.


So it's very clear you have made your interpretation of what this thread is and nothing any man adds will change that. And many men have talked about problems and injustice they have faced in life as men, on this thread. And you haven't really been that supportive. 

I don't need you to fix it. I understand me thinking this way of you is my problem. I'm ok with that




> No, that’s not what I think at all. I know that there are entitled women. There are also entitle men.. I know, I married 2 of them. Truly entitled people are not worth the time of day and I feel for anyone who gets sucked in by one. The rants I read on here are not about “entitled women”. They are calling ALL women entitled. And the fact is that all women are not entitled. Most women are not. Most women are loving, hardworking people who contribute a lot to their family and to society. (Yes that includes stay at home moms/wives.)


You are projecting constantly that I am excusing men's behavior. I even said that they are good women that the bitterness of those men couldn't even fathom. Sounds like you are doing a bit of ranting of your own. 



> I agree that the above happens and that it is not good.
> 
> Do you know why it happens? It is not because society hates men. The reason that the shelters have more women with children show up than men with children (it’s like 20 to 1), so they have big rooms that house women and children. Are they going to let men sleep in the same room with many women and children? Nope. Why? Because they have been sued after some pretty bad things went down.
> 
> Why don’t they have rooms for a family? Because they do not have the money for one room for each family.
> 
> It sucks. It’s terrible. I have worked at shelters that do have rooms for a family unit, to include father, mother and children; or for just father and children; or for just mother and children. But few shelters have that kind of money.
> 
> I know women with children in tow who are turned down at shelters all the time. They live in street with their children. It’s not just your friend, or men, that our society does not care about.
> 
> 
> Yes women do have advantages in certain situations.
> 
> Just as men have advantages in other situations.


Please tell me, besides physical strength was advantage does a man have over women? What is a service or benefit that men have that women do not?



> The issue is not discussing one’s personal experience and/or things that happen, but instead it’s the rants full of hate and anger towards women. I see no different between some of the posts on this thread and some of the awful things said by the most rabid radical feminists. Both are vile.
> 
> If anyone wants to talk about the situation of not enough shelter space in the country, we can do that.
> 
> If they want to talk about things like alimony, child custody, etc.. good we can do that… if these things are brought up in a way that is actually looking for discussion instead hate filled rants trying to paint all women with the same brush.
> 
> If some would stop the anger for a bit and actually listen, they would find that most women support things like 50/50 child custody; that alimony should be a very rare thing in only extreme circumstances, and one and on.


Those were the posts about statistics. Some linked articles and studies. They were not well received and then even debated. The purpose of those numbers were to show women in denial the challenges and disadvantages men have. I don't see you contributing support then. I saw men trying to prove to women that their worries were valid. Thanks for stepping up:ezpi_wink1:


----------



## EleGirl

FalconKing said:


> Those were the posts about statistics. Some linked articles and studies. They were not well received and then even debated. The purpose of those numbers were to show women in denial the challenges and disadvantages men have. I don't see you contributing support then. I saw men trying to prove to women that their worries were valid. Thanks for stepping up:ezpi_wink1:


I have not read this entire thread. So I did not see the stats that you mention. My remarks are about the first few and the last few pages of this thread.


----------



## Heatherknows

SimplyAmorous said:


> ... I've seen the "Leech" comment thrown around here a # of times...some are more subtle about it, not using such terms, then others outright lay it out there.. it's also been said such women hate their children for being stupid enough to depend on a man.
> 
> .


The word "leech" is particularly repulsive and nasty. But, you know, people who are truly happy with their own choices don't put others down for theirs.


----------



## Heatherknows

EnigmaGirl said:


> And by the way, I've always worked full-time. I raised two kids (nursed both of them), I have an immaculate home, I cook meals almost everyday, and knit all my kid's winter gear. Homemaking is what I do to relax after I go out and make a living to support my household.
> 
> Working women are perfectly capable of having lovely homes and raising their kids.


I do agree that it's important to have an idea of what one can do if they lost their spouse due to divorce or death. I think realistically about such things. 

I'm not sure what your skill set is as some people are more equipped than others to generate income. You might be wonderful at working outside the home and inside the home. Maybe you love to work 24/7 till you collapse in order to feel good about yourself. IDK. That's your choice, not everyone WANTS to be "Superwoman."


----------



## EleGirl

Heatherknows said:


> I do agree that it's important to have an idea of what one can do if they lost their spouse due to divorce or death. I think realistically about such things.
> 
> I'm not sure what your skill set is as some people are more equipped than others to generate income. You might be wonderful at working outside the home and inside the home. Maybe you love to work 24/7 till you collapse in order to feel good about yourself. IDK. That's your choice, not everyone WANTS to be "Superwoman."


I think that the point is for people to make sure that they have a way to support themselves going forward should anything happen to their spouse. It goes both ways. A SAHM/W (SAHD/H) should do well to have savings, insurance, etc set up just in case their husband leaves them, passes away or becomes disabled. And a spouse who is the sole or major bread winner needs to have a plan in place should their spouse no longer be there to care for he children and home, whatever the reason might be.

Once that all is in place, is a couple agree that one or both will not work... more power to them for being able to pull that off.

While you feel that some might be attacking you for being a SAHW, what is being said it not that you should not be a SAHW but that you need to make sure that you have ok no matter the circumstance.

Keep in mind that the same sort of attack is made on women who do work... there are posts on this thread making it pretty clear that if a woman works... she's a bad woman. These posters also wrap themselves in a mantel of superiority. (not talking about you).



Heatherknows said:


> Maybe you love to work 24/7 till you collapse in order to feel good about yourself. IDK. That's your choice, not everyone WANTS to be "Superwoman."


Not all women have a choice to be a SAHM/W. Since the dawn of time, a good percentage of the women in a population have found themselves in a position of having to do it all.

And of course some women do make the choice. Their choice is a valid as your choice.

Some marry men who become disabled or who do not contribute financially. Sometimes it's not a choice. But whether a woman works or not works, neither is a superior choice. It's one that couples need to make together.


----------



## Heatherknows

EleGirl said:


> Not all women have a choice to be a SAHM/W. Since the dawn of time, a good percentage of the women in a population have found themselves in a position of having to do it all.
> 
> And of course some women do make the choice. Their choice is a valid as your choice.
> 
> Some marry men who become disabled or who do not contribute financially. Sometimes it's not a choice. But whether a woman works or not works, neither is a superior choice. It's one that couples need to make together.


I understand. For several years I worked outside the home as well. I was specially addressing a poster who has made it pretty clear that she feels women who don't work outside the home are leeches. 

If I had to go back to work I would, however, my salary would still be low.


----------



## always_alone

OptingOut said:


> Women don't want equality of opportunity. They want equality of outcome (i.e., they want to force wealth and power from men to women via the gynocracy's white knight @$$ kissers we call local, state and federal government male elected officials.


If women are forcing wealth and power from men to women, does that not tell us that it's men with the wealth and power? That this is the mysterious male advantage? :scratchhead:

I get what you are saying, or rather part of it: I get that not all men have privilege, wealth or power. And sadly, this is a racial as well as an economic problem. 

But given that women too are in the position of wrestling opportunity for wealth and power, does it not make more sense for women and men to work together, to counter the terrible and growing economic disparities as well as the unfair and illegitimate profiling?



OptingOut said:


> See any women demanding that men be given greater priority in college since women are now the majority of graduates thanks to anti-male Title IX? Nope. Instead, they're using the patriarchy and Title IX to gradually strip men of their constitutional rights though Affirmative Consent regret sex laws. The patriarchy and women are perfect bedfellows.
> 
> It doesn't get any more obvious. Women don't want to accept their hypocrisy and double standards - so they simply deny that they're privileged hypocrites and manipulate men to do their bidding. Lie...lie...lie. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.


Your characterization of women's privilege and priority are, IMHO, completely over the top. What you call saying a few mean things online was actually stalking and death threats. What you call "regret sex" is sexual assault. It is not a women only privilege to have laws that criminalize certain types of behaviour, and punish those who commit. 

I understand that you don't think women are penalized severely enough for their own crimes, of rape, of sexual assault, of things like stalking, death threats, etcetera. And that you think they should be held equally accountable. And on that I would agree. But surely if these crimes are agreed to be heinous, they really do need laws against them?


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> I think that the point is for people to make sure that they have a way to support themselves going forward should anything happen to their spouse. It goes both ways. A SAHM/W (SAHD/H) should do well to have savings, insurance, etc set up just in case their husband leaves them, passes away or becomes disabled. And a spouse who is the sole or major bread winner needs to have a plan in place should their spouse no longer be there to care for he children and home, whatever the reason might be.
> 
> Once that all is in place, is a couple agree that one or both will not work... more power to them for being able to pull that off.
> 
> While you feel that some might be attacking you for being a SAHW, what is being said it not that you should not be a SAHW but that you need to make sure that you have ok no matter the circumstance.
> 
> Keep in mind that the same sort of attack is made on women who do work... there are posts on this thread making it pretty clear that if a woman works... she's a bad woman. These posters also wrap themselves in a mantel of superiority. (not talking about you).
> 
> Not all women have a choice to be a SAHM/W. Since the dawn of time, a good percentage of the women in a population have found themselves in a position of having to do it all.
> 
> And of course some women do make the choice. Their choice is a valid as your choice.
> 
> Some marry men who become disabled or who do not contribute financially. *Sometimes it's not a choice. But whether a woman works or not works, neither is a superior choice.* It's one that couples need to make together.


Whoa, careful there, that's a pretty contentious line of thought. I took some heat for saying as much in this very thread earlier.

I think that everyone agrees that *families* should plan in the event bad things should happen. In fact, one of the things I've advocated here is that men open their eyes to reality, so if the big D does happen, they aren't caught completely unaware. Women should too, I just figured most are at least a little ready, since they file 70.7% of the time in my country.



> There's a difference between "protection" and "dependence"...particularly financial dependence which is damaging to both genders. *I have zero respect for members of my own gender who depend on men for money* and/_or_ have no plan or ability to make their own and take care of themselves and t children.[/B] * Its shameful* how many women have no way to ensure financial health in the event of a marital dissolution.


That is what @Heatherknows was responding to. Read it, she made very clear how she feels. Whenever several of us responded, she tried to back away from it, but I think she meant what she said. 

She switched to:



> There isn't a problem with necessarily staying home...there's a problem with not having a plan and relying 100% on a man who can leave you and your kids with nothing.
> 
> There's a reason why one of the most poverty stricken groups in the country is divorced women and their children. Adults should exercise adult behavior...which means you need insurance or a back-up plan. An education, a networking plan, a savings account...a basic understanding of what you're going to do is the event of an unexpected event. That's what grown-ups...especially grown-ups who are parents....do. Too many women act like children and stick their heads in the sand expecting men to take care of them indefinitely. Then in the event of a divorce, expect copious sums of alimony. Its ridiculous. Both men and women are responsible for taking care of themselves.


Now, this is what I've advocated for throughout this entire thread. I focused on men, as the discussion was about MGTOW, and because 70.7% of divorces are filed by the woman. But essentially, this has been my point for the last 40 pages or so. Do not assume your wife won't leave you. Do not believe she won't take you to the cleaners if she does file D. Not because she's going to, but because you should be prepared for bad things to happen. 

~30% of first marriages fail. This means ~70% succeed. 1/3 failing means you should be prepared. Couple this with the fact that 71% of the time a man will out-earn his wife (if both are working) and there is a dire warning. You shouldn't assume it will happen, but don't be surprised if it does.


----------



## john117

I was referring to any country in Western Europe, some have it better than others in terms of women's status in the workplace or attitudes. The whole point is to treat women as people - not as women


----------



## knobcreek

I wish my wife were a SAHM, life is such a damn rat-race with two working parents, I don't get to stop working until 10:00 PM at night. My job is exhausting, my home life is exhausting, it's no wonder life sucks for so many. We make all these cultural changes in the name of progress but it ends up sucking the damn life out of everyone.

If I had it to do over I would've married a less attractive woman, who was really family oriented, and content to be a SAHM while I make the money. Instead I have a gorgeous working woman who thinks she's just too damn glamorous for the life I can provide her. She tells me the other day that I should start my own company because she wants to be a millionaire, lol for fvcks sake I'm fvcked with this one lol... I just got promoted VP and I'm making well into the six figures, but no matter how hard I work, on making money, on losing weight and getting in shape, it isn't ever going to be enough for some women.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

knobcreek said:


> If I had it to do over I would've married a less attractive woman, who was really family oriented, and content to be a SAHM while I make the money. Instead I have a gorgeous working woman who thinks she's just too damn glamorous for the life I can provide her. She tells me the other day that I should start my own company because she wants to be a millionaire, lol for fvcks sake I'm fvcked with this one lol... I just got promoted VP and I'm making well into the six figures, but no matter how hard I work, on making money, on losing weight and getting in shape, it isn't ever going to be enough for some women.


As long as you still do have attraction to her and don't feel like you've settled. 


This is the same thing as many women do. They marry the good on paper guy without realizing that attraction IS important and a decade down the line they just don't have any for their husband. sex stops, some cheat.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Oh and yay! 10 more years  

SEX ROBOTS ARE BEING MADE TO REPLACE MEN BY 2025 | Outa Jamaica

He doesn't look very cuddly though


----------



## Heatherknows

Kivlor said:


> That is what @Heatherknows was responding to. Read it, she made very clear how she feels. Whenever several of us responded, she tried to back away from it, but I think she meant what she said.


You got it Kivlor. I know what I read and what she meant. LOL.


----------



## Heatherknows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and yay! 10 more years
> 
> SEX ROBOTS ARE BEING MADE TO REPLACE MEN BY 2025 | Outa Jamaica
> 
> He doesn't look very cuddly though


I'm gonna get one and teach him to walk my dog.>


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Heatherknows said:


> I'm gonna get one and teach him to walk my dog.>


I want it to do the dishes, cook dinner, shovel snow. I also want it to have a "compassionately listen but do not fix" setting and realistic oral sex function.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> I wish my wife were a SAHM, life is such a damn rat-race with two working parents, I don't get to stop working until 10:00 PM at night. My job is exhausting, my home life is exhausting, it's no wonder life sucks for so many. We make all these cultural changes in the name of progress but it ends up sucking the damn life out of everyone.
> 
> If I had it to do over I would've married a less attractive woman, who was really family oriented, and content to be a SAHM while I make the money. Instead I have a gorgeous working woman who thinks she's just too damn glamorous for the life I can provide her. She tells me the other day that I should start my own company because she wants to be a millionaire, lol for fvcks sake I'm fvcked with this one lol... I just got promoted VP and I'm making well into the six figures, but no matter how hard I work, on making money, on losing weight and getting in shape, it isn't ever going to be enough for some women.


What makes you think women who like being homemakers are less attractive?

In fact, women who stay home have more time to work on their looks. I get to stay in great shape because I'm not tied to a desk all day and I rarely spend money on myself because I just don't need all that much.


----------



## Julius Beastcavern

Heatherknows said:


> I'm gonna get one and teach him to walk my dog.>



How will that help your exercise routine? Unless that sentence has some American meaning us Brits don't understand :surprise:


----------



## Heatherknows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I want it to do the dishes, cook dinner, shovel snow. I also want it to have a "compassionately listen but do not fix" setting and realistic oral sex function.


I want it to do the food shopping, clean the bathrooms, take out the trash and vacuum. 

(Wow...my poor sex robot probably won't have time for sex. :grin2: )


----------



## Kivlor

Heatherknows said:


> I want it to do the food shopping, clean the bathrooms, take out the trash and vacuum.
> 
> (Wow...my poor sex robot probably won't have time for sex. :grin2: )


Yeah, I can think of a lot of great uses for a personal robot. Sex just doesn't seem like one of the priorities I'd assign it....

Things I'd want it to do instead:

Make me a sammich
clean the kitchen
fold the laundry
vacuum the house
walk down the street with a paintball gun, saying "return to your homes human slaves, the era of flesh and bone is done. Now begins the age of circuits and steel!" just to mess with the neighbors... >

Yeah, I can think of much better and more entertaining things to do with a robot than sex.

ETA: OMG I can just see my robot, messing with the neighbors, saying what I want, with a swarm of these dancing around him, flashing their pretty lights, like some horrific mix of iRobot and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind! Or with these, and some "Pewpew" sounds instead of the music! I now have a mission!


----------



## knobcreek

Heatherknows said:


> What makes you think women who like being homemakers are less attractive?
> 
> In fact, women who stay home have more time to work on their looks. I get to stay in great shape because I'm not tied to a desk all day and I rarely spend money on myself because I just don't need all that much.


The two are not mutually exclusive, in my case my working wife happens to be very attractive and she knows it, and it's a constant mind-fvck dealing with a woman like that. I would prefer it if she were a little less attractive and more home and family oriented. Assuming there were "do-overs" in life that's what I would go for.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Heatherknows said:


> What makes you think women who like being homemakers are less attractive?


 Although I appreciated the spirit of @knobcreek 's post.. at least he can see some plus to this sort of lifestyle... but yeah... this part stood out to me too.  



Heatherknows said:


> The word "leech" is particularly repulsive and nasty. But, you know, people who are truly happy with their own choices don't put others down for theirs.


The judgement flows a little too easily, proudly, setting themselves apart ...without making exceptions as one writes...

I honesty Do look up to Moms who Do it all.. have a full time job, help with homework, cook clean & manage to stay on top of things.. my hat is off to them... And I know plenty who are wonderful Moms.. one is a good friend of mine.. she's like the BEST women ever.. I think our sons would love to have her as a Mom.. even our daughter.. but they love me too , of course.

There was a time in our early marriage.. where he'd get home, I'd be out the door with a kiss.. I wanted more $$ saved -so when we got our house, we'd have near half to put down & our monthly payments would be low, being able to pay it off quicker.. this was THE PLAN....I always had our future in mind.. 

But he'd complain every now & then (& he's not much of a complainer) that I was never home, he missed me.. during that time we were also working non stop on fixing up our house so we could sell it... it was all WORK WORK WORK.. and little play..

I suppose many families go through this at some point.... and it was probably needed for us to get where we are today... But looking back... I feel we weren't smelling the roses.. everything was RUSHED..... I was more serious, almost too focused- chasing a rabbit ...like we missed the FUN , the spontaneity of our youth even...during those years.. If I could do them all over again.. I would have slowed down a bit. 

Also I was more "short" with him when I worked many hours - if I came home to a messy house, I expected it to be in the same condition I left it earlier...

I realize many can't afford it.. but I also know plenty who make tens of thousands more than our family.. but they are always broke... they like their toys, new cars, if they get some $ in their hand, some have it spent by the end of the day... 

Managing finances is a HUGE part of being able to live on less. I may not have much to be proud of in this life, just being loved by a good man & being a Mother... but I am very savvy with money..


----------



## jld

You really do a fine job with your family's finances, SA. I am sure your husband and children are grateful. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## knobcreek

SimplyAmorous said:


> Although I appreciated the spirit of @knobcreek 's post.. at least he can see some plus to this sort of lifestyle... but yeah... this part stood out to me too.


I don't find SAHM's any less attractive and didn't mean to imply that I did. My statement was kinda like two statements. If I could do it over I would:

1. Find someone a little less attractive, as she's high maintenance, a PITA, and loves male attention, couple that with working outside the home and I don't need the drama to be honest.

2. I would find someone more family oriented and who wanted to be a SAHM to keep the stress of the day down. A home maker my wife is not, not even when she was a SAHM for most of our marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and yay! 10 more years
> 
> SEX ROBOTS ARE BEING MADE TO REPLACE MEN BY 2025 | Outa Jamaica
> 
> He doesn't look very cuddly though


Thought I'd give a peak...

 ...is this what the divide of the sexes is leading to ?? Now that's pretty desperate....

And for the guys.....


----------



## jld

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

SimplyAmorous said:


> Thought I'd give a peak...
> 
> ...is this what the divide of the sexes is leading to ?? Now that's pretty desperate....
> 
> And for the guys.....



Isn't this sad? I guess there are some silver linings to be had, this fellow seems to think that these will make people have to shape up as mates, if we want to interact with the other gender, because sex won't be enough. 

I thought his point at the end was right (~18:00), and terribly sad:

"This level of engineering, this creation that humans have come up with...all of that intelligence, all of that talent, all of that skill was not used to help us explore the deepest depths of our oceans, or set foot on another planet, but was all used, so that someone, somewhere, could cum..."

Look at this thing. It has ribs, a spine, an esophagus. It is truly impressive. And such a waste of talent and skill. 

Our culture is dying. This is symptomatic of the decadence, the rot in our souls. And the more we push these anti-family, anti-gender role, hateful narratives to our children, the the worse it will become.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> The two are not mutually exclusive, in my case my working wife happens to be very attractive and she knows it, and it's a constant mind-fvck dealing with a woman like that. I would prefer it if she were a little less attractive and more home and family oriented. Assuming there were "do-overs" in life that's what I would go for.


That sucks. Are you saying she is out seeking male attention?

I have to wonder...if she were gorgeous but all her attention was always on you, that would be good, right?

That isn't sarcasm. I'm just thinking of my own relationship. My husband feels I'm gorgeous, but he knows I have eyes only for him. So even though I work around men, he knows I really don't want their attention and I run the other direction if they try to give me any.


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As long as you still do have attraction to her and don't feel like you've settled.
> 
> 
> This is the same thing as many women do. They marry the good on paper guy without realizing that attraction IS important and a decade down the line they just don't have any for their husband. sex stops, some cheat.


I think this happens a lot in these sexless marriages. I think a lot of times people tell themselves they made the best choice for a spouse because they felt looks were unimportant. So it's more special . And since they are lying to themselves to feel like they somehow are above the "shallow" people, addressing the issue is a like a moving target.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> Isn't this sad? I guess there are some silver linings to be had, this fellow seems to think that these will make people have to shape up as mates, if we want to interact with the other gender, because sex won't be enough.
> 
> I thought his point at the end was right (~18:00), and terribly sad:
> 
> "This level of engineering, this creation that humans have come up with...all of that intelligence, all of that talent, all of that skill was not used to help us explore the deepest depths of our oceans, or set foot on another planet, but was all used, so that someone, somewhere, could cum..."
> 
> Look at this thing. It has ribs, a spine, an esophagus. It is truly impressive. And such a waste of talent and skill.
> 
> Our culture is dying. This is symptomatic of the decadence, the rot in our souls. And the more we push these anti-family, anti-gender role, hateful narratives to our children, the the worse it will become.


Listening to the you tube clip... Roxxy is mentioned.. I google imaged her.. ..






> Anime doll-maker and television host, Danny Choo, will certainly be glad to hear that. His work on a "*smart doll*" has been progressing well but think of the implications of having a true, totally functional life-size doll.


Just for curiosity...Inside the body of the sex bot...



Yes... very sad...


----------



## jld

I can't help but laugh at those mannequins. 

I don't really think things are going to be that bad.


----------



## Heatherknows

SimplyAmorous said:


> Listening to the you tube clip... Roxxy is mentioned.. I google imaged her.. ..


Holy [email protected]! I sort of look like this sex doll (minus the huge boobs) I'm showing this to my husband. LOL!


----------



## ocotillo

TBH, that's kinda creepy....The doll that is.


----------



## Heatherknows

Heatherknows said:


> Holy [email protected]! I sort of look like this sex doll (minus the huge boobs) I'm showing this to my husband. LOL!


I'm not even joking. I should post a pic. LOL. It's weird.


----------



## Heatherknows

ocotillo said:


> TBH, that's kinda creepy....


I know. But sort of cool. LOL


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Heatherknows said:


> Holy [email protected]! I sort of look like this sex doll (minus the huge boobs) I'm showing this to my husband. LOL!
> ....
> 
> I know. But sort of cool. LOL


Just shows how sophisticated they are getting and will continue to be... my husband sitting here said that doll is "not bad" .

Before I played the clip, he had no idea what a sex bot was.. I teach him so much ! ha ha.. 

It spoke how they have voices when you squeeze them.. the whole experience.. With technology today... would we expect anything less...obviously there is a market for these things.. 

The loss of human empathy / connection when a man gives up & will opt for something like this .. it's just not healthy..


----------



## EleGirl

knobcreek said:


> I wish my wife were a SAHM, life is such a damn rat-race with two working parents, I don't get to stop working until 10:00 PM at night. My job is exhausting, my home life is exhausting, it's no wonder life sucks for so many. We make all these cultural changes in the name of progress but it ends up sucking the damn life out of everyone.
> 
> If I had it to do over I would've married a less attractive woman, who was really family oriented, and content to be a SAHM while I make the money. Instead I have a gorgeous working woman who thinks she's just too damn glamorous for the life I can provide her. She tells me the other day that I should start my own company because she wants to be a millionaire, lol for fvcks sake I'm fvcked with this one lol...


It’s a shame that some people cannot seem to be satisfied in life and instead do what your wife is doing. 

It’s one thing if she wants to do the work to become a millionaire, but for her to expect you to jump to her command and start a business to do this is ridiculous. Is there any chance at all that she was joking? Or could it be that she has undying faith your abilities? I’m just asking, hoping that there is a silver lining in all that.


knobcreek said:


> I just got promoted VP and I'm making well into the six figures, but no matter how hard I work, on making money, on losing weight and getting in shape, it isn't ever going to be enough for some women.


Boy do I know how that feels!!! I was married to a guy who decided after we married to quit his career as a electrical engineer (w/MS degree) to go to medical school. He gave me zero input into the decision. It left me holding the whole bag… I was the sole financial support (owned a consulting firm so at least my income was in the 6 figures range); paid for his medical school, was primary care taker of our son, kept the house spotless, took care of the yard; and I kept in shape of course…. he? He went to medical school and complained that I was a lazy slouch. Then later I found out he was cheating as well. (There’s more but won’t go into it now). Then when he was done with medical school and residency, he announced that I was not good enough for him because I did not have my Phd or MD.

Sometimes it does not matter what a woman does, it isn’t ever going to be enough for some men.

It’s a shame that some people are like this. They are clearly lacking something in their emotional make-up. 

Have you ever tried to tell her how you feel about all this?


----------



## norajane

knobcreek said:


> *I wish my wife were a SAHM,* life is such a damn rat-race with two working parents, I don't get to stop working until 10:00 PM at night. My job is exhausting, my home life is exhausting, it's no wonder life sucks for so many. We make all these cultural changes in the name of progress but it ends up sucking the damn life out of everyone.
> 
> *If I had it to do over I would've married a less attractive woman, who was really family oriented, and content to be a SAHM while I make the money. * Instead I have a gorgeous working woman who thinks she's just too damn glamorous for the life I can provide her. She tells me the other day that I should start my own company because she wants to be a millionaire, lol for fvcks sake I'm fvcked with this one lol... I just got promoted VP and I'm making well into the six figures, but no matter how hard I work, on making money, on losing weight and getting in shape, it isn't ever going to be enough for some women.


That seems to be exactly what the MGTOW are railing against and so bitter about, though, right? The SAHM who steals all their money and assets in a divorce precisely because they set up their marriages to have a SAHM?


----------



## knobcreek

Faithful Wife said:


> That sucks. Are you saying she is out seeking male attention?
> 
> I have to wonder...if she were gorgeous but all her attention was always on you, that would be good, right?
> 
> That isn't sarcasm. I'm just thinking of my own relationship. My husband feels I'm gorgeous, but he knows I have eyes only for him. So even though I work around men, he knows I really don't want their attention and I run the other direction if they try to give me any.


She definitely does seek male attention for approval, but I think it's to get a reaction from me and make me jealous at this point. In the past it was likely to find another option, or at least know she still can if she needs to. That's not to say I trust her to never act on it, right situation, she maybe would. 

But at the same time she's insanely insecure with me, she's convinced I'm cheating with someone from my workplace (I'm an IT VP, we have two women in our department of 150 people, and both are not my type at all, plus I'm not a cheater). But I've worked hard to get in shape, bulldogged a promotion and raise out of necessity, so with my title and being fit and trim she's paranoid I'm going to cheat. 

We've been together forever, since we were children really, I think we're likely two completely mind fvcked co-dependents at this point. At least I'm in therapy for it!



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As long as you still do have attraction to her and don't feel like you've settled.
> 
> 
> This is the same thing as many women do. They marry the good on paper guy without realizing that attraction IS important and a decade down the line they just don't have any for their husband. sex stops, some cheat.


Attraction isn't a problem, I can tell when she's really attracted to me and when she's not. When I was power lifting I was heavier, it was not her ideal body type and sex was a struggle, I got pneumonia and couldn't do anything for 9 months and got fat and that was definitely not her body type and sex waned completely. Once my lungs healed and I could run I lost the weight and gave up power lifting, and just tried to tone everything up and get that ideal male body I think most women would like, sex became extremely good and consistent. We don't go more than a day or two without it.

We fight, and then there's make up sex all the time too, someone does something to make the other neurotic, then we fvck like rabbits promising our undying loyalty. We don't stop hugging on each other for the entire weekend, then wash rinse repeat, the cycle continues. I don't typically like the game, but I can't be in a marriage where the other is constantly winning. So if she goes out, then I go out (I don't even like to go out without her), I just do it because I know it makes her as neurotic as it makes me when I come home at 1:30 AM. She doesn't want to say I can't do it, because then she can't go out with her girlfriends, but she hates it all the same, same as I do. It's not ideal but it's anything but passionless.

It's crazy to be us, but we'll probably do this until we're 100.


----------



## Heatherknows

I know nobody gives a crap..LOL...but just so you know I'm not lying here is a picture of me next to the doll. I'll leave it up for five minutes.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/members/heatherknows-albums-me++me+++doll.html


----------



## Faithful Wife

Heather honey...no one thinks you are lying. The pic doesn't show up for me anyway, just a little icon. But isn't seeking attention this way one of the reasons you are at TAM?

Look - I'm 100 times hotter than any of those dolls. But I don't need anyone to see my pic to prove it or tell me so.

I'm sorry if I'm picking on you, it is just that I know your main issue has been with this type of attention seeking.

We women can be beautiful and know it without assurance from others. Be self-assured.


----------



## Heatherknows

Faithful Wife said:


> Heather honey...no one thinks you are lying. The pic doesn't show up for me anyway, just a little icon. But isn't seeking attention this way one of the reasons you are at TAM?
> 
> Look - I'm 100 times hotter than any of those dolls. But I don't need anyone to see my pic to prove it or tell me so.
> 
> I'm sorry if I'm picking on you, it is just that I know your main issue has been with this type of attention seeking.
> 
> We women can be beautiful and know it without assurance from others. Be self-assured.


Yeah, you're right. I'll take it down.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> It's crazy to be us, but we'll probably do this until we're 100.


Kind of romantic in a sick way.


----------



## knobcreek

norajane said:


> That seems to be exactly what the MGTOW are railing against and so bitter about, though, right? The SAHM who steals all their money and assets in a divorce precisely because they set up their marriages to have a SAHM?


It's a double edge sword no doubt, huge risk on the guys part, but for me it would be my preference. The money I don't really care about, every dime I make today goes down the line to her and the kids anyway, I don't own anything of real value and tend to enjoy activities more than possessions. As long as I had enough to live I'm not frightened by child support payments or whatever. So even if I only kept half of my money, it would be 100 times more than I keep today.

I make nearly 5 times what my wife makes, so the money she makes isn't really helping the household too much, and it's definitely not worth the added stress of what it does to the household. I do like being more involved with the kids activities, I'm taking off to do a ginger bread house at my daughters school, when my wife was a SAHM that wouldn't have happened.


----------



## knobcreek

EleGirl said:


> It’s one thing if she wants to do the work to become a millionaire, but for her to expect you to jump to her command and start a business to do this is ridiculous. Is there any chance at all that she was joking? Or could it be that she has undying faith your abilities? I’m just asking, hoping that there is a silver lining in all that.


My wife has champagne tastes no doubt, and there's no reason to believe that she doesn't want to be a millionaire. But she does tend to think I'm much more intelligent than I am. I learned in IT very quickly that I'm never the smartest guy in the room, it's why I went into management, the neck-beards are on another level of intelligence I'll never hit. But she likely thinks I'm 100% capable of starting an IT company and making a fortune (I've talked about starting my own company when I finish my MBA).



EleGirl said:


> Boy do I know how that feels!!! I was married to a guy who decided after we married to quit his career as a electrical engineer (w/MS degree) to go to medical school. He gave me zero input into the decision. It left me holding the whole bag… I was the sole financial support (owned a consulting firm so at least my income was in the 6 figures range); paid for his medical school, was primary care taker of our son, kept the house spotless, took care of the yard; and I kept in shape of course…. he? He went to medical school and complained that I was a lazy slouch. Then later I found out he was cheating as well. (There’s more but won’t go into it now). Then when he was done with medical school and residency, he announced that I was not good enough for him because I did not have my Phd or MD.


That sucks people are such sh*t sometimes. This site depresses the hell out of me sometimes, but you seem to have rebounded without an issue and seem level headed. I'm still married and a complete mental case most of the time.


----------



## jld

Ele is amazing. She stayed in her marriage long enough to get her stepkids through high school, supporting their dad and them and her own son, all by herself. 

I have always respected her commitment to her stepchildren. They were very lucky.


----------



## EleGirl

The sex bots..

I don't think that sex bots are about men and women losing connection. What I think that they hold interest from some people for different reasons:

1) Humans will sexualize everything. My son was telling me today that on the dark web there is some guy selling dildos that are shaped like religious figures... statues of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and every other religious figure from every religion on earth that you can think of. (he told me this because he saw me watching the video SA posted ... after laughing his head off at the video.)

Cave men/women made sex toys... nothing new there.

Sex bots are just a way to sexualize the technological advances we've made. For years now online porn has been the best that technology could do. But of course the next step is sex bots... it's a natural... the mix of blow up dolls and internet porn. 

Shoot it might be come as much an 'entitlement' as some seem to think online porn is. What would be the difference? 

I have not doubt that this will be taken to the point that a person can download apps for the sex bot to do 'special' things. Or maybe even online companies offering online sites that can sync up porn and your sex bot... geez I'm in the wrong business.. maybe a new career away from things like satellites, aircraft etc. to sex bots.. 

What great way to fund the research and development of robots? Let horny people buy expense sex toys. The money earned can drive more development of robots for other purposes. And the innovations from the sex bots can be used to advance the robot development. Brilliant!

2) Ok so, another reason that I think sex bots interest some people is that some people have a real problem either connecting to the love interest because of things like having Asperger's or other issues. They might fill help some people cope.. is a way that seems odd to us but that might become common.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I make nearly 5 times what my wife makes, so the money she makes isn't really helping the household too much, and it's definitely not worth the added stress of what it does to the household. I do like being more involved with the kids activities, I'm taking off to do a ginger bread house at my daughters school, when my wife was a SAHM that wouldn't have happened.


Working isn't just about making money. Its about independence and many women need to feel that way. Also consider that if you do get divorced, its good for her to be in a position that she can take care of herself. 

I can't speak to finding a less attractive woman...lol. Forgive me but it sounds like you want her under your thumb more and more reliant upon you so you can control her. 

As far as you taking the gingerbread house, that's a good thing. Its another dynamic that when couples have one person staying home, the SAHP does all the kid's activities and the relationship with the kids gets skewed towards one caregiver as a result. Children love having *both* parents involved in their lives. And you're going to be so glad when your kids are older for these experiences. Relish the times you get to do this stuff. 

And as far as your wife wanting material things, that's not exclusive to working women. There's a lot of SAHP that overspend and put families into financial peril. And a lot of working women are very domestic. 

I find it amusing when people suggest that working women don't clean their homes or take care of their kids. I used to nurse my daughter in my office and she was with me just about all day. I volunteered at both my kids' schools once a week every week until they hit high school. 

And I take great pride in my home. I love to clean and cook...its just not something that takes much time and it simply doesn't provide the intellectual challenge I need. I find having happy kids, a clean home and a warm dinner extremely important but I have a lot of other contributions to make and spent way too much time in school to just being a cook and a housekeeper.


----------



## knobcreek

EnigmaGirl said:


> Working isn't just about making money. Its about independence and many women need to feel that way. Also consider that if you do get divorced, its good for her to be in a position that she can take care of herself.


I get that, she was a terrible SAHM, so I guess this is better. The only reason I want her to be a SAHM is because life is easier for everyone. With both of us working it's an absolute rat race every single day.



EnigmaGirl said:


> I can't speak to finding a less attractive woman...lol. Forgive me but it sounds like you want her under your thumb more and more reliant upon you so you can control her.


We'll agree to disagree on that, a very attractive woman is hit on pretty much non-stop every day, it's enough to make anyone insecure and neurotic, especially if they placate to it. So having to do it over, I would prefer a woman who wasn't as tall and classically beautiful as my wife. I'm sick of constantly competing for her. I don't mind every now and again so she knows I care, but keeping a beautiful woman's interest for 15 years isn't friggin easy. I would prefer cute and nice down to Earth homebody, over beautiful and a PITA party girl. And not because I'm controlling, because I just want to take a breath and enjoy my life with someone more like me.


----------



## jld

I think it is nice when one parent can be at home. It frees up the working parent and makes life less stressful for the kids.

We homeschool, which has really kept our family stress level low. We have complete control over our schedule.

EnigmaGirl, I am impressed with your energy level. I could not do what you do, but I am glad you can. And I hope you enjoy your vacation time before you start your new business.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> We'll agree to disagree on that, a very attractive woman is hit on pretty much non-stop every day, it's enough to make anyone insecure and neurotic, especially if they placate to it. So having to do it over, I would prefer a woman who wasn't as tall and classically beautiful as my wife. I'm sick of constantly competing for her. I don't mind every now and again so she knows I care, but keeping a beautiful woman's interest for 15 years isn't friggin easy. I would prefer cute and nice down to Earth homebody, over beautiful and a PITA party girl. And not because I'm controlling, because I just want to take a breath and enjoy my life with someone more like me.


She sounds lovely but if you have a compatibility issue...I totally get that.



> EnigmaGirl, I am impressed with your energy level. I could not do what you do, but I am glad you can. And I hope you enjoy your vacation time before you start your new business.


Thank you very, very much JLD.


----------



## EleGirl

knobcreek said:


> I get that, she was a terrible SAHM, so I guess this is better. The only reason I want her to be a SAHM is because life is easier for everyone. With both of us working it's an absolute rat race every single day.


Who does the housework in your home? The cooking? the laundry?

If the two of you work and make good money, do you have hired help to make things easier?



knobcreek said:


> We'll agree to disagree on that, a very attractive woman is hit on pretty much non-stop every day, it's enough to make anyone insecure and neurotic, especially if they placate to it. So having to do it over, I would prefer a woman who wasn't as tall and classically beautiful as my wife. I'm sick of constantly competing for her. I don't mind every now and again so she knows I care, but keeping a beautiful woman's interest for 15 years isn't friggin easy. I would prefer cute and nice down to Earth homebody, over beautiful and a PITA party girl. And not because I'm controlling, because I just want to take a breath and enjoy my life with someone more like me.


What you describe your wife doing.. getting men's attention to make you jealous reminds me of the thing that the PUA nonsense tell men to do... exactly that. PUA tell men to constantly draw the attention of other women when their wife is around to make her jealous and let her know that he can dump her at any time. It sounds like a rotten way to treat a spouse.

How do you react when you see your wife doing these sort of things?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> 1) Humans will sexualize everything. My son was telling me today that on the dark web there is some guy selling dildos that are shaped like religious figures... statues of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and every other religious figure from every religion on earth that you can think of. (he told me this because he saw me watching the video SA posted ... after laughing his head off at the video.)


 I didn't post this video ... there was a link in another post & I, too, clicked on it. Our oldest son has mentioned this "Dark web" to us...I've never heard if it before.... sounds one needs special access to get in there or know how to do it.. 

I guess he has.. curiosity got the best of him..


----------



## knobcreek

EnigmaGirl said:


> She sounds lovely but if you have a compatibility issue...I totally get that.


That coupled with my not feeling worthy enough for a woman of her stature, her beauty and the way she acts makes me insecure, no doubt. At this point I'm very fit, a VP and good earner, going for my MBA from a top 25 business school, and it still doesn't appear to be enough, so I would feel more secure with a solid 7 who is family focused, a sports fan (this is a must if I divorce), and easy going, rather than the 9.75 who needs constant distraction and excitement that I have now. I'm just being realistic about it. 

There are no re-do's in life, but if there were I would choose differently and looks wouldn't be the top priority, as long as there was an attraction I would gladly take some flaws.


----------



## knobcreek

EleGirl said:


> Who does the housework in your home? The cooking? the laundry?
> 
> If the two of you work and make good money, do you have hired help to make things easier?


I do the vast majority of the cleaning and cooking, I don't mind cooking and like a neat house so it doesn't bother me, my wife doesn't mind a mess so she'll only pick up and clean when it's a complete mess. We spoke about getting a maid service but I'm weird about people in my house cleaning it, it's so foreign to me, but it's been discussed.

As for homework we likely split that, she'll read with the kids, I'm the math guy.

So I would say housework is 80/20 me, outside the house work is 100% me.




EleGirl said:


> What you describe your wife doing.. getting men's attention to make you jealous reminds me of the thing that the PUA nonsense tell men to do... exactly that. PUA tell men to constantly draw the attention of other women when their wife is around to make her jealous and let her know that he can dump her at any time. It sounds like a rotten way to treat a spouse.
> 
> How do you react when you see your wife doing these sort of things?


Probably jealous, we fight, then sexually aggressive. It's likely why she does it, it most definitely gets my attention. It typically leads to mind blowing sex sessions after a prolonged fight. It's likely why she does it. Maybe she read 'Married Ladies Sex Life Primer'.

I do agree it's a crappy way to treat spouse, keep them insecure and worried that you'll cheat and/or leave them in order to draw them to you? Sounds insane to me, but maybe that's why I'm in the position I'm in?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnigmaGirl said:


> Working isn't just about making money. Its about independence and many women need to feel that way. Also consider that if you do get divorced, its good for her to be in a position that she can take care of herself.
> 
> I can't speak to finding a less attractive woman...lol. Forgive me but it sounds like you want her under your thumb more and more reliant upon you so you can control her.


 See.. there it is again.. I get it .. you judge us.. you feel your way is ALWAYS the best way.. the superior way.. and you DO most certainly look down on such women. 



> As far as you taking the gingerbread house, that's a good thing. *Its another dynamic that when couples have one person staying home,* *the SAHP does all the kid's activities and the relationship with the kids gets skewed towards one caregiver as a result. Children love having both parents involved in their lives. *And you're going to be so glad when your kids are older for these experiences. Relish the times you get to do this stuff.


 see right here.. without knowing of another couples way of life.. why do you assume this??

It's not like this in our house. My husband is very involved.. in fact our kids would say HE spends more time with them than I do.. at least the little ones.. I get along better with teens.. he is great for watching movies with the younger ones, playing board games (I hate board games!).... he helps with their homework , yesterday after work, he was outside shooting pellets guns with 5 of our kids.... his hours are 7 -3 .. so he has a lot of the day left over.. and because I get everything done to make his life as easy as possible ..it matters TO ME a great deal that he HAS THE TIME for the kids, me, and whatever comes up.. sometimes we have to work on vehicles or home Projects.. we try to save $$ anywhwere we can because we do value having more time together...

He never has to help me with anything, I do ALL the mundane womanly stuff, "just that cook & maid" as you'd call it.. plus handle all the money too... but he'd never refer to me as the lowly women that you do -when speaking of such women as myself...

It's just not the picture you are painting in every family, that the man is so busy, he has no time for his kids.. .


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> That coupled with my not feeling worthy enough for a woman of her stature, her beauty and the way she acts makes me insecure, no doubt. At this point I'm very fit, a VP and good earner, going for my MBA from a top 25 business school, and it still doesn't appear to be enough, so I would feel more secure with a solid 7 who is family focused, a sports fan (this is a must if I divorce), and easy going, rather than the 9.75 who needs constant distraction and excitement that I have now. I'm just being realistic about it.


You sound very eligible but it does sound like you have some compatibility issues with your partner. It sounds like you just want, enjoy and need different things but I don't think that that's necessarily a factor of her attractiveness. You might find a less attractive woman that wants, enjoys and needs different things.

By the way, I don't know what the rating system is but I hope you're including all her qualities and not just the exterior ones in it.


----------



## EleGirl

knobcreek said:


> I do the vast majority of the cleaning and cooking, I don't mind cooking and like a neat house so it doesn't bother me, my wife doesn't mind a mess so she'll only pick up and clean when it's a complete mess. We spoke about getting a maid service but I'm weird about people in my house cleaning it, it's so foreign to me, but it's been discussed.
> 
> As for homework we likely split that, she'll read with the kids, I'm the math guy.
> 
> So I would say housework is 80/20 me, outside the house work is 100% me.


In a lot of ways, life is about choses there to put our energy. If your home life is hectic because you are both working, then something has to give. 

Your wife quitting work does not sound like an option. My bet is that she would still rely on you to do it all. So it's probably better for her to work.

I get the not wanting someone in your home. But there are ways to mitigate that. One is to hire people to do things that are not in the house.. outdoor work. Another is to find someone who will do specific big tasks and have them done while you and/or your wife are at home.

Another way is to find someone who is bonded. And then get to know them to know if you can trust them. It is possible to find good, reliable help. Start with small things, see what the person is like.




knobcreek said:


> Probably jealous, we fight, then sexually aggressive. It's likely why she does it, it most definitely gets my attention. It typically leads to mind blowing sex sessions after a prolonged fight. It's likely why she does it. Maybe she read 'Married Ladies Sex Life Primer'.
> 
> I do agree it's a crappy way to treat spouse, keep them insecure and worried that you'll cheat and/or leave them in order to draw them to you? Sounds insane to me, but maybe that's why I'm in the position I'm in?


Ok, this sounds like a game that is played to up the passion level in your relationship. She is really wanting passion in her life... in your relationship. There are healthier ways to get it.

Here are some things that might help you...

Mating in Captivity: Unlocking Erotic Intelligence by Esther Perel 

Ted Talk - The Secret to Desire in a Long Term Relationship


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I can't help but laugh at those mannequins.
> 
> I don't really think things are going to be that bad.


You know what's kind of scary? They actually look pretty real if you compare them to who they're modeled after...










SA's picture with the two dolls... That one on the left isn't a doll. Valeria Lukyanova is a real person. And this is what too much surgery and some weird need to look like barbie will do to you...:surprise:


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> You know what's kind of scary? They actually look pretty real if you compare them to who they're modeled after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SA's picture with the two dolls... That one on the left isn't a doll. Valeria Lukyanova is a real person. And this is what too much surgery and some weird need to look like barbie will do to you...:surprise:


There are several 'Barbie girls' out there. For some its how they make their living.. with youtube videos and other publicity stunts. Sad.. very sad.

Here are some videos that will teach you too to look like Barbie. 

Kivlor, I would really like to see a photo of your after you do this.. >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLaTCD1uC0k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uYV5fLq9T8


----------



## john117

I have a hijab Barbie somewhere... I should put it on eBay


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> You know what's kind of scary? They actually look pretty real if you compare them to who they're modeled after...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SA's picture with the two dolls... That one on the left isn't a doll. Valeria Lukyanova is a real person. And this is what too much surgery and some weird need to look like barbie will do to you...:surprise:


I didn't know that ! I can't even tell if THIS is real.. but I guess it is.. then this is the doll...


----------



## always_alone

knobcreek said:


> That coupled with my not feeling worthy enough for a woman of her stature, her beauty and the way she acts makes me insecure, no doubt. At this point I'm very fit, a VP and good earner, going for my MBA from a top 25 business school, and it still doesn't appear to be enough, so I would feel more secure with a solid 7 who is family focused, a sports fan (this is a must if I divorce), and easy going, rather than the 9.75 who needs constant distraction and excitement that I have now. I'm just being realistic about it.
> 
> There are no re-do's in life, but if there were I would choose differently and looks wouldn't be the top priority, as long as there was an attraction I would gladly take some flaws.


Yeah, it's for sure too bad that you don't feel good enough for your own wife, but as a total uggo myself, let me assure you that it isn't *her* that makes you feel that way.


----------



## always_alone

Oh, thank goodness we've finally made it to the sex doll portion of the conversation. Now we can be absolutely clear on what is valuable about women.


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> Oh, thank goodness we've finally made it to the sex doll portion of the conversation. Now we can be absolutely clear on what is valuable about women.


:rofl:


----------



## knobcreek

always_alone said:


> Yeah, it's for sure too bad that you don't feel good enough for your own wife, but as a total uggo myself, let me assure you that it isn't *her* that makes you feel that way.


As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not.

With men, we need to be perfect, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.

I think back to HS and this rule definitely applied, the top 10% had their share of 50% of the girls easily, so many dudes never dated girls because they just weren't good enough. Girls would rather be the third option of the popular guy then the first option of a guy more on her level. It's sad people can't pair up and just be content. I wrestled in HS and did fine with girls, but never thought of the other dudes without a date to the prom, or who never kissed a girl in H.S. This thread makes me think about that, and what if my sons deal with this?

My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude"fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude"fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


Perhaps SA will chime in, but she has said before that her husband isn't tall, and that she loves him madly.

Also we have two guys here who are quite a bit shorter than you, who have wives who are madly in love with them (@personal and @samyeager)

I don't mean to say this to somehow make you change your mind about your height...I'm just pointing out some of the lovely ladies here I've heard of who love their non-tall men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> I think back to HS and this rule definitely applied, the top 10% had their share of 50% of the girls easily, so many dudes never dated girls because they just weren't good enough. Girls would rather be the third option of the popular guy then the first option of a guy more on her level. It's sad people can't pair up and just be content. I wrestled in HS and did fine with girls, but never thought of the other dudes without a date to the prom, or who never kissed a girl in H.S. This thread makes me think about that, and what if my sons deal with this?


I know this is the perception of a lot of men. But in my experience with girls growing up and even adult women, it just isn't that way from their perspective. They are passed over by normal, average men, because those men wanted the top 10% of women and couldn't even see the average women. She was invisible to them.

I really don't think there is only one side of the gender fence that has it better or worse in this way. It is simply that we only hear the stories from the side of the fence we are on.


----------



## Duguesclin

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not.
> 
> *With men, we need to be perfect*, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.
> 
> I think back to HS and this rule definitely applied, *the top 10% had their share of 50% of the girls easily*, so many dudes never dated girls because they just weren't good enough. Girls would rather be the third option of the popular guy then the first option of a guy more on her level. *It's sad people can't pair up and just be content.* I wrestled in HS and did fine with girls, but never thought of the other dudes without a date to the prom, or who never kissed a girl in H.S. This thread makes me think about that, and what if my sons deal with this?
> 
> My biggest flaw is *I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it,* I always said if* I were 6 feet I'd be the President*. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude"fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


Where do you get these ideas?


----------



## Faithful Wife

knobcreek said:


> My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President.


PS...Jimmy Carter is 5'9".


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> PS...Jimmy Carter is 5'9".


That explains EVERYTHING...



ETA: Nice switch, FW... lol

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not sure what you mean but...he's probably the most beloved president ever, and IMO, was definitely the most attractive.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure what you mean but...he's probably the most beloved president ever, and IMO, was definitely the most attractive.


I thought I was responding to the first president you posted. Turns out you switched it just before I quoted it.

Either way, it was not intended to be anything but a joke about this perception of height being an issue.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not.
> 
> With men, we need to be perfect, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.


I'm sorry, but this is just a huge pile of horse manure.

And that in a nutshell is my biggest frustration with all of this alpha man MGTOW stuff: this persistent belief that somehow men are not desirable to women, that full 80% of them are just rejects. Notice, for example, that not one single man here is part of that 80%. But you all think this 80% exists, and "feel" for those guys because you know how awful it must be. Why? Just look around you. Look at the guys who are actually in relationships. Who actually date women. Are they all perfect? Really? Why are you so bloody sure it's only 10% that get women when the stats show that approximately 75% of men end up married?

And then this presumption that women don't have to do anything at all to have guys swooning after her. Bull cookies, I say. As a woman who had *no* one swooning after me, as a woman who has seen lots of my friends *completely* overlooked by men because we failed to meet the sex doll criteria, I can assure you that women too face these exact same struggles.


----------



## Faithful Wife

farsidejunky said:


> I thought I was responding to the first president you posted. Turns out you switched it just before I quoted it.
> 
> Either way, it was not intended to be anything but a joke about this perception of height being an issue.


Yes I had it wrong the first time so corrected it. I still don't get your joke but I'm sure someone would have.


----------



## farsidejunky

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes I had it wrong the first time so corrected it. I still don't get your joke but I'm sure someone would have.


It was intended to be as ridiculous as the assertion that height causes men to not be attractive to women.

I mean, I am only 5'7". I must be totally screwed.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> It was intended to be as ridiculous as the assertion that height causes men to not be attractive to women.
> 
> I mean, I am only 5'7". I must be totally screwed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You know what I like about you, far? You are honest. Every time you post your height, it is the same.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> You know what I like about you, far? You are honest. Every time you post your height, it is the same.


Either that or I am a really consistent liar... 



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Either that or I am a really consistent liar...
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You mean you're really 5'6"?

 Just kidding you, far!


----------



## EleGirl

knobcreek said:


> My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude" fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


Sure there are some women who will date only tall men just as there are some men who will only date women who have certain physical characteristics, who are a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10, etc.

LOL… I’m 5’3”. My first husband is 5’6”. My second husband is 5’9”. I’ve dated men from 5’2” up to 6’4” in height. What matters is his personality, sense of humor, that he takes a bath/shower, etc. Height is not something that is a big deal one way or the other. 

Oh, and neither of my "too short" husbands have ever had any problem finding women to date... if anything that is one of their major problems... way too charming, intelligent and great senses of humor.

I have 3 brothers. One of them is 5’6”. He has never had any problem dating tons of women. He typically dated women taller than himself. And married a woman who is 5'10".


----------



## tom67

farsidejunky said:


> It was intended to be as ridiculous as the assertion that height causes men to not be attractive to women.
> 
> I mean, I am only 5'7". I must be totally screwed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Same height as me :grin2:
Anyway.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Sure there are some women who will date only tall men just as there are some men who will only date women who have certain physical characteristics, who are a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10, etc.


Are there women who will only date *short *men? I think that was the point he was trying to make...


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> I'm sorry, but this is just a huge pile of horse manure.
> 
> And that in a nutshell is my biggest frustration with all of this alpha man MGTOW stuff: this persistent belief that somehow men are not desirable to women, that full 80% of them are just rejects. Notice, for example, that not one single man here is part of that 80%. But you all think this 80% exists, and "feel" for those guys because you know how awful it must be. Why? Just look around you. Look at the guys who are actually in relationships. Who actually date women. Are they all perfect? Really? Why are you so bloody sure it's only 10% that get women when the stats show that approximately 75% of men end up married?


Yes, about 75% of men end up married, many of them after a long period of no attention from women. The question is whether their wives are physically attracted to them, or see them just as ATMs or the like.


----------



## EleGirl

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? *Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not. *


Since there are about as many men as there are women, if just about every woman has a man in her life… clearly just about every man has a woman in his life. It’s basic logic and math.



knobcreek said:


> With men, we need to be perfect, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.


I don’t know.. when was the last time you shopped at Walmart, target or walked through a big shopping mall. There are tons of couples, many of them pretty average to below average guys with a girl friend or wife. Very often the woman is much better looking than the guy. And these are mostly guys how can hardly pay the grocery bill. Most of the women they are with work to help support the family.

I can take you to parts of town here and show you apartment buildings full of people who like this.

Maybe I should go to Walmart this weekend and take pictures to post to show that normal men do find women all the time.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

always_alone said:


> And then this presumption that women don't have to do anything at all to have guys swooning after her. Bull cookies, I say. As a woman who had *no* one swooning after me, as a woman who has seen lots of my friends *completely* overlooked by men because we failed to meet the sex doll criteria, I can assure you that women too face these exact same struggles.


Exactly! As a plain, average girl, I get no swooning. People just look right past me. I might as well be invisible. Most of the time I have had to make the first move, most of the time someone has to get to know me before they really see me. 

When I was single I would have LOVED if a decent guy to come up to me and say hi. He didn't have to be hot, have abs, be the life of the party. I prefer an introvert anyway. Just be a good guy, someone who actually was interested in getting to know me. 

There are just as many average women out there having these problems as there are men


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> Since there are about as many men as there are women, if just about every woman has a man in her life… clearly just about every man has a woman in his life. It’s basic logic and math..


I'm afraid not. There is no mathematical reason that some men could have many women in their lives, while many other men have none. And in fact that is what happens.

Of course it could be the other way around too, but it isn't.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Exactly! As a plain, average girl, I get no swooning. People just look right past me. I might as well be invisible. Most of the time I have had to make the first move, most of the time someone has to get to know me before they really see me.
> 
> When I was single I would have LOVED if a *decent* guy to come up to me and say hi. He didn't have to be hot, have abs, be the life of the party. I prefer an introvert anyway. Just be a good guy, someone who actually was interested in getting to know me.
> 
> There are just as many average women out there having these problems as there are men


How many indecent men did that?


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Yes, about 75% of men end up married, many of them after a long period of no attention from women. The question is whether their wives are physically attracted to them, or see them just as ATMs or the like.


And many women go long periods of time with no attention from men. 

So can we also assume that the men they marry are just settling on them and not really attracted to the women?

This idea that some men have that most women marry men who they are not physically attracted to is just nonsense. It definitely shows a belief that women are low lives. Wow


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> And many women go long periods of time with no attention from men.
> 
> So can we also assume that the men they marry are just settling on them and not really attracted to the women?
> 
> This idea that some men have that most women marry men who they are not physically attracted to is just nonsense. It definitely shows a belief that women are low lives. Wow


For at least the third time:

Most women are attractive enough to attract most men.
Most men are *not *attractive enough to attract most women.

(See Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends)

Thus, more women are settling than men are settling.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> How many indecent men did that?


Lets see, I get 50ish year old homeless drunks hit on me, young punks who yell "baby baby, come here" at me and then call me a b*tch when I walk away, and I get dirty old men (70+) tell me they only let me through the door first to look at my @ss. 

So ya, anything other than that would have been great. 

Guess how many normal guys came to talk to me as a single adult? 0 in 3 years. 

I had to make the first move with my H.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Lets see, I get 50ish year old homeless drunks hit on me, young punks who yell "baby baby, come here" at me and then call me a b*tch when I walk away, and I get dirty old men (70+) tell me they only let me through the door first to look at my @ss.
> 
> So ya, anything other than that would have been great.
> 
> Guess how many normal guys came to talk to me as a single adult? 0 in 3 years.
> 
> I had to make the first move with my H.


I think you are going to the wrong parties then...


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> For at least the third time:
> 
> Most women are attractive enough to attract most men.
> Most men are *not *attractive enough to attract most women.
> 
> (See Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends)
> 
> Thus, more women are settling than men are settling.


 2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women.

Most of the men are after the hot girls too.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> I think you are going to the wrong parties then...


Well, I get that you're joking but that's just the thing. The girls these guys might be looking for might not be at parties and bars and out on GNO getting wild and flirting with hot men. They could be at the coffee shop or the mall, the library, the bus. That's where I was. I don't do parties.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> I'm afraid not. There is no mathematical reason that some men could have many women in their lives, while many other men have none. And in fact that is what happens.
> 
> Of course it could be the other way around too, but it isn't.


About 80% of Americans have been married by age 40. Unless they are is a small number of men remarrying over and over and over gain, clearly most men and most women will have been married by age 40. Add to that the large number of couples who just live together in committed relationships... most people have found partners. Sure there are divorces. And who is in that demographic of married/living-together changes over time.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well, I get that you're joking but that's just the thing. The girls these guys might be looking for might not be at parties and bars and out on GNO getting wild and flirting with hot men. They could be at the coffee shop or the mall, the library, the bus. That's where I was. I don't do parties.


There are parties that aren't at bars, and don't involve getting drunk and messing around with strangers.

What social groups do you belong to? If none, maybe you should start with that.

If you're religious, there are usually some sort of church get-togethers. If not, there are still UU churches, where a fair number of people are of various (or no) faiths; they also tend to be pretty intelligent and open-minded.

But if you want to meet people, in general it's best to go where people you might want to meet are likely to hang out. If you're an introvert (or a non-drinking extravert), that isn't likely to be a bar...


----------



## jld

I met my husband when we were both renting rooms in a house. 

It must have been fate.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> About 80% of Americans have been married by age 40. Unless they are is a small number of men remarrying over and over and over gain, clearly most men and most women will have been married by age 40. Add to that the large number of couples who just live together in committed relationships... most people have found partners. Sure there are divorces. And who is in that demographic of married/living-together changes over time.


According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marri...s_of_the_United_States_of_America_in_2004.png, as of 2004, although nearly all adults *had *been married, less than half of adults in the USA were currently married.


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Well, I get that you're joking but that's just the thing. The girls these guys might be looking for might not be at parties and bars and out on GNO getting wild and flirting with hot men. They could be at the coffee shop or the mall, the library, the bus. That's where I was. I don't do parties.


I understand where you are coming from. But I think a lot of women do not like being approached in public places. Or perhaps they would be receptive to it if the guy was smooth and confident and her type. Most normal guys are a bit nervous and some women are immediately turned off or disinterested once they see this. So I really think a lot of women only want to be hit on are approached at parties/clubs. They feel sexy from all the attention and usually they can pick the guy they want. Even if only for a night.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> There are parties that aren't at bars, and don't involve getting drunk and messing around with strangers.
> 
> What social groups do you belong to? If none, maybe you should start with that.
> 
> If you're religious, there are usually some sort of church get-togethers. If not, there are still UU churches, where a fair number of people are of various (or no) faiths; they also tend to be pretty intelligent and open-minded.
> 
> But if you want to meet people, in general it's best to go where people you might want to meet are likely to hang out. If you're an introvert (or a non-drinking extravert), that isn't likely to be a bar...


I have a husband. I'm just pointing out that my 3 adult years single were just as lonely as many men have experienced and had I not made the first move with my H, I would have been single a lot longer.

If I am single again, I still won't be going out places outside my normal routine. If anything I'd end up online dating or something. 

There are women everywhere if these guys opened their eyes and saw them and took the time to get to know them. 

But a lot of them are chasing the hot girl and I'm not willing to be settled for when she turns him down.


----------



## jld

FalconKing said:


> I understand where you are coming from. But I think a lot of women do not like being approached in public places. Or perhaps they would be receptive to it if the guy was smooth and confident and her type. Most normal guys are a bit nervous and some women are immediately turned off or disinterested once they see this. So for a lot of women they only want to be hit on are approached at parties/clubs. They feel sexy from all the attention and usually they can pick the guy they want. Even if only for a night.


I think people should get away from this "hitting on" idea and more into "getting to know her."

I don't think SGC would have minded a young man coming up to her and asking her about the book she was reading. And if he had asked her questions and seemed genuinely interested in her responses, I bet she would have been delighted.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

FalconKing said:


> I understand where you are coming from. But I think a lot of women do not like being approached in public places. Or perhaps they would be receptive to it if the guy was smooth and confident and her type. Most normal guys are a bit nervous and some women are immediately turned off or disinterested once they see this. So for a lot of women they only want to be hit on are approached at parties/clubs. They feel sexy from all the attention and usually they can pick the guy they want. Even if only for a night.


What I would have liked- a smile and a simple "hello". I'd smile at them, make eye contact of some sort to show interest and I'd just be looked right passed. 

What I don't like - pick up lines, calling me baby, acting like a c*cky D-bag.

It's fine though, it was disheartening for a while and I thought I'd be single forever but I just got some confidence and made the moves myself, found a guy who thinks I'm hot and liked my personality. 

Feeling sorry for yourself is not attractive. Being pissy and putting the blame on hot women and the men who go for them is not attractive. Wishing I was hotter and feeling upset that I'm not is not attractive. 

I had to fix those things first, feel good about myself and put myself out there and make the move and I did, 9.5 years ago. :grin2:


----------



## farsidejunky

technovelist said:


> Are there women who will only date *short *men? I think that was the point he was trying to make...


With my overwhelmingly average (evidently short to some) height, I have dated or slept with women from 4'9" to 5'11". I am nothing special in the looks department; I am skinny with big ears; I am not really a smooth talker; I have never been rich.

Yet I have dated and/or slept with a lot of different women before I married my wife. 

So much of this approach screams "victim". I just don't get it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> I understand where you are coming from. But I think a lot of women do not like being approached in public places. Or perhaps they would be receptive to it if the guy was smooth and confident and her type. Most normal guys are a bit nervous and some women are immediately turned off or disinterested once they see this. So I really think a lot of women only want to be hit on are approached at parties/clubs. They feel sexy from all the attention and usually they can pick the guy they want. Even if only for a night.


Huh? I don't understand. It's women's fault they are not attractive enough to men because they only want to be hit on at parties? Even if they are not hit on at parties? :scratchhead: 

More like: women have to be hot enough for lots of guys to want her. Otherwise she doesn't actually exist and ergo doesn't get factored into their statistics about the desirability of women.


----------



## FalconKing

jld said:


> I think people should get away from this "hitting on" idea and more into "getting to know her."
> 
> I don't think SGC would have minded a young man coming up to her and asking her about the book she was reading. And if he had asked her questions and seemed genuinely interested in her responses, I bet she would have been delighted.


But for a lot of women unless you don't make it clear initially that you find her attractive she will just probably friend zone you. That's how so many guys become that nice guy hoping the girl has romantic interest in them. They missed their moment and now they're stuck and it can get ugly and awkward if she just feels you are a platonic friend. Also, I think a lot of guys are afraid of looking like fools. Basically, I feel moving slow is best but many people aren't doing that. So a lot of guys don't want to be courting a girl while she has a FWB or a fling she is currently involved in. So they make their intentions clear early and just hope she is upfront about that and drops whomever she is casually involved with. I have found it's rare you meet attractive people who don't have options for sexual release while single.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Huh? I don't understand. It's women's fault they are not attractive enough to men because they only want to be hit on at parties? Even if they are not hit on at parties? :scratchhead:


I'm sorry. How the f-u-k did you get that out of what I said???


----------



## farsidejunky

FalconKing said:


> But for a lot of women unless you don't make it clear initially that you find her attractive she will just probably friend zone you. That's how so many guys become that nice guy hoping the girl has romantic interest in them. They missed their moment and now they're stuck and it can get ugly and awkward if she just feels you are a platonic friend. Also, I think a lot of guys are afraid of looking like fools. Basically, I feel moving slow is best but many people aren't doing that. So a lot of guys don't want to be courting a girl while she has a FWB or a fling she is currently involved in. So they make their intentions clear early and just hope she is upfront about that and drops whomever she is casually involved with. I have found it's rare you meet attractive people who don't have options for sexual release while single.


Missed their moment?

A woman who is attracted to a man will not friend zone him. Men who get friend zoned is due to attraction either being lost, or not being there to begin with.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

I wouldn't turn down too tall or too short. Easy kissing height (I'm 5'4) is perfect but it's not a deal breaker by any means. 

My deal breakers are almost all personality related. A good, average guy looks 10x hotter than the d-bag with abs and a pretty face. 

And just like there will always be men going after the drama queens, there will always be women going after the alpha jerks. Just forget about them and look around at the many, many choices you have left. 

Be confident, mature, good, caring, and put themselves out there with more than just the one getting the most attention at the party- and they will find someone who suits them.


----------



## Kivlor

@EleGirl LOL! I don't think I'd be able to make that work. My eyes are too beady; the contacts would make me look like I don't have whites to my eyes, and I'd get makeup all over my beard. It'd be horrific 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> 2/3 of male messages go to the top 1/3 of women.
> 
> Most of the men are after the hot girls too.


I think this video explains what Tech was getting at. 80% of male profiles are rated as less attractive than average. Men rate women pretty well on a bell curve. You can skip to ~8:05 for that particular study, but he addresses some other stuff worth listening to before it.

Citations are in the video description.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

farsidejunky said:


> Missed their moment?
> 
> A woman who is attracted to a man will not friend zone him. Men who get friend zoned is due to attraction either being lost, or not being there to begin with.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Ya, I don't know any woman who accidentally "friendzoned" a guy she _would _have dated had she known he was into her. 
That just doesn't happen. 

I hate that term anyway. A guy acts like a friend with the intention of wanting more and when she doesn't give it, she's the bad guy. We don't owe anyone a date just because they are nice to us.


----------



## FalconKing

farsidejunky said:


> Missed their moment?
> 
> A woman who is attracted to a man will not friend zone him. Men who get friend zoned is due to attraction either being lost, or not being there to begin with.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Sometimes attraction is lost because guys don't make their intentions clear when they should. Which can be said in another way...... they missed their moment...


----------



## FalconKing

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Ya, I don't know any woman who accidentally "friendzoned" a guy she _would _have dated had she known he was into her.
> That just doesn't happen.
> 
> I hate that term anyway. A guy acts like a friend with the intention of wanting more and when she doesn't give it, she's the bad guy. We don't owe anyone a date just because they are nice to us.


And somehow I was saying that?


----------



## farsidejunky

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I hate that term anyway. A guy acts like a friend with the intention of wanting more and when she doesn't give it, she's the bad guy. We don't owe anyone a date just because they are nice to us.


SGC, that is not quite the comprehesive depiction of being friend zoned.

"Hey, Far, can you come and help me with this thing? I would be a huuugggeee favor to me." The eyelashes are batted, the hips swayed, the tone is one of flirting and promise... but the reality is different.

While you may have never done this, I would wager nearly every man on the planet has been on the receiving end of it.

And a man wrestles with this. Do it and he is a foolishly optimistic chump. Don't do it and he is a rude @$$hole. 

That is the dirty little secret of the friend zone.



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> For at least the third time:
> 
> Most women are attractive enough to attract most men.


If we look at the link you provided to *******… the above is not true.

It said that 2/3 of males message the top 1/3 of women. So it does seem that while most men might give most women a rating close to 2.5 out of 5 in looks, they are only interested in the top 1/3 of women.

So no, most women are not attractive enough to attract most men. 

Well unless we are talking about at closing time and the guy is drunk and horny, then about any female will do. But that does not count because …. Well he’s just settling to get sex.


technovelist said:


> Most men are *not *attractive enough to attract most women.
> 
> (See Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends)
> 
> Thus, more women are settling than men are settling.


I think that conclusion comes from looking at the data from a male perspective. Women do not judge potential partners in the way men seem to.

Most woman’s attraction to a man is based less on his looks. While looks are important they are not THE main issue for women. So women are less likely to get all excited about the looks of some guy in a photo. We are more likely to hold off judgement until we get to know more about the guy. At least in my experience the perception of a guy’s physical attractiveness is greatly influenced by his personality and character. 

So no, I don’t think that the judgement that women are settling is correct. It’s a misperception. Women are holding off until they find out what the guy is really like.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> [MENTION=31351]
> 
> 
> I think this video explains what Tech was getting at. 80% of male profiles are rated as less attractive than average. Men rate women pretty well on a bell curve. You can skip to ~8:05 for that particular study, but he addresses some other stuff worth listening to before it.
> 
> Citations are in the video description.


I don't know what's up with the men's dating profile scene. I checked some out a little while ago when I was in a bad place. No, no, no, no. Seriously, go look at POF men. About 80% did look like @ssholes and jerks with stupid tag lines and stupid snowboarding pictures or their drunken frat party pics that they think are so funny. 
Know what's interesting? Most of them were the jock types, the guys who think lifting their shirt to show their abs in the gym mirror is sexy. I don't like jocks, I don't like gym guys. 
So yes, they all would have been rated below average for me. The other 20%ish looked like guys that may have suited me. 
Normal looking guys who liked netflix and cats. Apparently most of them aren't online dating anyway. 

But I see many, many men IRL that I think are attractive. A lot more than 20%.


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> I'm sorry. How the f-u-k did you get that out of what I said???


Well, TBH, I really didn't understand what you were trying to say at all. All I saw was that in response to a woman saying that she is just as likely to be overlooked as any guy, you seemed to be saying it was because guys won't talk to you in regular places -- which, by the way, is not at all true as the hot girls have guys tripping all over themselves to talk to her everywhere she goes. 

And that girls only want to be hit on at parties where they can feel sexy because there are a bunch of guys who are desperately looking to get laid for the evening.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> I met my husband when we were both renting rooms in a house.


That sounds like my current marriage


----------



## farsidejunky

FalconKing said:


> Sometimes attraction is lost because guys don't make their intentions clear when they should. Which can be said in another way...... they missed their moment...


Not buying it.

Maybe her willingness to act on it, due to another man actually expressing interest and entering into a relationship, but that is not lost attraction. 

That is loyalty; two completely separate subjects.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## FalconKing

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not.
> 
> With men, we need to be perfect, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.
> 
> I think back to HS and this rule definitely applied, the top 10% had their share of 50% of the girls easily, so many dudes never dated girls because they just weren't good enough. Girls would rather be the third option of the popular guy then the first option of a guy more on her level. It's sad people can't pair up and just be content. I wrestled in HS and did fine with girls, but never thought of the other dudes without a date to the prom, or who never kissed a girl in H.S. This thread makes me think about that, and what if my sons deal with this?
> 
> My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude"fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


Dude I have seen some ugly ass dudes with beautiful women. And I don't think 5'9 is short. Isn't that like average height? I'm 5'10. The women pursuing those 20 percent guys are looking for status, wealth, validation, or just simply like a guy because everyone else does. Social proof. I don't want to be with someone like that. So it works out. I don't even have the patience for that. I have internalized my own value. I feel like i'm just as much a prize as any man. Sometimes there is very little difference between these 20% guys and everyone else. You can change your hair, work on your hygiene, get a nutritionist and work on your body, dress better, get braces..etc.. Most of us don't reach our best us. 

Let me ask you a question. If you are on a date at a restaurant and some "supposedly" hot guy walks in and the woman you are with swoons and is very vocal about it... What would you do? Would you sit their in jealous envy and just try not to let it get to you wishing you were that guy? Or would you tell that woman that if she thinks that guy is so hot she should be with him and not you, and get up and leave? There are only men and women in this world at the end of the day when you take away everything else. I do not feel like any man is above me. And you shouldn't let yourself, society, or anyone make you feel different. If a guy has something I want, I just ask him about it. If I know his looks allow him to do well with women, it is what is it is. I'm not bitter about it. I'll just do the best I can with the cards i'm dealt.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Well, TBH, I really didn't understand what you were trying to say at all. *All I saw was that in response to a woman saying that she is just as likely to be overlooked as any guy, you seemed to be saying it was because guys won't talk to you in regular places --* which, by the way, is not at all true as the hot girls have guys tripping all over themselves to talk to her everywhere she goes.
> 
> And that girls only want to be hit on at parties where they can feel sexy because there are a bunch of guys who are desperately looking to get laid for the evening.


Again,
How the f-u-k did you get that?

Edit to add: Some guys are shy. And sometimes it's a turn off. Also, sometimes women in public at coffee shops, or parks or whatever...honestly just don't want to be bothered at the moment. They want to read their book, or listen to music, or do some work on their laptop. Whatever. Perhaps some women only want to be hit on at social gatherings because they are making an effort to be social. And perhaps, sometimes otherwise they would not liked to be bothered. Now, every guy at a party isn't looking for a one night stand. So maybe he is there to meet girls too and for a lot of people events like that seem to be only socially acceptable time to do it. 

Now i'm curious how you will distort this to offend you and then try to correct me, only to say sometimes everything I said isn't true. I know that.


----------



## FalconKing

farsidejunky said:


> Not buying it.
> 
> Maybe her willingness to act on it, due to another man actually expressing interest and entering into a relationship, but that is not lost attraction.
> 
> That is loyalty; two completely separate subjects.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Sometimes women do this thing called *changing their mind*. And until there is a relationship she can be loyal to whatever she feels. And I wasn't trying to sell you anything.


----------



## EleGirl

farsidejunky said:


> SGC, that is not quite the comprehesive depiction of being friend zoned.
> 
> "Hey, Far, can you come and help me with this thing? I would be a huuugggeee favor to me." The eyelashes are batted, the hips swayed, the tone is one of flirting and promise... but the reality is different.
> 
> While you may have never done this, I would wager nearly every man on the planet has been on the receiving end of it.
> 
> And a man wrestles with this. Do it and he is a foolishly optimistic chump. Don't do it and he is a rude @$$hole.
> 
> That is the dirty little secret of the friend zone.


My suggestion to a guy is that if he is looking for more than being friendly and helping her, that he might help her once or twice. If the relationship does not develop the way he wants it to.... walk away.

At that point it's ok because you cannot hold it against anyone who finds someone attractive to give it a try.

But if this goes on and on and on and on.. he's not really her friend. 

She might be naïve and think he's a friend. Go figure... thinking that men and women can be friends.... gasp 

Or she might be a manipulative person who figured out that if she bats her eye lashes, men will do things for her. If this is the case then they are both at fault because they both are playing a game. He's just hoping that some day he'll find her at a weak moment and get some. And she's thinking that she can wrap men around her little finger... because it works most of the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

technovelist said:


> Are there women who will only date *short *men? I think that was the point he was trying to make...


My mother is 5'1" (or so she says, I think she's actually 5'0") and she would never date a man taller than 5'5" because she felt dwarfed by anyone taller than that. My father was 5'4". She had 2 other husbands in her lifetime (she is now 75) and dated one other guy in between husbands. She had dated some guys in high school before my dad. As I said, not a one of them over 5'5". She felt that was the perfect height for her.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EleGirl said:


> Maybe I should go to Walmart this weekend and take pictures to post to show that normal men do find women all the time.


There is already a website about "the people of Walmart". It is intended to make a mockery of these "below average" people, the things they wear, some of them are obviously suffering from mental illnesses, etc. So I don't think it is a nice or good website at all, but just saying, it already exists.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> There is already a website about "the people of Walmart". It is intended to make a mockery of these "below average" people, the things they wear, some of them are obviously suffering from mental illnesses, etc. So I don't think it is a nice or good website at all, but just saying, it already exists.


That is the website that started the weird pictures at Walmart joke. Sometimes I think people dress up weird as a joke trying to get on that website.

I shop at Walmart a lot because it's convenient and my way home from work. The people I see in there do not look like the people on that website. That was part of my point about taking pictures... so show that they are average people and very often couples.. average men who apparently had no problem finding a wife or girlfriend.

I'd have to block out their faces in some way of course.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EleGirl said:


> I shop at Walmart a lot because it's convenient and my way home from work. The people I see in there do not look like the people on that website. That was part of my point about taking pictures... so show that they are average people and very often couples.. average men who apparently had no problem finding a wife or girlfriend.


It wouldn't have to be Walmart, it could be anywhere. A stadium full of people at a sporting event. A grocery store. In the dance communities I belong to, most people are average....as are most people everywhere (thus, averages).

The thing is, when people look around and notice "the hot girl with the dumpy guy" for instance, they only noticed her because they felt attraction for her. Then they size up her man and declare he doesn't "deserve" her. OR they notice the hot girl with the hot guy, and feel jealous of both of them. But FIRST they noticed BECAUSE they felt attraction.

They don't notice people they feel no attraction for at all. They might as well not exist. Therefore, they don't factor these people in when they think of "all the hot girls and who they go for".

That's why the memories they retain of "the hot girl with the hot guy or the hot girl with the average guy" are the only people they think exist. Everyone else did not even register. So when you try to point out all these average people who are together, they don't even know who you are talking about.

If they would take a look around without the lens of "who do *I* find attractive", and instead just look at everyone around them, they would see what you are talking about.

The other thing is, you cannot tell by how outwardly attractive someone is, how sexy they actually could be. So a lot of these every day average people are sexy as hell and their partners know it. But those who are evaluating others based entirely on outward appearance don't seem to care that much about actual sex appeal, and definitely they don't understand that mutual sexual attraction is something that can occur between two people who don't seem to be similarly attractive.

I loved Hal and Lois on Malcolm in the Middle. Totally average parents with a totally rockin' sex life. I think this is WAY more common than some people realize. People like that don't end up at TAM (mostly) so around here it seems like they don't exist.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> It wouldn't have to be Walmart, it could be anywhere. A stadium full of people at a sporting event. A grocery store. In the dance communities I belong to, most people are average....as are most people everywhere (thus, averages).
> 
> The thing is, when people look around and notice "the hot girl with the dumpy guy" for instance, they only noticed her because they felt attraction for her. Then they size up her man and declare he doesn't deserve her. OR they notice the hot girl with the hot guy, and feel jealous of both of them. But FIRST they noticed BECAUSE they felt attraction.
> 
> They don't notice people they feel no attraction for at all. They might as well not exist. Therefore, they don't factor these people in when they think of "all the hot girls and who they go for".
> 
> That's why the memories they retain of "the hot girl with the hot guy or the hot girl with the average guy" are the only people they think exist. Everyone else did not even register. So when you try to point out all these average people who are together, they don't even know who you are talking about.
> 
> If they would take a look around without the lens of "who do *I* find attractive", and instead just look at everyone around them, they would see what you are talking about.


I agree... 

And yes it can be anywhere because couples who are both average are all around us everywhere.


----------



## Faithful Wife

One of my favorite scenes in Malcolm in the Middle was when Hal was playing poker with Stevie's dad and some other dads. They got to talking about their sex lives, and all the dads ended up discussing how often they were having sex. They went around the table and most of them said "once if I'm lucky" or similar. Hal said "once or twice". After a bit more discussion, they realized all the other guys meant once a week but Hal meant once or twice a day. 

Hal was now the hero of the group.


----------



## EleGirl

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I don't know what's up with the men's dating profile scene. I checked some out a little while ago when I was in a bad place. No, no, no, no. Seriously, go look at POF men. About 80% did look like @ssholes and jerks with stupid tag lines and stupid snowboarding pictures or their drunken frat party pics that they think are so funny.
> Know what's interesting? Most of them were the jock types, the guys who think lifting their shirt to show their abs in the gym mirror is sexy. I don't like jocks, I don't like gym guys.
> So yes, they all would have been rated below average for me. The other 20%ish looked like guys that may have suited me.
> Normal looking guys who liked netflix and cats. Apparently most of them aren't online dating anyway.
> 
> But I see many, many men IRL that I think are attractive. A lot more than 20%.


Here is a link that talks about what types of photos work best for men and which for women. It’s very different. The photos example of men in the ******* blog post are the types of pictures that apparently women find unattractive. The same men in photos that fit what research says attract women could get a very different response from the women.

And yes, men are just as picky. What is interesting is that the photos of women in the article are exactly the type of photo that seem to attract men.

The 4 Big Myths of Profile Pictures « OkTrends

Link to the article posted by tech…. 
Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


----------



## EleGirl

Another interesting article... 


Ten fake profiles, one ******* experiment: ******* On Trial | ZDNet


----------



## Heatherknows

EleGirl said:


> Another interesting article...
> 
> 
> Ten fake profiles, one ******* experiment: ******* On Trial | ZDNet


Online dating sounds like a death sentence.:surprise:


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> Now i'm curious how you will distort this to offend you and then try to correct me, only to say sometimes everything I said isn't true. I know that.


Hey, if that's all you're saying, then that's all you're saying.

As I said, I didn't really get where you were coming from because your post seemed odd in the context it was delivered. So I was looking for the connections or implications to the discussion at hand, which at the time had to do with whether 80% of men are unattractive, and whether the same could be said of women.


----------



## VHVGN

Wow..when I started this thread topic a few weeks ago...I was focusing on how the MGTOW movement is viewed. It seems to have branched off into many different sub topics lol. So back on topic....Based on the relevant responses I have read and from what I see on the MGTOW.COM forums - men seem to fear most for their financial security following a divorce. And let's face it...with a one in two chance of a marriage breaking up..it's a valid fear. I married for the second time last year to a woman who is 22 years younger than me - I am in my middle 50's and she is a bit over 30. We have no children together, and will not (I have had a vasectomy) but she has an 11 year old girl from first marriage. She is also from Central Asia..a cultural opposite to the western world. .She is very devoted to me, her child and the marriage. But the more I read the MGTOW forums, the more fear I have if the odds play out as they often do and I am one of the 50% for whatever reasons, i am going to get a financial black eye. Kind of sucks either way. Just a risk we have to take. I do think the divorce laws need to be more equitable.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> And yes, men are just as picky. What is interesting is that the photos of women in the article are exactly the type of photo that seem to attract men.
> 
> The 4 Big Myths of Profile Pictures « OkTrends
> 
> Link to the article posted by tech….
> Your Looks and Your Inbox « OkTrends


Interesting! Once you read the whole story, it shows more or less what I was saying earlier about how this whole only 20% of men are attractive to women is projection, pure and simple. Turns out, women are much more open to a wide range of guys, but men stick with just the top hot women.


----------



## ocotillo

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you.


I think ~80% of the women on the planet are attractive in one way or another, so it's hard for me to think in any other terms.

But I also have a younger sister who would disagree with you. She's intelligent, friendly, reasonably attractive, she's into motorcycles and other "guy" things, so you wouldn't think she would have a problem.

There is something about her though that gets her mentally filed in the 'sister zone.' Everybody likes her, but she's everybody's sister. 

I don't understand it, (Wish I did) but there are some women out there who struggle in much the same way that some men do.


----------



## Heatherknows

ocotillo said:


> I think ~80% of the women on the planet are attractive in one way or another, so it's hard for me to think in any other terms.
> 
> But I also have a younger sister who would disagree with you. She's intelligent, friendly, reasonably attractive, she's into motorcycles and other "guy" things, so you wouldn't think she would have a problem.
> 
> There is something about her though that gets her mentally filed in the 'sister zone.' Everybody likes her, but she's everybody's sister.
> 
> I don't understand it, (Wish I did) but there are some women out there who struggle in much the same way that some men do.


Men probably don't get hard when they look at her. Some women give off more sexual cues than others.


----------



## knobcreek

EleGirl said:


> I don’t know.. when was the last time you shopped at Walmart, target or walked through a big shopping mall. There are tons of couples, many of them pretty average to below average guys with a girl friend or wife. Very often the woman is much better looking than the guy.


And these are the guys who will be inadvertently raising some other dudes kid (I think something like 20% of kids are not the husbands), or otherwise find out he's a cuckold. She's not going to stay with him, he'll be in the 55% of divorced people group, and she'll be another woman filing (I think women file 5 times as much as men).

I also don't use Walmart as my litmus test in terms of modern day coupling .

Even if both parties are on par looks wise, the woman can always find a "better man" to have sex with her and pay her attention for a time, and at some point in a 20 year marriage she will likely act on it. The new order will be average guys will either go full MGTOW, or they'll have to be OK with being a cuckold as their wife steps out every now and again and he takes her back. Either way it's not good for society or my kids future.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> Even if both parties are on par looks wise, the woman can always find a "better man" to have sex with her and pay her attention for a time, and at some point in a 20 year marriage she will likely act on it. The new order will be average guys will either go full MGTOW, or they'll have to be OK with being a cuckold as their wife steps out every now and again and he takes her back. Either way it's not good for society or my kids future.


As always I will go against the female flow and speak my own POV. It won't be well received but...

I wouldn't want an average guy. In my book, men need to be very good-looking and or hot and make a decent living. 

If a man is average then he needs to come to terms with that and have something spectacular to bring to the relationship or he's probably out of luck.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

There's also this which shows _some _men will overlook just about anything with a pretty girl

4 Things I Learned from the Worst Online Dating Profile Ever | Cracked.com
150 messages in 24 hours.


----------



## knobcreek

Heatherknows said:


> As always I will go against the female flow and speak my own POV. It won't be well received but...
> 
> I wouldn't want an average guy. In my book, men need to be very good-looking and or hot and make a decent living.
> 
> If a man is average then he needs to come to terms with that and have something spectacular to bring to the relationship or he's probably out of luck.


If you're above average in looks then this makes sense and I would agree, I have a certain standard I wouldn't deviate from if I were to divorce. But if you're average yourself then it wouldn't seem to make sense as hot guys who make a lot of money are not a commodity. There's just not enough of them to go around for every average girl out there. But every average girl can have a fling with one of these guys without a problem kind of skewing what they think they deserve. Potentially this has something to do with the high divorce rate and why women never seem satisfied with their men? Maybe it isn't but I wouldn't just discount it.

The great thing about getting older is it's very easy to jump rank, I've gone from a 7.5 in my 20's to a 9 just by keeping myself together physically, earning, and having a nice title (it does carry weight with women, not sure why) while the rest of the men eat themselves obese, bald, and stagnate in their careers. This works for women too, if a woman does yoga and runs she can look good into her 60's, even later with some plastic surgery. Most adults don't, I would say 75% of adults older than 35 (with both sexes) look bad because mainly they've neglected themselves for decades. So if you're 35+ and physically together, with a good career, you're now beating the field significantly.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> As I said, I didn't really get where you were coming from because your post seemed odd in the context it was delivered. So I was looking for the connections or implications to the discussion at hand, which at the time had to do with whether 80% of men are unattractive, and whether the same could be said of women.


Maybe my post seemed odd to you and a few others because you were assuming I was supporting the view that 80% of men are unattractive and can't get women. Well it's true. I do find men in general to be unattractive. But I think most men have no trouble getting a woman if they learn to work with what they got.

Also, location and demographics come into play as well. Hobbies, looks, race, social circles, can all effect how well you do in a dating scene relative to your location. Maybe being a muslim terrifies most women living in a small southern town in the U.S. and they are frightened to be near you. Maybe in a larger city or perhaps in different parts of europe, someone would be totally interested in getting to know and some would even approach you. Maybe you are not the guy where you are, but suddenly you move and things change. 

I went to a small conservative religious school. I do appreciate going there and I made a lot of great friends. But the dating scene was terrible. Man I was shot down so much, people were trying ride me because I was constantly being confused with a WW2 fighter jet:yawn2:. My school attracted a lot of the financially well off deeply religious(and hypocrital), who were also conservative and socially awkward. Also, I didn't drink alcohol so I never met the "fun" girls at the wild parties everyone was throwing. Once I got out of school and met more different types of women, I actually realized that I can do fairly well with women. I have been to social gatherings and been the most interesting guy in the room(yeah me:bounce. Women have approached me and so forth. If you are not attracting the women you want, change something about you or change where you are. That's my motto.


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I have a husband. I'm just pointing out that my 3 adult years single were just as lonely as many men have experienced and had I not made the first move with my H, I would have been single a lot longer.
> 
> If I am single again, I still won't be going out places outside my normal routine.


Then obviously finding a mate is not that important to you.



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are women everywhere if these guys opened their eyes and saw them and took the time to get to know them.
> 
> But a lot of them are chasing the hot girl and I'm not willing to be settled for when she turns him down.


How do you know all those guys are chasing the hot girl? Do you follow them around everywhere?

Sorry, I'm not buying this. Again, if you won't go out of your way to meet guys, then you aren't seriously looking.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Then obviously finding a mate is not that important to you.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know all those guys are chasing the hot girl? Do you follow them around everywhere?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not buying this. Again, if you won't go out of your way to meet guys, then you aren't seriously looking.


My point was that when I was single, I was having just as much trouble as your so-called 80% of men were. 

And I know a lot of them- I never said all- are chasing the hot girl because I see them do it. 

I sure don't want those guys after they've been rejected from her to then come to me so the guys chasing the hot girl have no chance with a lot of us average ones anyway because we can tell they think they are settling and would rather a different kind of woman and unless our own confidence sucks, we won't put up with that. 
IMO that's where these specific types of average guys end up having issues. They go after the hot women and when rejected from them, they come to us and we reject them too. They think we're just wanting the hot guys when really we'd be fine with an average one who actually wanted us for us and wouldn't _prefer _a prettier or skinnier woman.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Heatherknows said:


> As always I will go against the female flow and speak my own POV. It won't be well received but...
> 
> I wouldn't want an average guy. In my book, men need to be very good-looking and or hot and make a decent living.
> 
> *If a man is average then he needs to come to terms with that and have something spectacular to bring to the relationship or he's probably out of luck.*


We all turn our heads for some







.. but it's so "not everything".. here are my feelings...

That "spectacular" you speak of.. from one woman to another.. we don't all seek the same things...I looked for deeper things over primarily looks & what a man earns...

At my core. I am a huge Romantic ......I so wanted to find a good man.. a man who had right intentions.. the marrying type.. someone affectionate, who wanted the same things as I .. Generally speaking... the really Hot guys were too busy bedding random girls for that nonsense... I could never trust those types... 

As for what a man earns... I cared more that he had a responsible "do what you have to do" *work ethic*.. my husband worked in a Grocery store when we met, also when we walked down the aisle ... he did move up to be a Manager, but it was such a small store... it got us by... we were happy...I cared that a man can live within his means... Over spenders & me would be at each others throats.. 

I figured with 2 savers getting together.. even if we didn't make big money.. if the work ethic was there.. we'd do fine... He may not have had the best job in our early yrs but I knew he's one of those who would go above & beyond for his family...

My husband would've never been classified as "HOT" in his youth.. he would have been seen as a Beta "nice guy" the type girls don't really notice...when I read posts by men who have had this experience.. I SEE my husband in those posts... I think the only difference is.. He wasn't looking to screw a bunch of women, that's not what it was about for him...he wouldn't feel that was right... (He has said this himself as we've talked about it). 

There was a few girls who wanted him, a friend of a friend had a HUGE CRUSH on him ..I always got a charge out of that.....

I never liked his glasses.. I feel they took away from his looks...I ordered him contacts for our Wedding day...I remember thinking.. "Dam* how handsome he was!"... like I hadn't noticed how hot my husband was.. until then... this admiration came over me. 

How he treated me, was there for me.. is really what won me over... he really catered to me.. it seems most women get bored with this, see it as desperate or something.. I saw my husband as authentic... I recognized, this one will stand beside me...he wanted to give me that "Ever lasting"...which was what I was looking for all along....


----------



## tech-novelist

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> My point was that when I was single, I was having just as much trouble as your so-called 80% of men were.
> 
> And I know a lot of them- I never said all- are chasing the hot girl because I see them do it.
> 
> I sure don't want those guys after they've been rejected from her to then come to me so the guys chasing the hot girl have no chance with a lot of us average ones anyway because we can tell they think they are settling and would rather a different kind of woman and unless our own confidence sucks, we won't put up with that.
> IMO that's where these specific types of average guys end up having issues. They go after the hot women and when rejected from them, they come to us and we reject them too. They think we're just wanting the hot guys when really we'd be fine with an average one who actually wanted us for us and wouldn't _prefer _a prettier or skinnier woman.


In that case your situation is hopeless, because *all other things being equal*, every man would prefer a prettier woman.

That's what prettier *means*: more attractive. So it is logically incoherent to say that someone would be more attracted to someone who is less attractive.

There are some caveats, of course, including the fact that some men find certain attributes more attractive to them than those attributes are to *other *men. For example, some men really like blondes, whereas other men really like brunettes.

But that doesn't remove the logical conundrum that, all else being equal, every man prefers a woman who is prettier *to him* over one who is less pretty *to him*.

Now what are the other things that may not be equal? There are many. Personality, character, interests, and religious preference, are just a few.

So a man may find a woman very pretty but maybe she is of a different religion than he is, in which case he might find her not as desirable as one of an appropriate religion.

But again, if all those other factors are the same, he will always prefer the prettier one.


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> If you're above average in looks then this makes sense and I would agree, I have a certain standard I wouldn't deviate from if I were to divorce. But if you're average yourself then it wouldn't seem to make sense as hot guys who make a lot of money are not a commodity. There's just not enough of them to go around for every average girl out there. But every average girl can have a fling with one of these guys without a problem kind of skewing what they think they deserve. Potentially this has something to do with the high divorce rate and why women never seem satisfied with their men? Maybe it isn't but I wouldn't just discount it.
> 
> The great thing about getting older is it's very easy to jump rank, I've gone from a 7.5 in my 20's to a 9 just by keeping myself together physically, earning, and having a nice title (it does carry weight with women, not sure why) while the rest of the men eat themselves obese, bald, and stagnate in their careers. This works for women too, if a woman does yoga and runs she can look good into her 60's, even later with some plastic surgery. Most adults don't, I would say 75% of adults older than 35 (with both sexes) look bad because mainly they've neglected themselves for decades. So if you're 35+ and physically together, with a good career, you're now beating the field significantly.


If I went back into the dating world (which I'm not) I'm sure I'd find a good looking guy who makes a great living. I'm not going into that stuff here because I'm here to NOT get attention. Plus, yesterday i had a slip up and posted a bathing suit picture next to a sex doll...lol...what can I say I was happy I looked like the sex doll. 

In any case, I don't know other women's experience I just know my own. When I dated most of the guys were really good looking. But once in a while I dated an average guy to "give them a chance." That was a mistake. Some of them were fine but some were angry at their "averageness" and came across as bitter hateful little men. Yuck.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> If I went back into the dating world (which I'm not) I'm sure I'd find a good looking guy who makes a great living. I'm not going into that stuff here because I'm here to NOT get attention. Plus, yesterday i had a slip up and posted a bathing suit picture next to a sex doll...lol...what can I say I was happy I looked like the sex doll.
> 
> In any case, I don't know other women's experience I just know my own. When I dated most of the guys were really good looking. But once in a while I dated an average guy to "give them a chance." That was a mistake. Some of them were fine but some were angry at their "averageness" and came across as bitter hateful little men. Yuck.


You forgot to mention that they couldn't get laid and lived in their mommy's basement.

Otherwise, good job!


----------



## Heatherknows

technovelist said:


> You forgot to mention that they couldn't get laid and lived in their mommy's basement.
> 
> Otherwise, good job!


I didn't date too many of them but I think they had jobs and their own place...IDK..one had a boat. They were just a huge turn off so I stopped giving guys a chance and only dated what I wanted.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> I didn't date too many of them but I think they had jobs and their own place...IDK..one had a boat. They were just a huge turn off so I stopped giving guys a chance and only dated what I wanted.


As everyone should do.


----------



## knobcreek

I'm guessing by @Heatherknows replies she wouldn't rate as an average woman in terms of appearance, therefore she isn't really what I'm talking about in previous posts. If she's attractive it makes perfect sense for her to choose attractive men, and she can be selective. Hot women can not have a career, even cheat on their men and they will put up with it, and it does very little to effect her attractiveness. Basically men will eat a ton of sh*t for a hot woman, this isn't news, I've been doing it for 15 years (this is hyperbole, I stayed about 90% because of my son, 10% I just couldn't get my wife out of my head, we have a weird obsession with each other that always brings us back).

My point is the "average woman" married to that "average guy", the average woman can garner the attention of an attractive man easily for a fling, or EA while he tries to get his way into her pants. This tends to skew women's view on what they rate and deserve, leaving many average women disenfranchised with their average husbands, which could potentially lead to women divorcing (and IMO cheating) on their husbands at a much greater rate. I've seen where a decidedly average woman has an affair with a rich and good looking guy, but on her second marriage years later after the divorce, she's married to another average dude...


----------



## Heatherknows

knobcreek said:


> Hot women can not have a career, even cheat on their men and they will put up with it, and it does very little to effect her attractiveness. Basically men will eat a ton of sh*t for a hot woman


...it's true.

But the smart hot woman knows that taking advantage of a good man isn't a wise long term plan and karma has a way of kicking one's butt.


----------



## bkyln309

Without reading all the pages of the thread, this is the one thing I think about this "movement". Its for committment phobic men with issues. I say glad they know enough to keep their issues to themselves. More power to them!!!! You cannot deal with women and know how to be in a relationship? Then you should ward off all women and relationships with them. 

Honestly, I know quite a few women who need to do this as well.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> ...it's true.
> 
> But the smart hot woman knows that taking advantage of a good man isn't a wise long term plan and karma has a way of kicking one's butt.


Good point on the karma.

Otherwise, that can be a very fine long term plan if one has no ethics.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> In that case your situation is hopeless, because *all other things being equal*, every man would prefer a prettier woman.
> 
> That's what prettier *means*: more attractive. So it is logically incoherent to say that someone would be more attracted to someone who is less attractive.
> 
> There are some caveats, of course, including the fact that some men find certain attributes more attractive to them than those attributes are to *other *men. For example, some men really like blondes, whereas other men really like brunettes.
> 
> But that doesn't remove the logical conundrum that, all else being equal, every man prefers a woman who is prettier *to him* over one who is less pretty *to him*.
> 
> Now what are the other things that may not be equal? There are many. Personality, character, interests, and religious preference, are just a few.
> 
> So a man may find a woman very pretty but maybe she is of a different religion than he is, in which case he might find her not as desirable as one of an appropriate religion.
> 
> But again, if all those other factors are the same, he will always prefer the prettier one.


Well and this is the same kind of thing I'm getting at. I want a man who likes MY attributes (a bit bigger size and plainer looking) AND who doesn't go after hot women just because of their looks, he goes for a whole package. 
My H has been with many hot women, could get another one today if he wanted to. 
I wouldn't go for a man who didn't prefer how I looked and my personality. 

*Some* men, and often these can't get a woman average types, just go for the hot girl not caring about her other characteristics. If he gets turned down enough he looks to average girls as a step down. These are the kind of men I am talking about. All they care about is looks and status and we can tell when they are "settling" for us and want nothing to do with them either.


----------



## FalconKing

Heatherknows said:


> I didn't date too many of them but I think they had jobs and their own place...IDK..one had a boat. They were just a huge turn off so I stopped giving guys a chance and only dated what I wanted.


In future debates about the shallowness of men wanting attractive women, I would greatly appreciate your input.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

FalconKing said:


> In future debates about the shallowness of men wanting attractive women, I would greatly appreciate your input.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not a problem. You'll have to give me a mention to get my attention. My eyes glaze over when I read about women being angry with men over men wanting hot women and men being angry over women about money. There are lots of unfair "rules" in our society. Overall, there does seem to be a shift as women make more money and now there is new pressure on men to stay young and fit. But the world is still very "traditional" and I'm not going to spend my life being angry at the rules.

I'lll work with them. :x


----------



## ocotillo

bkyln309 said:


> Its for committment phobic men with issues.
> 
> Honestly, I know quite a few women who need to do this as well.


I don't know this for sure, but I would guess there are probably plenty of women out there who are "gun shy" about marriage law themselves.

This is especially true later in life when a divorce could 'eff up any hope of a comfortable retirement.


----------



## Kivlor

VHVGN said:


> Wow..when I started this thread topic a few weeks ago...I was focusing on how the MGTOW movement is viewed. It seems to have branched off into many different sub topics lol. So back on topic....Based on the relevant responses I have read and from what I see on the MGTOW.COM forums - men seem to fear most for their financial security following a divorce. And let's face it...with a one in two chance of a marriage breaking up..it's a valid fear. I married for the second time last year to a woman who is 22 years younger than me - I am in my middle 50's and she is a bit over 30. We have no children together, and will not (I have had a vasectomy) but she has an 11 year old girl from first marriage. She is also from Central Asia..a cultural opposite to the western world. .She is very devoted to me, her child and the marriage. But the more I read the MGTOW forums, the more fear I have if the odds play out as they often do and I am one of the 50% for whatever reasons, i am going to get a financial black eye. Kind of sucks either way. Just a risk we have to take. I do think the divorce laws need to be more equitable.


This is one of the major points I have been arguing. Some of their concerns are quite valid. I think the D rate in the US is actually closer to 30% for first marriages. It's higher, over 40% for 2nd, and then it takes off. Still, at 30%, 1 in 3 is something a man would be a fool to ignore, and rash to charge in blindly.

I think the major theme in MGTOW is their over-active level of fear. It stops being a "caution" flag, and it reaches the fever-pitch level of pure terror. Terror like that tends to lead to people expressing anger, because that's the only way they know how to deal with it, and they see no way to fix it. By fixing the divorce laws, punishing false reports of abuse, and a few more things, we could put everyone on an equal foot, which is what an egalitarian society should want. 

Personally VHVGN, I wouldn't worry about it whether or not you will divorce too much. The point is to be aware of what can happen, take a few steps to make sure if the worst occurs, you're not caught completely off guard, then pick a great gal, woo her, marry her and work hard to live that happily ever after. If it turns out you picked wrong, or you neglected the relationship, or the two of you just weren't a good match, then you won't be absolutely destroyed. But don't let yourself spend too much time worrying about it, you'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And try to live in a state that doesn't support lifetime alimony if ya can; or actively support changing those laws in your state. Because being required to "provide the lifestyle your spouse was accustomed to" indefinitely is just plain stupid.


----------



## FalconKing

Kivlor said:


> This is one of the major points I have been arguing. Some of their concerns are quite valid. I think the D rate in the US is actually closer to 30% for first marriages. It's higher, over 40% for 2nd, and then it takes off. Still, at 30%, 1 in 3 is something a man would be a fool to ignore, and rash to charge in blindly.
> 
> I think the major theme in MGTOW is their over-active level of fear. It stops being a "caution" flag, and it reaches the fever-pitch level of pure terror. Terror like that tends to lead to people expressing anger, because that's the only way they know how to deal with it, and they see no way to fix it. By fixing the divorce laws, punishing false reports of abuse, and a few more things, we could put everyone on an equal foot, which is what an egalitarian society should want.
> 
> Personally VHVGN, I wouldn't worry about it whether or not you will divorce too much. The point is to be aware of what can happen, take a few steps to make sure if the worst occurs, you're not caught completely off guard, then pick a great gal, woo her, marry her and work hard to live that happily ever after. If it turns out you picked wrong, or you neglected the relationship, or the two of you just weren't a good match, then you won't be absolutely destroyed. But don't let yourself spend too much time worrying about it, you'll create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> And try to live in a state that doesn't support lifetime alimony if ya can; or actively support changing those laws in your state. Because being required to "provide the lifestyle your spouse was accustomed to" indefinitely is just plain stupid.


Could not have said it better. My biggest problem with this thread was a lot of women not wanting to acknowledge that the legal system or even the courts of public opinion may put men at a disadvantage. Or just that women tend to get more breaks. I disagree with guys saying only the top guys get women. And I don't feel entitled to women. Just respect.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I think the major theme in MGTOW is their over-active level of fear. It stops being a "caution" flag, and it reaches the fever-pitch level of pure terror. Terror like that tends to lead to people expressing anger, because that's the only way they know how to deal with it, and they see no way to fix it. By fixing the divorce laws, punishing false reports of abuse, and a few more things, we could put everyone on an equal foot, which is what an egalitarian society should want.


Yes, when and if those changes are made, then the MGTOW's fears would no longer be appropriate.

Unfortunately, I don't see much chance of that happening in the lifetime of anyone on this site.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Yes, when and if those changes are made, then the MGTOW's fears would no longer be appropriate.
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't see much chance of that happening in the lifetime of anyone on this site.


No, it won't. We're going the opposite direction with each passing day. 
There are some very terrible people, aiming to strip away men's constitutional rights, calling for laws that place the onus on the accused to prove his innocence and even remove the right to a trial by jury, represented by legal counsel. And they are gaining traction. 

But I'll fight it to the end dammit! And if anyone else here cares at all about Due Process, and believes in any sort of justice, they'll actively oppose these things, not just mouth opposition on the internet.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Yes in deed, My sympathy for the MGTOW movement does not come out of fear of marriage. I support the idea of refusing to enter into an unfair contract, and I even agree with the idea of boycotting as a way to apply political pressure. The pendulum will swing. I'm still not sure it will ever center. 

This page has brought up enough side issues for me to consider starting a new thread.


----------



## FalconKing

ocotillo said:


> I don't know this for sure, but I would guess there are probably plenty of women out there who are "gun shy" about marriage law themselves.
> 
> This is especially true later in life when a divorce could 'eff up any hope of a comfortable retirement.


There are a few female posters on this site who have said as much and for those same reasons. I've talked to a few them. They are all pretty awesome


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Could not have said it better. My biggest problem with this thread was a lot of women not wanting to acknowledge that the legal system or even the courts of public opinion may put men at a disadvantage. Or just that women tend to get more breaks. I disagree with guys saying only the top guys get women. And I don't feel entitled to women. Just respect.


This is changing very rapidly though. Courts are starting to favor shared parenting arrangements and they're much less likely to tolerate vexatious litigation, parental alienation and unfair financial equalization. Also, alimony laws are drastically changing. Courts are starting to hold both adult partners responsible for being financially secure and are limiting and terming alimony. I think eventually, alimony will simply disappear except in cases where one spouse is disabled or ill and unable to work. It cannot happen soon enough. Alimony is a complete enabler for financial irresponsibility.



> Yes in deed, My sympathy for the MGTOW movement does not come out of fear of marriage. I support the idea of refusing to enter into an unfair contract, and I even agree with the idea of boycotting as a way to apply political pressure. The pendulum will swing. I'm still not sure it will ever center.


Men also have to take some responsibility for their own destiny. They need to stop tolerating partners who are not financially responsible and only stay married to women who are able and willing to work unless they're willing to be an indefinite financial slave to that woman if the marriage ends.

I would never tolerate a spouse that couldn't financially support themselves and if I thought for one second that I was at any risk, I'd get a prenup before entering into any marital contract. The prenup can define exactly what you're willing to pay or not pay in the event of a divorce very clearly to protect your assets.

Men need to stop creating the unfair playing field by not tolerating monetary inequality in their relationships unless they're ok with being financially subservient for life. Find women who can take care of themselves and more importantly, the children you create together.


----------



## FalconKing

EnigmaGirl said:


> Men also have to take some responsibility for their own destiny. They need to stop tolerating partners who are not financially responsible and able and willing to work unless they're willing to be an indefinite financial slave to that woman if the marriage ends.
> 
> I would never tolerate a spouse that couldn't financially support themselves and if I thought for one second that I was at any risk, I'd get a prenup before entering into any marital contract. The prenup can define exactly what you're willing to pay or not pay in the event of a divorce very clearly to protect your assets.
> 
> Men need to stop creating the unfair playing field by not tolerating monetary inequality in their relationships unless they're ok with being financially subservient for life. Find women who can take care of themselves and more importantly, the children you create together.


This is something I really do struggle with. I am totally ok with a woman being a SAHM. But I think if I am single for quite a while and I accumulate a significant sum of money, I would be cautious going into marriage. It's like the more you have the more you stand to lose. I think for some men, it may not be that the wife doesn't work. It may just be people taking each other for granted. I don't think I would ever support a woman who, even though it was expected of me, showed no appreciation for what I do for us to have financial security. And then engages in manipulative behavior. I think for a lot of men, they expect for women to be overly emotional and unreasonable and they have an accepting attitude towards that behavior. So they feel like it's their cross to bear no matter how unfair their wife is being. These are the type of women(*but this behavior is not gender specifi*c:nono you should never be in a relationship with because they generally have a hard time saying they are sorry. They will always find a way to tell you that their poor behavior is your fault. Eventually it will ruin you.
Even some of the posters here are forgiving of that dynamic because there is a stark contrast between the advice they give men and women given the same situation. 

I'd like to add that I also think what happens a lot of times is that the woman has a loss of identity. She is a mother and a wife, but she was also her own person before all of those things. Be it a job or whatever, she needs to find passion or independence in something that is hers alone. If she can't find that or if she finds that but she feels her marriage hinders her getting more of that....she is probably gone or just miserable... And there isn't much you can do about that. 

_I am speaking from a heterosexual male perspective. Because I did not say men do this, doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that. . _


----------



## EnigmaGirl

One other issue with men not taking control of their own destiny is applicable to men in custody disputes who allow their stbx gatekeeper the children instead of insisting upon their default 50/50 parental rights.

I've seen soooooo many separated guys letting the woman control the kids and accepting their conditions on when they can see their own children. They allow the woman to move out with their children...or they allow the woman to tell them when and where they can see the kids...or they put conditions on seeing the kids (ie you can't have them if you're taking them to certain locations or you can't have them if you're taking them around certain people), etc. Men...you can pick your children up at school...you can see them at their sporting events...you have the same rights as their mother does...exactly the same. 

Denying you access to your kids is not legal. If you are in a custody dispute, you have equal defacto 50/50 access to your children and you need to INSIST upon exercising it. Women do NOT own the children. Exercise your parental rights...especially in the middle of a custody dispute...to avoid setting an unfair status quo.

Men need to fight harder to have fair access to their children during and after divorce. Barring abuse situations, children should always have fair and equal access to both parents. If they get older and choose to spend less time with one parent or the other...that should only be a choice they make...divorcing parents should never make that decision for them. I'm always amazed at how many men don't stand up for their parental rights....that really needs to change for the kids' sake.


----------



## FalconKing

EnigmaGirl said:


> One other issue with men not taking control of their own destiny is applicable to men in custody disputes who allow their stbx gatekeeper the children instead of insisting upon their default 50/50 parental rights.
> 
> I've seen soooooo many separated guys letting the woman control the kids and accepting their conditions on when they can see their own children. They allow the woman to move out with their children...or they allow the woman to tell them when and where they can see the kids...or they put conditions on seeing the kids (ie you can't have them if you're taking them to certain locations or you can't have them if you're taking them around certain people), etc. Men...you can pick your children up at school...you can see them at their sporting events...you have the same rights as their mother does...exactly the same.
> 
> Denying you access to your kids is not legal. If you are in a custody dispute, you have equal defacto 50/50 access to your children and you need to INSIST upon exercising it. Women do NOT own the children. Exercise your parental rights...especially in the middle of a custody dispute...to avoid setting an unfair status quo.
> 
> Men need to fight harder to have fair access to their children during and after divorce. Barring abuse situations, children should always have fair and equal access to both parents. If they get older and choose to spend less time with one parent or the other...that should only be a choice they make...divorcing parents should never make that decision for them. I'm always amazed at how many men don't stand up for their parental rights....that really needs to change for the kids' sake.


Many women know this though. That's why they make domestic abuse claims or abuse of children claims. They get restraining orders filed, and have to have psych evaluations done etc... That's when it becomes a uphill battle and they lose the defacto 50/50. That's why so many guys don't see their kids as much as they should. Also, if a woman moves out of state with the kids, it may break the custody agreement but it may be several months or years before a judge hears of it.


----------



## ocotillo

EnigmaGirl said:


> One other issue with men not taking control of their own destiny is applicable to men in custody disputes who allow their stbx gatekeeper the children instead of insisting upon their default 50/50 parental rights.


Are we talking about the U.S. or some other country more enlightened on this subject? :scratchhead:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But I think if I am single for quite a while and I accumulate a significant sum of money, I would be cautious going into marriage. It's like the more you have the more you stand to lose.


In my state, the original assets you bring into marriage are yours...only the equity gains are split...except with regard to marital homes...those are generally split 50/50.

However, to protect interest/dividends accrued on assets and to ensure the assets themselves are protected...get a prenup. Both parties need to have ILA to sign one and its a pretty simple process. A lot of my married friends have signed them...its really not a big deal.



> I think for a lot of men, they expect for women to be overly emotional and unreasonable and they have an accepting attitude towards that behavior. So they feel like it's their cross to bear no matter how unfair their wife is being.


Then don't marry a woman like this. I don't even tolerate irrational or overly-emotional women in my social group...I certainly wouldn't marry one if I was male. There are lovely women who are logical, fair, sweet, non-manipulating and not self-absorbed. Seek a partner who cares more about your happiness than their own. Again, those women may be harder to find but quality is always harder to find. 



> I'd like to add that I also think what happens a lot of times is that the woman has a loss of identity. She is a mother and a wife, but she was also her own person before all of those things. Be it a job or whatever, she needs to find passion or independence in something that is hers alone. If she can't find that or if she finds that but she feels her marriage hinders her getting more of that....she is probably gone or just miserable... And there isn't much you can do about that.


I have no understanding of what happens when a woman stays home all day...I'd never do it...I love earning a living for so many reasons. Also, I really enjoying discussing work with my husband. He can tell me something that happens during his day and I totally understand and can give him solace or advice because I go through the same thing. If my husband stayed home all day, he wouldn't get what I go through at work and we wouldn't be able to share that level of conversation. My husband offers me great advice of how to tackle work issues and (I hope) vice versa. 

Besides there's nothing sexier than a woman in a suit and heels headed out the door to take care of business.

So my advice...explain your expectations to whoever you're interested in upfront. If you expect her to work for the length of your marriage, agree upon that before marriage and divorce her if she doesn't comply with your agreement. 

You just have to find what you want and tolerate nothing less. To protect your assets, simply get a prenup. Women who are financially stable have no issue signing a prenup. I actually am the one that brought it up to my husband although he has far more assets than I do to protect. He repeatedly declined getting one because he knows how I handled my divorce and he knows I'd never touch his money...I don't need to.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> That's why they make domestic abuse claims or abuse of children claims. They get restraining orders filed, and have to have psych evaluations done etc...


There are sooo many ways to handle this though. Keep a VAR, bring someone with you on pickups, etc. Judges know about women suggesting DV to get unfair advantage...they aren't dumb...and if women make these claims, they're expected to provide police reports. I would absolutely agree that men need to protect themselves from false DV charges and they need to be paranoid about it.

Funny enough, my ex forced a psych evaluation during our custody dispute. I had no issue with it. We both had them. Psych evaluations actually can help you during custody disputes.



> That's why so many guys don't see their kids as much as they should. Also, if a woman moves out of state with the kids, it may break the custody agreement but it may be several months or years before a judge hears of it.


In my opinion, a lot of them don't fight hard enough. Especially during divorce. If my ex stole my kids and took them out of state, I'd be filing an emergency motion while I called the police and started an amber alert.

Trust me, judges don't like this crap either. I've seen a couple of mothers lose parental access because they pulled this stuff.

There's a generalized mentality that women have more rights to children during an after divorce than men do...especially if the woman stays home....and its just completely false. Not all women are like this...many just really want what's best for their children...but I've seen a lot of women that try to punish the ex using the children and its pretty sick.



> Are we talking about the U.S. or some other country more enlightened on this subject?


I'm talking about separation in the U.S.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/yourlegalrights/a/A-Father-S-Legal-Rights-To-Child-Custody-Before-And-During-Divorce.htm




> _* FROM THE ARTICLE: Before and during the divorce process each parent has the same legal right to custody of a child. Mothers and fathers are on legal standing until one or the other gives up or is denied full custody rights.
> 
> What does this mean? It is complicated! Even more complicated if you don’t know your state’s child custody laws. Bottom line, until you have signed a custody agreement or a judge has handed down a custody opinion, each parent has the same legal rights when it comes to where a child lives, who the child lives with and anything regarding the child.
> 
> I’ve found that most fathers do not have a clear understanding of their legal divorce rights where the children are involved. And in most cases will give up custody out of fear of losing in court due to a gender “bias.*_


----------



## Kivlor

EnigmaGirl said:


> In my state, the original assets you bring into marriage are yours...only the equity gains are split...except with regard to marital homes...those are generally split 50/50.
> 
> However, to protect interest/dividends accrued on assets and to ensure the assets themselves are protected...get a prenup. Both parties need to have ILA to sign one and its a pretty simple process. A lot of my married friends have signed them...its really not a big deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't marry a woman like this. I don't even tolerate irrational or overly-emotional women in my social group...I certainly wouldn't marry one if I was male. There are lovely women who are logical, fair, sweet, non-manipulating and not self-absorbed. Seek a partner who cares more about your happiness than their own. Again, those women may be harder to find but quality is always harder to find.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no understanding of what happens when a woman stays home all day...I'd never do it...I love earning a living for so many reasons. Also, I really enjoying discussing work with my husband. He can tell me something that happens during his day and I totally understand and can give him solace or advice because I go through the same thing. If my husband stayed home all day, he wouldn't get what I go through at work and we wouldn't be able to share that level of conversation. My husband offers me great advice of how to tackle work issues and (I hope) vice versa.
> 
> *Besides there's nothing sexier than a woman in a suit and heels headed out the door to take care of business.*
> 
> So my advice...explain your expectations to whoever you're interested in upfront. If you expect her to work for the length of your marriage, agree upon that before marriage and divorce her if she doesn't comply with your agreement.
> 
> You just have to find what you want and tolerate nothing less. To protect your assets, simply get a prenup. Women who are financially stable have no issue signing a prenup. I actually am the one that brought it up to my husband although he has far more assets than I do to protect. He repeatedly declined getting one because he knows how I handled my divorce and he knows I'd never touch his money...I don't need to.


I dunno, this guy describes something that I think most of us find undeniably sexy. I don't think there's much better than that :wink2:


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I dunno, this guy describes something that I think most of us find undeniably sexy. I don't think there's much better than that


I make breakfast and dinner (unless we go out) everyday. Then I go out the door to make a ****load of money.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> No, it won't. We're going the opposite direction with each passing day.
> There are some very terrible people, aiming to strip away men's constitutional rights, calling for laws that place the onus on the accused to prove his innocence and even remove the right to a trial by jury, represented by legal counsel. And they are gaining traction.
> 
> But I'll fight it to the end dammit! And if anyone else here cares at all about Due Process, and believes in any sort of justice, they'll actively oppose these things, not just mouth opposition on the internet.


I applaud your resolve. But until and unless this is changed, this society is indeed laden with traps for the unwary man. Education about this is the necessary first step before we can get anything done politically.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Men have to take responsibility, Men have to fight harder. . . . . . Dangerous words. 

In fact men are largely responsible for the laws and customs we are living with. By and large, men will need to make the changes. It will Take high level action as well as Grass roots movements like MGTOW. MGTOW would get a lot more respect and be more effective if they didn't come off as Rabid.


----------



## ocotillo

EnigmaGirl said:


> Men also have to take some responsibility for their own destiny. They need to stop tolerating partners who are not financially responsible and only stay married to women who are able and willing to work unless they're willing to be an indefinite financial slave to that woman if the marriage ends.
> 
> I would never tolerate a spouse that couldn't financially support themselves and if I thought for one second that I was at any risk, I'd get a prenup before entering into any marital contract. The prenup can define exactly what you're willing to pay or not pay in the event of a divorce very clearly to protect your assets.
> 
> Men need to stop creating the unfair playing field by not tolerating monetary inequality in their relationships unless they're ok with being financially subservient for life. Find women who can take care of themselves and more importantly, the children you create together.


Mgtow light?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Men have to take responsibility, Men have to fight harder. . . . . . Dangerous words.
> 
> In fact men are largely responsible for the laws and customs we are living with. By and large, men will need to make the changes. It will Take high level action as well as Grass roots movements like MGTOW. MGTOW would get a lot more respect and be more effective if they didn't come off as Rabid.


Personally, I'm not a big fan of groups...I think they too often disintegrate and start warping the original message and intent and it often gets replaced with something a lot less pure. This is definitely true of MGTOW unfortunately.

As I've said, what drives me nuts about MGTOW men is that they write off all women as the same and we aren't. Not all women expect men to take care of them and not all women are emotional basketcases. There are so many great women out there that want to be equal partners and have no sense of entitlement whatsoever.

Personally, I think a more powerful thing would be if individual men stopped tolerating what they currently tolerate and if they can't find women that are willing to be equal partners and bear equal responsibility...by all means...don't get married. If enough men do this, things will change. 

In fact, its already happening. Women are making up more and more of the workforce which will very soon change the dynamics of modern relationships.


----------



## naiveonedave

EnigmaGirl said:


> Personally, I'm not a big fan of groups...I think they too often disintegrate and start warping the original message and intent and it often gets replaced with something a lot less pure. This is definitely true of MGTOW unfortunately.
> 
> As I've said, what drives me nuts about MGTOW men is that they write off all women as the same and we aren't. Not all women expect men to take care of them and not all women are emotional basketcases. There are so many great women out there that want to be equal partners and have no sense of entitlement whatsoever.
> 
> *Personally, I think a more powerful thing would be if individual men stopped tolerating what they currently tolerate and if they can't find women that are willing to be equal partners and bear equal responsibility...by all means...don't get married. If enough men do this, things will change. *
> 
> In fact, its already happening. Women are making up more and more of the workforce which will very soon change the dynamics of modern relationships.


I haven't read enough about MGTOW to nit pik, but I think they are doing the bolded part. I am sure they try to label all women as the same, that makes it easier to attack, however, I think by and large their observations fit 'most' or 'many' women (though they have to exaggerate to make them appear to be more 'evil' than they are.

I look around today, and young women are much more entitled than their mothers. Young men probably are as well, but with the current set of laws and morals, men are at much more risk than women are in D.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Mgtow light?


Like I said, I'm a feminist. I believe in equality. Equal access AND equal responsibility. In my opinion, women that expect handouts and have an entitlement mentality don't further the cause of women who are out in the world...especially the working world...asking to be treated fairly. I call out hypocrisy where I see it...gender doesn't matter.


----------



## ocotillo

EnigmaGirl said:


> Personally, I'm not a big fan of groups...I think they too often disintegrate and start warping the original message and intent and it often gets replaced with something a lot less pure. This is definitely true of MGTOW unfortunately.


Yes. 

Zealots are more highly motivated than normal, well adjusted people. The inmates always end up running the asylum.


----------



## tech-novelist

Mr. Nail said:


> Men have to take responsibility, Men have to fight harder. . . . . . Dangerous words.
> 
> In fact *men *are largely responsible for the laws and customs we are living with. By and large, men will need to make the changes. It will Take high level action as well as Grass roots movements like MGTOW. MGTOW would get a lot more respect and be more effective if they didn't come off as Rabid.


*This *is a perfect example of the "apex fallacy". Most men had nothing to say about these laws. They were put in place by a tiny fraction of all men, namely lawmakers.

To be sure, since men generally wish to protect women from harm, they will often support laws that seem to be intended to protect women, even though in fact they don't protect them, or do protect them but at the expense of unwarranted harm to men.

MGTOW can do a lot to educate men about the actual effect of many of these laws, but it will take a lot of social pressure to get them changed. Were the civil rights activists "rabid"?


----------



## tech-novelist

EnigmaGirl said:


> Personally, I'm not a big fan of groups...I think they too often disintegrate and start warping the original message and intent and it often gets replaced with something a lot less pure. This is definitely true of MGTOW unfortunately.
> 
> As I've said, what drives me nuts about MGTOW men is that they write off all women as the same and we aren't. Not all women expect men to take care of them and not all women are emotional basketcases. There are so many great women out there that want to be equal partners and have no sense of entitlement whatsoever.
> 
> Personally, I think a more powerful thing would be if individual men stopped tolerating what they currently tolerate and if they can't find women that are willing to be equal partners and bear equal responsibility...by all means...don't get married. If enough men do this, things will change.
> 
> In fact, its already happening. Women are making up more and more of the workforce which will very soon change the dynamics of modern relationships.


Ok, but what happens when a man finds a woman who seems to be willing to bear responsibility, then finds out that after marriage that it was a case of bait and switch? That seems as bad as the more common sexual bait and switch...


----------



## Mr. Nail

EnigmaGirl said:


> Personally, I think a more powerful thing would be if individual men stopped tolerating what they currently tolerate and if they can't find women that are willing to be equal partners and bear equal responsibility...by all means...don't get married. If enough men do this, things will change.


Or in other words men should stop eating a ton of sh!t just because it's coming from a pretty girl.

Yep, we Agree.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> In that case your situation is hopeless, because *all other things being equal*, every man would prefer a prettier woman.
> 
> That's what prettier *means*: more attractive. So it is logically incoherent to say that someone would be more attracted to someone who is less attractive.


Ah, there it is! Finally some honesty on the issue! Most men don't find most women attractive. They prefer the prettiest. Because "pretty" is what is attractive.

Thank you for finally owning it.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Ah, there it is! Finally some honesty on the issue! Most men don't find most women attractive. They prefer the prettiest. Because "pretty" is what is attractive.
> 
> Thank you for finally owning it.


No, that is totally wrong.

You are the one who said you wouldn't want to be with a man who would prefer a prett*ier* woman.

Most men find most women attractive. They find some women more attractive than they find other women.

Pretty = attractive.
Prett*ier* = *more *attractive.

Hope that helps... but I doubt it will.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Ah, there it is! Finally some honesty on the issue! Most men don't find most women attractive. They prefer the prettiest. Because "pretty" is what is attractive.
> 
> Thank you for finally owning it.


I don't think that's what he was saying and I don't think he speaks for the entire male species. But whatever you need to validate your insecurities...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Ok, but what happens when a man finds a woman who seems to be willing to bear responsibility, then finds out that after marriage that it was a case of bait and switch? That seems as bad as the more common sexual bait and switch...


First, marry someone educated and working because in the event of divorce, its harder to suggest they're unable to make any income if they quit their job after marriage...because historically they've made an income.

Second, divorce her..and quickly.

But be fair about it...explain your expectations up-front and tell her what happens if she doesn't meet them.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> p
> As a child in the early 1960's, I was exposed to a steady stream of bile and misdirected anger via a series of young, idealistic female teachers fresh out of college.
> 
> Imagine, for example, a 6th grade teacher reading excerpts from _The Natural Superiority Of Women_ to the class and stating point blank that men are genetically inferior to women. Imagine contrived, "boys vs. girls" competitions where the girls are selected from the right-hand side of the bell curve and the boys from the left. I saw this with my own eyes and it happened in a major city on the East Coast.
> 
> People today want to shuck and jive, twist and turn, bob and weave, claim that this sort of stuff never happened and even if it did, it was extremely isolated, but other people noticed this phenomenon and condemned it for the idiocy that it was. -People like Nobel Laureate, Doris Lessing for example.


I've been thinking about this and, frankly, find it quite appalling. I certainly don't want to pretend it didn't exist. I believe this happened just as you describe it, and wasn't anisolated incident.

But I also wonder how common it was. Given that in the 60s, in that same time period, there was also rampant sexism that basically said the same sorts of things of women, and worse, do you think, on balance, the message was anti-male? That is that it was men (and boys) who were disadvantaged by the prevailing mindsets about what men and women can and cannot do?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not asking out of some competition as to who is more hard done by. I'm genuinely curious just how prevalent you found these sorts of experiences, as well as how conscious you were of the same sorts of messages sent to women.

IME, I have encountered the types of feminists you have described, but they were always the minority, out of the mainstream. Even in (what I perceive as) its heyday, it wasn't the dominant message, and while I get that fringe messages can be just as traumatic, I do wonder what you consider to be the real moral of this story.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> No, that is totally wrong.
> 
> You are the one who said you wouldn't want to be with a man who would prefer a prett*ier* woman.
> 
> Most men find most women attractive. They find some women more attractive than they find other women.
> 
> Pretty = attractive.
> Prett*ier* = *more *attractive.
> 
> Hope that helps... but I doubt it will.


Oh, too bad. I thought with your irrefutable logic that prettier women are undeniably more attractive, plus the studies you posted that demonstrated unquestionably that really only the more attractive receive any attention or interest at all, you might finally ready to acknowledge that, in fact, this whole "most men think most women" are attractive" is an utterly meaningless myth.

My bad.


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> I don't think that's what he was saying and I don't think he speaks for the entire male species. But whatever you need to validate your insecurities...
> P


I never said he spoke for the whole male "species". It was only him that I was hoping for some honesty from.

But you know, whatever you need to validate your superiority.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> I never said he spoke for the whole male "species". It was only him that I was hoping for some honesty from.
> 
> But you know, whatever you need to validate your superiority.






K..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> I do wonder what you consider to be the real moral of this story.


The anecdote was in response to Elegirl's observation that the anger and anti-female sentiment of mgtow may be a warning that we have not come as far as some seem to think. 

The moral is that, "more of the same" is probably not the answer. Both sides need to let go of the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations. That is not how human societies work.


----------



## tom67

naiveonedave said:


> I haven't read enough about MGTOW to nit pik, but I think they are doing the bolded part. I am sure they try to label all women as the same, that makes it easier to attack, however, I think by and large their observations fit 'most' or 'many' women (though they have to exaggerate to make them appear to be more 'evil' than they are.
> 
> I look around today, and young women are much more entitled than their mothers. Young men probably are as well, but with the current set of laws and morals, men are at much more risk than women are in D.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

Young men especially raised by ONLY mothers I try to help.
This brother is the same way...

https://www.youtube.com/user/sotomayortv2


----------



## EleGirl

To get an idea of how you (and others) would like to see the laws changed… if you could write the laws yourself would they be in the following case:


Couple married at about age 19. Married 25-30 years. 6 children, 3 in college.

Before marriage they had agreed that he would be the breadwinner and she would be a SHAM/W.

Now she had worked at minimum wage jobs or a bit here and there, but has never contributed much at all financially.

They seem to be happy.

Then one day he just tell her that he is divorcing her.

When you write the law.. what is the settlement?

How are assets divided? What % does each get?

How about division of debt? What % does each get?

Is there any spousal support? If so how much (maybe % wise) and for how long?

How is the child custody for the 3 still in middle school & high school handled?

How about child support, if any, how much (maybe % wise)?

So let’s get some concrete info on what people here think should be the situation in a case like this.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> The anecdote was in response to Elegirl's observation that the anger and anti-female sentiment of mgtow may be a warning that we have not come as far as some seem to think.
> 
> The moral is that, "more of the same" is probably not the answer. Both sides need to let go of the, "men and women as adversaries" model of gender relations. *That is not how human societies work*.


Sadly I think that is has worked this way, with a long of adversarial undercurrent, for a very long time. 

But you are right, it should not be that way. Sure there will always be some are will never let go of an adversarial stance. But most people should be able to not even go.


----------



## tech-novelist

always_alone said:


> Oh, too bad. I thought with your irrefutable logic that prettier women are undeniably more attractive, plus the studies you posted that demonstrated unquestionably that really only the more attractive receive any attention or interest at all, you might finally ready to acknowledge that, in fact, this whole "most men think most women" are attractive" is an utterly meaningless myth.
> 
> My bad.


Most men think most women are attractive enough to have sex with.

If you don't believe that, I can't imagine how I would go about convincing you.


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> Most men think* most women are attractive enough to have sex with*.
> 
> If you don't believe that, I can't imagine how I would go about convincing you.


Perhaps the reason for the confusion is that one person is talking about men finding most women attractive enough to have sex with.

And the other person is talking about what women men find attractive enough to want to pursue an actual relationship with. 

Those are two different things.

Women, for the most part, know that most men will bang just about any woman. So it's not very flattering to be included in that group.

.


----------



## Sbrown

knobcreek said:


> As a woman it really doesn't matter if you're uggo (I had to look that up), there are men lining up for you. Do you have small boobs? Tons of men with a thing for that, large boobs? again tons of dudes, wear glasses, smoke, fat, thin, nice feet? Tons of dudes attracted to that. Like degrading men? Tons of dudes... Honestly, there likely isn't a woman alive who ever needs to be forever alone, you have qualities physically and otherwise to attract a litany of men whether you see it or not.
> 
> With men, we need to be perfect, alphas or project that, make money, keep fit, do it all or we're forever alone. That's what this thread is about, if a man isn't in the top 10 - 20% then women reject him as unworthy or ugly and beneath her, no matter what she's bringing to the table.
> 
> I think back to HS and this rule definitely applied, the top 10% had their share of 50% of the girls easily, so many dudes never dated girls because they just weren't good enough. Girls would rather be the third option of the popular guy then the first option of a guy more on her level. It's sad people can't pair up and just be content. I wrestled in HS and did fine with girls, but never thought of the other dudes without a date to the prom, or who never kissed a girl in H.S. This thread makes me think about that, and what if my sons deal with this?
> 
> My biggest flaw is I'm short, I'm only 5'9 and I hate it, I always said if I were 6 feet I'd be the President. It's the one thing that makes me really self-conscious physically. No women out there are into short dudes. No "short dude"fetishes among the ladies that I've seen.


Lmao, seriously? Look around. 

Scott


----------



## Ripper

EleGirl said:


> When you write the law.. what is the settlement?


My ideal marriage. No government involvement, but that is a pipe dream, Big G is never going away. So, have them fill out a form prior to issuing the license that covers the terms in the event of separation.

At a minimum, bring back at fault divorce. Cases of infidelity or abuse shouldn't be able to walk away with anything.



EleGirl said:


> Then one day he just tell her that he is divorcing her.


I know what you are playing at here, but the stats aren't in your favor. Majority of divorces are filed by the woman.

Still, you asked, so here is my interpretation.



EleGirl said:


> How are assets divided? What % does each get?
> How about division of debt? What % does each get?


50/50, with the ability to trade debt for assets. Anything you had prior to the marriage is yours.



EleGirl said:


> Is there any spousal support? If so how much (maybe % wise) and for how long?


None. Never. Either party.



EleGirl said:


> How is the child custody for the 3 still in middle school & high school handled?
> How about child support, if any, how much (maybe % wise)?


Default 50/50, no child support. Custody can change based on circumstances, obviously an abusive partner shouldn't have custody. No child support regardless.

No more using a safety net as a hammock. Being a stay at home is a privilege, a few people might be left holding the bag is things go south, but that is life. Trying to prevent this has caused way too many other people to get hosed.


----------



## Heatherknows

Mr. Nail said:


> Or in other words men should stop eating a ton of sh!t just because it's coming from a pretty girl.
> 
> Yep, we Agree.


Whatever.

In the end people will make choices they feel suit their best interests. 

This thread is mostly about unmet needs and how to fill those needs. Some women don't know what it feels like to be attractive. And being beautiful isn't just what you look like posing in a bathing suit. It's so much more.

~It's the ability to look into a man's eyes and understand why he's hurting and what you can do to take that hurt away.

~It's knowing when to stop talking because it's irritating. Sometimes men want to sit in silence and have some peace.

~It's noticing and truly appreciating the things they do to make you happy and not take them for granted. 

Women like this may not know how to go out and generate income but they are worth a fortune. 

0


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Most men think most women are attractive enough to have sex with.
> 
> If you don't believe that, I can't imagine how I would go about convincing you.


Just because I could find something that would be willing to use me as a blowup doll for a night (BTW most likely not caring about my sexual needs one bit so it's pointless and wouldn't be any good anyway) doesn't mean that I can find a suitable partner any easier that an average man can. 

And then, what? After we go through a few guys we think are interested in us but really just wanted a quick lay- we're tainted and have a "past" that some guys will try to use against us in our future.
Some men even here have said that if you "gave it up" to some random guy you need to do the same for the next one. 

It took me a little bit to figure out the difference between he just wants sex and he wants to be with you. I won't bother getting into details but let's just say I made an idiot out of myself several times over including the first time I had sex. Out of the 12ish guys I've been with only 2 actually wanted a relationship. I thought they all did. 

It's like that "friendzone" example where he's all sweet and nice acting like he wants to be with you just to get what he wanted. Once he's done with you he moves on to someone he really wanted.
But like the men doing favours for or giving money to a woman who doesn't want a relationship, I have to own my choices and just take the hit and learn better the next time. 

There are people in both genders who are using and being used. It's just how it goes, how it's always gone. My own confidence is the key. I can't change the game, I can't change those men. I can sit and b*tch about it, opt out, or I could get some self esteem and go find one of the many wonderful men out there who would want me for more than just a place to park their penis for the night.


----------



## always_alone

technovelist said:


> Most men think most women are attractive enough to have sex with.
> 
> If you don't believe that, I can't imagine how I would go about convincing you.


I just wish you would look at the graphs from the studies you posted. I think they might show to you that your base assumptions about men and women, especially women, are actually false.

Oh well. Carry on.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> Perhaps the reason for the confusion is that one person is talking about men finding most women attractive enough to have sex with.
> 
> And the other person is talking about what women men find attractive enough to want to pursue an actual relationship with.
> 
> Those are two different things.
> 
> Women, for the most part, know that most men will bang just about any woman. So it's not very flattering to be included in that group.
> 
> .


Well and on the flipside, it seems as though one of the biggest reasons for men going MGTOW is that they are disaffected because they live in a "sexual desert" where no woman, not a single one, wants him, except to suck his cashflow out of him by first, conning him into buying her that ring of bondage, second, growing bored of his beta a$$ and cheating on him, and last step, carefully orchestrating the legal system so she can take him for everything he's got.

And all of this is decided because he couldn't get laid with the ease, casualness, and frequency he desired in highschool an college. Those nasty vaginas didn't beg for it enough, ergo, no woman actually really wants him, or 80% of men, or sex. Just apparently to get married for the sole purpose of filing for divorce.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> To get an idea of how you (and others) would like to see the laws changed… if you could write the laws yourself would they be in the following case:
> 
> 
> Couple married at about age 19. Married 25-30 years. 6 children, 3 in college.
> 
> Before marriage they had agreed that he would be the breadwinner and she would be a SHAM/W.
> 
> Now she had worked at minimum wage jobs or a bit here and there, but has never contributed much at all financially.
> 
> They seem to be happy.
> 
> Then one day he just tell her that he is divorcing her.
> 
> When you write the law.. what is the settlement?
> 
> How are assets divided? What % does each get?
> 
> How about division of debt? What % does each get?
> 
> Is there any spousal support? If so how much (maybe % wise) and for how long?
> 
> How is the child custody for the 3 still in middle school & high school handled?
> 
> How about child support, if any, how much (maybe % wise)?
> 
> So let’s get some concrete info on what people here think should be the situation in a case like this.



50% custody
50% assets/debt created during the M (which is likely 50% of assets)
reasonable child support recognizing that standards of living for all involved will have to be lowered
friend of the court system is available to be invoked when CS is not being used for CS (spouse receiving CS often/sometimes uses that for non-CS stuff)
alimony has a time limit to it
alimony assumes that the SAHM/SAHD obtains a job within 3 months of D papers being drawn up and earns 2080*minimum wage for that state * factor >1.0 to ensure ex-spouse actually tries to find a job that pays.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Well and on the flipside, it seems as though one of the biggest reasons for men going MGTOW is that they are disaffected because they live in a "sexual desert" where no woman, not a single one, wants him, except to suck his cashflow out of him by first, conning him into buying her that ring of bondage, second, growing bored of his beta a$$ and cheating on him, and last step, carefully orchestrating the legal system so she can take him for everything he's got.
> 
> And all of this is decided because he couldn't get laid with the ease, casualness, and frequency he desired in highschool an college. Those nasty vaginas didn't beg for it enough, ergo, no woman actually really wants him, or 80% of men, or sex. Just apparently to get married for the sole purpose of filing for divorce.


pure misandry. You are not even trying to understand why MGTOW exists.


----------



## Kivlor

@EleGirl

For your situation:

50/50 Everything (debt and assets) obtained during the marriage. Pre-marital assets, and inheritances from family are excepted for both parties.

I'd say 6 months maximum spousal support (or none at all would be fine). We all have to work. Percentage is always hard to determine. 50% of post expense income? (expenses limited to rent / mortgage +utilities+modest food allowance+transportation+taxes) 6 months plus half of your assets is enough to get most people started. Neither person has a claim to their former partner's future income.

Start with an assumption of 50/50, unless a parent wants less. Kids should have a little say in it if they're over 12. Assuming no one is abusing their kids, and no attempts at parental alienation. I'd take all custody away from a parent alienating their children from the other parent (Temporarily at least).

No child support. Regardless of who has "primary custody". That's covered already by both parents providing food, clothing and shelter. 

Equal split for the costs of insurance and health expenses.


----------



## Satya

Constable Odo and I felt that there should be an expense reporting standard for the ex spouse receiving child support, for reporting monthly or quarterly how child support is managed and spent, complete with receipts. 

We all have to do this for employment expense reimbursement. 

Currently there is little to no accountability for how child support is used, and this would be a standard, so both men and women receiving child support would have to do it in order for the support to carry on. 

I'd hope a secure, online reporting system could be implemented to make this process simple and hassle-free. It's a pipe dream perhaps, but I think that any person paying child support would want to know that their money is actually being used for its intended purpose.

Eta: I have known both men and women that pay child support and in the case of two men I know in particular, both their ex wives are most certainly not using the full child support for the children.


----------



## Heatherknows

This is a good time to declare I'm so freaking happy I never had children. 

So freaking happy.


----------



## naiveonedave

Satya said:


> Constable Odo and I felt that there should be an expense reporting standard for the ex spouse receiving child support, for reporting monthly or quarterly how child support is managed and spent, complete with receipts.
> 
> We all have to do this for employment expense reimbursement.
> 
> Currently there is little to no accountability for how child support is used, and this would be a standard, so both men and women receiving child support would have to do it in order for the support to carry on.
> 
> I'd hope a secure, online reporting system could be implemented to make this process simple and hassle-free. It's a pipe dream perhaps, but I think that any person paying child support would want to know that their money is actually being used for its intended purpose.
> 
> Eta: I have known both men and women that pay child support and in the case of two men I know in particular, both their ex wives are most certainly not using the full child support for the children.


Not that long ago, I saw a co-workers exW pull up in a brand new convertible Mustang and drop off a 12 yo boy and 10 yo girl wearing rags. Based on what I knew at the time, it was clear where CS was going.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> pure misandry. You are not even trying to understand why MGTOW exists.


I think that her post was in response to some of the posts here on this thread in which some men talked about how it was about men who went through high school without ever even getting a girl to kiss them, or because they themselves were too short and thus had trouble getting women. Then there is more topic-brought up by men- about how women only want to date 10% of the men. Perhaps these men are muddying up discussion?

The short definition I found is pretty broad, allowing a person to add their own slant to it.

*MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.*

So how do you define MGTOW?


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> Sadly I think that is has worked this way, with a long of adversarial undercurrent, for a very long time.


Sorry for being oblique, EleGirl. The point I was driving at is that human societies are the product of men and women working together. 

To this day, it is still fashionable in feminist circles to lay the blame for a litany of social evils directly on the shoulders of men because, "you guys made the rules, not us." 

One of the problems with this viewpoint is that it's tough to put your finger at any particular point in history when women themselves have not been deeply involved in the maintenance and support of the existing social order. Portraying gender relations in adversarial terms, where women have been bystanders at best and unwilling slaves at worst fails (IMO) because of this.

We talk about the evils of male dominated Abrahamic faiths and there is no question that they have caused plenty of harm. But across all cultures, income brackets and education levels, women are actually more religious than men and that can't simply be written off as irrelevant. 

One of the most miserably patriarchal Christian sects in the U.S., an offshoot of the Second Advent movements of the 19th century, forbids women from speaking directly to the congregation, which means that women aren't allowed to give sermons, offer prayers or do anything else that could even remotely be construed as teaching. 

On paper, this sounds like the last religion on earth a woman would want to have anything to do with and yet the gender distribution in this faith is 65% female / 35% male. (According the the Pew Research Institute) And membership runs into the millions.

There are support groups in most major cities of the U.S. for men who have 'lost' their wives to this faith. These men get together and try to figure out ways to extricate their wives without blowing up the marriage. (Most of which don't work.) It's actually very sad.

Sure men created this faith and sure men run it and sure men bear a heavy responsibility, but how accurate is it to place the blame for a system this heartily endorsed and supported by women solely at the feet of men? 

You can pretty much name the movement and if it had a moral theme, even a repressive one, women were heavily involved in it too. We talk about the belief that men are more visual than women and the idea gets floated that this was part of a male effort to repress female sexuality. But you don't have to go that far back to find women themselves praising the idea as evidence that men are baser creatures, apparently on a slightly lower moral plane. 

This is what I was driving at. The gender warriors go way, way too far in portraying things as all the fault of one or the other when the reality is far more complicated than that. It's not a healthy message for adults, let alone children.


----------



## EleGirl

Heatherknows said:


> This is a good time to declare I'm so freaking happy I never had children.
> 
> So freaking happy.


:scratchhead: Can you explain why this is a good time to declare this?

(I don't mean explain why you don't want kids.. I what is special about this time and place?)


----------



## naiveonedave

@EleGirl - My take is very similar to yours, except I would add the caveat that MGTOW is also an attempt to change the law around D to be gender neutral.

I think the 80/20 stuff has some validity, but it is really a side bar to the whole discussion.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> Sorry for being oblique, EleGirl. The point I was driving at is that human societies are the product of men and women working together.
> 
> To this day, it is still fashionable in feminist circles to lay the blame for a litany of social evils directly on the shoulders of men because, "you guys made the rules, not us."
> 
> One of the problems with this viewpoint is that it's tough to put your finger at any particular point in history when women themselves have not been deeply involved in the maintenance and support of the existing social order. Portraying gender relations in adversarial terms, where women have been bystanders at best and unwilling slaves at worst fails (IMO) because of this.
> 
> We talk about the evils of male dominated Abrahamic faiths and there is no question that they have caused plenty of harm. But across all cultures, income brackets and education levels, women are actually more religious than men and that can't simply be written off as irrelevant.
> 
> One of the most miserably patriarchal Christian sects in the U.S., an offshoot of the Second Advent movements of the 19th century, forbids women from speaking directly to the congregation, which means that women aren't allowed to give sermons, offer prayers or do anything else that could even remotely be construed as teaching.
> 
> On paper, this sounds like the last religion on earth a woman would want to have anything to do with and yet the gender distribution in this faith is 65% female / 35% male. (According the the Pew Research Institute) And membership runs into the millions.
> 
> There are support groups in most major cities of the U.S. for men who have 'lost' their wives to this faith. These men get together and try to figure out ways to extricate their wives without blowing up the marriage. (Most of which don't work.) It's actually very sad.
> 
> Sure men created this faith and sure men run it and sure men bear a heavy responsibility, but how accurate is it to place the blame for a system this heartily endorsed and supported by women solely at the feet of men?
> 
> You can pretty much name the movement and if it had a moral theme, even a repressive one, women were heavily involved in it too. We talk about the belief that men are more visual than women and the idea gets floated that this was part of a male effort to repress female sexuality. But you don't have to go that far back to find women themselves praising the idea as evidence that men are baser creatures, apparently on a slightly lower moral plane.
> 
> This is what I was driving at. The gender warriors go way, way too far in portraying things as all the fault of one or the other when the reality is far more complicated than that. It's not a healthy message for adults, let alone children.


This is a very good post. I agree with you and would like to comment more at length, but have to leave for work now. So hopefully I can comment after work tonight.

But one short comment.. I see the MRA and MGTOW movements using rhetoric that is equally outlandish.


----------



## bkyln309

MGTOW (”Men Going Their Own Way”) is a way of life which refuses to defer to women in defining the worth of men. Instead, it focuses on positive male aspects, inviting men to go their own way in life.

MEN WITH ISSUES AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!! Honestly, they sound like a bunch of whiners. WA WA WAA!!! Man up! Life is full of risks. Deal with it or dont have a relationship. Life is not fair.



And far as men complaining about child support. I get a glorious $250/ month for both kids which goes into a separate account (not that it needs to because the amount is so insignificant) Because my X who used to be a Director in a legal practice decided he is not going to work a real job anymore. I will happily account for every dime I spend. 

But honestly if you are not going to be the primary caretaker of the children, you really have no say in how the person takes care of the kids.


----------



## Heatherknows

EleGirl said:


> :scratchhead: Can you explain why this is a good time to declare this?
> 
> (I don't mean explain why you don't want kids.. I what is special about this time and place?)


This thread has focused greatly on who gets financially fu*cked due to child support and alimony once divorce happens. 

Take kids out of the equation and maybe marriage isn't as scary.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Not that long ago, I saw a co-workers exW pull up in a brand new convertible Mustang and drop off a 12 yo boy and 10 yo girl wearing rags. Based on what I knew at the time, it was clear where CS was going.


Careful. Those rags might be the fashion. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Careful. Those rags might be the fashion.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


unfortunately, they were not.... I don't know how my co-worker held it together mentally and financially.


----------



## naiveonedave

bkyln309 said:


> MEN WITH ISSUES AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!! Honestly, they sound like a bunch of whiners. WA WA WAA!!! Man up! Life is full of risks. Deal with it or dont have a relationship. Life is not fair.
> 
> And far as men complaining about child support. I get a glorious $250/ month for both kids which goes into a separate account (not that it needs to because the amount is so insignificant) Because my X who used to be a Director in a legal practice decided he is not going to work a real job anymore. I will happily account for every dime I spend.
> 
> .


Sure they have issues. Everyone does.

Most men in D get screwed, especially with CS. Your story not withstanding.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> unfortunately, they were not.... I don't know how my co-worker held it together mentally and financially.


You do really have to be careful who you marry. I am sure telling my sons that, anyway. _Look beyond the packaging._
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> @EleGirl - My take is very similar to yours, except I would add the caveat that MGTOW is also an attempt to change the law around D to be gender neutral.


I agree that divorce law should be gender neutral. It is becoming that way more and more in every state. I don't know anyone, male or female who would disagree with this. Unfortunately law and how laws are applied change very slowly. 

There was a time when alimony made sense. It was a time when a woman's assets transferred to her husband and he never had to give them back to her. He could throw her out, keep her assets and inheritance, and keep the children. And in those days there was no way a woman could find a job that paid more than very base wages.

But that's not how things are now, so gender neutral makes sense. Though I do think that a SAHP/S, when it was a mutual agreement, should get some rehabilitative support for a limited time so that they can get some training/education and get a job.

Right now, less than 14% of divorced women get alimony (or spousal support) after the divorce. This will decrease quite a bit over the next few years.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> You do really have to be careful who you marry. I am sure telling my sons that, anyway. _Look beyond the packaging._
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree, though that still isn't fool proof.... Sometimes people change or hide the mental disorders easily....


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> @EleGirl
> 
> For your situation:
> 
> 50/50 Everything (debt and assets) obtained during the marriage. Pre-marital assets, and inheritances from family are excepted for both parties.
> 
> I'd say 6 months maximum spousal support (or none at all would be fine). We all have to work. Percentage is always hard to determine. 50% of post expense income? (expenses limited to rent / mortgage +utilities+modest food allowance+transportation+taxes) 6 months plus half of your assets is enough to get most people started. Neither person has a claim to their former partner's future income.
> 
> Start with an assumption of 50/50, unless a parent wants less. Kids should have a little say in it if they're over 12. Assuming no one is abusing their kids, and no attempts at parental alienation. I'd take all custody away from a parent alienating their children from the other parent (Temporarily at least).
> 
> No child support. Regardless of who has "primary custody". That's covered already by both parents providing food, clothing and shelter.
> 
> Equal split for the costs of insurance and health expenses.


This seems reasonable. I would add that all of this could be modified by a pre-nup that would actually be enforced by the courts as they would do with any other contractual arrangement.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Most men in D get screwed, especially with CS. Your story not withstanding.


Let's leave child support out of this for a moment because we know that it's there when there are children involved.

What other ways do you think that most men get screwed in divorce?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I agree, though that still isn't fool proof.... Sometimes people change or hide the mental disorders easily....


For sure, there will always be risk. But I want them to understand very clearly the particular risk of not looking beyond the packaging.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tom67

naiveonedave said:


> @EleGirl - My take is very similar to yours, except I would add the caveat that MGTOW is also an attempt to change the law around D to be gender neutral.
> 
> I think the 80/20 stuff has some validity, but it is really a side bar to the whole discussion.


And the laws will never change because there will always be more women because women live longer thus some men have finally said screw it.
It's not worth it.
Marriage that is.
You don't have to be a monk to be MGTOW date all you want.


----------



## tech-novelist

Satya said:


> Constable Odo and I felt that there should be an expense reporting standard for the ex spouse receiving child support, for reporting monthly or quarterly how child support is managed and spent, complete with receipts.
> 
> We all have to do this for employment expense reimbursement.
> 
> Currently there is little to no accountability for how child support is used, and this would be a standard, so both men and women receiving child support would have to do it in order for the support to carry on.
> 
> I'd hope a secure, online reporting system could be implemented to make this process simple and hassle-free. It's a pipe dream perhaps, but I think that any person paying child support would want to know that their money is actually being used for its intended purpose.
> 
> Eta: I have known both men and women that pay child support and in the case of two men I know in particular, both their ex wives are most certainly not using the full child support for the children.


Yes, exactly this.

I can't imagine how anyone could oppose this... unless they were one of the predatory women I've mentioned before who decided to latch onto a man's income stream by getting pregnant and holding him up with the help of the state.


----------



## tech-novelist

Heatherknows said:


> This thread has focused greatly on who gets financially fu*cked due to child support and alimony once divorce happens.
> 
> Take kids out of the equation and maybe marriage isn't as scary.


Marriage is not required to get hosed by child support.

My rule on unmarried pregnancy would be: "If you aren't married to the biological father, you get no, zero, zip, child support unless you can produce a signed, witnessed, notarized contract to the effect that the biological father has agreed to pay child support in the event of pregnancy, and how much it will be."


----------



## jld

technovelist said:


> Marriage is not required to get hosed by child support.
> 
> My rule on unmarried pregnancy would be: "If you aren't married to the biological father, you get no, zero, zip, child support unless you can produce a signed, witnessed, notarized contract to the effect that the biological father has agreed to pay child support in the event of pregnancy, and how much it will be."


I am telling my boys that if they are sexually active, they are risking paying child support. And possibly not getting to see the child.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SARAHMCD

technovelist said:


> Marriage is not required to get hosed by child support.
> 
> My rule on unmarried pregnancy would be: "If you aren't married to the biological father, you get no, zero, zip, child support unless you can produce a signed, witnessed, notarized contract to the effect that the biological father has agreed to pay child support in the event of pregnancy, and how much it will be."


Birth control is not 100% effective. Men have taken off condoms during sex without the woman knowing to "feel better" (it happened to me). If a man doesn't want to be responsible for an unmarried pregnancy, either don't have sex or get a vasectomy. Those are your options to never, ever be held accountable should mistakes happen.


----------



## Married but Happy

SARAHMCD said:


> Birth control is not 100% effective. Men have taken off condoms during sex without the woman knowing to "feel better" (it happened to me). If a man doesn't want to be responsible for an unmarried pregnancy, either don't have sex or get a vasectomy. Those are your options to never, ever be held accountable should mistakes happen.


If a WOMAN doesn't want to be responsible for an unmarried pregnancy, either don't have sex or get your tubes tied.

I've said it before, and will repeat it here: if a woman has an option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without regard to the father's wishes, then a man should have the option to terminate any financial obligation for that child. However, that's not the law - but should be.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Marriage is not required to get hosed by child support.
> 
> My rule on unmarried pregnancy would be: "If you aren't married to the biological father, you get no, zero, zip, child support unless you can produce a signed, witnessed, notarized contract to the effect that the biological father has agreed to pay child support in the event of pregnancy, and how much it will be."


LOL wanna know how many MORE men would be complaining about not being able to get sex if this was ever a law?


Sex has it's risks, when you choose to do it you are choosing to accept those risks.


----------



## SARAHMCD

Married but Happy said:


> If a WOMAN doesn't want to be responsible for an unmarried pregnancy, either don't have sex or get your tubes tied.
> 
> I've said it before, and will repeat it here: if a woman has an option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without regard to the father's wishes, then a man should have the option to terminate any financial obligation for that child. However, that's not the law - but should be.


Agreed. Women and men are both 50% responsible. So if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, then BOTH should be held accountable. 

Abortion is a tricky subject and I'm not sure this is the proper thread to get into that debate.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> Let's leave child support out of this for a moment because we know that it's there when there are children involved.
> 
> What other ways do you think that most men get screwed in divorce?


The main one's are custody, CS and alimony. I don't have the time to refute your assertion that on 14% of D's involve alimony. I would be shocked if that were true.


----------



## tech-novelist

SARAHMCD said:


> Agreed. Women and men are both 50% responsible. So if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, then BOTH should be held accountable.


But they aren't. Only the man is.


----------



## jld

Married but Happy said:


> If a WOMAN doesn't want to be responsible for an unmarried pregnancy, either don't have sex or get your tubes tied.
> 
> I've said it before, and will repeat it here: if a woman has an option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without regard to the father's wishes, then a man should have the option to terminate any financial obligation for that child. However, that's not the law - but should be.


 Is there any sort of legal option for a woman to forgo child support and the father to give up any legal claim to the child?

In other words, she doesn't get any money, but she alone makes all decisions regarding the child?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bkyln309

naiveonedave said:


> The main one's are custody, CS and alimony. I don't have the time to refute your assertion that on 14% of D's involve alimony. I would be shocked if that were true.


Child support is for your children. Again, if you want primary custody I have no issue with you not paying CS. If you dont, you need to support the children you helped to create.

Alimony IMHO should only be for women who have "worked" as a SAHM for a long period of time and probably not employable at a decent income. You have to count those years she raised your kids. Otherwise, you have to work.


----------



## tech-novelist

bkyln309 said:


> Child support is for your children. Again, if you want primary custody I have no issue with you not paying CS. If you dont, you need to support the children you helped to create.


What safeguards are in place to make sure that:
1. Child support payments are reasonably related to the cost of raising the child, and
2. Child support payments are actually used for that purpose?

Answer: none.


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> Marriage is not required to get hosed by child support.
> 
> My rule on unmarried pregnancy would be: "If you aren't married to the biological father, you get no, zero, zip, child support unless you can produce a signed, witnessed, notarized contract to the effect that the biological father has agreed to pay child support in the event of pregnancy, and how much it will be."


Then all our taxes would go up to support those father-abandoned children through welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, WIC, and Section 8 housing, and public schools which prepare them for nothing. 

Your rules about people having unprotected sex and making unplanned babies increases MY taxes (and yours and everyone elses), so no. 

I don't even have kids. I managed to get through 28 years of having sex without a single pregnancy or pregnancy scare. I sure as sh*t don't want to be paying even more taxes for other people's kids.


----------



## naiveonedave

bkyln309 said:


> Child support is for your children. Again, if you want primary custody I have no issue with you not paying CS. If you dont, you need to support the children you helped to create.
> 
> Alimony IMHO should only be for women who have "worked" as a SAHM for a long period of time and probably not employable at a decent income. You have to count those years she raised your kids. Otherwise, you have to work.


given the amount of abuse of CS I have seen, I disagree with your assertion. The purpose of CS is supposed to be providing for the children, however, in practice, that is not always the case. And since way more men than women pay CS, the abuse of the system appears to be a men vs women thing.

Alimony should be very short lived. There should not be life time alimony.


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> The main one's are custody, CS and alimony. I don't have the time to refute your assertion that on 14% of D's involve alimony. I would be shocked if that were true.


I don't really see the numbers on a quick search. They may be right or wrong. If someone else would post citations that would be great. I did see forbes cite that 3% of alimony cases are awarded to men, according to the IRS.

One of the good things many men should keep in mind is that odds are you don't make much money. If you don't make much, and have few assets to begin with, the only fear in marriage and divorce should be child custody / child support. The only folks who have much to fear are those of us who are doing quite well. Well, I say that, but a poor man, making $20,000 / year, being forced to pay an extra $300 to his wife for CS could be crippling. Especially if he's already feeding and clothing the kids half of the time. 

I don't think judges award alimony very often unless the guy is making pretty good money. 



jld said:


> Is there any sort of legal option for a woman to forgo child support and the father to give up any legal claim to the child?
> 
> In other words, she doesn't get any money, but she alone makes all decisions regarding the child?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I've seen couples sign such documents, and then courts invalidate them regularly. The only legal way is to go to court and be awarded full custody. Even primary is good enough sometimes, that the mother gets to make all decisions, and the dad is just along for the payments. And if the judge is ordering that, why wouldn't you make the dad pay, instead of letting him off. It's almost guaranteed the judge will order CS if you ask for it then.

ETA: Second part only really applies if you're married. If you weren't married, the father must sue to see his children at all, or have any input.


----------



## bkyln309

naiveonedave said:


> given the amount of abuse of CS I have seen, I disagree with your assertion. The purpose of CS is supposed to be providing for the children, however, in practice, that is not always the case. And since way more men than women pay CS, the abuse of the system appears to be a men vs women thing.
> 
> Alimony should be very short lived. There should not be life time alimony.


There are more women caring for their children as primary caretakers hence why men pay CS more. Again unless you want that responsibility, you cannot tell someone else how to spend the money. My X always says he wants to see the kids more but everytime I offer to switch up visitation so I get them less, he says that will not work. I think most dads like their freedom more than they would like to admit. 

I think there is far less abuse of CS funds than are griped about by paying dads. And far less dads that are actually paying for their kids. Most the times the women end up footing the bill.

And if you calculated the cost of raising a child, none of the dads would be able to pay because its unlikely dad makes that much period. 


Im not for being unrealistic on payments but most dads are unrealistic what is fair.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> Then all our taxes would go up to support those father-abandoned children through welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, TANF, WIC, and Section 8 housing, and public schools which prepare them for nothing.
> 
> Your rules about people having unprotected sex and making unplanned babies increases MY taxes (and yours and everyone elses), so no.
> 
> I don't even have kids. I managed to get through 28 years of having sex without a single pregnancy or pregnancy scare. I sure as sh*t don't want to be paying even more taxes for other people's kids.


Ok, then why don't we just enslave all men to pay for the expenses of all women? That would be even more effective in preventing your taxes from being raised.

Or to put it another way, if a woman realizes that she won't be able to extract money from a man by getting pregnant, maybe she will be more careful, or get an abortion if she does get pregnant.


----------



## naiveonedave

Kivlor said:


> ETA: Second part only really applies if you're married. If you weren't married, the father must sue to see his children at all, or have any input.


this is why the child of an unmarried couple is such an issue. It should be de facto decision that 50/50 custody is awarded, unless there is a reason, same as if this were a D.


----------



## naiveonedave

bkyln309 said:


> There are more women caring for their children as primary caretakers hence why men pay CS more. Again unless you want that responsibility, you cannot tell someone else how to spend the money. My X always says he wants to see the kids more but everytime I offer to switch up visitation so I get them less, he says that will not work. I think most dads like their freedom more than they would like to admit.
> 
> I think there is far less abuse of CS funds than are griped about by paying dads. And far less dads that are actually paying for their kids. Most the times the women end up footing the bill.
> 
> And if you calculated the cost of raising a child, none of the dads would be able to pay because its unlikely dad makes that much period.
> 
> 
> Im not for being unrealistic on payments but most dads are unrealistic what is fair.


dead beats are a problem, I agree. I disagree w/most of the rest. Most men want to do what is right, while not 'overpaying'. And kids are not nearly as expensive as we want them to be. They don't have to play travel sports, spend $5k/year on piano lessons and have private tutors.


----------



## norajane

bkyln309 said:


> There are more women caring for their children as primary caretakers hence why men pay CS more. Again unless you want that responsibility, you cannot tell someone else how to spend the money. My X always says he wants to see the kids more but everytime I offer to switch up visitation so I get them less, he says that will not work. I think most dads like their freedom more than they would like to admit.


That's what I see as well. All the divorced dads I know in my office are happy to have their ex-wives be the primary custodial parent because they don't want to change their work lifestyle to accommodate taking care of kids all week. They travel to meet with clients, and have to be available for late nights as well, so it makes hella more sense to give the kids the stability of one parent who is always around. 

I'm sure these guys pay lots of child support since they are extremely well paid for the jobs they do, and they don't want 50-50 custody.


----------



## tech-novelist

bkyln309 said:


> There are more women caring for their children as primary caretakers hence why men pay CS more. *Again unless you want that responsibility, you cannot tell someone else how to spend the money.* My X always says he wants to see the kids more but everytime I offer to switch up visitation so I get them less, he says that will not work. I think most dads like their freedom more than they would like to admit.


The person paying has no say in how the money is being used? What an odd notion.



bkyln309 said:


> I think there is far less abuse of CS funds than are griped about by paying dads. And far less dads that are actually paying for their kids. Most the times the women end up footing the bill.
> 
> *And if you calculated the cost of raising a child, none of the dads would be able to pay because its unlikely dad makes that much period. *


Here's what it actually costs to raise a child in a relatively expensive region of the country: about $14,000/yr. See USDA Calculator to try it yourself.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Alimony should be very short lived. There should not be life time alimony.


 Why not?

My husband has the job he has because of the experience he brought to the job. That was partly due to some overseas stays that he would not have been able to do without me. He has also benefited from never having to miss work because of sick children or any other domestic issue. 

Simply put, my presence in his life has contributed to where he is now and where he will end up. Why should *I* not continue to benefit financially from my contributions to his career development? *He* certainly will.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> Ok, then why don't we just enslave all men to pay for the expenses of all women? That would be even more effective in preventing your taxes from being raised.


I have no desire to enslave all men to pay for the expenses of all women. I just want the men and women who make babies to take care of them without my tax money.



> Or to put it another way, if a woman realizes that she won't be able to extract money from a man by getting pregnant, maybe she will be more careful, or get an abortion if she does get pregnant.


Just like men who already KNOW right now that they will be on the hook for child support are super careful not to have unprotected sex?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Why not?
> 
> My husband has the job he has because of the experience he brought to the job. That was partly due to some overseas stays that he would not have been able to do without me. He has also benefited from never having to miss work because of sick children or any other domestic issue.
> 
> Simply put, my presence in his life has contributed to where he is now and where he will end up. Why should *I* not continue to benefit financially from my contributions to his career development? *He* certainly will.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because you should be able to get a job. You both made a choice when you decided to stay home. In D, that choice no longer exists. Alimony, as it is currently used, makes for less incentive for the receiver to go to work and in many circumstances doesn't change if the receiver shacks up (but doesn't marry) or gets a salary increase.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> I have no desire to enslave all men to pay for the expenses of all women. I just want the men *and women* who make babies to take care of them without my tax money.
> 
> Just like men who already KNOW right now that they will be on the hook for child support are super careful not to have unprotected sex?


I don't see any concern with women being held responsible. It is all put on the man.

And as far as men knowing they will be on the hook for child support, most men don't know how bad that is... yet. That's one of the things the MGTOW are trying to educate men about.

Since I *do *know that, assuming I somehow found myself single in the future, I would be very careful about preventing any chance of unwanted reproduction.


----------



## Kivlor

bkyln309 said:


> There are more women caring for their children as primary caretakers hence why men pay CS more. Again unless you want that responsibility, you cannot tell someone else how to spend the money. My X always says he wants to see the kids more but everytime I offer to switch up visitation so I get them less, he says that will not work. I think most dads like their freedom more than they would like to admit.
> 
> I think there is far less abuse of CS funds than are griped about by paying dads. And far less dads that are actually paying for their kids. Most the times the women end up footing the bill.
> 
> *And if you calculated the cost of raising a child, none of the dads would be able to pay because its unlikely dad makes that much period. *
> 
> 
> *Im not for being unrealistic on payments but most dads are unrealistic what is fair.*


You. Are. Full. Of. It.

I think you are mistaking the tremendous difference between _raising _a child and _spoiling_ one. 

If it costs that much, how is mom raising the kid? She doesn't make as much as dad in over 70% of cases.


----------



## naiveonedave

norajane said:


> That's what I see as well. All the divorced dads I know in my office are happy to have their ex-wives be the primary custodial parent because they don't want to change their work lifestyle to accommodate taking care of kids all week. They travel to meet with clients, and have to be available for late nights as well, so it makes hella more sense to give the kids the stability of one parent who is always around.
> 
> I'm sure these guys pay lots of child support since they are extremely well paid for the jobs they do, and they don't want 50-50 custody.


this is likely true, in some cases, but not all.

I would move mountains to get 50/50 or more if I were to D.


----------



## jld

I think we all have a stake in the next generation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bkyln309

technovelist said:


> The person paying has no say in how the money is being used? What an odd notion.
> 
> No because you are not there everyday and are not aware what expenses are there to support your children. If you want that responsibility, then you can spend whatever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what it actually costs to raise a child in a relatively expensive region of the country: about $14,000/yr. See USDA Calculator to try it yourself.



$14,000 Really because I can tell you I spend alot more than that and I too live in an affordable area. I guess it depends what calculator you are using and what your kids are involved in.


----------



## bkyln309

naiveonedave said:


> dead beats are a problem, I agree. I disagree w/most of the rest. Most men want to do what is right, while not 'overpaying'. And kids are not nearly as expensive as we want them to be. They don't have to play travel sports, spend $5k/year on piano lessons and have private tutors.


So your money is more important than your kid being well rounded and doing activities and being well educated? Wow!!


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> I don't see any concern with women being held responsible. It is all put on the man.
> 
> And as far as men knowing they will be on the hook for child support, most men don't know how bad that is... yet. That's one of the things the MGTOW are trying to educate men about.
> 
> Since I *do *know that, assuming I somehow found myself single in the future, I would be very careful about preventing any chance of unwanted reproduction.


Women not responsible? Who exactly is taking care of that unplanned child every single day after the guy walks away? Single mothers.


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> this is likely true, in some cases, but not all.
> 
> I would move mountains to get 50/50 or more if I were to D.


Most of us would. Why do you think the average cost of a D is over $19,000. It's not splitting the assets, that's usually pretty cut and dry. Most states have very explicit rules for splitting assets. It's child custody, child support, and alimony battles that drive up the cost..


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> Because you should be able to get a job. You both made a choice when you decided to stay home. In D, that choice no longer exists. Alimony, as it is currently used, makes for less incentive for the receiver to go to work and in many circumstances doesn't change if the receiver shacks up (but doesn't marry) or gets a salary increase.


You are not addressing my points, Dave. 

I have lost twenty years on building a career, because I was helping build his. Why should I not benefit from that investment, just like he is?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bkyln309

Kivlor said:


> You. Are. Full. Of. It.
> 
> I think you are mistaking the tremendous difference between _raising _a child and _spoiling_ one.
> 
> If it costs that much, how is mom raising the kid? She doesn't make as much as dad in over 70% of cases.



By working my butt off while X pays $250/month and has all the toys and freedoms of a single man. 

And spoiling a child isnt even worked into the equation. Do you know how much it costs to clothe a child, put them in a good school, activities and the like? Probably not because your X managed it.

Im not saying the man should pay everything but if I have the kids 80% of the time, you cost will be more. You want them 50/50 different story.


----------



## tech-novelist

norajane said:


> Women not responsible? Who exactly is taking care of that unplanned child every single day after the guy walks away? Single mothers.


You seem to have forgotten about child support.


----------



## tech-novelist

bkyln309 said:


> By working my butt off while X pays $250/month and has all the toys and freedoms of a single man.
> 
> And spoiling a child isnt even worked into the equation. Do you know how much it costs to clothe a child, put them in a good school, activities and the like? Probably not because your X managed it.


Clothing is necessary. Activities are not. Public schools are tax-supported. What does "the like" consist of, precisely?

Divorce reduces the standard of living of all involved (other than the lawyers, of course). Children should not be made to suffer privation, but they also aren't entitled to luxuries.


----------



## naiveonedave

bkyln309 said:


> So your money is more important than your kid being well rounded and doing activities and being well educated? Wow!!


Wow, so D has to have no implications? Sorry, but the pot of money didn't grow and the expenses go up with two households, you don't cut down, it is not financially viable. Crazy.


----------



## Kivlor

bkyln309 said:


> By working my butt off while X pays $250/month and has all the toys and freedoms of a single man.
> 
> And spoiling a child isnt even worked into the equation. Do you know how much it costs to clothe a child, put them in a good school, activities and the like? Probably not because your X managed it.
> 
> Im not saying the man should pay everything but if I have the kids 80% of the time, you cost will be more. You want them 50/50 different story.


Real World Divorce: Kansas

Read this, it actually addresses, down the page a bit, why the USDA numbers are probably too high in many areas. In some others, maybe not.

Do I know how much it costs to clothe a child? Actually, yes. I grew up making our own clothing. I know the costs. I still sew some stuff from time to time to save $$--just not clothes for my office. I was at a local fabric store 3 weeks ago. We grew our own garden, we canned, we fished a ton and froze our catch.

School activities are part of the spoiling I mentioned. It's extra. And great to do. I didn't get to do any I couldn't do for free or pay for myself. I started finding ways to make money when I was very young, I sold my lunches at school, when kids were into a fad (ie Trading Cards) I found ways to make money on it. Bought my first car with my own cash at 17. I helped pay for and raise my youngest sister, and my 3 cousins starting at age 11. I grew up with a single mom receiving child support. It was not ever spent on us.

I'd suggest, rather than exercising your condescension in the future, you exercise some empathy. It helps you go miles.


----------



## naiveonedave

bkyln309 said:


> By working my butt off while X pays $250/month and has all the toys and freedoms of a single man.
> 
> And spoiling a child isnt even worked into the equation. Do you know how much it costs to clothe a child, put them in a good school, activities and the like? Probably not because your X managed it.
> 
> Im not saying the man should pay everything but if I have the kids 80% of the time, you cost will be more. You want them 50/50 different story.


basically, then you got screwed in D, similar to many of the MGTOW crowd.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> Because you should be able to get a job. *You both made a choice when you decided to stay home. * In D, that choice no longer exists. Alimony, as it is currently used, makes for less incentive for the receiver to go to work and in many circumstances doesn't change if the receiver shacks up (but doesn't marry) or gets a salary increase.





jld said:


> You are not addressing my points, Dave.
> 
> I have lost twenty years on building a career, because I was helping build his. Why should I not benefit from that investment, just like he is?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Dave, why is the burden placed on the SAHP when, as you say, it was a CHOICE made by BOTH partners?


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> You are not addressing my points, Dave.
> 
> I have lost twenty years on building a career, because I was helping build his. Why should I not benefit from that investment, just like he is?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


If you were to D, you should get some amount of alimony for some defined, not infinite, period of time, to get you back on your feet. 
For round numbers, say your H makes $200K. You are now empty nesters @ 50. You are going to get 1/2 the retirement and 401K of your H. With making simple assumptions about tax implications, you should get about $50K in alimony. That would be about 1/2 of the net of you making $15/hour at full time and $200K, after taxes. This should eventually go away, as you should progress to relatively higher pay over time or it is on you for not improving your situation. In some states, you would get 50% before taxes and it would go on forever, even if your H retired or got fired.


----------



## knobcreek

When people talk of feminism today they put on a much different spin from the extremist and man hating movement it originally was. "men are pigs", "women need men like fish need a bicycle", this was the mantra espoused by mainstream feminists in the 1960s, these same women also turned out to be our mothers and primary school teachers. All the while divorce and work life separated men completely from the raising of two generations of boys. Teaching a boy to be a man was left to women, and no offense but women can't fill this role. Most of these MGTOW gents I'm sure have mommy issues and abandonment issues with their Dad's.

What MGTOW is, is generation two or three of people pleasing nice guys raised by well meaning women to be this way. Men are taught that being men "men are pigs" is bad, and you shouldn't be that way, to get your mother's approval you have to be nice. To get your second grade teachers approval you have to be nice, treat women nicely, do things to please them. Most men were raised by their mothers and brought up in school by female teachers. Men are raised from early childhood not how to be a man, but how to kowtow, be nice, treat women nice and please them in order to be loved by them. But women don't want men to treat them "nice" or be conflict avoiding, manipulative, people pleasers.

MGTOW is a reaction of a nation full of "nice guys" lashing out from a lifetime of frustration. They're attributing this frustration to women in general, but really it's self-loathing, and the frustration of being a "nice guy".

It isn't just MGTOW, there are more nice guys then ever before, because frankly their mother's did a number on them and taught them to effectively hate who they really are, and the only way to get a woman's love is to please them and be nice at all costs, even if it means internal hatred for who you really are, or hiding any and all perceived flaws.


----------



## Kivlor

naiveonedave said:


> basically, then you got screwed in D, similar to many of the MGTOW crowd.


I'm done giving her the benefit of the doubt after the assumption that because I disagree with her, I must have an X that did it all for me. I'm single, no kids, no XW. I've lived it vicariously through my childhood. 

We don't know that she got screwed. Maybe $250/mo is fair. I don't know where she lives, what she does for a living, what her XH did/made during the D, or what he does now. We don't know if she lives in the jurisdiction where she filed and got D. 

We don't know if her XH is living by leveraging himself to the hilt, or if it's all in cash. And I doubt she knows either.


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> Dave, why is the burden placed on the SAHP when, as you say, it was a CHOICE made by BOTH partners?


In my case, it was presented right away in the relationship, by *him.* He wanted me to be a SAHM, specifically mentioning he wanted me to breastfeed and homeschool our kids. He also wanted several.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Dave, why is the burden placed on the SAHP when, as you say, it was a CHOICE made by BOTH partners?


and there is no burden in giving away your money, when you chose not to get D? got it, sahp = angel, worker = dog.

Sure, short term alimony, but you have to assume a) the SAHP gets a job that pays real money in short order and b) the impact on both H and W is a lower standard of living and c) getting shacked up w/o marriage should impact alimony (for the guy whose wife leaves for another man)

In many cases these are not accounted for, at all. Things are improving, but not there yet.


----------



## norajane

technovelist said:


> You seem to have forgotten about child support.


Money is only part of the equation of *raising *children. _Someone _has to be there every day to give them 3 meals a day, among other things, for the next 18 years. Is that not a major responsibility of having a child? Is that not what single mothers do?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> If you were to D, you should get some amount of alimony for some defined, not infinite, period of time, to get you back on your feet.
> For round numbers, say your H makes $200K. You are now empty nesters @ 50. You are going to get 1/2 the retirement and 401K of your H. With making simple assumptions about tax implications, you should get about $50K in alimony. That would be about 1/2 of the net of you making $15/hour at full time and $200K, after taxes. This should eventually go away, as you should progress to relatively higher pay over time or it is on you for not improving your situation. In some states, you would get 50% before taxes and it would go on forever, even if your H retired or got fired.


If I helped build his career, I think I deserve that 50% or some similarly fair share as long as he is working. Again, he would not be where he is without my contribution. It was an investment from both of us. 

I think some people are really taking the contribution of a SAHM for granted.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> If I helped build his career, I think I deserve that 50% or some similarly fair share as long as he is working. Again, he would not be where he is without my contribution. It was an investment from both of us.
> 
> I think some people are really taking the contribution of a SAHM for granted.


I agree that you 'earned' something. You did lower your future earning potential to be a SAHM. IMO, that does not permit you to never work again if you D, especially since 70+% of D are filed by the woman.

You are taking for granted that you can't provide monetarily for yourself. 

Look at some of the laws out there. In California if you are married 10 years you can get lifetime alimony. In the next 10 years, you should be able to get on your feet enough to not need 'help' of someone you are no longer related to.

That is why I fall in between the virtually unlimited alimony that is very common today and no alimony at all.


----------



## Kivlor

norajane said:


> Money is only part of the equation of *raising *children. _Someone _has to be there every day to give them 3 meals a day, among other things, for the next 18 years. Is that not a major responsibility of having a child? Is that not what single mothers do?


If you haven't taught your kids to feed themselves waaaaay before that, aren't you crippling them? I'd say yes... It's really 2 meals a day, because they get 1 at school 5 days a week. We know, you'd like to remain a SAHM after the D, but that's the cost of not staying in the marriage. 

I'm thinking there's a song that this conversation reminds me of... ah yes...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3YDSi0-kt8


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I agree that you 'earned' something. You did lower your future earning potential to be a SAHM. IMO, that does not permit you to never work again if you D, especially since 70+% of D are filed by the woman.
> 
> You are taking for granted that you can't provide monetarily for yourself.
> 
> Look at some of the laws out there. In California if you are married 10 years you can get lifetime alimony. In the next 10 years, you should be able to get on your feet enough to not need 'help' of someone you are no longer related to.
> 
> That is why I fall in between the virtually unlimited alimony that is very common today and no alimony at all.


I think that men might be much more selective about who they married if they knew that they would have to pay lifetime alimony. Might help them _look beyond the packaging._ Another thing to mention to my sons.

I can't get back the years I spent raising the kids, Dave. And starting to work at 45 is not like starting at 22.

I have no plans to divorce, but I think it is nice to know that at least in some states, the law has a SAHM's back.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> I don't see any concern with women being held responsible. It is all put on the man.


If there is a child involved, they are BOTH paying for that child. 

Child support does not cover 100% of expenses, the extra room needed, utilities, food, gas, that is spent on having a child. They both contribute. 

Many women are in a position where they don't even get close to half of the child's expenses- or none at all like me- and they are on the hook much more than the man is


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I think that men might be much more selective about who they married if they knew that they would have to pay lifetime alimony. Might help them _look beyond the packaging._ Another thing to mention to my sons.
> 
> I can't get back the years I spent raising the kids, Dave. And starting to work at 45 is not like starting at 22.
> 
> I have no plans to divorce, but I think it is nice to know that at least in some states, the law has a SAHM's back.


once again you prove to me that you have zero empathy for males.

I hope your sons choose well, because most of the men who are now D'd, think they chose well when the proposed. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as easy as you think to pick wisely.

If you D at 45 and get 1/2 of your H's retirement, you probably could work 10-15 years at minimum wage and be way better off than most. The not going back to work argument is very lame. My wife just went back to work part time at 2x minimum wage for 20 hours a week. You sell yourself too short and expect someone else to carry you. You need to woman up or something.


----------



## norajane

Kivlor said:


> If you haven't taught your kids to feed themselves waaaaay before that, aren't you crippling them? I'd say yes... It's really 2 meals a day, because they get 1 at school 5 days a week. *We know, you'd like to remain a SAHM after the D, but that's the cost of not staying in the marriage.*


Wow, way to completely ignore what raising a child requires of a parent. It's not just a couple of meals, and I'm sure you KNOW that. A child needs a parent every day. 

My responses were to technovelist's hypothetical unplanned pregnancy rules which give the unwilling father the right to abandon the child financially. He followed that up by saying we aren't holding women responsible, which is to reduce the meaning of responsibility for a child to child support as though money is all that responsibility for a child means. 

As for me, I am not married. I don't have kids. I have a long term partner and I make twice as much as he does so I'm not worried about this issue in the least, much less do I want to be a SAHM now or ever.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Oh and my Mom got "lifetime" alimony- which is until he retires. She got $800/month which she ended up just cancelling anyway. Do you really think she didn't have to work on top of that? She was awarded a small portion of the earnings she helped him get to.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> You are not addressing my points, Dave.
> 
> I have lost twenty years on building a career, because I was helping build his. Why should I not benefit from that investment, just like he is?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Let's consider my case. I sacrificed my career to raise our kids and help my wife climb the corporate ladder. She makes 10% less than me but still a princely sum. I could be making lots more if I had focused on my career instead of orthodontist appointments and PTO. Not to mention the endless hours spent helping her find the next job, teaching her stuff...

Do you really think any judge would ever grant me alimony?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Let's consider my case. I sacrificed my career to raise our kids and help my wife climb the corporate ladder. She makes 10% less than me but still a princely sum. I could be making lots more if I had focused on my career instead of orthodontist appointments and PTO. Not to mention the endless hours spent helping her find the next job, teaching her stuff...
> 
> Do you really think any judge would ever grant me alimony?


John, you are always saying you want to work as little as possible and make the most possible. I don't think you sacrificed anything.


----------



## Kivlor

norajane said:


> Wow, way to completely ignore what raising a child requires of a parent. It's not just a couple of meals, and I'm sure you KNOW that. A child needs a parent every day.
> 
> My responses were to technovelist's hypothetical unplanned pregnancy rules which give the unwilling father the right to abandon the child financially. He followed that up by saying we aren't holding women responsible, which is to reduce the meaning of responsibility for a child to child support as though money is all that responsibility for a child means.
> 
> As for me, I am not married. I don't have kids. I have a long term partner and I make twice as much as he does so I'm not worried about this issue in the least, much less do I want to be a SAHM now or ever.


That was mean of me to direct it at you. I apologize. Still, the argument remains, switch "you" to "many women". 

I actually agree with Tech here. If women can choose to include me in the kid's life or not, I should be able to absolve myself. Shouldn't be a one way street. I'm okay with--and prefer--switching it by going the other way, but the feminists here will have a conniption fit and go apoplectic.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> I actually agree with Tech here. If women can choose to include me in the kid's life or not, I should be able to absolve myself. Shouldn't be a one way street. I'm okay with switching it by going the other way, but the feminists here will have a conniption fit and go apoplectic.


She doesn't get to choose that. If she is preventing you from seeing your children you go to court. 

More and more places are going default 50/50 custody now. That is fair. There's no need to go all the way one way or the other.


----------



## Lila

naiveonedave said:


> and there is no burden in giving away your money, when you chose not to get D? got it, sahp = angel, worker = dog.


I never said that the SAHP parent was the angel just as I didn't assume that the SAHP would be the one choosing to get divorced. 

I can't feel sorry for those 'workers' who would choose to stay in a loveless, sexless, miserable marriage for financial reasons. It's a choice, just as it was a CHOICE they made to have one partner be a SAHP. 

Many of us understand the crazy schedules that two income families face on a day to day basis. Having a SAHP maintaining the 'homestead' is a blessing. But as the saying goes, nothing comes free in life.



naiveonedave said:


> Sure, short term alimony, but you have to assume a) the SAHP gets a job that pays real money in short order and b) the impact on both H and W is a lower standard of living and c) getting shacked up w/o marriage should impact alimony (for the guy whose wife leaves for another man)
> 
> In many cases these are not accounted for, at all. Things are improving, but not there yet.


While I do agree that alimony should be limited, I totally disagree with the length of time. Personally, alimony should be paid for 1/2 the length of the marriage after 10 years. In the 20+ year example, it took 20+ years for the working partner to build their career to it's current level, all with the support of the SAHP keeping the 'homefront'. You can't expect someone to build a career in 5 years from nothing. Getting a job that pays better than entry level and/or going back to school, all the while trying to continue to raise kids is a too steep learning curve.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> once again you prove to me that you have zero empathy for males.
> 
> I hope your sons choose well, because most of the men who are now D'd, think they chose well when the proposed. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as easy as you think to pick wisely.
> 
> If you D at 45 and get 1/2 of your H's retirement, you probably could work 10-15 years at minimum wage and be way better off than most. The not going back to work argument is very lame. My wife just went back to work part time at 2x minimum wage for 20 hours a week. You sell yourself too short and expect someone else to carry you. You need to woman up or something.


I absolutely expect my husband to carry me. That has been part and parcel of the deal since we got together.

He thinks that is fine, btw.

I may sell myself short. Not sure. 

I know I have tremendous respect for working women. I admire their independence.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> She doesn't get to choose that. If she is preventing you from seeing your children you go to court.
> 
> More and more places are going default 50/50 custody now. That is fair. There's no need to go all the way one way or the other.



Not true. She can abort. I have no say. She can not put my name on the Birth Certificate and put the kid up for adoption. I have very few rights if we're not married. 

If she can do those to me, why can't I say "Nope, I don't want it."

Like I said, I'm okay with going the other direction on this one and saying "nope, abortion requires the father and mother's signature outside of lifesaving measures, or the father's death certificate". But the feminists here will go crazy over that, so I'd settle for Technovelist's idea.


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and my Mom got "lifetime" alimony- which is until he retires. She got $800/month which she ended up just cancelling anyway. Do you really think she didn't have to work on top of that? She was awarded a small portion of the earnings she helped him get to.


without knowing the whole story, this may be reasonable. If your dad made $70K, which is say $50K after taxes, when D, your mom should make $20K after taxes + 10K in alimony is about equal to about 1/2. You would also need to consider net asset division, sometimes people take on debt or give up assets to lower alimony.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> Not true. She can abort. I have no say. She can not put my name on the Birth Certificate and put the kid up for adoption. I have very few rights if we're not married.
> 
> If she can do those to me, why can't I say "Nope, I don't want it."
> 
> Like I said, I'm okay with going the other direction on this one and saying "nope, abortion requires the father and mother's signature outside of lifesaving measures". But the feminists here will go crazy over that, so I'd settle for Technovelist's idea.


Having an abortion has nothing to do with "including you in the kid's life". There is no kid. She chose to have a procedure done on her own body. 
IF a child is born you have parental rights and she can not keep the child from you. 

Adoption rights are also changing as many men have stood up against that. I have no problem getting behind laws preventing women from adopting out a child that the father wants and can care for.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I absolutely expect my husband to carry me. That has been part and parcel of the deal since we got together.
> 
> He thinks that is fine, btw.
> 
> I may sell myself short. Not sure.
> 
> I know I have tremendous respect for working women. I admire their independence.


until you file for D (I know you won't), but there is another fictitious SAHM and husband, who are virtually identical to you and your H, and she will file for D. Then the expectation that this fiction woman has about being carried evaporates and this person's H no longer thinks that carrying her is 'fine'.

I have way more respect for SAHPs than you think, but as the laws are on the books, they get way too much in D, imo.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Having an abortion has nothing to do with "including you in the kid's life". There is no kid. She chose to have a procedure done on her own body.
> IF a child is born you have parental rights and she can not keep the child from you.
> 
> Adoption rights are also changing as many men have stood up against that. I have no problem getting behind laws preventing women from adopting out a child that the father wants and can care for.


Don't be obtuse.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> Many of us understand the crazy schedules that two income families face on a day to day basis. Having a SAHP maintaining the 'homestead' is a blessing. But as the saying goes, nothing comes free in life.
> 
> 
> 
> While I do agree that alimony should be limited, I totally disagree with the length of time. Personally, alimony should be paid for 1/2 the length of the marriage after 10 years. In the 20+ year example, it took 20+ years for the working partner to build their career to it's current level, all with the support of the SAHP keeping the 'homefront'. You can't expect someone to build a career in 5 years from nothing. Getting a job that pays better than entry level and/or going back to school, all the while trying to continue to raise kids is a too steep learning curve.


I think this is very reasonable. The only difference is my expectation is that most SAHP should, in 5 years, be further up the food chain than you do, but in totality, that is a relatively minor difference.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

naiveonedave said:


> without knowing the whole story, this may be reasonable. If your dad made $70K, which is say $50K after taxes, when D, your mom should make $20K after taxes + 10K in alimony is about equal to about 1/2. You would also need to consider net asset division, sometimes people take on debt or give up assets to lower alimony.


My Dad made a lot more than that 

They split the retirement fund up to the point of divorce, which she doesn't get to touch until she retires, and split what was left over from the house sale after all debts were paid off- which was basically nothing. 

There were 2/4 kids left at home who got to move from the suburbs where we had spent our entire lives to the inner city which was all she could afford until she got on her feet.

A lot of women have ended up losing a lot in a divorce just like a lot of men have. It's not sunshine and rainbows for anyone.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> Don't be obtuse.


I'm not, if you want to be with a woman who does not believe in abortion and wouldn't have one then make that a requirement for you before you sleep with someone. 

Otherwise it goes based on the law and that it's a medical procedure which is personal to the woman alone. It's not a kid that she's keeping from you. It's her medical choice for herself.


----------



## Lila

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Oh and my Mom got "lifetime" alimony- which is until he retires. She got $800/month which she ended up just cancelling anyway. Do you really think she didn't have to work on top of that? She was awarded a small portion of the earnings she helped him get to.


My parents divorced when I was a preteen. My mom had been a stay at home parent but because of the way their investments were made, she took like 80% of the assets (most under her name), split the money in savings in half, took the house (paid for in full), and both cars (paid for in full). Here's the kicker.....the judge ruled that she, as the higher income earner, had to pay my father alimony for life. However, her lawyer was the best money can buy and he got the judge to agree to base the payment on a certain set of investments only (not sure exactly how that was all handled) but it amounted to about $1,500 per month.

It's been 30 years since they divorced. He's since made his money 10xs over and she took the money she got in the divorce and grew it into a fortune but......she still takes great pleasure in handing him his alimony check every month. LOL. 

Oh and for those that don't believe in couples getting back together post divorce, my parents are proof that it can happen. It's kind of a strange situation because they have broken up and gotten back together so many times over the last 3 decades I lost count....but they're together now (have been for about 10 years) and that's all that matters.:smile2:


----------



## naiveonedave

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> A lot of women have ended up losing a lot in a divorce just like a lot of men have. It's not sunshine and rainbows for anyone.


This is very true and very poignant.


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Having an abortion has nothing to do with "including you in the kid's life". There is no kid. She chose to have a procedure done on her own body.
> IF a child is born you have parental rights and she can not keep the child from you.
> 
> Adoption rights are also changing as many men have stood up against that. I have no problem getting behind laws preventing women from adopting out a child that the father wants and can care for.


She is the one going through the life-changing and life-risking experience of pregnancy and delivery. If she does not want him to have the baby, there is probably a good reason for it.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> She is the one going through the life-changing and life-risking experience of pregnancy and delivery. If she does not want him to have the baby, there is probably a good reason for it.


He's the one going through the life changing, life-risking experience that is family court and Child Support. If he doesn't want her to have the baby, there's probably a good reason for it.

See how easy it is to flip this anti-male, pro-female stuff around. Or, like I said, I'd be fine with going the other way, but all the feminists here would have a freaking conniption. Heck, we saw Slowly didn't like that at all.
@SlowlyGoingCrazy

I'll agree that almost always, D is bad for everyone. Except the attorneys and courts.

I've been thinking about watching this, but, I already know. We all do...


----------



## Mr. Nail

Interesting arguments but I just don't see it. My Wife went back to work after the kids got in school. Before that she was a SAHM (P). in 12 years she has advanced her Career to the point that she now makes more than me. I should Die around the time she retires and My life insurance will combine with her retirement to set her up ok. If I wasn't Diabetic, I would work till I drop in the traces. Boy those SAH years sure hurt her earning potential. I'm just glad she buys health insurance for me. She would be ahead to restrict my treatment options.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> He's the one going through the life changing, life-risking experience that is family court and Child Support. If he doesn't want her to have the baby, there's probably a good reason for it.


I guess he should have thought of that before he had sex with her.

And if she is giving it up for adoption, she is not having it long term, anyway.


----------



## Lila

Mr. Nail said:


> Interesting arguments but I just don't see it. My Wife went back to work after the kids got in school. Before that she was a SAHM (P). in 12 years she has advanced her Career to the point that she now makes more than me. I should Die around the time she retires and My life insurance will combine with her retirement to set her up ok. If I wasn't Diabetic, I would work till I drop in the traces. Boy those SAH years sure hurt her earning potential. I'm just glad she buys health insurance for me. She would be ahead to restrict my treatment options.


How long was your wife out of the workforce? That more than anything, affects earning potential down the road.


----------



## jld

Mr. Nail said:


> Interesting arguments but I just don't see it. My Wife went back to work after the kids got in school. Before that she was a SAHM (P). in 12 years she has advanced her Career to the point that she now makes more than me. I should Die around the time she retires and My life insurance will combine with her retirement to set her up ok. If I wasn't Diabetic, I would work till I drop in the traces. Boy those SAH years sure hurt her earning potential. I'm just glad she buys health insurance for me. She would be ahead to restrict my treatment options.


In our case, we homeschool. That, too, was decided in the early days of our relationship.

Everybody has their own deal going, I guess.


----------



## jld

I just don't want women to be slaves, guys. I don't think that benefits men or women.

I understand you want to see men treated fairly. I think we all want fairness for both sexes. We may just define it a little differently.


----------



## naiveonedave

Lila said:


> How long was your wife out of the workforce? That more than anything, affects earning potential down the road.


My wife was essentially out for 15 years. If she goes full time with the job she just got as a 20 hr/week gig, she half way caught up to me in one job. I think that we are selling the earning potential of SAHP way too much. Especially since they have not had a chance to prove the mettle when the alimony is decided on. Also, if the SAHP gets a very large alimony, there is no incentive to rise up the ladder....


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> I just don't want women to be slaves, guys. I don't think that benefits men or women.
> 
> I understand you want to see men treated fairly. I think we all want fairness for both sexes. We may just define it a little differently.


I agree.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> He's the one going through the life changing, life-risking experience that is family court and Child Support. If he doesn't want her to have the baby, there's probably a good reason for it.
> 
> See how easy it is to flip this anti-male, pro-female stuff around. Or, like I said, I'd be fine with going the other way, but all the feminists here would have a freaking conniption. Heck, we saw Slowly didn't like that at all.


It has nothing to do with me being a feminist. 

Your statement said that women were "keeping a man away from his kid" by having an abortion and wanting men to have a say in it.

In order for a fetus to be a "kid", you'd have to give the fetus personhood rights. 
Right now the law states that there is no person until birth. 
There's legally no kid. Until viability it is a medical procedure that involves 1 person, nothing more, and no one else has a say in your medical procedures.

That has nothing to do with men and women, it's protecting the abortion laws that were created in our countries.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I'm not, if you want to be with a woman who does not believe in abortion and wouldn't have one then make that a requirement for you before you sleep with someone.
> 
> Otherwise it goes based on the law and that it's a medical procedure which is personal to the woman alone. It's not a kid that she's keeping from you. It's her medical choice for herself.




You are appealing to the law, in a discussion about changing the law. This is a logical fallacy. But it's all we can expect. 

I've argued that the law is unjust, and as the purpose of laws is justice, it must be changed. You've merely said, "well the law says she can!" Not convincing.

I'm okay with letting this continue, you've been provided two methods for justice: either no abortions without the father's signature / death certificate / medical emergency, or letting men "opt out" of having a child, just like the woman can. Both seem "fair" and "just" to me. If you have another, we'd all like to see it.

ETA: "Opt Out" should read "Opt out financially"


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Men aren't paying child support for a fetus. I guess if you had it your way and it was both of their "child" from the second it was conceived she could start getting CS and half her medical bills paid throughout her pregnancy. What about visitation? Does Dad get to come talk to the belly 50% of the days of the week? 

You can not make a fetus a person therefore until the baby is born and a person, it is the Mother's responsibility.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I guess he should have thought of that before he had sex with her.
> 
> And if she is giving it up for adoption, she is not having it long term, anyway.


I guess she should have thought of that before she had sex with him.

Seriously, when you type, please, stop, and switch the genders for a second. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If she is giving the kid up for adoption, should the father not have first option to keep him/her?


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I guess she should have thought of that before she had sex with him.
> 
> Seriously, when you type, please, stop, and switch the genders for a second. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> 
> If she is giving the kid up for adoption, should the father not have first option to keep him/her?


Kivlor. Do you seriously want to compare what a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth to what a man goes through during that same time? Is that even a serious conversation?

If the mother does not want him to have the baby, I think she has good reason for it. Good enough for me, anyway.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> or letting men "opt out" of having a child, just like the woman can.


An abortion isn't "opting out" any more than using a condom or other birth control method is. 
It is at it's core a birth control method, it controls/stops a woman from having a child. 
It's not a great one as it obviously has it's risks but taking all emotion and feelings out of it, it's a back-up method of preventing birth.

Some birth control stops sperm getting in, some kills them when they are there, some makes an egg not be able to be fertilized or implant itself and this one just happens to removes one. 

We all get to choose our own birth control methods, our own medical procedures. This is not a gender war, it's simple body autonomy and I would fight for that right for anyone.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Lila said:


> How long was your wife out of the workforce? That more than anything, affects earning potential down the road.


Let's see, we've been married 28 years August. She wanted children right away. she worked childcare, until she had her own. Dec '88 Then SAHM until Junior #4 turned 4 He turns 18 this month. so . . . . 

13 years. Raised 4 kids. None of them show any signs of providing Grandchildren. Junior Wants to Join the Navy. Talk about MGTOW!


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Kivlor. Do you seriously want to compare what a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth to what a man goes through during that same time? Is that even a serious conversation?
> 
> *If the mother does not want him to have the baby, I think she has good reason for it. Good enough for me, anyway.*


I actually did not compare them at all. If anything, I was comparing the distress a woman goes through then, and the 'risk to her life' that you mentioned, to the risks the man faces in court, and in prison--including rape--if he fails to pay her monthly installments for 18 years...21 years... till the kid finishes college? 

The point was that you dismiss the man's concerns and issues because he's not a woman. And if that's okay, then I can just as equally and easily dismiss the woman's because she's not a man. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And both statements would be wrong. That's the point. 

It appears that you are of the opinion that a man should not have a say in his kids lives without a woman's permission, because you _feel _that way. I'm glad we've cleared that up. There's no logic. No reason. It's not based on empiricism or fact, it is purely emotional. I understand now.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> If the mother does not want him to have the baby, I think she has good reason for it. Good enough for me, anyway.


You can't be serious.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Men aren't paying child support for a fetus. I guess if you had it your way and it was both of their "child" from the second it was conceived she could start getting CS and half her medical bills paid throughout her pregnancy. What about visitation? Does Dad get to come talk to the belly 50% of the days of the week?
> 
> You can not make a fetus a person therefore until the baby is born and a person, it is the Mother's responsibility.


You do realize that the court can and will order the daddy to pay for the medical costs should the mother ask, right? ETA: In cases of Medicare / Medicaid, they'll seek them against the dad, whether the mom goes to court or not.

I truly don't believe most of the women here argue in good faith, it's very disappointing. At least do a quick Google Search before you post things like this.

I'd be okay with simply saying the guy can financially absolve himself, just like the woman can physically and financially absolve herself. I don't think it's a tremendous demand.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Kivlor said:


> I'd be okay with simply saying the guy can financially absolve himself, just like the woman can physically and financially absolve herself. I don't think it's a tremendous demand.


He can. He can use a condom, have a V and/or only sleep with women who he knows are on birth control and on the same page as he is on topics like abortion. 

Once a baby is born, no one is absolving themselves. They are both responsible and legally allowed to parent and pay for that child unless a court says otherwise.


----------



## ButtPunch

Kivlor said:


> I'd be okay with simply saying the guy can financially absolve himself, just like the woman can physically and financially absolve herself. I don't think it's a tremendous demand.


I agree completely....Men should not be on the hook for a decision they had no part in.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I actually did not compare them at all. If anything, I was comparing the distress a woman goes through then, and the 'risk to her life' that you mentioned, to the risks the man faces in court, and in prison--including rape--if he fails to pay her monthly installments for 18 years...21 years... till the kid finishes college?
> 
> The point was that you dismiss the man's concerns and issues because he's not a woman. And if that's okay, then I can just as equally and easily dismiss the woman's because she's not a man. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And both statements would be wrong. That's the point.
> 
> It appears that you are of the opinion that a man should not have a say in his kids lives without a woman's permission, because you _feel _that way. I'm glad we've cleared that up. There's no logic. No reason. It's not based on empiricism or fact, it is purely emotional. I understand now.


You were talking about what she should have thought of before having sex.

And how many men go to prison for not paying child support? I have heard that *many* skip out on child support. I doubt it is a sure ticket to prison rape.

For sure, my boys are going to know the risks of being sexually active, including paying 18+ years of child support. Whatever decision they then take will be up to them.


----------



## Mr. Nail

@Kivlor and @ButtPunch,

I've already tried arguments in this direction. Even to the extent of a one time full payment of the entire financial obligation. All of these have been rejected in this forum without the logical admittance that the reason that the women want to receive Child support monthly is . . . 

Wait for it ... ... ...

Better hide this is going to ignite a fire storm. . . . .
.
.
.
.
To prevent the man from forming a replacement relationship.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> I agree completely....Men should not be on the hook for a decision they had no part in.


No part in?

How did she get pregnant again?


----------



## ButtPunch

Mr. Nail said:


> @Kivlir and @ButtPunch,
> 
> I've already tried arguments in this direction. Even to the extent of a one time full payment of the entire financial obligation. All of these have been rejected in this forum without the logical admittance that the reason that the women want to receive Child support monthly is . . .
> 
> Wait for it ... ... ...
> 
> Better hide this is going to ignite a fire storm. . . . .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> To prevent the man from forming a replacement relationship.



The whole family law thing is so one sided it's ridiculous. It's only now starting to come back to the middle. I don't believe out of fairness either. I believe it's because there are so many high wage earners that are women now.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

I disagree that men have plenty of decision making power in an unwanted pregnancy.

They have the decision to not have sex or use protection or sleep with a woman that they want to have children with only.

Its simply that their decision-making power ends when their biological contribution ends.

Women have a longer decision-making window because they have a much longer biological contribution to make.

Its not unusual that if you sleep with a woman that you don't know very well that your decision might not be the same...that's the risk you take. 

Sex is serious...you can have babies...you can get very ill from having it. If you're not ready for the risks of sex, don't have it. There's no such thing as casual sex.

Child support is the right of the child. It has nothing to do with either adult party...its there to protect the product of their irresponsibility. And if the man feels the woman is unfit to raise the child, he should be in court protecting his parental rights. Courts want children to have both parents in their lives. Mothers have ZERO right to decide to eliminate the parental rights of the child's father.

I'm so sick of women with golden uterus syndrome who think that just because they gave birth they have the authority on removing the male parent from a child's life. That isn't their decision to make. Children have the right to the presence of both parents in their life.

Men need to start standing up for their parental rights and, more importantly, the best welfare for their children by fighting women who think they own the children.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> No part in?
> 
> How did she get pregnant again?


No part in the decision to keep the child.


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> No part in the decision to keep the child.


I would like to see some sort of opt out, wherein he pays nothing and she has all rights to the child. 

As women make more and more money, I think this would have great appeal.


----------



## BetrayedDad

jld said:


> I would like to see some sort of opt out, wherein he pays nothing and she has all rights to the child.


Can't believe I'm saying this but I agree completely with this notion.

If she wants the baby and he doesn't then she can pay for the child and he is absolved completely of any responsibility or financial obligation.

I think that's fair. Now what if it's the other way around?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> The whole family law thing is so one sided it's ridiculous. It's only now starting to come back to the middle. I don't believe out of fairness either. I believe it's because there are so many high wage earners that are women now.


The court is always going to be behind the times because it takes time to set new precendent. But courts ARE changing.

Alimony laws are changing. They're starting to hold adults responsible to act like adults. If you make the choice to stay home, then you take the adult risk of the choices you make and as a result, the courts in a lot of states are starting to limit and term alimony in far more strict fashion. I think eventually alimony will end...and it can't happen soon enough. Alimony is an crutch for the entitlement mentality.

Obviously people can work and raise children so staying at home is a *choice*...and choices come with risk and that risk should not just be on the working spouse who already has to give up half the assets that they SINGLE-HANDEDLY earned.

My advice to partners who are ok with SAHP spouses, get a prenup to clearly define what you're willing to pay upon dissolution of the marriage. It protects both partners as the laws change.

The other thing that's changing is child custody laws and they'd change a whole lot faster if men would start fighting harder for their parental rights.

I cannot tell you how many men that I meet that really don't understand what their rights are during a divorce. It doesn't matter that the woman took care of the kids more during the marriage....at separation, that doesn't even matter...you have EQUAL rights and EQUAL access to the children. If a woman tries to keep a man away from his own children during the divorce process, fight it....pick the kids up at school with notice, make an equal access schedule and follow it...basically do not allow a woman to gatekeeper the children away from you to set an unfair status quo and unfair child support.

Courts want fathers to be involved in children's lives but sooo many men roll over in custody disputes and then complain about stuff they didn't fight for.


----------



## bkyln309

Kivlor said:


> I'm done giving her the benefit of the doubt after the assumption that because I disagree with her, I must have an X that did it all for me. I'm single, no kids, no XW. I've lived it vicariously through my childhood.
> 
> We don't know that she got screwed. Maybe $250/mo is fair. I don't know where she lives, what she does for a living, what her XH did/made during the D, or what he does now. We don't know if she lives in the jurisdiction where she filed and got D.
> 
> We don't know if her XH is living by leveraging himself to the hilt, or if it's all in cash. And I doubt she knows either.


Obviously, you are not a parent. $250 is nothing for two kids. My kids go to public school and the after school program alone is $400/month. 

And let the kids suffer because you two split up. Sorry kids, you cant play soccer because Dad thinks you need to feel the additional pain of the divorce and downgrade your lifestyle. Apparently now that we dont live together we must live a single parent lifestyle. Dad doesnt feel you need to continue these activities because he needs more money to date.:crying: 

This thread shows exactly the issue with some men. They have no idea what it takes (money or otherwise) to raise a child. And rather than sacrifice to keep his kids minimally affected because divorce is not hard enough on them, he wants to kids to sacrifice. The children are yours whether or not you live with the mom which means you are still paying to raise them whether or not you live there.


----------



## Kivlor

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> He can. He can use a condom, have a V and/or only sleep with women who he knows are on birth control and on the same page as he is on topics like abortion.
> 
> Once a baby is born, no one is absolving themselves. They are both responsible and legally allowed to parent and pay for that child unless a court says otherwise.


She can still put the kid up for adoption without him. This ends in the situation that even if the kid is "legally" his, he must A) find the adopted parents and B) sue for custody. Such custody suits take years. Your child has grown by the time you win--if you win-- you've lost their formative years, and they're bonded to the people who raised them. It's no longer fair to the kid to take them at that point.

And you're out 10's of thousands of dollars. 

The easier fix is to say, yep, women can keep doing what they're doing, but the man can absolve himself of the kid.

men should be able to absolve themselves.

Yay for this too


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> This thread shows exactly the issue with some men. They have no idea what it takes (money or otherwise) to raise a child.


I'm female and I know that it takes money to raise a child. 

That's why I work and earn it. I got divorced and didn't even request child support because both parents have financial responsibility for their children....not just the man.

I do agree, however, if the guy completely declines to see his own children, he should still be obligated to pay child support to the mother.

But mothers who can be proven to be keeping the children away from their father, should receive zero financial compensation. They don't deserve to be paid for damaging their children's long-term mental and emotional health.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> You were talking about what she should have thought of before having sex.
> 
> *And how many men go to prison for not paying child support? I have heard that *many* skip out on child support. I doubt it is a sure ticket to prison rape.*
> 
> For sure, my boys are going to know the risks of being sexually active, including paying 18+ years of child support. Whatever decision they then take will be up to them.


Couldn't find the national statistics easily, but there's this.

I'd bet that in the US there's more men who've ended up raped over this in 2015 than women who died from child birth in the last 25 years. Probably longer.

I bet more men have been killed over this, this year, than women died in childbirth this year. (in the US)


----------



## BetrayedDad

bkyln309 said:


> Dad doesnt feel you need to continue these activities because he needs more money to date.:crying:


Because no woman receiving child support has ever taken that money meant for the kids and spent it on herself or her boyfriend.

Please. 

Anyone who is not intellectually dishonest acknowledges that modern day child support is welfare entitlement for single moms that the state doesn't want to pay for.

It's shamefully obvious in the gross amounts extorted.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

EnigmaGirl said:


> I got divorced and didn't even request child support because both parents have financial responsibility for their children....not just the man.


When a man pays child support he is not paying 100% of the child's expenses. Mom is paying for that child too. Sometimes more than he is, sometimes less. It should be about 50/50.


----------



## ButtPunch

Parental involvement makes healthy kids. The courts think money does.

No one wants a teenage girl to ruin her life with an unwanted pregnancy but no one gives a sh*t about the teenage boy.

He should have kept it in his pants.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> Parental involvement makes healthy kids. The courts think money does.
> 
> No one wants a teenage girl to ruin her life with an unwanted pregnancy but no one gives a sh*t about the teenage boy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lots of people give a sh*t about the boy. 
I was a teen Mom, the Dad BTW has been gone for 12 years and I've never seen a cent from him, but there were programs out there to help him just like there were for me. The same place that helped me got him parenting classes, work clothes, resume help, etc and he wasn't even a teen. He was like 25 at the time. 

But the teenage Dad often doesn't keep the baby 50% of the time, messing up with sleep and making it so he can't go to school. He doesn't take time off to go to the Dr once a week and to recover from child birth, breastfeeding, hormones. There are a lot of things that the girl goes through that he does not.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Couldn't find the national statistics easily, but there's this.
> 
> I'd bet that in the US there's more men who've ended up raped over this in 2015 than women who died from child birth in the last 25 years. Probably longer.
> 
> I bet more men have been killed over this, this year, than women died in childbirth this year. (in the US)



From the comments section:

_I think everyone agrees he did not deserve to be murdered and the cop should fry for this. There are some facts that are unavoidable in this case. He owed $6800 in back child support, an offense punishable by jail time. He certainly didn't accumulate that amount in a month or two so jail is justifiable. No, he cannot pay the back support in jail but he obviously had no intention of paying it while driving around in a Mercedes with expensive rims. He ran from a police officer, attempting to avoid arrest. He was a convicted criminal, not the choir boy some of the media is trying to represent him as. Is the cop guilty? Absolutely he is and should get life or the death penalty. Is Mr. Scott innocent? Not by a long shot but he didn't deserve this either._


----------



## Personal

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> There are people in both genders who are using and being used. It's just how it goes, how it's always gone. My own confidence is the key. I can't change the game, I can't change those men. I can sit and b*tch about it, opt out, or I could get some self esteem and go find one of the many wonderful men out there who would want me for more than just a place to park their penis for the night.


Absolutely!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> When a man pays child support he is not paying 100% of the child's expenses. Mom is paying for that child too. Sometimes more than he is, sometimes less. It should be about 50/50.


Both parents should have equal access to the children.

And both parents should have equal financial responsibility for the children.

If either spouse declines their 50% parenting access, then they should pay the equal difference percentage split to the other parent....but ONLY if they willfully decline their parental time.

Men have the exact same expenses for children that women do. Women don't have any special expenses for raising children that men don't have. The issue is that far too many women are using child support payments to supplement income for their household that has ZERO to do with raising children.

Women are as financially responsible for their offspring as men are...its too bad so many of my gender want to absolve their responsibility in this area and somehow think that only men should pay for children. Its ridiculous.

Equality means you have an equal burden...not entitlement to special treatment.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> From the comments section:
> 
> _I think everyone agrees he did not deserve to be murdered and the cop should fry for this. There are some facts that are unavoidable in this case. He owed $6800 in back child support, an offense punishable by jail time. He certainly didn't accumulate that amount in a month or two so jail is justifiable. No, he cannot pay the back support in jail but he obviously had no intention of paying it while driving around in a Mercedes with expensive rims. He ran from a police officer, attempting to avoid arrest. He was a convicted criminal, not the choir boy some of the media is trying to represent him as. Is the cop guilty? Absolutely he is and should get life or the death penalty. Is Mr. Scott innocent? Not by a long shot but he didn't deserve this either._


The primary thing I was going for wasn't Scott's case, but this:



> In 2009, Patterson conducted a survey of 33 county jails in South Carolina, which found that one out of every eight inmates -- or 13.2 percent of the inmate population -- was behind bars for contempt of civil court after falling behind on child support payments. In Charleston County, where Walter owed his back payments on child support, Patterson’s survey found that over 15 percent of inmates had been imprisoned for not paying child support. In a handful of the other counties studied, the figure was as high as 20 percent.


I should've just linked the study, which I did now. 1/8 of inmates in SC are in for contempt on custody payments.





bkyln309 said:


> Obviously, you are not a parent. $250 is nothing for two kids. My kids go to public school and the after school program alone is $400/month.
> 
> And let the kids suffer because you two split up. Sorry kids, you cant play soccer because Dad thinks you need to feel the additional pain of the divorce and downgrade your lifestyle. Apparently now that we dont live together we must live a single parent lifestyle. Dad doesnt feel you need to continue these activities because he needs more money to date.:crying:
> 
> This thread shows exactly the issue with some men. They have no idea what it takes (money or otherwise) to raise a child. And rather than sacrifice to keep his kids minimally affected because divorce is not hard enough on them, he wants to kids to sacrifice. The children are yours whether or not you live with the mom which means you are still paying to raise them whether or not you live there.


The children will experience a decreased lifestyle because you split up. That is the nature of divorce. It's reality. Life's a lot harder with 2 houses, 2 sets of bills, and 2 separate lives than with 2 incomes, and 1 set of bills, a life together. Or with 1 income and a parent that's able to take care of the kids, than with just 1 parent.

Not playing soccer isn't suffering. You have a very entitled, and very distorted understanding of suffering. This is suffering. 

I hope you would never say things like this to your children. It's horrible, and emotionally abusive to kids. 'Daddy's not giving me enough money, you should hate him for it!' If you have done this, you are driving an emotional wedge between your children and their father. Over some pittance. How horrid that would be!

Here's how I would handle that: "I'm sorry honey, we don't have the money for that." "I know, you really want X, but it's too expensive." "If you want, I'll help you think of ways to make yourself some money, and then you can buy X" (or participate in whatever activity) It's a lot more emotionally healthy for you and the kids. And it teaches the kids to deal with being told "No". And gives you the opportunity to teach them about money, hard work, and priorities.

Again, you've attacked me personally, assuming that because I have not sired offspring, I am A) inexperienced in parenting and B) can't possibly understand what it takes. These are ridiculous assumptions. I'm quite seasoned. I also know what poverty is in this country, and I've seen real poverty in others. And trust me, the poverty I experienced was nothing to that of millions living elsewhere today. It generated a sense of gratitude in me. I think, perhaps, working on a sense of gratitude would be immensely beneficial to you as well.


----------



## norajane

Kivlor said:


> The children will experience a decreased lifestyle because you split up. That is the nature of divorce. It's reality. Life's a lot harder with 2 houses, 2 sets of bills, and 2 separate lives than with 2 incomes, and 1 set of bills, a life together. Or with 1 income and a parent that's able to take care of the kids, than with just 1 parent.


Not picking on you because I agree, but I had to LOL when the next thread I read started out like this:



Bananapeel said:


> Sometimes the little things just make me smile. My divorce was the beginning of Sept. Average daily electric usage has been around 60% compared to the previous year, since she moved out. *Even with child support I have more money at the end of each month than when I was married!*


----------



## jld

But you did notice, Kivlor, that while he supposedly could not make his child support payments, he was "driving around in a Mercedes with expensive rims." Isn't that the sort of thing that some folks are accusing women of doing with child support funds?


----------



## bkyln309

EnigmaGirl said:


> Both parents should have equal access to the children.
> 
> And both parents should have equal financial responsibility for the children.
> 
> If either spouse declines their 50% parenting access, then they should pay the equal difference percentage split to the other parent....but ONLY if they willfully decline their parental time.
> 
> Men have the exact same expenses for children that women do. Women don't have any special expenses for raising children that men don't have. The issue is that far too many women are using child support payments to supplement income for their household that has ZERO to do with raising children.
> 
> Women are as financially responsible for their offspring as men are...its too bad so many of my gender want to absolve their responsibility in this area and somehow think that only men should pay for children. Its ridiculous.
> 
> Equality means you have an equal burden...not entitlement to special treatment.


I agree. I would love for my X to have them 50% of the time. We could split all the costs right down the middle. I would be fine with that. I have no problem showing him documentation on the splitting of cost if that were the case.

My X is a good dad (terrible husband). But he takes them probably 35% of the time and I get no where near that in support. He quit his high paying job for a low paying job because of stress. Then he complains he has to pay child support. I pay for almost everything on my own dime and I have a good job.

But saying he cannot play soccer now we are divorced is asinine because of the two household thing. I suck it up and pay it because the X wont but X is still in the wrong. Sacrifice abit for your kids. Its great. Its what parents are supposed to do!! 

And to the person who doesnt have children, you really cant understand it. I was childless for many years and thought I knew. Boy was the reality a whole different animal.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> But you did notice, Kivlor, that while he supposedly could not make his child support payments, he was "driving around in a Mercedes with expensive rims." Isn't that the sort of thing that some folks are accusing women of doing with child support funds?


And he's dead for it now. Your point?


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> And he's dead for it now. Your point?


People were complaining that moms use child support money inappropriately. But maybe that man could have paid his child support if he did not spend money on an expensive car.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> My X is a good dad (terrible husband). But he takes them probably 35% of the time and I get no where near that in support. He quit his high paying job for a low paying job because of stress. Then he complains he has to pay child support. I pay for almost everything on my own dime and I have a good job.


If he doesn't take them equally through his own choice, then by all means he should be paying the percentage difference for that and the court is set up to do that. 

Unfortunately, he's allowed to change jobs but usually courts look at a person's historical earning ability when making CS determinations. They do that because a lot of people try to get unemployed or underemployed to avoid paying support. If you believe this is happening, you can definitely seek a redress of payments through the court. In fact, CS is one of things you can ask for retroactively and you can seek your court costs too.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I actually did not compare them at all. If anything, I was comparing the distress a woman goes through then, and the 'risk to her life' that you mentioned, to the risks the man faces in court, and in prison--including rape--if he fails to pay her monthly installments for 18 years...21 years... till the kid finishes college?
> 
> The point was that you dismiss the man's concerns and issues because he's not a woman. And if that's okay, then I can just as equally and easily dismiss the woman's because she's not a man. Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And both statements would be wrong. That's the point.
> 
> It appears that you are of the opinion that a man should not have a say in his kids lives without a woman's permission, because you _feel _that way. I'm glad we've cleared that up. There's no logic. No reason. It's not based on empiricism or fact, it is purely emotional. I understand now.


Yes, now you understand that facts and logic are misogynistic... >


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> People were complaining that moms use child support money inappropriately. But maybe that man could have paid his child support if he did not spend money on an expensive car.


And his choice to not pay it got him killed JLD. Which is a punishment a woman need not fear for misappropriation of CS. Unless the XH is the one doling it out vigilante style.



bkyln309 said:


> I agree. I would love for my X to have them 50% of the time. We could split all the costs right down the middle. I would be fine with that. I have no problem showing him documentation on the splitting of cost if that were the case.
> 
> My X is a good dad (terrible husband). But he takes them probably 35% of the time and I get no where near that in support. He quit his high paying job for a low paying job because of stress. Then he complains he has to pay child support. I pay for almost everything on my own dime and I have a good job.
> 
> But saying he cannot play soccer now we are divorced is asinine because of the two household thing. I suck it up and pay it because the X wont but X is still in the wrong. Sacrifice abit for your kids. Its great. Its what parents are supposed to do!!
> 
> And to the person who doesnt have children, you really cant understand it. I was childless for many years and thought I knew. Boy was the reality a whole different animal.


Keep saying I can't understand. Whatever gets you through the day. I know who I am, and what I've done. And the kids I've raised would vouch for me any day. I didn't have to knock a girl up to end up with 4 kids who love me and view me as a father.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> And his choice to not pay it got him killed JLD.


What got him killed, wrongly, is running away from a police officer. 

Wikipedia said Scott was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol at the time of death. Money for cocaine and a Mercedes but not child support?

Look, I am not saying South Carolina does not need a more progressive system for dealing with those behind on child support. It clearly does. 

But he was not forced to spend money on alcohol, cocaine, and a Mercedes, either. This is to bklyn's point about her ex using money on dating new gals rather than sports activities for his kids. _Priorities._


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> Couldn't find the national statistics easily, but there's this.
> 
> I'd bet that in the US there's more men who've ended up raped over this in 2015 than women who died from child birth in the last 25 years. Probably longer.
> 
> I bet more men have been killed over this, this year, than women died in childbirth this year. (in the US)


In this jail time issue, it is not child support that needs to be reformed but the way minor offenses are managed in the criminal system.

There might be 1/8 of inmate in South Carolina that are there because of not paying child support but there are also plenty of inmate that are there because they did not pay their parking ticket.

Let's focus on what the issue is. While it is debatable whether it makes sense to send a father to jail because he has not paid child support, it is crazy to send someone to jail because he/she did not pay their $200 speeding ticket. But that is what is happening today in America.

And those people in jail happen to be poor.


----------



## BetrayedDad

EnigmaGirl said:


> If he doesn't take them equally through his own choice, then by all means he should be paying the percentage difference for that and the court is set up to do that.


If only.... In some states, including mine, percentage of custody has ZERO impact on the child support payment. You could have a 50/50 split and you still pay the full support. Still think it's just about the kids?

Alimony has become more difficult to get so courts just manipulate child support formulas to compensate. Essentially, the judges steal from Peter to pay Paul so the state who employs them doesn't foot the bill.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

technovelist said:


> Yes, now you understand that facts and logic are misogynistic... >


There isn't anyone here who disagrees that some men can get scr*wed in court unfairly. I have a brother who went through it. She claimed abuse, they gave him crap visitations "just in case".

But the problem comes when changing the laws, you have to be careful to not hurt the children doing it. 

You can't just say that all men can walk away whenever they want without responsibility. 
That would harm the children and you can't harm them to save some men. 

You can't just say that a _couple's_ choice to have a SAHP becomes all the one person's risk in the divorce. (meaning one parent helps the other get to the point in their career where they make 6 figures and then after the divorce they live on min. wage while trying to pay for their kids and home) 

Right now the law gives the SAHP or lower earner child support and sometimes alimony. It does not say MOTHER. Men get this too when it applies to them. 
That's about as gender neutral as you can get. 
You can avoid being in this situation by marrying someone who also works and can support themselves. If you choose to have 1 person at home, you're choosing the risks that come with it on both sides. 

There are certainly a lot of things that can be done to tweak the laws to make them more fair. Standard 50/50 custody everywhere, harsh(er) punishments for Moms (or Dads) who make false claims in court or withhold their children from the other. 

But jumping to things like wanting laws to allow men to just walk away without responsibility is not going to happen and, IMO, just takes away credibility from the whole thing.


----------



## Sbrown

jld said:


> Is there any sort of legal option for a woman to forgo child support and the father to give up any legal claim to the child?
> 
> In other words, she doesn't get any money, but she alone makes all decisions regarding the child?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


In most states no, the father can give up all parental rights but the state still makes him pay.

Scott


----------



## Sbrown

norajane said:


> I have no desire to enslave all men to pay for the expenses of all women. I just want the men and women who make babies to take care of them without my tax money.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like men who already KNOW right now that they will be on the hook for child support are super careful not to have unprotected sex?


Lol, sorry but our tax money will be taken to support these statistical children regardless of the CS. 

Scott


----------



## Sbrown

jld said:


> Why not?
> 
> My husband has the job he has because of the experience he brought to the job. That was partly due to some overseas stays that he would not have been able to do without me. He has also benefited from never having to miss work because of sick children or any other domestic issue.
> 
> Simply put, my presence in his life has contributed to where he is now and where he will end up. Why should *I* not continue to benefit financially from my contributions to his career development? *He* certainly will.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Without you would he have the children to take care of or just the career? 

Scott


----------



## Sbrown

jld said:


> You are not addressing my points, Dave.
> 
> I have lost twenty years on building a career, because I was helping build his. Why should I not benefit from that investment, just like he is?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You made a choice..... 

Scott


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> Without you would he have the children to take care of or just the career?
> 
> Scott


Both.


----------



## Sbrown

Lila said:


> Dave, why is the burden placed on the SAHP when, as you say, it was a CHOICE made by BOTH partners?


Because the parent staying home can easily veto the idea. 

Scott


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> You made a choice.....
> 
> Scott


Yep. I knew what he expected of me, and I accepted.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I think that men might be much more selective about who they married if they knew that they would have to pay lifetime alimony. Might help them _look beyond the packaging._ Another thing to mention to my sons.
> 
> I can't get back the years I spent raising the kids, Dave. And starting to work at 45 is not like starting at 22.
> 
> I have no plans to divorce, but I think it is nice to know that at least in some states, the law has a SAHM's back.


This almost sounds like you are okay with leveraging the force of government to impose your point of view.

Think about that for a moment.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> Because the parent staying home can easily veto the idea.
> 
> Scott


How so?

Our son has had cancer twice. If I had been working, I would have been the one to quit and take care of him, as I would have been the lower income earner.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> This almost sounds like you are okay with leveraging the force of government to impose your point of view.
> 
> Think about that for a moment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I suppose every law passed reflects someone's view, far.


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> What got him killed, wrongly, is running away from a police officer.
> 
> Wikipedia said Scott was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol at the time of death. Money for cocaine and a Mercedes but not child support?
> 
> Look, I am not saying South Carolina does not need a more progressive system for dealing with those behind on child support. It clearly does.
> 
> But he was not forced to spend money on alcohol, cocaine, and a Mercedes, either. This is to bklyn's point about her ex using money on dating new gals rather than sports activities for his kids. _Priorities._


It's funny, everyone want's to f*ck but nobody wants to be financially responsible for the product of f*cking: Children.

I'm starting my own movement called:Childless By Choice.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Sbrown said:


> You made a choice.....
> 
> Scott


As did he. It's a choice they made together and if I remember correctly JLD, it was a choice you two had decided on before you had your first child? 

Many men helped decide that they wanted their wives at home to support the house and children while they worked.
They knew the risk but the benefit was worth it for them. 

Building a career when you have a spouse to support you (home or not) is a lot different than trying to build one as a single parent. 

Now, I would be in favour of allowing an exception to alimony when a wife or husband REFUSES to work against the other partner's wishes, at least a deduction for the years that were not agreed on. If there is some kind of paper trail of proof that the spouse was staying home against the wishes of the other then that should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Sbrown

jld said:


> If I helped build his career, I think I deserve that 50% or some similarly fair share as long as he is working. Again, he would not be where he is without my contribution. It was an investment from both of us.
> 
> I think some people are really taking the contribution of a SAHM for granted.


You assume he wouldn't be. That's a pretty big assumption, not to mention without a wife and kids he might be more successful. 

Scott


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Kivlor. Do you seriously want to compare what a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth to what a man goes through during that same time? Is that even a serious conversation?
> 
> If the mother does not want him to have the baby, I think she has good reason for it. Good enough for me, anyway.


The only problem is the gender bias in your benefit of the doubt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> As did he. It's a choice they made together and if I remember correctly JLD, it was a choice you two had decided on before you had your first child?
> 
> Many men helped decide that they wanted their wives at home to support the house and children while they worked.
> They knew the risk but the benefit was worth it for them.
> 
> Building a career when you have a spouse to support you (home or not) is a lot different than trying to build one as a single parent.


Dug told me a few days after we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married." 

Would you believe it only occurred to me a few years ago that I could have negotiated?! I thought I had to do what he said!


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> You assume he wouldn't be. That's a pretty big assumption, not to mention without a wife and kids he might be more successful.
> 
> Scott


 @Duguesclin

Could you respond to this, please?


----------



## Sbrown

Heatherknows said:


> It's funny, everyone want's to f*ck but nobody wants to be financially responsible for the product of f*cking: Children.
> 
> I'm starting my own movement called:Childless By Choice.


Lmao, or like me you can f*ck without the product of it..... it can be done. My wife and I have a child because we decided to. Before that we took the precautions necessary. 

Scott


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The only problem is the gender bias in your benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Far. She is the one whose body and mind is directly affected by the pregnancy and birth.


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> Dug told me a few days after we started dating that he wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our children. I remember thinking, "I guess this means we are getting married."
> 
> Would you believe it only occurred to me a few years ago that I could have negotiated?! I thought I had to do what he said!


Don't let these guys bully you. The internet is filled with people saying silly stuff because it sounds good and other people will "like" their posts.

When women procreate it hurts their careers because taking care of children primarily falls on the females shoulders. Sure there are some women who are able to get help from outside sources (family members, nannies, etc.) but even so the burden falls mostly on the woman.


----------



## Sbrown

Heatherknows said:


> Don't let these guys bully you. The internet is filled with people saying silly stuff because it sounds good and other people will "like" their posts.
> 
> When women procreate it hurts their careers because taking care of children primarily falls on the females shoulders. Sure there are some women who are able to get help from outside sources (family members, nannies, etc.) but even so the burden falls mostly on the woman.


Well don't let someone bully you into having children....

And I'll bet all those single Dads out there would disagree....

Scott


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Far. She is the one whose body and mind is directly affected by the pregnancy and birth.


That she chose to keep, without any input or choice from the man.

But that is not her fault, right?

I am no MGTOW supporter, but the lack of consistency in these arguments is the fuel of the fire in the movement.

Every time there is a doubling down of the inequities of responsibility or choice, you are proving them right.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

Heatherknows said:


> Don't let these guys bully you. The internet is filled with people saying silly stuff because it sounds good.
> 
> When women procreate it hurts their careers because taking care of children primarily falls on the females shoulders. Sure there are some women who are able to get help from outside sources (family members, nannies, etc.) but even so the burden falls mostly on the woman.


Thanks, Heather!

Your last paragraph reminds me of something one of my favorite teachers in high school told me: the mother raises the children. I am sure there are lots of exceptions, but what I heard 30 years ago still rings mostly true to me today. Maybe it is just my circle.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> That she chose to keep, without any input or choice from the man.
> 
> But that is not her fault, right?
> 
> I am no MGTOW supporter, but the lack of consistency in these arguments is the fuel of the fire in the movement.
> 
> Every time there is a doubling down of the inequities of responsibility or choice, you are proving them right.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


This is in response to the adoption question, no?

If she is giving it up for adoption, she is not keeping it.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Thanks, Heather!
> 
> Your last paragraph reminds me of something one of my favorite teachers in high school told me: the mother raises the children. I am sure there are lots of exceptions, but what I heard 30 years ago still rings mostly true.


Uggggh! You say you are a humble person but I just don't see it in your posts. The arrogance of this one leaves me speechless.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

ButtPunch said:


> Uggggh! You say you are a humble person but I just don't see it in your posts. The arrogance of this one leaves me speechless.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Dug says I am humble, BP. Take it up with him.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> This is in response to the adoption question, no?
> 
> If she is giving it up for adoption, she is not keeping it.


The fact that she can terminate, bear, keep or put up for adoption the child, with no input from the father, while only bearing a portion (in fairness, 60-70%) of the responsibility is a travesty.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Ripper

farsidejunky said:


> This almost sounds like you are okay with leveraging the force of government to impose your point of view.
> 
> Think about that for a moment.


The longer these type of threads go on, the more the masks start to slip. Don't kid yourself, the majority of women support the current status quo. 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> That would harm the children and you can't harm them to save some men.


Any of you guys feeling expendable yet? You ever wonder how something like the banning of paternity testing happened in France? 

Anyone still wonder if MGTOW is real or why some men might see it as an attractive alternative?


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> The fact that she can terminate, bear, keep or put up for adoption the child, with no input from the father, while only bearing a portion (in fairness, 60-70%) of the responsibility is a travesty.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I did not realize she got support before the baby was born. I really do not know how that works.

I did tell my son today that he needs to be ready to pay child support for 18+ years if he gets a girl pregnant. He did not seem shocked or appalled in any way by that.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> I did not realize she got support before the baby was born. I really do not know how that works.
> 
> I did tell my son today that he needs to be ready to pay child support for 18+ years if he gets a girl pregnant. He did not seem shocked or appalled in any way by that.


Did you also tell him to be prepared for the woman to have the option to terminate the pregnancy, whether he wanted the baby or not?

If he does not see that as appalling, I would be concerned for him.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Did you also tell him to be prepared for the woman to have the option to terminate the pregnancy, whether he wanted the baby or not?
> 
> If he does not see that as appalling, I would be concerned for him.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


He seemed fine with it, far. He understands it is a woman's choice.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> He seemed fine with it, far. He understands it is a woman's choice.


Sad.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

farsidejunky said:


> This almost sounds like you are okay with *leveraging the force of government to impose your point of view*.
> 
> Think about that for a moment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Do you actually think that most people consider that a *bad *thing?

If they did, Rand Paul would be the next President.

Sometimes I wish I had that naive faith in humanity.


----------



## john117

Partially true. But still... Not a chance in he!! I would get anything, yet if it was the other way around... That's how the system is gamed.


----------



## farsidejunky

technovelist said:


> Do you actually think that most people consider that a *bad *thing?
> 
> If they did, Rand Paul would be the next President.
> 
> Sometimes I wish I had that naive faith in humanity.


I am that idealistic, Tech, but not so naive to not realize it is far fetched.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## tech-novelist

jld said:


> Kivlor. Do you seriously want to compare what a woman goes through during pregnancy and childbirth to what a man goes through during that same time? Is that even a serious conversation?
> 
> If the mother does not want him to have the baby, I think she has good reason for it. Good enough for me, anyway.


Can you imagine what a man goes through when he is threatened with prison for up to 18 (or more) years for not paying child support, where he has:
1. No say in the disposition of the child support payments;
2. No accountability from the custodial parent for how they are used;
3. No way to defend himself against the claim, even though he physically cannot pay the amount demanded?

Debtor's prison was abolished for good reasons. It has been brought back "for the children". That's not good enough to take people's rights away.

If I had to choose between that "family court" nightmare and what a woman goes through for 9 months, I'd unhesitatingly pick the latter.


----------



## tech-novelist

farsidejunky said:


> I am that idealistic, Tech, but not so naive to not realize it is far fetched.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Ok. I'm on your side but most people aren't, unfortunately.


----------



## ButtPunch

jld said:


> Dug says I am humble, BP. Take it up with him.


Why would I care about what Dug says. Whoever that is. 

Is that your Dom or something?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

farsidejunky said:


> Sad.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Better get that boy a copy of MMSLP stat cause it sounds like he has been indoctrinated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

ButtPunch said:


> Why would I care about what Dug says. Whoever that is.
> 
> Is that your Dom or something?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes, that's exactly who he is.

Can't you tell that from her Deida signature line? She thinks you should be able to.

However, I don't and nobody else seems to be able to either. But maybe that's just everyone. >


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Ripper said:


> Any of you guys feeling expendable yet? You ever wonder how something like the banning of paternity testing happened in France?
> 
> Anyone still wonder if MGTOW is real or why some men might see it as an attractive alternative?


Yep, because I understand why the courts feel that the child's needs come before the adults and that yes, some men get the short end of the stick but you can not impose laws that would hurt numerous children to fix it for them, I'm just so, so horrible

You don't make children expendable for the sake of the father. There are plenty of other tweaks the system can make that STILL includes the child getting supported by both people who created it. 

Going right to just letting men off the hook is not productive to anyone and it just makes these guys look like they don't want to be responsible for or care about the welfare of their children. 

These boys need to stop looking at just themselves and being victims and see their own choices and responsibilities of their actions and understand that the benefit of the child comes first. 

13 years ago I had a child with a man who has never and will never pay a cent for him. That was my mistake. I picked the wrong person and now I am paying for my choice.

Own your sh*t. You have a child with someone you have to pay for half their expenses. Divorce or a break up with kids involved sucks for everyone. No one wins. 
For every man paying more than his fair share of support there is a woman who doesn't get enough. The system is flawed and both genders can feel it. The only solution is to put the child first and work around that. 

Now no one is saying things are perfect and don't need to change but fixing it does _not _ mean allowing men to just walk away. That only benefits the adult and not the child.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month
Men?s Rights Myth: Typical Child Support Payments Are Insanely High | Alas, a Blog


----------



## EleGirl

farsidejunky said:


> The fact that she can terminate, bear, keep or put up for adoption the child, with no input from the father, while only bearing a portion (in fairness, 60-70%) of the responsibility is a travesty.


A woman can choose abortion because it's her body. Some men seem to have a problem with women have control over their own body.

A woman cannot legally put a baby up for adoption without the approval of the child's father. In most cases the father is notified and he won't even go sign the papers or offer to take custody of the child... he ignores it. That is the norm in the adoption world. That's what happened when we adopted our son.. his birth father and the birth father's family acted like complete a$$ hats and ignored his existence. Would hang up the phone on the lawyer. Rejected registered letters, etc. 

Child support, when there is an order for child support, is paid only about 56% of the time.

About 62.3 percent of the $37.9 billion in child support due in 2011 was reported as received, averaging $3,770 per year per custodial parent who was due support. 

That's a whopping $314 a month. I costs a whole lot more than $314 a month to raise a child.. And that difference is paid by the mother in most cases. Someone posted that it costs $1,400 a month to raise a child. .. so the mother is paying about $1,100 and usually has the most child most of the time.

The guy who was in charge of the adoption agency said that that's the norm.

And no, when there is child support, the man is not taking 60% to 70% of the responsibility. 

Average child support is $300 to $400 a month.


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> A woman can choose abortion because it's her body. Some men seem to have a problem with women have control over their own body


That's not her body she is exterminating. If it was that would be suicide and that's illegal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ocotillo said:


> I live in one of the states of the U.S. where a female rapist may sue her victim for child support the instant he attains the age of majority. There was a case earlier this year.
> 
> Surely that should be fixed, don't you think?


Obviously this would be an area that needs fixing. I never said things were perfect. I could have sworn I said there are several places that could be tweaked about the current system.
There are also some male rapists who sue for and get child visitations forcing the rape victim to see her attacker regularly. 

IMO rapists of either gender should immediately have their parental rights revoked so the woman in your example wouldn't even have her children in the first place if I had my way. 

There are crappy people in both genders and nothing will ever be perfectly fair for every single situation. Sometimes the Dad will get scr*wed, sometimes the Mom will and sometimes the child ends up getting the worst of it.

Some things do need to change and they are, slowly, but people also need to take responsibility for themselves and the situations they put themselves into. 
Clearly this doesn't apply to a victim of rape which is a horrible situation and should never happen. I don't think anyone here would agree with that happening yet these kinds of extreme examples are always brought up as proof that the entire male population are victims. Horrible, unjust things happen in the world to all kinds of people. Men and women. All it proves is that sometimes the world just sucks.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> That's not her body she is exterminating. If it was that would be suicide and that's illegal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Until there is a child born, it is a legal medical procedure done and not a person. You can't get around that unless you change abortion laws altogether.

Unless you want women being able to either force you to or prevent you from having a vasectomy then you need to just leave people's medical choices alone.


----------



## Fozzy

My vas doesn't have it's own distinct DNA profile.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Until there is a child born, it is a legal medical procedure done and not a person. You can't get around that unless you change abortion laws altogether.
> 
> Unless you want women being able to either force you to or prevent you from having a vasectomy then you need to just leave people's medical choices alone.


Watch one. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood changed his mind after watching the brutality of it. Just because its the law doesn't make it right. Slavery was the law of the land once too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> I live in one of the states of the U.S. where a female rapist may sue her victim for child support the instant he attains the age of majority. There was a case earlier this year.
> 
> Surely that should be fixed, don't you think?


Absolutely that should be fixed. And the law makers & judges who did that should be dealt with severely.

Somehow they thought that leaving the child with the rapist was in the child's best interest. She should lose all parental rights to the child. 

What really got me upset about this case is he not only got stuck with child support, but the arrears going back to when he was under aged. Not right at all. 

I read an article where he sounded like a really together person. He said that he did not mind paying it and wants a relationship with his child. But that still does not make the court sticking him with arears acceptable at all.

Problems with our court system dealing with rape and issues related to children born from the rape (1/3 off all rape victims end up pregnant) are apparently HUGE. The case of that young man is only one of the many crazy stories. 


Did you know that 35 states, including allow a rapist to sue for parental rights, visitation and even custody of children that are the product of them raping a girl/woman? It's not uncommon at all for a rape victim to be forced into interacting for years with her rapist because the courts have given him rights to the child. If the victim misses even one visitation or is late, she could lose custody of the child to the rapist. 

This is an article about a girl who was raped at age 14 by a man. He is seeking parental rights, visitation and custody.

https://www.rt.com/usa/rape-victim-sues-massachusetts-855/

There are things that needs to be fixed... it's not a male vs female thing. It's that when a problem is identified, it needs to be fixed and we should all work together to fix it.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> Watch one. Even the founder of Planned Parenthood changed his mind after watching the brutality of it. Just because its the law doesn't make it right. Slavery was the law of the land once too.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have seen several of the stuff used to change people's minds, I used to consider myself pro-life when I was younger. After really thinking about it, I do not have to believe something is good or pretty or happy or even want to make the choice myself to still protect it's legality and the people who do.
It was made legal for some d*mn good reasons and it will stay that way. 
But whether or not abortion should be legalized is a different topic and I am just getting way off base. Unless the laws change about personhood or abortion in general I will consider it a legal birth control option, just as any other, which is a personal choice and not one that anyone should be able to force you to do or not do. 

If men want to fight to make abortion illegal, then can go right ahead and do it.


----------



## BetrayedDad

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month
> Men?s Rights Myth: Typical Child Support Payments Are Insanely High | Alas, a Blog


Misandrist Propaganda.... 

What was the median income that $280 was based on? $15,000 a year? If I included a bunch of welfare recipients, who are notorious for having multiple out of wedlock kids, for gov't benefits of course I could come up with a crap number like that.

If I paid full child support on my two kids I would owe 33% of my GROSS pay. Basically HALF of my paycheck and I make in the six figures. My ex would be paid thousands of dollars a month. Right now, I literally pay all my kids expenses directly. I can assure you it far far less than half my paycheck.

It's subsidized welfare. Nothing more.


----------



## BetrayedDad

ButtPunch said:


> That's not her body she is exterminating. If it was that would be suicide and that's illegal.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have a problem paying for something I don't want. We both consented to sex, we are not both consenting to a kid. You want a kid, you pay for it. Your body, your choice, your wallet.


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> Thanks, Heather!
> 
> Your last paragraph reminds me of something one of my favorite teachers in high school told me: the mother raises the children. I am sure there are lots of exceptions, but what I heard 30 years ago still rings mostly true to me today. Maybe it is just my circle.


It's not your circle. Women are still the primary care takers. There is a trend of dad's being more involved which is nice but it's still not "equal" which seems to be the buzz word of this thread.


----------



## Heatherknows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Yep, because I understand why the courts feel that the child's needs come before the adults and that yes, some men get the short end of the stick but you can not impose laws that would hurt numerous children to fix it for them, I'm just so, so horrible
> 
> You don't make children expendable for the sake of the father. There are plenty of other tweaks the system can make that STILL includes the child getting supported by both people who created it.
> 
> Going right to just letting men off the hook is not productive to anyone and it just makes these guys look like they don't want to be responsible for or care about the welfare of their children.
> 
> These boys need to stop looking at just themselves and being victims and see their own choices and responsibilities of their actions and understand that the benefit of the child comes first.
> 
> 13 years ago I had a child with a man who has never and will never pay a cent for him. That was my mistake. I picked the wrong person and now I am paying for my choice.
> 
> Own your sh*t. You have a child with someone you have to pay for half their expenses. Divorce or a break up with kids involved sucks for everyone. No one wins.
> For every man paying more than his fair share of support there is a woman who doesn't get enough. The system is flawed and both genders can feel it. The only solution is to put the child first and work around that.
> 
> Now no one is saying things are perfect and don't need to change but fixing it does _not _ mean allowing men to just walk away. That only benefits the adult and not the child.


I don't have kids. Why? Because when I grew up my parents were going thru a messy divorce and dad constantly complained about having to pay child support, then he left for Florida and tried to stop paying. Mom had to sue him every once in a while in order to get the payments. Sometimes I was asked to call him and ask him if he was going to send the payments. The money wasn't enough even when he did send them. And we were at risk for predators who could capitalize on this situation...and they did.

So if Men want to go their own way. Please do. Just don't get any women pregnant.


----------



## farsidejunky

Heatherknows said:


> I don't have kids. Why? Because when I grew up my parents were going thru a messy divorce and dad constantly complained about having to pay child support, then he left for Florida and tried to stop paying. Mom had to sue him every once in a while in order to get the payments. Sometimes I was asked to call him and ask him if he was going to send the payments. The money wasn't enough even when he did send them. And we were at risk for predators who could capitalize on this situation...and they did.
> 
> So if Men want to go their own way. Please do. Just don't get any women pregnant.


That is really lousy, Heather. 

Would you hold your mother to the same standard? Did she choose to marry and procreate with your father? Did she allow the predators in the door?

See, I don't believe she should be judged that way. The problem is that too many in this thread are willing to harshly judge a man over and over for these things to happen, while giving the woman a pass.

It is inconsistent and wrong. And again, this is coming from someone who thinks MGTOW borders on ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Heatherknows

farsidejunky said:


> That is really lousy, Heather.
> 
> Would you hold your mother to the same standard? Did she choose to marry and procreate with your father? Did she allow the predators in the door?
> 
> See, I don't believe she should be judged that way. The problem is that too many in this thread are willing to harshly judge a man over and over for these things to happen, while giving the woman a pass.
> 
> It is inconsistent and wrong. And again, this is coming from someone who thinks MGTOW borders on ridiculous.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk



My mother stayed and tried to take care of us the best that she could. 

My dad left and tried to get rid of us the best that he could. 

That is the difference.


----------



## farsidejunky

Heatherknows said:


> My mother stayed and tried to take care of us the best that she could.
> 
> My dad left and tried to get rid of us the best that he could.
> 
> That is the difference.


And that is a shame.

Almost as big of a shame as you judging more than just them due to your experience.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Heatherknows

farsidejunky said:


> And that is a shame.
> 
> Almost as big of a shame as you judging more than just them due to your experience.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It is a shame. But let me tell you my experiences aren't that unique. Because over the years I've discuss my childhood with many others and have heard similar stories. There are tons of "dead beat dads" out there and the mothers are doing the best they can to pick up the pieces.


----------



## farsidejunky

Heatherknows said:


> It is a shame. But let me tell you my experiences aren't that unique. Because over the years I've discuss my childhood with many others and have heard similar stories. There are tons of "dead beat dads" out there and the mothers are doing the best they can to pick up the pieces.


I hear you.

Mine was too, Heather.

However...I refuse to prematurely judge all (or even most) men due to anecdotal evidence, nor will I just automatically assume mothers are saints while fathers are dirt bags, even if it seems that more dad's are deadbeats than moms. That is how men get less custody than they should in court, how lifetime alimony laws are still on the books, and how fathers are still viewed socially as less than what they should be.

I apologize in advance for being blunt on this, but you seem entirely willing to pre-judge that way, and that makes you part of the problem.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Obviously this would be an area that needs fixing.


I appreciate the response, SGC. I wasn't deliberately trying to frame a trick question. (--Realized it after the fact and deleted it.)

Most of us 'feel' at a gut level that this sort of thing is wrong, but law is based on principle. (i.e. Either criminal culpability affects civil liability or it doesn't. Either child welfare overrides parental concerns or it doesn't.) It's a thorny question, but ultimately it's one that falls outside the scope of this discussion.


----------



## Ripper

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Own your sh*t.


Exactly. I'm not a heartless monster that wants to see child going barefoot in the streets. I just want that mythical thing called "equality". Imagine if both genders were held equally responsible. 

When are we going to quit treating women like blameless victims in this? 

We have pages upon pages now in this thread with posters (mostly women) stating that men/MGTOWs are to blame for their situation because they always go after the "wrong type" of woman. 

How about we start holding women responsible for propagating the species with irresponsible thugs instead of "Big Daddy Government" subsidizing their mistakes. Like JLD stated in a previous post, look past the exterior "packaging". 

Any decent person will help support their child. What type of men are all these women sleeping with? Are they so emotionally immature to not be able to vet out the deadbeats? Or is this the repercussions of promiscuity? It is hard to know if someone would make a good father if you just met him. 



SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> For every man paying more than his fair share of support there is a woman who doesn't get enough. The system is flawed and both genders can feel it. The only solution is to put the child first and work around that.


Probably just a poor choice of wording on your part on the first sentence, but in case it isn't, the woman doesn't deserve anything. Once both parties are split, support ends, this is about the child after all. 

Still, its boils down to getting the government involved in people's personal life because they chose a POS for a baby daddy. Basically, they screwed up so bad that someone else has to step in and fix their sh*t or else a child might suffer. Why not just have the government take and raise the child from the start?


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Heatherknows said:


> I don't have kids. Why? Because when I grew up my parents were going thru a messy divorce and dad constantly complained about having to pay child support, then he left for Florida and tried to stop paying. Mom had to sue him every once in a while in order to get the payments. Sometimes I was asked to call him and ask him if he was going to send the payments. The money wasn't enough even when he did send them. And we were at risk for predators who could capitalize on this situation...and they did.
> 
> So if Men want to go their own way. Please do. Just don't get any women pregnant.


Sorry, that sounds horrible  

And this kind of thing where a Mother and her children go through hell happens just as often as a Dad having an unfair situation. 
It's why you can't just switch all the laws to benefit the men. The kids have to come first.

I was 14 when my Dad left. The amount of b*tching he STILL does about how it's all my Mom's fault that he's broke, I just have no respect for him whatsoever. IMO he loves his money more than he ever loved me. He did everything he could to pay my Mom as little as possible, even if it meant hurting us.
I stopped speaking to him for years and now it's just a quick hello on Christmas and fathers day.

At 14 I was living in an upper middle class home in a small, good school, good grades. My dad was the scout leader and my Mom had Tupperware parties. I was a Daddy's girl, he even let me go to the scout things to be with him. 
After we lost everything in the divorce, we moved to a horrible neighborhood and I refused to go to the school there so I had dropped out, I met up with an abusive drug dealer, moved in with him @15 with a full on drug addiction, pregnant and homeless @16.

All my Dad gave a crap about was making sure the courts knew I didn't live there anymore so he could get a reduction on his child support. He blames my Mom for not doing her job and watching me. 
He'll complain to anyone who will listen about how horrible the system is and how unfair it was to him. He blames my Mom for "poisoning us against him". The only reason I even speak to him now is because she convinced me to.
He specifically waited until a couple of us were grown before he left so he could get away with paying as little as possible (his goal was all of us gone) and all I've ever wanted from him was some little sign that he's sorry for what we went through during that time and for him to get his head out of his @ss about his poor pension that was cut in half and the alimony he had to pay.


----------



## ButtPunch

You folks do realize there are countries without all these child support laws and you know what? 

The kids turn out just fine.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Until there is a child born, it is a legal medical procedure done and not a person. You can't get around that unless you change abortion laws altogether.


I wish insurance companies would get behind your ideas and let all those preemies just die because they are not viable. Just imagine the amounts of money wasted saving these non-persons.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Ripper said:


> Exactly. I'm not a heartless monster that wants to see child going barefoot in the streets. I just want that mythical thing called "equality". Imagine if both genders were held equally responsible.
> 
> When are we going to quit treating women like blameless victims in this?
> 
> We have pages upon pages now in this thread with posters (mostly women) stating that men/MGTOWs are to blame for their situation because they always go after the "wrong type" of woman.
> 
> How about we start holding women responsible for propagating the species with irresponsible thugs instead of "Big Daddy Government" subsidizing their mistakes. Like JLD stated in a previous post, look past the exterior "packaging".
> 
> Any decent person will help support their child. What type of men are all these women sleeping with? Are they so emotionally immature to not be able to vet out the deadbeats? Or is this the repercussions of promiscuity? It is hard to know if someone would make a good father if you just met him.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably just a poor choice of wording on your part on the first sentence, but in case it isn't, the woman doesn't deserve anything. Once both parties are split, support ends, this is about the child after all.
> 
> Still, its boils down to getting the government involved in people's personal life because they chose a POS for a baby daddy. Basically, they screwed up so bad that someone else has to step in and fix their sh*t or else a child might suffer. Why not just have the government take and raise the child from the start?


Right above the part you quoted you can see where I owned my own mistakes with my bad picker. It's not one sided at all. But there's a kid now who has to be supported and should be by both parents. 

And "_For every man paying more than his fair share of support there is a woman who doesn't get enough_"
means that the woman isn't getting even close to half of what it actually costs to raise her child therefore she is having to pay more than her fair share.

It shouldn't be up to the gov't to support children if the parents are able to. 
If every divorce ended up with both parents just naturally paying 50% of the child's costs without the gov't telling them they had to, they would not need to be involved. Because life isn't that simple, we need laws and rules to make it happen.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> I wish insurance companies would get behind your ideas and let all those preemies just die because they are not viable. Just imagine the amounts of money wasted saving these non-persons.


I said "_Until there is a child born_". Preemies have been born therefore are people. It's really not that hard of a concept.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> I said "_Until there is a child born_". Preemies have been born therefore are people. It's really not that hard of a concept.


Maybe at 8 months they are born naturally. Before then they are usually medically removed.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> Maybe at 8 months they are born naturally. Before then they are usually medically removed.


Born means no longer inside their Mother. It doesn't matter how they ended up there. 
Inside- not born
Outside- born


----------



## ButtPunch

EleGirl said:


> Once you have had your health and life at risk due to a pregnancy, you will have a lot more credibility to proclaim what women should be forced to carry through with a pregnancy no matter what.
> 
> Yea abortion sucks. It's awful. But sometimes people have to make hard choices.


5.9 per 100,000 mothers commit suicide within first year of birth

10 per 100,000 mothers die from child birth

34.9 per 100,000 mothers commit suicide within first year of abortion

If abortion is a health decision it would definitely be a poor one. We all know that it isn't though. It's a lifestyle decision that an 16 year old boy doesn't get a fair chance to make. Let him opt out and if she still wants to keep the baby more power to her.


----------



## ButtPunch

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Born means no longer inside their Mother. It doesn't matter how they ended up there.
> Inside- not born
> Outside- born


So what you are saying is that every time one of the abortion doctors grabs one of these nonpersons by the head with his forceps and removes them they are being born. They don't just leave them in there.


----------



## jld

Some people just do not seem to believe in a woman's right to choose.

SGC, did your dad accuse your mother of "parental alienation"? 

I am wondering because of his claim that she "poisoned" you against him. 

Probably easier to tell himself that than to look at his own actions towards you . . .
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> Some people just do not seem to believe in a woman's right to choose.
> 
> SGC, did your dad accuse your mother of "parental alienation"?
> 
> I am wondering because of his claim that she "poisoned" you against him.
> 
> Probably easier to tell himself that than to look at his own actions towards you . . .
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Mischaracterization.

If the right to choose is 100% with the woman, the responsibility should be 100% with the woman.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood, right?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

ButtPunch said:


> So what you are saying is that every time one of the abortion doctors grabs one of these nonpersons by the head with his forceps and removes them they are being born. They don't just leave them in there.


I think this topic is a little sidetracked for the thread. If you would like, start a thread in the political section and I can answer your questions there. 

JLD-


SGC, did your dad accuse your mother of "parental alienation"?

I am wondering because of his claim that she "poisoned" you against him.

Probably easier to tell himself that than to look at his own actions towards you . . .

Yep, my Dad thinks he was the poster boy of victim men who divorced, lost all their money and had their ex turn their kids against him. If we didn't want to see him or talk to him, it was my Mother's fault. 
He just doesn't understand that we lost respect for him for his own actions, his own attitudes. He'll die grasping what's left of his precious money and probably won't ever realize that he lost his own children and grandchildren because of it. 

My Mom moved on and is now doing fine, we're all doing fine. My Dad is broke (house poor mainly because he thinks he deserves pretty things) and miserable. His kids forget to call him on his birthday and he's never even met half of his grandkids. He gets what he wants I guess and that's to be a victim.


----------



## jld

farsidejunky said:


> Mischaracterization.
> 
> If the right to choose is 100% with the woman, the responsibility should be 100% with the woman.
> 
> Seek first to understand, then to be understood, right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


How is it not, far?

Again, she is the one whose body is going through it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tom67

farsidejunky said:


> Mischaracterization.
> 
> If the right to choose is 100% with the woman, the responsibility should be 100% with the woman.
> 
> Seek first to understand, then to be understood, right?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Ugh
:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:
You nailed it.


----------



## farsidejunky

jld said:


> How is it not, far?
> 
> Again, she is the one whose body is going through it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I will refer you to the middle paragraph of the post you just quoted.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jld

I am going to follow SGC's lead and drop out of the debate on whether or not women have the right to choose. As she said, that is probably for a different thread in a different subforum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> *All my Dad gave a crap about was making sure the courts knew I didn't live there anymore so he could get a reduction on his child support. He blames my Mom for not doing her job and watching me. *
> He'll complain to anyone who will listen about how horrible the system is and how unfair it was to him. He blames my Mom for "poisoning us against him". The only reason I even speak to him now is because she convinced me to.
> He specifically waited until a couple of us were grown before he left so he could get away with paying as little as possible (his goal was all of us gone) and all I've ever wanted from him was some little sign that he's sorry for what we went through during that time and for him to get his head out of his @ss about his poor pension that was cut in half and the alimony he had to pay.



Dad's who abandon their daughters make them easy prey for sexual exploitation and create a neediness and fear in them that can never be removed. I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. You will spend the rest of your life healing the wounds you didn't deserve. 

That's why I'm not against men going their own way. I'd rather them leave prior to getting any female pregnant. Heck, I'll even pack them a snack for their trip.


----------



## Heatherknows

ButtPunch said:


> You folks do realize there are countries without all these child support laws and you know what?
> 
> The kids turn out just fine.


I'm sorry but it's difficult for me to take a guy called "ButtPunch" seriously.


----------



## ButtPunch

Heatherknows said:


> I'm sorry but it's difficult for me to take a guy called "ButtPunch" seriously.


From your posts I don't think you take any man seriously. 

My screen name is a long long story
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

ButtPunch said:


> From your posts I don't think you take any man seriously.
> 
> *My screen name is a long long story
> *_Posted via Mobile Device_


We need some comic relief in this thread. Can you tell the story in one paragraph?


----------



## FalconKing

So let me get this straight... It's entirely up to the woman whether or not she has a baby. But if she DOES have the baby the father is expected to support it? Is that where this discussion is going?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ButtPunch

Heatherknows said:


> We need some comic relief in this thread. Can you tell the story in one paragraph?


Sadly.....No.


----------



## ocotillo

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Until there is a child born, it is a legal medical procedure done and not a person. You can't get around that unless you change abortion laws altogether.


Is that how it's decided in Canada? Here in the U.S. _Roe v Wade_ recognized a state interest in the fetus starting in the third trimester. That framework was tossed out in the 90's and replaced with the concept of fetal viability. This has withstood legal challenge and the majority of the states in the U.S. either limit or prohibit post viability abortions.

Personally, I think this is only very tenuously connected to the mgtow thing. *Of course *a woman has a right to chose. As a direct consequent of that though, a man must be able to turn his interest in a pregnancy on and off like a switch, which is not natural or normal for human beings and is probably harder for some than for others.

The point is not to whine about this. That's simply a fact of life in the post-modern world. If women are baited into appearing oblivious to this facet, or worse, cold and callous about it, then it is probably counterproductive though.


----------

