# What is MGTOW?



## bandit.45

You guys all know how lazy I am. So can you enlighten me on something that I really don't want to delve into very deeply?

Recently I have been seeing the term MGTOW on Youtube and on Facebook a lot. I understand it stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Is this a movement, a national organization or just some new Facebook fad? I've asked some guys at work and they say it is a new movement that is sort of a pushback against feminism. 

Anyone have experience with this or anyone who follows it?


----------



## Luminous

Those who follow it would say that it is more a philosophy than a movement, but it seems to have been born from a growing number of men who are no longer wanting to participate in relationships and/or marriage as a result of the direction western society has gone.

This is in part from a result of many men feeling like society does not value them, the marriage laws in most regions, are heavily skewed against them, the law in general seems to be more against them day by day, and that feminism, whilst healthy in principle, has distorted a lot of minds over the last generation of two, to a point that many men have stepped back and asked the question 'why bother?' 'it is too high a risk for little return'.

That, and with the recent 'metoo' controversy and increasing false rape allegations, along with an unequal accountability in the eyes of the law between the sexes, family law inequality etc., you start to get an idea of why some may want to subscribe to this.

YouTube has plenty on this if you are curious. Surely that is within your realm of laziness?


----------



## bandit.45

Luminous said:


> Those who follow it would say that it is more a philosophy than a movement, but it seems to have been born from a growing number of men who are no longer wanting to participate in relationships and/or marriage as a result of the direction western society has gone.
> 
> This is in part from a result of many men feeling like society does not value them, the marriage laws in most regions, are heavily skewed against them, the law in general seems to be more against them day by day, and that feminism, whilst healthy in principle, has distorted a lot of minds over the last generation of two, to a point that many men have stepped back and asked the question 'why bother?' 'it is too high a risk for little return'.
> 
> That, and with the recent 'metoo' controversy and increasing false rape allegations, along with an unequal accountability in the eyes of the law between the sexes, family law inequality etc., you start to get an idea of why some may want to subscribe to this.
> 
> YouTube has plenty on this if you are curious. Surely that is within your realm of laziness?


That is the gist I got. I have watched some of the YouTube videos on it, but the ones I watched dealt with topics only, and not much on MGTOW itself. I wasn't sure if it was like some kind of national organization or something. 

Thanks for the clarification.

It sounds like a bunch of men who are fed up with the game and are picking up their toys and going home.


----------



## Affaircare

@bandit.45

I don't have experience or follow it (I'm a chick here, dude!), but I will say that it's been one of my biggest pet peeves for forever! It all started when I was going through my own domestic violence counseling after my divorce. My exH was verbally and mentally and physically abusive, but he never balled up his fist and beat me... and well considering my background I didn't recognize it. You know: "No black eye, no abuse"  

ANYWHO...I was learning about the shelters for women and the laws, etc. and just asked about the shelters for abused men and laws for abused men, and OH. MY. FREAKING. GOD. You would have thought I had two heads, the way the "counselors" stared at me and acted like "Oh no...you don't understand...men are the ones who DO the violence...not the victims." I mean, I actually was a female survivor but even I knew that wasn't true! 

To my mind, if a man is not able to smack a woman upside the head, slap her across the face, or chase her around the house with scissors...then women should be just as arrested if THEY smack a man upside the head, slap him across the face, or chase him around the house with scissors. Seriously--just make it EXACTLY EVEN. If a man is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a woman a derogatory name...then a woman is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a man a derogatory name. 

Anyway, it's my understanding that the difference between MGTOW and like "men's rights" or "fathers' rights" (as opposed to "women's rights") is that MGTOW take it even a step further and encourage men to oppose long-term and/or legal relationships with women because essentially, the man loses in every possible way. There's no cost-benefit for a man to commit; there's enormous risk so that a legal relationship fails risk analysis; and when men DO engage in a long-term, intimate, legal relationship, he stands to lose half or more of everything from assets to emotions. 

Here's the website: https://www.mgtow.com/ and here's the Manosphere: https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/

Personally, I'm a libertarian by political philosophy, and by that I mean that I truly believe people are free as long as it harms no one else's life or property. That being the case, I think men should be encouraged to be and allowed to be masculine and women should be encouraged to be and allowed to be feminine. It's NOT the same, and I don't think it should be the same--I think it should be different but complimentary. But that's the kind of thing that is taught in the home by individuals and not "governed" by politicians and laws. You can't legislate fairness or morality. 

Then again...that is my VERY PERSONAL opinion and I'm fairly sure others will disagree.


----------



## Luminous

bandit.45 said:


> That is the gist I got. I have watched some of the YouTube videos on it, but the ones I watched dealt with topics only, and not much on MGTOW itself. I wasn't sure if it was like some kind of national organization or something.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> It sounds like a bunch of men who are fed up with the game and are picking up their toys and going home.


You might have been confused between MGTOW and MRA (Men's Rights Activists). The main difference between the two, despite wanting the same outcome, is that MRA's aim is to get the laws changed, to be more equitable, whilst working inside the current legal framework. MGTOW have stepped back and walked away from that framework altogether.


----------



## bandit.45

Affaircare said:


> @bandit.45
> 
> Personally, I'm a libertarian by political philosophy, and by that I mean that I truly believe people are free as long as it harms no one else's life or property. That being the case, I think men should be encouraged to be and allowed to be masculine and women should be encouraged to be and allowed to be feminine. It's NOT the same, and I don't think it should be the same--I think it should be different but complimentary. But that's the kind of thing that is taught in the home by individuals and not "governed" by politicians and laws. You can't legislate fairness or morality.
> 
> Then again...that is my VERY PERSONAL opinion and I'm fairly sure others will disagree.


I am not really a Libertarian... I'm more of a Barry Goldwater Republican in my leanings, even though I am not party affiliated.

But I agree with you 100% on this issue. Men and boys are being discouraged in their masculinity, which is why the current generation of Millennial young men are largely spineless and PC and are not producing any true leaders.


----------



## OnTheFly

Affaircare said:


> @bandit.45
> 
> I don't have experience or follow it (I'm a chick here, dude!), but I will say that it's been one of my biggest pet peeves for forever! It all started when I was going through my own domestic violence counseling after my divorce. My exH was verbally and mentally and physically abusive, but he never balled up his fist and beat me... and well considering my background I didn't recognize it. You know: "No black eye, no abuse"
> 
> ANYWHO...I was learning about the shelters for women and the laws, etc. and just asked about the shelters for abused men and laws for abused men, and OH. MY. FREAKING. GOD. You would have thought I had two heads, the way the "counselors" stared at me and acted like "Oh no...you don't understand...men are the ones who DO the violence...not the victims." I mean, I actually was a female survivor but even I knew that wasn't true!
> 
> To my mind, if a man is not able to smack a woman upside the head, slap her across the face, or chase her around the house with scissors...then women should be just as arrested if THEY smack a man upside the head, slap him across the face, or chase him around the house with scissors. Seriously--just make it EXACTLY EVEN. If a man is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a woman a derogatory name...then a woman is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a man a derogatory name.
> 
> Anyway, it's my understanding that the difference between MGTOW and like "men's rights" or "fathers' rights" (as opposed to "women's rights") is that MGTOW take it even a step further and encourage men to oppose long-term and/or legal relationships with women because essentially, the man loses in every possible way. There's no cost-benefit for a man to commit; there's enormous risk so that a legal relationship fails risk analysis; and when men DO engage in a long-term, intimate, legal relationship, he stands to lose half or more of everything from assets to emotions.
> 
> Here's the website: https://www.mgtow.com/ and here's the Manosphere: https://www.mgtow.com/manosphere/
> 
> Personally, I'm a libertarian by political philosophy, and by that I mean that I truly believe people are free as long as it harms no one else's life or property. That being the case, I think men should be encouraged to be and allowed to be masculine and women should be encouraged to be and allowed to be feminine. It's NOT the same, and I don't think it should be the same--I think it should be different but complimentary. But that's the kind of thing that is taught in the home by individuals and not "governed" by politicians and laws. You can't legislate fairness or morality.
> 
> Then again...that is my VERY PERSONAL opinion and I'm fairly sure others will disagree.



Well said.......for a chick!

As stated above, it's more a philosophy. My brother has been a MGTOW for 25ys, but didn't know it until I explained it to him four years ago.


----------



## anchorwatch

MGTOW literature has a lot of whining going on. There will always be inequities in life, on all sides. Grow up and handle it. 









*"He-man Woman Haters Club"*


----------



## Luminous

anchorwatch said:


> MGTOW literature has a lot of whining going on. There will always be inequities in life, on all sides. Grow up and handle it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"He-man Woman Haters Club"*


Would you mind sharing HOW these men are to 'handle it', given the environment they have to operate in?


----------



## CharlieParker

Oh, I thought this was going to be about an aircraft’s maximum gross take off weight. More interesting imo, I like fast planes and women.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I honestly believe that men should go their own way. But I do not agree with much of what the MGTOW group preaches.
I limit my participation to a refusal to buy diamonds, and fancy princess parties. (proms and big weddings) I'm not interested in another long term relationship, I've had enough of the one I have.
MGTOW followers tend to follow PUA methods to pick up as many short term matings as possible. I find that dishonest and reprehensible. 
If you find the rules of the game unfair, don't play. Don't just pretend to play to get your fun. 
If you go your own way you don't bring along camp followers.


----------



## notmyjamie

Affaircare said:


> @bandit.45
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm a libertarian by political philosophy, and by that I mean that I truly believe people are free as long as it harms no one else's life or property. That being the case, I think men should be encouraged to be and allowed to be masculine and women should be encouraged to be and allowed to be feminine. It's NOT the same, and I don't think it should be the same--I think it should be different but complimentary. But that's the kind of thing that is taught in the home by individuals and not "governed" by politicians and laws. You can't legislate fairness or morality.
> 
> Then again...that is my VERY PERSONAL opinion and I'm fairly sure others will disagree.


I agree 100%. Well said.


----------



## OnTheFly

Mr. Nail said:


> I honestly believe that men should go their own way. But I do not agree with much of what the MGTOW group preaches.
> I limit my participation to a refusal to buy diamonds, and fancy princess parties. (proms and big weddings) I'm not interested in another long term relationship, I've had enough of the one I have.
> MGTOW followers tend to follow PUA methods to pick up as many short term matings as possible. I find that dishonest and reprehensible.
> If you find the rules of the game unfair, don't play. Don't just pretend to play to get your fun.
> If you go your own way you don't bring along camp followers.


PUA and MGTOW are two different groups. The latter don’t like the rules and don’t play, the former know the rules and use them to gain *****.


----------



## Deejo

bandit.45 said:


> You guys all know how lazy I am. So can you enlighten me on something that I really don't want to delve into very deeply?
> 
> Recently I have been seeing the term MGTOW on Youtube and on Facebook a lot. I understand it stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Is this a movement, a national organization or just some new Facebook fad? I've asked some guys at work and they say it is a new movement that is sort of a pushback against feminism.
> 
> Anyone have experience with this or anyone who follows it?


When I saw this thread title, and the poster, I honest to God laughed out loud.

I think folks here have pretty much given the gist of it. Definitely one of those questions that you're likely to get a different answer depending on who you ask.

It tends to get flack because the perception is that many 'men decide to go their own way' only after they have had their heart and self-esteem torn out and torn up by a woman.


----------



## Luminous

Mr. Nail said:


> I honestly believe that men should go their own way. But I do not agree with much of what the MGTOW group preaches.
> I limit my participation to a refusal to buy diamonds, and fancy princess parties. (proms and big weddings) I'm not interested in another long term relationship, I've had enough of the one I have.
> MGTOW followers tend to follow PUA methods to pick up as many short term matings as possible. I find that dishonest and reprehensible.
> If you find the rules of the game unfair, don't play. Don't just pretend to play to get your fun.
> If you go your own way you don't bring along camp followers.


Not sure where you have been getting that information from as your main source, but yes, some people following MGTOW do subscribe to it. Perhaps it is in the same way that some Feminists are still gold diggers etc. Similar to religion, some people will use a movement/philosophy as a cover for questionable behaviours/motives.

One thing that I have seen from other areas, are the ones that are mentoring guys who are either a bit lost, young, depressed, or ones who just need to be heard and/or understood. These mentors don't preach hatred towards women or anyone else, but instead focus on self improvement, whether it be physical, mental, financial, or a combination. They highlight the benefits on building oneself up, so that they can have a better quality of life, regardless of whether they choose to stay single for life or not.

There is not much in the way of guidance for the young men any more. Masculinity is no longer celebrated, it is ridiculed, dismissed, and disrespected in the western world, to the point of almost being legislated against. If a man wants to talk about their grievances, more often than not, in return they are either told to 'man up' and 'deal with it', or are given a list of grievances that women face. 

It is like trying to build a house with no tools, and no instructions.



OnTheFly said:


> PUA and MGTOW are two different groups. The latter don’t like the rules and don’t play, the former know the rules and use them to gain *****.


Some do, as I mentioned above, but others see beyond the physical/psychological need for gratification from short term relationships.

In referencing rules/games/play, I would offer the following...

If you went into a game knowing that you will not win/draw, the rules are stacked against you, and you can be penalised even when playing by the rules, would you still play?


----------



## uhtred

CharlieParker said:


> Oh, I thought this was going to be about an aircraft’s maximum gross take off weight. More interesting imo, I like fast planes and women.


That would be beechtalk, not talkaboutmarriage. Very similar formats though. I've also noticed that if you have a pane its surprisingly easy to get women to go flying.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

It is basically the result of Westernized Divorce Laws and the whole #Metoo Era that are tilted in favor of females. The perception being you will either get married and have your wallet ripped out through your @sshole on top of losing rights to see your own children in divorce, of which is predominantly initiated by women. Or if your are single and sexually active, you risk being found guilty before proven innocent or even after being proven innocent based on her word. Basically, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and men opt out. This is different than dudes that just can't get women because they have no game. Its a choice made by you, not by someone else.

But like all Red Pill Philosophies, you have to get bent over a barrel a time or two to swallow the pill...


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> That would be beechtalk, not talkaboutmarriage. Very similar formats though. I've also noticed that if you have a *pane *its surprisingly easy to get women to go flying.


LOL!


----------



## SuburbanDad

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> It is basically the result of Westernized Divorce Laws and the whole #Metoo Era that are tilted in favor of females. The perception being you will either get married and have your wallet ripped out through your @sshole on top of losing rights to see your own children in divorce, of which is predominantly initiated by women. Or if your are single and sexually active, you risk being found guilty before proven innocent or even after being proven innocent based on her word. Basically, the juice isn't worth the squeeze and men opt out. This is different than dudes that just can't get women because they have no game. Its a choice made by you, not by someone else.
> 
> But like all Red Pill Philosophies, you have to get bent over a barrel a time or two to swallow the pill...



This guy nailed it.


----------



## EleGirl

Affaircare said:


> I don't have experience or follow it (I'm a chick here, dude!), but I will say that it's been one of my biggest pet peeves for forever! It all started when I was going through my own domestic violence counseling after my divorce. My exH was verbally and mentally and physically abusive, but he never balled up his fist and beat me... and well considering my background I didn't recognize it. You know: "No black eye, no abuse"
> 
> ANYWHO...I was learning about the shelters for women and the laws, etc. and just asked about the shelters for abused men and laws for abused men, and OH. MY. FREAKING. GOD. You would have thought I had two heads, the way the "counselors" stared at me and acted like "Oh no...you don't understand...men are the ones who DO the violence...not the victims." I mean, I actually was a female survivor but even I knew that wasn't true!
> 
> To my mind, if a man is not able to smack a woman upside the head, slap her across the face, or chase her around the house with scissors...then women should be just as arrested if THEY smack a man upside the head, slap him across the face, or chase him around the house with scissors. Seriously--just make it EXACTLY EVEN. If a man is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a woman a derogatory name...then a woman is verbally abusive for repeatedly calling a man a derogatory name.


I don't know how long ago you asked this question, but today the laws are the same for both women and men when it comes to domestic violence. There are also shelters, counseling, etc. for men who are victims of DV. I know this for a fact as I've been involved in helping men and women in these situations.

In the 1990's I did volunteer work at a shelter that provided shelter in an old motel. Each family got a hotel room that was basically a one or two bedroom suite with a kitchenette. There were men there with children just as there were women there with children. The reason that they were able to take in men is that it was not one big room with many families living in the room. Instead is was basically a small apartment provided for each family. And by the way, it was completely run on donations.

I know of many women who have been convicted of domestic violence. 

One of the issues is that of facilities to house men who are victims of domestic violence. For the most part, domestic violence shelters only take adults who have children with them. Most of these cases are women with children in tow. There are usually waiting lists even to get into the shelters.

Women and men who do not have children with them are usually expected to find a place to live on their own. The police will help them escape a bad situation, but there is not enough room in shelters for adults who have no children in tow.

Another issue is that most organizations do not have the funds to provide separate spaces for men and women. And most shelters are run off donations. So, if anyone wants to help men who are victims of domestic violence, just find the shelters in your area that take in men and donate to them.


----------



## Mr. Nail

And yet Men go their own way to escape it even today. Nearest men's shelter is 100 miles and 6 women's shelters away from me. 

If you as a man are assaulted by a female partner do NOT call the police, escape and go to an emergency room. For some reason police will listen to doctors.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Mr. Nail said:


> And yet Men go their own way to escape it even today. Nearest men's shelter is 100 miles and 6 women's shelters away from me.
> 
> If you as a man are assaulted by a female partner do NOT call the police, escape and go to an emergency room. For some reason police will listen to doctors.


Pray she doesn't break a fingernail while she pummels you, lol.


----------



## personofinterest

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Mr. Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Men go their own way to escape it even today. Nearest men's shelter is 100 miles and 6 women's shelters away from me.
> 
> If you as a man are assaulted by a female partner do NOT call the police, escape and go to an emergency room. For some reason police will listen to doctors.
> 
> 
> 
> Pray she doesn't break a fingernail while she pummels you, lol.
Click to expand...

Some of them trashy nails be lethal!

But seriously, the bias against men with regard to custody, being victims of abuse, etc. Is SHAMEFUL.


----------



## In Absentia

any "philosophy" pushed to the extreme is bad news...


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Luminous said:


> Those who follow it would say that it is more a philosophy than a movement, but it seems to have been born from a growing number of men who are no longer wanting to participate in relationships and/or marriage as a result of the direction western society has gone.


Can I join or is it just for men? :grin2:


----------



## bandit.45

anchorwatch said:


> MGTOW literature has a lot of whining going on. *There will always be inequities in life, on all sides*. Grow up and handle it.


I would agree with you to a point, if it were not for the recent systematic takedown of male-oriented support and social groups. Look at the way the feminist movement took down the Boy Scouts of America... a great organization that was one of the last outposts that promoted healthy masculine ethics and values, and was not in any way exclusive or threatening towards women and girls. But they took it down...drove it into the ground. 

I would agree with for the most part, except that when you look at the egregious inequality in the way men and fathers are treated by the U.S. court system when it comes to alimony, child support and equitable custody. Women have a huge advantage in the divorce process, and I can totally understand why young men today choose not to roll the dice when it comes to marrying entitled women and fathering children.


----------



## bandit.45

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Can I join or is it just for men? :grin2:


Shoot yur mouth off. Go for it.


----------



## bandit.45

Deejo said:


> When I saw this thread title, and the poster, I honest to God laughed out loud.
> 
> *I think folks here have pretty much given the gist of it. Definitely one of those questions that you're likely to get a different answer depending on who you ask.
> *
> It tends to get flack because the perception is that many 'men decide to go their own way' only after they have had their heart and self-esteem torn out and torn up by a woman.


Thing is...I'm always behind the 8-ball on the latest social movements and trends. Always. 

Hell, I didn't know what FWB meant until my own FWB used that to describe our relationship. She looked at me like I was an idiot, which I have been known to be from time to time.


----------



## StillSearching

OnTheFly said:


> PUA and MGTOW are two different groups. The latter don’t like the rules and don’t play, the former know the rules and use them to gain *****.


Best answer yet!


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> And yet Men go their own way to escape it even today. Nearest men's shelter is 100 miles and 6 women's shelters away from me.
> 
> If you as a man are assaulted by a female partner do NOT call the police, escape and go to an emergency room. For some reason police will listen to doctors.


Have you considered starting a shelter for male assault victims? That is how the women's ones started.


----------



## Mr. Nail

nice quip. The reason there are no shelters for male victims of domestic violence (the existing shelters are for homeless men), is because the communities (the people, the politerat, the sheep if you will) do not financially support such an idea. It is a long term change of attitudes that is needed. It will take decades, not months. The same is true of laws. Sure we change a law. Then we have to get a judge that believes the law is right, Then juries that will convict, Then police that will prosecute.


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> nice quip. The reason there are no shelters for male victims of domestic violence (the existing shelters are for homeless men), is because the communities (the people, the politerat, the sheep if you will) do not financially support such an idea. It is a long term change of attitudes that is needed. It will take decades, not months. The same is true of laws. Sure we change a law. Then we have to get a judge that believes the law is right, Then juries that will convict, Then police that will prosecute.


Translation: it's hard and griping is easy.

Get real. 50 years ago many people believed smacking a woman around was the best way to keep her in line.

If these Male victims and keyboard warriors all took positive action and put their money where their chips are, things would change.

And I say that as someone who is sickened by "modern feminism."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> nice quip.


It was not intended as a quip.



> The reason there are no shelters for male victims of domestic violence (the existing shelters are for homeless men), is because the communities (the people, the politerat, the sheep if you will) do not financially support such an idea.


Where do you think this support comes from?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NobodySpecial said:


> It was not intended as a quip.
> 
> 
> Where do you think this support comes from?


Let's take this a little further. A big part of MGTOW is the rebellion against laws and their application that seem to favor women (divorce, custody, domestic abuse, etc.)


.... but when these laws were written, the lawmakers, legislatures, law enforcement, and judges (indeed the entire legal and enforcement communities) were completely, totally populated by, and dominated by.... _MEN!_

While a lot has changed, these institutions are still more male than female skewed.

How did it get this way? Men need only look in the mirror for the most part. Maybe men knew they were putting, and keeping, women in subservient positions financially, and maybe overcompensated some in the legal system for the risk they had created. WRT child custody, I have no doubt that many men either know their wife is going to be more nurturing than them, or just flat don't want to be the primary parent either out of sheer laziness on one hand or concern with career impact on the other hand. Also, upon divorce (warning; stereotype coming) men are more likely to want to go on the prowl immediately after divorce, and a kid's gonna cramp their style. So the powerful men who put all this in motion ended up creating a situation that was unfair to many other men, but they did so because it fit their particular vision. 

Things are changing. Custody to mom isn't so automatic as it used to be. Men are even collecting alimony as women gain economic power. 

I find it amusing that MGTOW/Red Pill picked up steam at a time when longstanding anti-man trends and policies are starting to mitigate a bit on their own through normal societal evolution. People should have been screaming about this decades ago, and starting to chill a bit now as progress is being made.

edit: additional note
I don't think men will ever support additional funding for such a thing as a battered men's shelter as few men would ever admit to being the victim of _physical_ abuse at the female. They will also look upon other men who've been battered as weak, unmanly, and worthy of only scorn.


----------



## StillSearching

bandit.45 said:


> You guys all know how lazy I am. So can you enlighten me on something that I really don't want to delve into very deeply?
> 
> Recently I have been seeing the term MGTOW on Youtube and on Facebook a lot. I understand it stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Is this a movement, a national organization or just some new Facebook fad? I've asked some guys at work and they say it is a new movement that is sort of a pushback against feminism.
> 
> Anyone have experience with this or anyone who follows it?


It's been around for years.
I have many friends in MGTOW. It's an ideal. 
First saw of it like 3 years ago.
A big part of MGTOW is the rebellion against laws and their application that seem to favor women (divorce, custody, domestic abuse, etc.).....The laws still do.
They are the opposite of Pick Up Artists.


----------



## personofinterest

I work with a Father's Rights group. Most of the men in this organization have suffered injustices the keyboard red-pillars on TAM have never experienced. I was not only amazed to see how many of us women are involved in the organization, but how kind and normal and friendly the men are with us. Zero snideness, "all women" rants, etc. 

They work with the media, attorneys, and legislators to effect CHANGE.

THOSE are the types of men who make a difference. Not embittered boys and incels who follow Reddit and Corey Wayne.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> edit: additional note
> I don't think men will ever support additional funding for such a thing as a battered men's shelter as few men would ever admit to being the victim of _physical_ abuse at the female. They will also look upon other men who've been battered as weak, unmanly, and worthy of only scorn.


This is righteously Too Bad. Bad. And I hate it so much BAD. I mean. One might even call it toxic. (NOT ducking.)


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> Most of the men in this organization have suffered injustices the keyboard red-pillars on TAM have never experienced.


You don't know ****.


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the men in this organization have suffered injustices the keyboard red-pillars on TAM have never experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know ****.
Click to expand...

Case in point


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> i work with a father's rights group. Most of the men in this organization have suffered injustices the keyboard red-pillars on tam have never experienced. I was not only amazed to see how many of us women are involved in the organization, but how kind and normal and friendly the men are with us. Zero snideness, "all women" rants, etc.
> 
> They work with the media, attorneys, and legislators to effect change.
> 
> Those are the types of men who make a difference. Not embittered boys and incels who follow reddit and corey wayne.


nice!


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> Case in point


So, you know my story? You know all the stories of all the men on TAM who don't immediately disavow MGTOW/Redpill?

Woman's logic!


----------



## NobodySpecial

OnTheFly said:


> So, you know my story? You know all the stories of all the men on TAM who don't immediately disavow MGTOW/Redpill?
> 
> Woman's logic!


It is not women's logic. Count me all the way out. I was about to reply the same thing. Seems to me that it is easy enough to simply not share on an internet board.


----------



## personofinterest

OnTheFly said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> 
> Case in point
> 
> 
> 
> So, you know my story? You know all the stories of all the men on TAM who don't immediately disavow MGTOW/Redpill?
> 
> Woman's logic!
Click to expand...

The statistical probability of ALL the angry mysoginists at TAM having gone through what these men have gone through is virtually non existent.

But here's the broader point:

THOSE men have managed to endure it without choosing to regard all humans with XY chromosomes with bitter disdain.

Which means being....the way some are is a choice borne of poor character rather than inevitability.

But just in case, I am sorry that the addicted mother of your children had you thrown in prison on a fake sexual assault charge and then forced you to file bankruptcy and lose your home.


----------



## Luminous

NobodySpecial said:


> It is not women's logic. Count me all the way out. I was about to reply the same thing. Seems to me that it is easy enough to simply not share on an internet board.


As long as one knows the difference between sharing and projecting, I'd say share as much as you want!


----------



## Mr. Nail

OK you all slapped me down good and hard. Do you think that is going to interest me in going the traditional way?

1) It's not hard it's illegal to have a shelter that doesn't accept women.
2) The money comes from the groups of men that raise funds for the women's shelters.

I'm sorry I don't meet your qualifications to be a real man. I don't need your approval. That is the best part of going your own way.


----------



## OnTheFly

Remember Gentlemen, if you've eaten a **** sandwich from the wimminz and this gynocentric culture, there are options. 

Look into the ideas behind MGTOW and Redpill, then if it's not your bag, at least you'll be better informed of the situation.


----------



## personofinterest

Honestly, I don't care which way men (or women) go. I just find the sad tendency to lump and entire gender together while picking emotional scabs ad nauseum annoying.

IF MGTOW really was simply about going one's own way, the woman-hating part wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> OK you all slapped me down good and hard. Do you think that is going to interest me in going the traditional way?


What does that mean? Do you think anyone cares whether you "go the traditional way"? Whatever that means? 



> 1) It's not hard it's illegal to have a shelter that doesn't accept women.
> 2) The money comes from the groups of men that raise funds for the women's shelters.
> 
> I'm sorry I don't meet your qualifications to be a real man. I don't need your approval. That is the best part of going your own way.


I can't say I understand #2. Are you angry that there are some men who support this cause? Do you know how people became aware of causes such as this? Activism. By all means, "go your own way". I don't think anyone would miss you. But whining just makes you look stupid.


----------



## OnTheFly

personofinterest said:


> IF MGTOW really was simply about going one's own way, the woman-hating part wouldn't be necessary.


''Woman-hating'' is not part of the philosophy.

Although some men do. Some feminist men do too (Weinstein), some women do too, etc.

BTW, if you work at a Father's rights org. Bless you. Up here we have men's advocates such as Karen Straughn and Diana Davison also, who do great work. But, it's a sad fact that when the men who work for these organizations say the same things as these women, they are often dismissed as ''women-haters."


----------



## NobodySpecial

OnTheFly said:


> ''Woman-hating'' is not part of the philosophy.
> 
> Although some men do. Some feminist men do too (Weinstein), some women do too, etc.
> 
> BTW, if you work at a Father's rights org. Bless you. Up here we have men's advocates such as Karen Straughn and Diana Davison also, who do great work. But, it's a sad fact that when the men who work for these organizations say the same things as these women, they are often dismissed as ''women-haters."


As always, the weirder get more play. When I google MGTOW, I see a lot of such vitriol. But I take it with a grain of salt. The internet is... well... the internet. AFAIC men's rights are human rights. Duh. That is one thing some liberals do too well. Blurring and confusing the issue by being sidsey. It does no one any favors.


----------



## OnTheFly

NobodySpecial said:


> I see a lot of such vitriol. .


I do too. It depends how fresh and recent the experience has been. 

Youtube MGTOW/redpill commentary videos are similar to people venting here, it's a pressure relief valve. It's a ****-tonne better than balling it up inside and giving yourself soul cancer.


----------



## NobodySpecial

OnTheFly said:


> I do too. It depends how fresh and recent the experience has been.
> 
> Youtube MGTOW/redpill commentary videos are similar to people venting here, it's a pressure relief valve. It's a ****-tonne better than balling it up inside and giving yourself soul cancer.


As with those who identify as feminist, the loud, angry MGTOW wind up carrying/defining the moniker. It does not help understanding.


ETA: Also parallel to defining feminism, the people who MISUNDERSTAND IT wind up defining it in the larger social conversation.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I'm not sure I hate women. I just don't see any reason to invite one to share my life.

I am often annoyed by the attitudes around the divide. The accusations, the bullying, the mud slinging. Why go there? The aggravation is bad for the soul.


----------



## uhtred

I hate the way extremists tend to take over conversations. 

There are valid questions to be asked about men's rights:

In a world where there is legal abortion, and compulsory child support, what reproductive rights should men have?

What is the right balance between "innocent until presumed guilty" and attempts to deal with the inherent difficulty of prosecuting many rape cases.


----------



## AandM

Mrs. AandM says:

Masturbate
Gym
Tan
Obsolete
Wood

The woman is funny. She had the presence of mind to photograph a license plate in front of her that was,

MMM VAG

http://i67.tinypic.com/2iuasdy.jpg


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> I hate the way extremists tend to take over conversations.
> 
> There are valid questions to be asked about men's rights:
> 
> In a world where there is legal abortion, and compulsory child support, what reproductive rights should men have?


This is quite an interesting question. The reproductive rights of men are looked at, at this time, in terms of what options they have post-conception. Historically, the responsibility for pre-conception activities are placed on women. Men roundly reject condoms. They have their problems, as do every single female birth control method. Research into male contraception gotten no traction largely because they side effect are rejected by the research audiences. 



> What is the right balance between "innocent until presumed guilty" and attempts to deal with the inherent difficulty of prosecuting many rape cases.


What is interesting about this is that given that prosecution is so difficult, prevention would seem like a very important activity. Yet there remains huge resistance to accepting what a massive problem rape is.

[ETA] It is likewise interesting to me that MGTOW represents not getting in the game and addressing concrete issues, as far as I can see, but getting out of the game entirely. Like, not my monkeys, not my circus.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> This is quite an interesting question. The reproductive rights of men are looked at, at this time, in terms of what options they have post-conception. Historically, the responsibility for pre-conception activities are placed on women. Men roundly reject condoms. They have their problems, as do every single female birth control method. Research into male contraception gotten no traction largely because they side effect are rejected by the research audiences.
> 
> 
> 
> What is interesting about this is that given that prosecution is so difficult, prevention would seem like a very important activity. Yet there remains huge resistance to accepting what a massive problem rape is.
> 
> [ETA] It is likewise interesting to me that MGTOW represents not getting in the game and addressing concrete issues, as far as I can see, but getting out of the game entirely. Like, not my monkeys, not my circus.


I like this post. I always saw MGTOW as quitters. Which is funny because they do a lot of complaining about the system. Instead of trying to work for a change of that system, they simply turn their backs on things. Or spend time trying to convince other men to also just give up. Which doesn't help anyone at all. "I quit. You should quit too if you're not a sucker"


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> -snip-
> What is interesting about this is that given that prosecution is so difficult, prevention would seem like a very important activity. Yet there remains huge resistance to accepting what a massive problem rape is.-snip-.


Maybe Australian style Penis confiscation?


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I like this post. I always saw MGTOW as quitters. Which is funny because they do a lot of complaining about the system. Instead of trying to work for a change of that system, they simply turn their backs on things. Or spend time trying to convince other men to also just give up. Which doesn't help anyone at all. "I quit. You should quit too if you're not a sucker"





TheDudeLebowski said:


> I like this post. I always saw MGTOW as quitters. Which is funny because they do a lot of complaining about the system. Instead of trying to work for a change of that system, they simply turn their backs on things. Or spend time trying to convince other men to also just give up. Which doesn't help anyone at all. "I quit. You should quit too if you're not a sucker"


I am going to say something pretty radical that I would bet no one will "get", let alone agree with. 

I think the male privilege that most men don't believe even exists has hamstrung mainstream men. They just plain are less accustomed to having to work, think, activate and pursue to have their own basic justice considered. I feel empathy for them in a way that a lot of people don't. Most people just feel angry at dah mens.


----------



## Blondilocks

bandit.45 said:


> Thing is...I'm always behind the 8-ball on the latest social movements and trends. Always.
> 
> Hell, I didn't know what FWB meant until my own FWB used that to describe our relationship. She looked at me like I was an idiot, which I have been known to be from time to time.


Did you ask her if you could still refer to her as your booty call?


----------



## VermiciousKnid

All I'll add is that legally it's not a bad way to go for any man living in a western country.


----------



## personofinterest

uhtred said:


> I hate the way extremists tend to take over conversations.
> 
> There are valid questions to be asked about men's rights:
> 
> In a world where there is legal abortion, and compulsory child support, what reproductive rights should men have?
> 
> What is the right balance between "innocent until presumed guilty" and attempts to deal with the inherent difficulty of prosecuting many rape cases.


All EXCELLENT questions

As for abortion, it takes two to make a baby. I think the man should get a say in whether or not to kill the separate, unique life. Either that or, since a woman can opt to end a baby's life, a man should be able to opt out of support. Women who don't want men to have a say about their child's life AND expect men to pay child support are hypocrites.

As for innocent until proven guilty, I think once an assault has passed the statute of limitations, it should be off the table. For example, if you are going to dredge up (see make up) a vague semi-memory of something happening to you at a party, you need to do it within that time, not 35 years later because you don't like the potential supreme court judge's political leaning


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I like this post. I always saw MGTOW as quitters. Which is funny because they do a lot of complaining about the system. Instead of trying to work for a change of that system, they simply turn their backs on things. Or spend time trying to convince other men to also just give up. Which doesn't help anyone at all. "I quit. You should quit too if you're not a sucker"


Isn't it kind of like a boycott? Not voting with your voice but with your actions. They are no longer shopping at the womenz store since its too expensive and the merchandise is not great quality/durable. 

But you can't convince others to join your boycott who have had an overall positive experience, if they buy only the 50% of the merchandise that they perceive as overall good value. 

But for the other 50% that got the shaft, they can either keep trying or join the boycott. Atleast until the store owners fix the stores policy to be more fair to its customers. Or they can shut down (marriage/birth rates dropping).

But I do not suppose enough people will join the boycott because the lizard brain is evolutionarily wired for survival. Thus, many men will only join MGTOW after they procreated and got fleeced in divorce. Then they can be more open to red pill.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> All EXCELLENT questions
> 
> As for abortion, it takes two to make a baby. I think the man should get a say in whether or not to kill the separate, unique life. Either that or, since a woman can opt to end a baby's life, a man should be able to opt out of support. Women who don't want men to have a say about their child's life AND expect men to pay child support are hypocrites.
> 
> As for innocent until proven guilty, I think once an assault has passed the statute of limitations, it should be off the table. For example, *if you are going to dredge up (see make up) a vague semi-memory of something happening to you at a party, you need to do it within that time, not 35 years later because you don't like the potential supreme court judge's political leaning*


This is not right. The statute of limitations refers to the ability to criminally prosecute. It does NOT refer to a person's freedom of speech which has no statute of limitations. Politicians necessarily have to defend themselves against potential bull****. But legalizing free speech is a total no go. (Obviously)


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Isn't it kind of like a boycott? Not voting with your voice but with your actions. They are no longer shopping at the womenz store since its too expensive and the merchandise is not great quality/durable.
> 
> But you can't convince others to join your boycott who have had an overall positive experience, if they buy only the 50% of the merchandise that they perceive as overall good value.
> 
> But for the other 50% that got the shaft, they can either keep trying or join the boycott. Atleast until the store owners fix the stores policy to be more fair to its customers. Or they can shut down (marriage/birth rates dropping).
> 
> But I do not suppose enough people will join the boycott because the lizard brain is evolutionarily wired for survival. Thus, many men will only join MGTOW after they procreated and got fleeced in divorce. Then they can be more open to red pill.


I think it will go the opposite way. Women will start to go their own way at some point or fight to make the change that is fair. Women are more and more outearning men. The laws are applied the same. More and more Women are paying alimony and spousal support. They don't like it. Surprise surprise. 

Nobodyspecial made a good point actually. Historically speaking, men have the ability to organize and fight a physical threat really well. Thats in our DNA. As far as social injustices, we never really learned that one. You see your buddy get raked over the coals and you just say "ah, that poor bastard" and then move on with your life. Either that or you just check out. Now, part of that issue as well is I don't think women really care about men's issues generally. Or, maybe they think its wrong, but they are still busy with their own fights to focus efforts to help men organize. Plenty of men in history have fought for women's rights and continue to do so. It took women though to organize these movements and point us men to where we need to go. 

It's just different as most men tend to be action oriented. Here's a physical threat, we know what actions we need to take. With a social movement, what are the steps of action we take that really feel like we are moving into action? I don't know that men are able to see it as well as women. Complaining doesn't feel like action. Organizing a discussion to hash out our grievances doesn't feel like action. Sitting around talking about it doesn't feel like action. We just aren't wired for these kinds of fights.


----------



## uhtred

Reproductive rights are tricky because they are one place where the very different function of men's and women's bodies means that there is no clear way to make fair, equal rules. 

I think that increasing surveillance will solve the problems with rape prosecutions, but will introduce other, possibly worse problems. 






personofinterest said:


> All EXCELLENT questions
> 
> As for abortion, it takes two to make a baby. I think the man should get a say in whether or not to kill the separate, unique life. Either that or, since a woman can opt to end a baby's life, a man should be able to opt out of support. Women who don't want men to have a say about their child's life AND expect men to pay child support are hypocrites.
> 
> As for innocent until proven guilty, I think once an assault has passed the statute of limitations, it should be off the table. For example, if you are going to dredge up (see make up) a vague semi-memory of something happening to you at a party, you need to do it within that time, not 35 years later because you don't like the potential supreme court judge's political leaning


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> This is not right. The statute of limitations refers to the ability to criminally prosecute. It does NOT refer to a person's freedom of speech which has no statute of limitations. Politicians necessarily have to defend themselves against potential bull****. But legalizing free speech is a total no go. (Obviously)


Which would make complete sense if the usual types of people don't jump to believe every accusation even with zero proof.

Maybe the people listening to all these accusations should grow up enough to not jump to conclusions just because "penis bad - ROAR!"

And I said nothing about abridging free speech. Only that if you have waited 35 years, you should not expect sane people to just take you at your poorly remembered word and react accordingly.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> Which would make complete sense if the usual types of people don't jump to believe every accusation even with zero proof.


That people are stupid, there is no doubt. I happen to think that people conflate information that is good enough to be wary with proof appropriate to the court of law. And I think that is a Good Thing. 

But there is no decent legal recourse for that. 



> Maybe the people listening to all these accusations should grow up enough to not jump to conclusions just because "penis bad - ROAR!"
> 
> And I said nothing about abridging free speech. Only that if you have waited 35 years, *you should not expect* sane people to just take you at your poorly remembered word and react accordingly.


I am good with that. I don't agree with you. I hope some conversation of solutions to these very real problems can occur besides just being upset because people think things that are different than what one would think. I wish people would not confuse real possible solutions (like proposing laws which are concrete) and ranting (boy wouldn't it be nice if people all thought like I did!)


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Reproductive rights are tricky because they are one place where the very different function of men's and women's bodies means that there is no clear way to make fair, equal rules.


We could get a WHOLE lot closer with more attention put on birth control options for men where they have CHOICES abotu their reproduction.



> I think that increasing surveillance will solve the problems with rape prosecutions, but will introduce other, possibly worse problems.


Increasing surveillance on what?


----------



## personofinterest

My bottom line is that if I were a man encountering some of the permutations of "metoo, I'd go my own way too, and it would be FAR away from particular types of women.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

I have a hard time with men getting a say in abortion for the simple reason that I know men are already talking women into abortions that they maybe don't want to have. I'm not a fan of a man having some sort of legal say in a woman being told to have an abortion. 

Of course this could be solved by making abortion illegal outside of specific circumstances. Lean more on personal responsibility and accountability. People on TAM hate cake eaters. Can't think of a worse cake eater than someone who is willing to be careless in their sex life and take no precautions, because they have the option of simply eliminating another's life to keep their life as it is currently.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I think it will go the opposite way. Women will start to go their own way at some point or fight to make the change that is fair. Women are more and more outearning men. The laws are applied the same. More and more Women are paying alimony and spousal support. They don't like it. Surprise surprise.
> 
> Nobodyspecial made a good point actually. Historically speaking, men have the ability to organize and fight a physical threat really well. Thats in our DNA. As far as social injustices, we never really learned that one. You see your buddy get raked over the coals and you just say "ah, that poor bastard" and then move on with your life. Either that or you just check out. Now, part of that issue as well is I don't think women really care about men's issues generally. Or, maybe they think its wrong, but they are still busy with their own fights to focus efforts to help men organize. Plenty of men in history have fought for women's rights and continue to do so. It took women though to organize these movements and point us men to where we need to go.
> 
> It's just different as most men tend to be action oriented. Here's a physical threat, we know what actions we need to take. With a social movement, what are the steps of action we take that really feel like we are moving into action? I don't know that men are able to see it as well as women. Complaining doesn't feel like action. Organizing a discussion to hash out our grievances doesn't feel like action. Sitting around talking about it doesn't feel like action. We just aren't* wired for *these kinds of fights.


I don't think this is true At All. MLK was a dude. Ghandi was a dude. Etcetera. I honestly think this is a subconscious response to not knowing what action to take and not wanting to feel bummed out/guilty or whatever about it.

And this "hard wired" opinion bridges a vast array of issues to me. It is a mental adaptation to a feeling of lack of control. Ceding control because it is not changeable. Build in...


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I have a hard time with men getting a say in abortion for the simple reason that I know men are already talking women into abortions that they maybe don't want to have. I'm not a fan of a man having some sort of legal say in a woman being told to have an abortion.
> 
> Of course this could be solved by making abortion illegal outside of specific circumstances. * Lean more on personal responsibility and accountability*.


Don't love this. Leaning on "personal responsibility and accountability" requires both parties to sex be responsible but only one can be accountable with the consequences (the pregnancy).




> People on TAM hate cake eaters. Can't think of a worse cake eater than someone who is willing to be careless in their sex life and take no precautions, because they have the option of simply eliminating another's life to keep their life as it is currently.


Who is "they" in this case?


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

LOL...I was over there reading the forums for a bit and I could actually *feel* the spittle spewing from some of these guys' lips and see the grimaces on their faces as they angrily punched out their nasty posts on their keyboards. Holy cow! One guy was warning his male brethren that all women are liars and con artists and if a woman is acting nice toward them they'd better *beware* - it's simply an act in order for her to get something from them. :rofl:

Another guy was saying that there are red pill guys and there are blue pill guys. They are obviously the enlightened red pill guys and the blue pill guys out there are all "Man-ginas." They also claim these blue-pillers are enabling women to *be* the hideous deceitful, shape-changing, soul suckers they _really_ are. 

I have to admit it was entertaining as hell and I even found myself laughing out loud several times at the pure lunacy of some of their posts but MAN, a lot of those nut-jobs are over the top.


----------



## StillSearching

She'sStillGotIt said:


> LOL...I was over there reading the forums for a bit and I could actually *feel* the spittle spewing from some of these guys' lips and see the grimaces on their faces as they angrily punched out their nasty posts on their keyboards. Holy cow! One guy was warning his male brethren that all women are liars and con artists and if a woman is acting nice toward them they'd better *beware* - it's simply an act in order for her to get something from them. :rofl:
> 
> Another guy was saying that there are red pill guys and there are blue pill guys. They are obviously the enlightened red pill guys and the blue pill guys out there are all "Man-ginas." They also claim these blue-pillers are enabling women to *be* the hideous deceitful, shape-changing, soul suckers they _really_ are.
> 
> *I have to admit it was entertaining as hell and I even found myself laughing out loud several times at the pure lunacy of some of their posts but MAN, a lot of those nut-jobs are over the top*.


Maybe, but the rate of marriage in the west is dropping like a rock. 
Which is what MGTOW is pushing.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I have a hard time with men getting a say in abortion for the simple reason that I know men are already talking women into abortions that they maybe don't want to have. I'm not a fan of a man having some sort of legal say in a woman being told to have an abortion.
> 
> Of course this could be solved by making abortion illegal outside of specific circumstances. Lean more on personal responsibility and accountability. People on TAM hate cake eaters. Can't think of a worse cake eater than someone who is willing to be careless in their sex life and take no precautions, because they have the option of simply eliminating another's life to keep their life as it is currently.


But in the case where a man learns his wife/GF is pregnant, gets excited and she unilaterally decides to have an abortion regardless doesn't quite sit right. Its as much his child as it is hers, but he has zero say in the matterand she has all the say.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

She'sStillGotIt said:


> LOL...I was over there reading the forums for a bit and I could actually *feel* the spittle spewing from some of these guys' lips and see the grimaces on their faces as they angrily punched out their nasty posts on their keyboards. Holy cow! One guy was warning his male brethren that all women are liars and con artists and if a woman is acting nice toward them they'd better *beware* - it's simply an act in order for her to get something from them. <a href="http://talkaboutmarriage.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Rofl" ></a>
> 
> Another guy was saying that there are red pill guys and there are blue pill guys. They are obviously the enlightened red pill guys and the blue pill guys out there are all "Man-ginas." They also claim these blue-pillers are enabling women to *be* the hideous deceitful, shape-changing, soul suckers they _really_ are.
> 
> I have to admit it was entertaining as hell and I even found myself laughing out loud several times at the pure lunacy of some of their posts but MAN, a lot of those nut-jobs are over the top.


Go to youtube and search 'Turd Flinging Monkey'. Interesting if nothing else.


----------



## NobodySpecial

StillSearching said:


> Maybe, but the rate of marriage in the west is dropping like a rock.
> Which is what MGTOW is pushing.


It is also consistent with the drop in religiousity in the west. I don't think there is any one cause of dropping marriage rates that can be identified at this time. Aside from the fact that it seems like a good idea excepting, possibly, when children are involved.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> It is also consistent with the drop in religiousity in the west. I don't think there is any one cause of dropping marriage rates that can be identified at this time. Aside from the fact that it seems like a good idea excepting, possibly, when children are involved.


The problem is that, most of the time, kids* are* involved.

If kids aren't involved, I can't see the point in getting married.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is that, most of the time, kids* are* involved.
> 
> If kids aren't involved, I can't see the point in getting married.


I am not 100% clear what marriage does for kids, if you want to know the truth.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

NobodySpecial said:


> StillSearching said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but the rate of marriage in the west is dropping like a rock.
> Which is what MGTOW is pushing.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also consistent with the drop in religiousity in the west. I don't think there is any one cause of dropping marriage rates that can be identified at this time. Aside from the fact that it seems like a good idea excepting, possibly, when children are involved.
Click to expand...

Marriage use to mean access to sex. Since the sexual revolution, sex doesn't require a ring. So, what is there to gain for the higher earner...unless its the allusion of security that marriage brings for children, as you said.


----------



## NobodySpecial

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Marriage use to mean access to sex. Since the sexual revolution, sex doesn't require a ring. So, what is there to gain for the higher earner...unless its the allusion of security that marriage brings for children, as you said.


Quite right. That is why any stay-at-home parent who is not married is CRAZY IMO.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not 100% clear what marriage does for kids, if you want to know the truth.


At a minimum, it's a logistics problem.

Let's say that a man has 3 kids by 3 different women and his SO has 3 kids by 3 different men. Assuming 50/50 custody in all cases, just trying to organize who's where would be a problem.

Assuming that one parent can't just move across country with the kids, everyone's trapped in the same geographical area forever.

If there's an advantage in one parent de-prioritizing their career to spend more time with the kids, how would that work out when the higher earner can just walk away?

I understand that one doesn't do their kids any favors by staying in a bad marriage "for the kids sake", but that's all the kids with the same two parents and they get divorced and (usually) don't have more kids.

The idea of having kids with no regard for marriage at all seems impractical.


----------



## Mr. Nail

"propose laws that are concrete"
Ok I know concrete and I know law and there is no area of similarity, but to amuse you:
Make Paternity Insurance, available and required. Possibly government backed al a FDIC
Paternity testing before paternity is assigned.
Streamline adoption procedures. 
Complete backlog of DNA testing, irregardless of victims preference. 
Make marriage a private legal contract (abolish state licencing) (individual tax returns for all, proof of support required to claim a dependent, no age limit)
Make paternity fraud libel.
Prosecute false reporting (good faith reporting ok)

I could propose these to my legislators, but they are too busy passing bills that they know have no chance of being enacted.


----------



## NobodySpecial

^^In recent times, custody and child support has begun to be separate from spousal support. Cases where it has been granted without marriage are happening. I think this is a good thing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> "propose laws that are concrete"
> Ok I know concrete and I know law and there is no area of similarity, but to amuse you:
> Make Paternity Insurance, available and required. Possibly government backed al a FDIC
> Paternity testing before paternity is assigned.
> Streamline adoption procedures.
> Complete backlog of DNA testing, irregardless of victims preference.
> Make marriage a private legal contract (abolish state licencing) (individual tax returns for all, proof of support required to claim a dependent, no age limit)
> Make paternity fraud libel.
> Prosecute false reporting (good faith reporting ok)
> 
> I could propose these to my legislators, but they are too busy passing bills that the know have no chance of being enacted.


Alas, it does not amuse me. You cite laws that are, indeed, concrete. But they are not so simple to unpack as you seem to think. I am right there with you wrt to civil marriage. But libel is libel though I don't see anything wrong with strict enforcement of paternity fraud. But anyway, I look forward to seeing an activist campaign that helps unpack these suggestions in the greater civil context. That would be pretty neat.


----------



## Mr. Nail

TBH laws are a lot like sausage which is why it takes hundreds of pages to unpack this kind of thinking. You have to include all those unpleasant bits of gristle in it and it would be unfair to the forum to include legislative language. As to the libel opinion, most law could be replaced with civil tort. It's been proposed before, the court is much more flexible than concrete law and the standard tends to keep up with the times. 

I also expected more amusement, but you saw me coming and decided not to address the topic of paternity insurance. sigh.

It has been explained to you why men do not initiate activists campaigns, you refused to believe it. I refuse to activate, I refuse to campaign. You See (actually you don't see, but I'll point it out for the masses) When you go your own way there is no Civil context great or small.


----------



## AandM

I'm sorry. I'm still stuck on the sentence, "Make paternity fraud libel". Did you mean, liable? Otherwise, I must be an idiot, because I cannot make sense of this statement. Paternity fraud is generally not committed by publications.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I was thinking of it as a false statement that causes damage to a person financially, socially, even legally. What would that be called?


----------



## AandM

Mr. Nail said:


> I was thinking of it as a false statement that causes damage to a person financially, socially, even legally. What would that be called?


Fraud.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> TBH laws are a lot like sausage which is why it takes hundreds of pages to unpack this kind of thinking. You have to include all those unpleasant bits of gristle in it and it would be unfair to the forum to include legislative language. As to the libel opinion, most law could be replaced with civil tort. It's been proposed before, the court is much more flexible than concrete law and the standard tends to keep up with the times.


Thus is democracy. It favors people who get in the game.



> I also expected more amusement, but you saw me coming and decided not to address the topic of paternity insurance. sigh.


Saw you coming? I don't even know what paternity insurance is. Is there a market for it? Go for it. There is your first million. 


> It has been explained to you why men do not initiate activists campaigns, you refused to believe it.


If it has, I have no recollection of it. In fact, it is not even true that "men" don't. As we know PoI is part of a group. I have donated to our local group many times.




> I refuse to activate, I refuse to campaign. You See (actually you don't see, but I'll point it out for the masses) When you go your own way there is no Civil context great or small.


Your choice. Thank goodness for the internet to complain on!


----------



## personofinterest

Mr. Nail said:


> "propose laws that are concrete"
> Ok I know concrete and I know law and there is no area of similarity, but to amuse you:
> Make Paternity Insurance, available and required. Possibly government backed al a FDIC
> Paternity testing before paternity is assigned.
> Streamline adoption procedures.
> Complete backlog of DNA testing, irregardless of victims preference.
> Make marriage a private legal contract (abolish state licencing) (individual tax returns for all, proof of support required to claim a dependent, no age limit)
> Make paternity fraud libel.
> Prosecute false reporting (good faith reporting ok)
> 
> I could propose these to my legislators, but they are too busy passing bills that they know have no chance of being enacted.


Yes yes yes yes


----------



## uhtred

Surveillance: people are tracked through more and more of their lives. We are not far from a situation where people have audio and often video recording 24/7. When that happens, if there is an accusation of rape, the courts will be able to pull the records and let the jury see what happened. 

Lots of people have Alexa or similar in their homes. Most people carry cell phones which accurately record your location. Many modern entertainment devices have video and audio recording capability. 

Many rape cases are difficult to prosecute because there are no witnesses and while its easy to prove sex occurred, consent is difficult to prove. Surveillance will fix that problem. 

I'm not in favor of universal surveillance, but I think its coming -and not far in the future eithre. 




NobodySpecial said:


> We could get a WHOLE lot closer with more attention put on birth control options for men where they have CHOICES abotu their reproduction.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing surveillance on what?


----------



## Laurentium

She'sStillGotIt said:


> One guy was warning his male brethren that all women are liars and con artists and if a woman is acting nice toward them they'd better *beware* - it's simply an act in order for her to get something from them.
> 
> Another guy was saying that there are red pill guys and there are blue pill guys. They are obviously the enlightened red pill guys and the blue pill guys out there are all "Man-ginas."


A lot of this stuff looks to me like low-level autistic spectrum problems. Difficulty in understanding social nuances, and a tendency to use techno-speak jargon.


----------



## uhtred

Marriage is a social statement, and provides some legal benefits that take effort to provide in other ways (power of attorney, medical etc). I often provides healthcare benefits as well.

The trick is to only marry someone that you can trust absolutely. I you can't trust them, then marriage is a bad idea. 




UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Marriage use to mean access to sex. Since the sexual revolution, sex doesn't require a ring. So, what is there to gain for the higher earner...unless its the allusion of security that marriage brings for children, as you said.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> Thus is democracy. It favors people who get in the game.
> 
> 
> Saw you coming? I don't even know what paternity insurance is. Is there a market for it? Go for it. There is your first million.
> 
> If it has, I have no recollection of it. In fact, it is not even true that "men" don't. As we know PoI is part of a group. I have donated to our local group many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your choice. Thank goodness for the internet to complain on!


One of the men in my organization spoke before his state legislature last week. Several of them are working on various potential bills to make 50/50 custody the rule (why is it not already????)

One guy who I applaud is trying to introduce legislation that reverses the old cash for visitation standard. Instead of "I'll keep junior away from me till you give my my money!" it would be "You don't let junior's father have access to his son/daughter, you get no check!"

I personally am also in favor of some sort of paper trail being required for child support expenditures.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Surveillance: people are tracked through more and more of their lives. We are not far from a situation where people have audio and often video recording 24/7. When that happens, if there is an accusation of rape, the courts will be able to pull the records and let the jury see what happened.
> 
> Lots of people have Alexa or similar in their homes. Most people carry cell phones which accurately record your location. Many modern entertainment devices have video and audio recording capability.
> 
> Many rape cases are difficult to prosecute because there are no witnesses and while its easy to prove sex occurred, consent is difficult to prove. Surveillance will fix that problem.
> 
> I'm not in favor of universal surveillance, but I think its coming -and not far in the future eithre.


Well won't that be an interesting Constitutional conversation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

personofinterest said:


> One of the men in my organization spoke before his state legislature last week. Several of them are working on various potential bills to make 50/50 custody the rule (why is it not already????)


I don't remember where you are. It is here. Tell your gent friends Nobody over in nowhere internet land says GO! GO! GO!



> One guy who I applaud is trying to introduce legislation that reverses the old cash for visitation standard. Instead of "I'll keep junior away from me till you give my my money!" it would be "You don't let junior's father have access to his son/daughter, you get no check!"
> 
> I personally am also in favor of some sort of paper trail being required for child support expenditures.


I have no opinion (that I am interested in sharing) on those 2 issues. But I strongly applaud those men!!


----------



## Laurentium

AandM said:


> I'm sorry. I'm still stuck on the sentence, "Make paternity fraud libel". Did you mean, liable? Otherwise, I must be an idiot, because I cannot make sense of this statement. Paternity fraud is generally not committed by publications.


You don't need to be a publication to commit libel. Just knowingly sign a form stating something untrue about someone else.


----------



## personofinterest

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't remember where you are. It is here. Tell your gent friends Nobody over in nowhere internet land says GO! GO! GO!
> 
> 
> 
> I have no opinion (that I am interested in sharing) on those 2 issues. But I strongly applaud those men!!


These men continually amaze me. One was kept away from his daughter for 10 months for no good reason AT ALL. Another has to fly to see his child because Mama managed to move 700 miles away "under the radar."

Sadly, I am in a place where - especially in the rural counties - the family court system is stuck in the 1960s.

But to go back completely on topic. I KNOW the men at TAM have just as much gumption as these men. I mean, if these guys can take up the cause I know TAM men can too.


----------



## NobodySpecial

uhtred said:


> Marriage is a social statement, and provides some legal benefits that take effort to provide in other ways (power of attorney, medical etc). I often provides healthcare benefits as well.


I think having it take effort to provide would be enormously helpful to society. We often hear how horrible divorce is. If that is true, it is because marriage is too derned easy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Laurentium said:


> You don't need to be a publication to commit libel. Just knowingly sign a form stating something untrue about someone else.


It is a more than odd way to put it. Fraud is already fraud. Which is prosecutable. But we don't. This is not a good thing.

Libel laws are not about fraud and are actually hard to prosecute.


----------



## AandM

Laurentium said:


> You don't need to be a publication to commit libel. Just knowingly sign a form stating something untrue about someone else.


True. I didn't think about it actually being stated on the birth certificate.


----------



## Mr. Nail

That is that unpacking thing. If we deny the states the right to licence (regulate) marriage, then we have to adjust all of those concrete laws that refer to marriage. 
Yes marriage is too easy. But unlinking it from a bunch of rights would make governing easier. Many people also think that there should be some kind of required training for parents. It would be to the benefit of children, if the government surprised us and got it right.


----------



## personofinterest

> if the government surprised us and got it right.


I don't even want to THINK about the child rearing advice today's government/society would dole out. Terrifying.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> That is that unpacking thing. If we deny the states the right to licence (regulate) marriage, then we have to adjust all of those concrete laws that refer to marriage.


Yes. That kind of goes back to getting in the game. Which you are not interested in. You never did share the reasoning behind that. 



> Yes marriage is too easy. But unlinking it from a bunch of rights would make governing easier. Many people also think that there should be some kind of required training for parents. It would be to the benefit of children, if the government surprised us and got it right.


Well now that goes even farther afield.


----------



## farsidejunky

NobodySpecial said:


> Well won't that be an interesting Constitutional conversation.


Yep.

In short...hell no.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

personofinterest said:


> I don't even want to THINK about the child rearing advice today's government/society would dole out. Terrifying.


QFT.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Deejo

Jeez, this MGTOW thing got really complex.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

uhtred said:


> Marriage is a social statement, and provides some legal benefits that take effort to provide in other ways (power of attorney, medical etc). I often provides healthcare benefits as well.
> 
> The trick is to only marry someone that you can trust absolutely. I you can't trust them, then marriage is a bad idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage use to mean access to sex. Since the sexual revolution, sex doesn't require a ring. So, what is there to gain for the higher earner...unless its the allusion of security that marriage brings for children, as you said.
Click to expand...

Yes, almost all of the benefits are for the lower earner. You basically get a tax break for filing jointly. Thats nice, but you have a 50/50 chance of losing waaaaaaay more in the instance of divorce. And you can always grant power of attorney to a family member if its that inportant to you.


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> Yes. That kind of goes back to getting in the game. Which you are not interested in. *You never did share the reasoning behind that*.
> 
> 
> 
> Well now that goes even farther afield.


To your satisfaction. You tend to ignore anything you don't agree with. I did tell you that you couldn't "see" it.

to reiterate: I have determined to go my own way. I accept no new women into my life. I am not part of the society that includes women. The laws that regulate the interactions between men and women are, bluntly, None of my business. If there are men who want to play that game, let them have at it. If there are women who want men to interact with they should support this, but may prefer the status quo. So not being a member of the civilization, I have no responsibility to the Greater Civil (condition). It's someone else's problem. To me it is just an interesting theory. No practical application.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> To your satisfaction.


I must have been mistaken. I thought you had said MEN don't activate.



> You tend to ignore anything you don't agree with. I did tell you that you couldn't "see" it.
> 
> to reiterate: I have determined to go my own way. I accept no new women into my life. I am not part of the society that includes women. The laws that regulate the interactions between men and women are, bluntly, None of my business. If there are men who want to play that game, let them have at it. If there are women who want men to interact with they should support this, but may prefer the status quo. So not being a member of the civilization, I have no responsibility to the Greater Civil (condition). It's someone else's problem. To me it is just an interesting theory. No practical application.


Know thyself.


----------



## uhtred

NobodySpecial said:


> Well won't that be an interesting Constitutional conversation.


Do Americans have a constitutional right to privacy? I wish they did, but I didn't think there was. 

to be clear, I *hate* the surveillance state, but that seems to be where we are going (supported by both parties btw)


----------



## uhtred

Fortunately marriage isn't compulsory. I think many people get married who should not have done so. I've personally never regretted it after >30 yeras. 



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yes, almost all of the benefits are for the lower earner. You basically get a tax break for filing jointly. Thats nice, but you have a 50/50 chance of losing waaaaaaay more in the instance of divorce. And you can always grant power of attorney to a family member if its that inportant to you.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> I am not 100% clear what marriage does for kids, if you want to know the truth.


Marriage specifically? Well it creates incentive to try and work out issues to stay together because as the song says "its cheaper to keep her" 

In terms of a single parent home? Do you really not know what the statistics are for kids raised in a single parent household VS kids raised in a two parent home?


----------



## TheDudeLebowski

NobodySpecial said:


> Don't love this. Leaning on "personal responsibility and accountability" requires both parties to sex be responsible but only one can be accountable with the consequences (the pregnancy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in this case?


Ultimately the woman is the gate keeper. She can refuse sex without protection. "They" would be women who use abortion as a plan B when they are careless with intercourse. If the women have more to risk, perhaps they are the ones who need to be more responsible you know? Imagine that concept of being personally responsible for the decision to allow a man to ejaculate inside of YOUR body without any protection. Your cake eating option is to just allow that, and take another life later if it turns out you made a bad decision with your own life. Seems pretty ****ed up to me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Marriage specifically? Well it creates incentive to try and work out issues to stay together because as the song says "its cheaper to keep her"
> 
> In terms of a single parent home? Do you really not know what the statistics are for kids raised in a single parent household VS kids raised in a two parent home?


The context of the discussion was legal, the value of civil marriage. I think the number of people occupying the home is not the significant factor in why children do well there. And that incentivising marriage for that purpose is a social engineering fail.


----------



## NobodySpecial

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Ultimately the woman is the gate keeper. She can refuse sex without protection. "They" would be women who use abortion as a plan B when they are careless with intercourse. If the women have more to risk, perhaps they are the ones who need to be more responsible you know? Imagine that concept of being personally responsible for the decision to allow a man to ejaculate inside of YOUR body without any protection. Your cake eating option is to just allow that, and take another life later if it turns out you made a bad decision with your own life. Seems pretty ****ed up to me.


Well a bunch of guys marching and activating for the status quo won't be a march I'm going to join. MGTOW sounds pretty good to me at that point.


----------



## personofinterest

It's pretty simple. Man who actually care about change and other men will do what the man in my organization do. Man who just want to pitch temper tantrums and talk about what unfair lives they have led will rant on forums and read it and spew red pill rhetoric, all while inventing neat phrases to describe women like gate keeper and such.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> To your satisfaction. You tend to ignore anything you don't agree with. I did tell you that you couldn't "see" it.
> 
> to reiterate: I have determined to go my own way. I accept no new women into my life. I am not part of the society that includes women. The laws that regulate the interactions between men and women are, bluntly, None of my business. If there are men who want to play that game, let them have at it. If there are women who want men to interact with they should support this, but may prefer the status quo. So not being a member of the civilization, I have no responsibility to the Greater Civil (condition). It's someone else's problem. To me it is just an interesting theory. No practical application.


One point of curiosity. Why do you choose a marriage forum to hang out at if you prefer to be part only of a society that does not include women?


----------



## Livvie

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> TheDudeLebowski said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a hard time with men getting a say in abortion for the simple reason that I know men are already talking women into abortions that they maybe don't want to have. I'm not a fan of a man having some sort of legal say in a woman being told to have an abortion.
> 
> Of course this could be solved by making abortion illegal outside of specific circumstances. Lean more on personal responsibility and accountability. People on TAM hate cake eaters. Can't think of a worse cake eater than someone who is willing to be careless in their sex life and take no precautions, because they have the option of simply eliminating another's life to keep their life as it is currently.
> 
> 
> 
> But in the case where a man learns his wife/GF is pregnant, gets excited and she unilaterally decides to have an abortion regardless doesn't quite sit right. Its as much his child as it is hers, but he has zero say in the matterand she has all the say.
Click to expand...

This is where his choice comes in, his SAY comes in, before conception. Don't have sex with a woman unless you know where she stands on abortion if conception occurs. Know, really well, who you are ****ing. And if you can't be sure what she'd do if she becomes pregnant, either don't have sex with her, or make damn sure there are many birth control methods being used.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Livvie said:


> This is where his choice comes in, his SAY comes in, before conception. Don't have sex with a woman unless you know where she stands on abortion if conception occurs. Know, really well, who you are ****ing. And if you can't be sure what she'd do if she becomes pregnant, either don't have sex with her, or make damn sure there are many birth control methods being used.


The problem is the woman can change her mind.... or deliberately deceive to begin with.

Here's the huge logical flaw under the current status quo.

Abortion is aok because it's just a nonviable clump of cells, not a baby. If that's the case, then the man is not capable of making a baby...he can only participate in the making of a zygote. The woman and the woman only can turn that nonviable cell clump into an actual baby. Also, the woman and the woman only has complete dominion over her body, of which that nonviable clump of cells (not a baby) is part. So far so good, logically speaking.

But... it's entirely, 100% her decision to turn that nonviable clump of cells into an actual baby. 100%. But while it's 100% her choice to make a baby as only she can, it's still (at least) 50% dad's responsibility to support the child.

It's a having your cake and eating it too cop out to say that the guy had say when he had sex, since he couldn't have made a baby, only a zygote. 

If he's actually making a baby, then he would have some say in the abortion. You can't have is both ways, at least logically.


----------



## personofinterest

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where his choice comes in, his SAY comes in, before conception. Don't have sex with a woman unless you know where she stands on abortion if conception occurs. Know, really well, who you are ****ing. And if you can't be sure what she'd do if she becomes pregnant, either don't have sex with her, or make damn sure there are many birth control methods being used.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the woman can change her mind.... or deliberately deceive to begin with.
> 
> Here's the huge logical flaw under the current status quo.
> 
> Abortion is aok because it's just a nonviable clump of cells, not a baby. If that's the case, then the man is not capable of making a baby...he can only participate in the making of a zygote. The woman and the woman only can turn that nonviable cell clump into an actual baby. Also, the woman and the woman only has complete dominion over her body, of which that nonviable clump of cells (not a baby) is part. So far so good, logically speaking.
> 
> But... it's entirely, 100% her decision to turn that nonviable clump of cells into an actual baby. 100%. But while it's 100% her choice to make a baby as only she can, it's still (at least) 50% dad's responsibility to support the child.
> 
> It's a having your cake and eating it too cop out to say that the guy had say when he had sex, since he couldn't have made a baby, only a zygote.
> 
> If he's actually making a baby, then he would have some say in the abortion. You can't have is both ways, at least logically.
Click to expand...

If a woman is not to be "forced" to carry a child she doesn't want, then a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want.

Unless a woman is a hypocrite.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

personofinterest said:


> If a woman is not to be "forced" to carry a child she doesn't want, then a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want.
> 
> Unless a woman is a hypocrite.


Wow. You just said in a single, simple sentence what took me three paragraphs, and more effectively as well. Nicely done.


----------



## Luminous

personofinterest said:


> If a woman is not to be "forced" to carry a child she doesn't want, then a man shouldn't be forced to pay for a child he doesn't want.
> 
> Unless a woman is a hypocrite.


Bingo.

And that is really worth a discussion, in this day and age where many preach equality.


----------



## uhtred

Unfortunately there are just physical differences.

A world where a man can force a woman to abort her child is horrifying, even if she agreed to abort an accidental pregnancy before they had sex. 

Many of the reasons women want the right to abortion apply to men not wanting to be responsible for a child for the rest of their lives. Its only the physical pregnancy that is different. 

I don't have any good answers. 





Livvie said:


> This is where his choice comes in, his SAY comes in, before conception. Don't have sex with a woman unless you know where she stands on abortion if conception occurs. Know, really well, who you are ****ing. And if you can't be sure what she'd do if she becomes pregnant, either don't have sex with her, or make damn sure there are many birth control methods being used.


----------

