# The MGTOW movement. Do you really know anyone? More for the daters



## bobsmith

For anyone not in the know, that means "men going their own way". Probably some other terms used. This seems to be promoted on youtube, and it is interesting to me just because that is what I have done. I am curious if you guys 'actually' know someone doing this? As I follow some of this stuff, the comments would indicate a bunch of betas feeding into this while still begging for phone numbers. 

I can 100% appreciate the reasons behind this stuff such as how men as father figures is now totally disregarded in the legal system, and they are just financial resources. However, I suspect many are not MGTOW by choice. I have yet to even meet another one! 

I will admit though, the ones online all seem the same.....they have been terribly burned and no longer willing even test the water. 

I think the most entertaining part of this for me is all this "training" I see. How to date, how to talk to a girl, how to approach, what to say, how to hold your arms, your feet, your etc, etc, the list just keeps going! The best is how to learn to be an "alpha male".......Complete with the Brad starter kit! News flash, some people cannot be changed.


----------



## RebuildingMe

I dismissed MGTOW because it’s too radical and most go monk. I like women and I like sex. I don’t want to live off the grid like Ted Kaczynski. I’m more of a red pill guy. Anti marriage, anti cohabitation, anti commingling. Just enjoy life and enjoy the company you are with.


----------



## bobsmith

At least the stuff I saw, I don't think it was so much complete avoidance, it is just avoiding anything that includes "settling down".....I know I for one make no claims about avoiding sex, but if one talks to me about 'settling down', I set them straight real fast.


----------



## Enigma32

One of my oldest, best friends probably qualifies. He wouldn't call himself a MGTOW but he is one. He had one long term GF when he was like 19-22 or so. She screwed him over and he never got interested in women again. I've talked to him about it a few times over the years and he just has no time for females. He says every married couple he knows is either miserable like his parents or the woman screwed her husband over. He enjoys playing video games and watching anime and has no interest in having a woman come into his life messing it up. When he feels the need, he either turns on porn or hires a pro. He hasn't had an actual date in almost 20 years.


----------



## bobsmith

Man, that was super young to walk off the field. Is he possibly on the gay side or confused in that way? Does he have friends? It is interesting. 
I really don't like to put a 'label' on it. I would not say I quit women totally, just removed the possibility of 'till death do us part'. I didn't realize I was viewed as a Chad anyway. Hell even a classmate I hung out with 2mo ago was shocked I had 2 kids. Apparently I don't look the "parent type"....whatever that is. 

I just wonder how many men have actually sworn off this marriage gig. I realize some states still screw men with the "common law" BS but......


----------



## Enigma32

Yeah, he was young. I kinda figured it was a stage he would get over really, but then he never got over it. Now, he has his life a certain way and it's all he wants. If you even mention women to him he acts like the idea of a wife is preposterous. It's kinda sad to me.

I think a lot of people never meet the real MGTOW people like him because they don't talk about it. They just go to their job and go home. He doesn't have many friends, really just me.


----------



## manowar

bobsmith said:


> I just wonder how many men have actually sworn off this marriage gig.


More than you can imagine. Unintended consequences. Marriage rates in the US are at 120-year lows. As I say the nice-guy may be naive but he ain't stupid.

We've covered the reasons why on threads here. But here is part of the why. Women today have a plethora of choices vs 100 years ago. Women have the upper hand in dating. its not even close. 100 years ago the woman who lived in the small village had three guys to choose from. All average guys say. Today she's got online dating to go well outside that village. Let's assume she's nice looking. those three guys from 100 years ago don't stand a chance. She's finding what she considers better prospects in a larger geographical area. eventually, she leaves the village for good.

Statistics have shown that about 80% of the women go for 20% of the men on OLDating. Think about that! OLD has nothing to do with being funny or nice or any of that other bullshyt. It's about pictures. The avg guy is a dismal failure on OLD sending out 50-100 texts for maybe one response. Are you kidding me? What idiot would do that?. these were generally the stable steady guys for marriage. This carries over into the real world. The expectations of women have risen to fantasyland proportions in their demands. they want a movie star, with big bank, 6-pack abs, and lean 6'2". This means that a guy has to be above average good-looking. The average guy is having a very difficult time in the dating market pre-30 years old. Post 30 they do better as their careers develop. In the meantime, many of these women are far ahead of these guys in terms of their sexual experience. The girls tend to settle for these post 30 average guys as Provider types. Yet the marriage-divorce machine is draconian. The women have the new rules for dating where they seek the best-looking guys and later settle for the average guy but they get the old rules for marriage.

Men are not idiots and they are waking up. This is why you get MGTOW. MGTOW appeals to the bottom 80% of men. Women control dating (who they'll go out with and be nice too) and who they'll have sex with. Fine. These women treat these average guys like crap. But men have power too. It's called commitment. They are finally realizing they hold a counterweight. Nature has a funny way of doing that. They are withholding their commitment to marriage. Can you blame them?

Marriage rates imo will plummet in the next couple of decades as our current Relic of Marriage and its Divorce Laws are abandoned. These men are not going to blow their hard-earned resources on these women who now want to settle down.
They are happier without them. they have a pretty damn good argument.
.


----------



## RandomDude

I dont get this really, like, what movement? You want to be celibate, go for it, you want live a single life no strings attached, go for it. What's all the fuss about?
The way I see it, if you met wonder woman, marry her. If not, set sail and dock your boat wherever port you wish or none at all.

As for MGTOW apparently appealing to the '80%' of men that gets shafted in the dating game, it's not like them withholding their commitment does anything as the '20%' has all the fun without commitment anyway lol  so what counterweight?

On a serious note, I'm an average guy, and from FWBs to my ex-wife in the past to my now partner it's not like every woman is looking for a man to screw over or looks at him as nothing more than a willy and wallet combo. Many do, sure, but who cares about them once you learn how to discern who is worth investing in and who isn't.


----------



## bobsmith

I really don't think there are all that many men that are committed to MGTOW, I think they are stuck in it! As all the average Lindas chase the Chads and convinced it will all work out. 

But you are right, at least IMO, that marriage rates will continue to drop and men like me will educated the younger ones to wrap it tight and DO NOT put a ring on it! I realize women will be appalled with that but if they really don't like it, they need to advocate for more fair laws because they already have advantages just being women. Then you couple that they usually get the kids, get the house, get 50% of the 401K they did not earn as a stay at home, etc, etc. 

I say this with experience from a complete ***** I was both dumb enough and lucky enough to date. Dumb that I did not follow my instinct, and lucky I did not knock her up. Her motive was to limit her baby daddy's as much as possible and always worried he would find a lesser job and she would not get as much. She is now a stay at home with another smart guy that is also a complete idiot and gave her 2 kids. They WILL get a divorce, but it will take until the kids are older, she will probably get the big new house, and he will get to do some stiff learning. 

But here is what REALLY worries me. Smarter guys like me are going to walk away from this BS. However, all the illegals, project folks, and those on welfare are free to populate at will because we just throw them money. So we will literally populate the country with idiots and the smarter guys will pull back. 

I make not qualms about telling people our country is getting dumber by the generation because I genuinely believe it's true!!!! Look at the damn state of our government!!!!!!!! We literally have a geriatric president that doesn't know the difference between a pen and pencil! We have absolute morons running through the streets destroying america because a drug dealer encountered a POS cop. This type of behavior will 100% continue to get worse! I have zero motivation to potentially pass on my genius IQ to offspring. It sucks but at the rates we are going, I am not sure much will matter in 100yrs anyway.


----------



## manowar

RandomDude said:


> As for MGTOW apparently appealing to the '80%' of men that gets shafted in the dating game, it's not like them withholding their commitment does anything as the '20%' has all the fun without commitment anyway lol  so what counterweight?


No it doesn't. But when those girls want to settle down and there are not enough of the top 20% to go around you have the counterweight. These guys were typically pushovers and still are. But things are changing as the marriage rates indicate. their point is that even though they got shafted in the dating game, they don't want to get shafted in the marriage game where they are compelled by the iron fist of the divorce machine to redistribute their assets in a divorce. it's a rational response to their value which is primarily as a wallet. Often to a woman who comes in with nothing but her mini skirt and high heels. W/holding of commitment avoids the high risk of the marriage game. They don't want to make their resources available. We are talking about the hordes of average guys who have been told that they are not good enough.



RandomDude said:


> The way I see it, if you met wonder woman, marry her. If not, set sail and dock your boat wherever port you wish or none at all.


Good point. C'est la vie.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Mgtow covers a lot. From not dating at all to literally just living your life on your terms and no what you are supposed to do according to society norms. I think the latter is the way to go. The roi on modern marriage is pretty low. At this stage in my life I'm not willing to risk my assets by getting married again. However I do not think avoiding women is the answer. Having boundaries, chasing excellence, and enjoying life on your own terms is.


----------



## DudeInProgress

I’m not sure how big the MGTOW “movement” really is. I don’t know any MGTOW guys. 
I know guys that won’t marry again, but no MGTOW monk types that have sworn off women and relationships entirely. 

Going full MGTOW just seems pathetic to me, like a bunch of losers that can’t or won’t figure out how to play the game effectively so they take some kind of weird pride in quitting and dropping out of a significant part of human life.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> But you are right, at least IMO, that marriage rates will continue to drop and men like me will educated the younger ones to wrap it tight and *DO NOT put a ring on it*!


LOL You've never been married. But, keep chasing wrinkle creams and hair dye and blemish concealer and the most flattering fashions if that makes you happy.


----------



## Rus47

I have never known anyone in this "movement", probably because it is a recent phenomena fueled by OLD? Have had a lot of friends chewed up by the divorce industry, but most of them are married again so it must not have been that bad for them ( at least none complain like they did about their earlier marriages ). And the ones who aren't remarried would if they met the right one. Surely there are lonely females who don't rely on OLD, and also aren't just waiting to take advantage of some 'poor' man. Are there women who have maybe joined WGTOW? I always think that there are 3-4 billion +- women in this world, most of whom like men. Maybe the western world is not the best place to look.

If a person sees some conspiracy in why their life is how it is, it is easier than looking within. And there are plenty of opportunities on with the internet to commiserate with others feeling the same way. To each his ( or her ) own.


----------



## OnTheFly

Enigma32 said:


> One of my oldest, best friends probably qualifies. He wouldn't call himself a MGTOW but he is one. He had one long term GF when he was like 19-22 or so. She screwed him over and he never got interested in women again. I've talked to him about it a few times over the years and he just has no time for females. He says every married couple he knows is either miserable like his parents or the woman screwed her husband over. He enjoys playing video games and watching anime and has no interest in having a woman come into his life messing it up. When he feels the need, he either turns on porn or hires a pro. He hasn't had an actual date in almost 20 years.


My older brother is basically the same, except for the ''pro'' part, lol, (or maybe not??)

He's lived the MGTOW mindset for decades. He had no idea the concept of MGTOW until I showed him some videos and he just said, ''so, I'm not the only one, then?''. Of course, MGTOW isn't monolithic, and there's plenty of the videos that he disagrees with, but he's clearly in that camp. He's not gay, and he's content in his choices.


----------



## Diana7

DudeInProgress said:


> I’m not sure how big the MGTOW “movement” really is. I don’t know any MGTOW guys.
> I know guys that won’t marry again, but no MGTOW monk types that have sworn off women and relationships entirely.
> 
> Going full MGTOW just seems pathetic to me, like a bunch of losers that can’t or won’t figure out how to play the game effectively so they take some kind of weird pride in quitting and dropping out of a significant part of human life.
> View attachment 76840


I agree. They face one let down in life and can't even understand that it was only one women out of billions. They can't get over one hurtful experience without throwing in the towel. Where is people's resilience, their fortitude, their get up and go?
Sad really. 
All the young men I know are actually married, going to get married or want to be married which is encouraging. 
I am thankful that we didn't let former marriage break up's stop us, we have a happy marriage to show for it.


----------



## CountryMike

In the old days the normal thought process of men was to mature, be self supporting, independent, and strong emotionally and best you could physically. 

Main point was growing to an independent man, where you took life straight on.

Seems a little weak way out to create a new fad like mgtow and blame every failing on others.


----------



## anchorwatch

Hooey!

This all sounds like a lot bitter of 7-year-olds crying about how unfair life is. Then going about convincing themselves and others that society has it stacked against them and women are out to subjugate them. Appealing to fear.

Alphas don't whine.


----------



## Rus47

Diana7 said:


> I agree. They face one let down in life and can't even understand that it was only one women out of billions. They can't get over one hurtful experience without throwing in the towel. *Where is people's resilience, their fortitude, their get up and go?*
> Sad really.
> All the young men I know are actually married, going to get married or want to be married which is encouraging.
> I am thankful that we didn't let former marriage break up's stop us, we have a happy marriage to show for it.


I always think about you Brits facing the Blitz alone anytime hear complaints about how tough life is. What an example of what the human spirit can achieve!


----------



## Rus47

CountryMike said:


> *In the old days the normal thought process of men was to mature, be self supporting, independent, and strong emotionally and best you could physically.*
> 
> Main point was growing to an independent man, where you took life straight on.
> 
> Seems a little weak way out to create a new fad like mgtow and blame every failing on others.


In Ancient times a man had to be self-supporting and independent before mating was possible. Marriage was arranged, and before a man was considered by the bride's family he had to be able to support a family.


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> I always think about you Brits facing the Blitz alone anytime hear complaints about how tough life is. What an example of what the human spirit can achieve!


Agreed, people went through so much and didn't complain either.


----------



## RandomDude

manowar said:


> No it doesn't. But when those girls want to settle down and there are not enough of the top 20% to go around you have the counterweight. These guys were typically pushovers and still are. But things are changing as the marriage rates indicate. their point is that even though they got shafted in the dating game, they don't want to get shafted in the marriage game where they are compelled by the iron fist of the divorce machine to redistribute their assets in a divorce. it's a rational response to their value which is primarily as a wallet. Often to a woman who comes in with nothing but her mini skirt and high heels. W/holding of commitment avoids the high risk of the marriage game. They don't want to make their resources available. We are talking about the hordes of average guys who have been told that they are not good enough.


Well if they don't want to be shafted in a bad divorce they can sign a prenup. If their lady friend doesn't want to they can next her.

As for the "80%" and "20%", I placed ""s for a reason lol. I don't believe in that ratio. Life isn't so simple  
Nor are women all one-dimensional gold diggers lol



Diana7 said:


> I agree. They face one let down in life and can't even understand that it was only one women out of billions. They can't get over one hurtful experience without throwing in the towel. Where is people's resilience, their fortitude, their get up and go?
> Sad really.
> All the young men I know are actually married, going to get married or want to be married which is encouraging.
> I am thankful that we didn't let former marriage break up's stop us, we have a happy marriage to show for it.


I don't even care about whether folks want to get married or not, but I definitely think folks have no need to pull a Marvin on the world:


----------



## DownButNotOut

[QUOTE="RandomDude, post: 20341093, member: 18952"

As for the "80%" and "20%", I placed ""s for a reason lol. I don't believe in that ratio. Life isn't so simple 
Nor are women all one-dimensional gold diggers lol

[/QUOTE]
Life may not be that simple, but Tinder is. The 80/20 rule thing really applies to OLD, where it is based on several studies of different apps on men and women's swiping habits. That 80% of the women are competing for 20% of the men by swipes/likes.

Sometimes I think we "old-timers" don't understand what the birth of social media has done to the dating market for the youngin's these days. From what I see, I would never recommend a young man marry in today's market.


----------



## Rus47

DownButNotOut said:


> [QUOTE="RandomDude, post: 20341093, member: 18952"
> 
> As for the "80%" and "20%", I placed ""s for a reason lol. I don't believe in that ratio. Life isn't so simple
> Nor are women all one-dimensional gold diggers lol


Life may not be that simple, but Tinder is. The 80/20 rule thing really applies to OLD, where it is based on several studies of different apps on men and women's swiping habits. That 80% of the women are competing for 20% of the men by swipes/likes.

Sometimes I think we "old-timers" don't understand what the birth of social media has done to the dating market for the youngin's these days. From what I see, I would never recommend a young man marry in today's market.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe people are "lookin for love in all the wrong places". All of my kids are married. One used OLD to meet current wife. My grandkids actively dating. None complaining the deck stacked against them.


----------



## bobsmith

I do realize I threw this question on a "marriage site"...but thought you guys might know a few. As I said, there are varying degrees of this "movement" if we want to call it that. I think some folks are hyper focused on the "relationship side" of the talk to realize there are other factors. Some that are written into law. There are real facts and statistics regarding cheating and divorce. 

I can only speak for myself in which I don't hate women at all, but I'd compare them to a Leopard. They are pretty, really nice fur, can be sweet, but when those claws come out, you better have an exit strategy!!! It's not just her, it's her, the government, and society that tends to default blame towards the man.

Regarding OLD, I can again only speak for my area but I suspect the same in other parts. There are VERY few attractive women on there! I don't want to get into shaming anyone but.....I think these few women are simply flooded with messages and I learned quickly it was pointless. Of the few I chatted with, they made it clear they were overwhelmed and I needed to make a decision on the spot. I did a little digging online to try to understand the statistics but either I am only a 5 online, or other dudes are flat out lying. They were trying to see "how many dates can I get"....lmao. If there is non quality factor in there, I assure you it is quite easy. Some women take pics on their couch! Can you imagine how clean she keeps that engine?


----------



## Theborg

Ya'll can keep your MGTOW, I've got BOB....battery-operated boyfriend....men are obsolete.


----------



## anchorwatch

Just more of the deck is stacked... and right into degrading women for attracting more numbers of the opposite sex.


----------



## 342693

Never heard of MGTOW until this thread. Does membership include soy milk and room and board in your parent's basement?


----------



## Diana7

DownButNotOut said:


> [QUOTE="RandomDude, post: 20341093, member: 18952"
> 
> As for the "80%" and "20%", I placed ""s for a reason lol. I don't believe in that ratio. Life isn't so simple
> Nor are women all one-dimensional gold diggers lol


Life may not be that simple, but Tinder is. The 80/20 rule thing really applies to OLD, where it is based on several studies of different apps on men and women's swiping habits. That 80% of the women are competing for 20% of the men by swipes/likes.

Sometimes I think we "old-timers" don't understand what the birth of social media has done to the dating market for the youngin's these days. From what I see, I would never recommend a young man marry in today's market.
[/QUOTE]



Tinder and similar are not ones I would ever use. To judge/choose based entirely on a photo is crazy. My husband didn't even have a photo up when I first contacted him. I was attracted by what he had written.


----------



## MEA

I’ve never personally met someone claiming to be MGTOW, but my daughter has encountered a few of them lurking online in video game forums. She knows to avoid them.
It’s one thing to be burned and go on a “I hate women” or “I hate men” rampage for a while. Quite another to base one’s lifestyle around it. As long as these guys are open and honest from the very start about their views, I see nothing wrong with it. If they are making a game out of tricking women into sex through deceit, then they are worse than the women they claim are “not worth it.”

I can understand the desire to swear off relationships after being abused or used. I planned on being alone for the rest of my life after two different a-holes during my twenties seemed to think relationships involved the man being catered to, making bad decisions, and even being abusive, while the woman was just supposed to be happy to be slave to a man. I decided I was better off alone, and research is starting to prove that women in general are better off single unless their partner truly IS Mr. Wonderful.
I’ve been happily married to my Mr. Wonderful for almost a decade now, and I tell him regularly he is a diamond in the rough. He thinks the same of me.
Who knows?
Maybe most people (male and female) are just too selfish to be in a relationship, and when they find out relationships aren’t all about their own needs being exclusively met, they blame society instead of themselves?
I’ve always though people should come with warning labels - self identification as MGTOW is actually doing quite a few women a favor… and vice versa.


----------



## Rus47

I would have said "Maybe SOME people (male and female) are just too selfish to be in a relationship." And, not ALL people are cut out for marriage or even an LTR. I like to think (maybe wrongly) that most men and women are too busy going about their lives and making it as best they can to spend five minutes feeling sorry for themselves because they were mistreated by a member of the opposite sex. They mostly pick themselves up, dust themselves off try to course correct and get back into the game. 

One thing I have observed with friends and relatives related to their relations with the opposite gender, is those who choose poorly seem to be stuck in the same spot over and over. Their picker is broken, so for example an abused woman picks abusers without fail over and over.


----------



## manowar

Rus47 said:


> Maybe people are "lookin for love in all the wrong places". All of my kids are married. One used OLD to meet current wife. My grandkids actively dating. None complaining the deck stacked against them.


You're looking at this with your old eyes and old mindset. I used to be in your camp that these guys are whiners and ought to man up the way we did. Then I took a closer look and this is what I discovered.

1. The dating market is nothing more than another market and can be looked at in terms of economic analysis (for those of you who have studied economics).

2. MGTOW is a macro market response to general market conditions. The demand and supply curves have shifted dramatically for the average guy (generally rated as 6 or less). There is greater supply and LESS DEMAND. Women also know there is a never-ending supply of thirsty men. These curves were kept in balance by the_ rule of monogamy_ when women had fewer options and relied upon men earlier in life. Some called it the Patriarchy. In other words, the market was REGULATED where men/women of similar types 6s, 5s, 7s matched up. the best time for average guys was 1900 - 1949 where men pretty much had a guaranteed match.

3. What we are seeing today is a DEREGULATED market. Women rule in this environment. This is where female nature is unleashed. We haven't seen this in a long long time. the stuff the bible warned about and most laughed it off as being incidents from a long-ago time. Hey, they warned us. AVG WOMEN wield substantial power in this environment. AVG women have the ability to go upwards and attain men of higher standing (7s,8s,9s). These are the guys who spread their seed far and wide as they are designed to do Hence your 20%ers. Avg men can try all they want but they have little power in this market. There is no demand for them. Why? They are deemed not good looking enough. 

4. LOOKS MATTER: If you are a man and your face is a certain way deemed average or unappealing by the voting females, you are fked. These guys can improve, get muscles, go alpha, but they can't change their face. Nor can a guy 5'5" put on more inches. It is so fking harsh until I stumbled upon this. This is Darwinism in action. We often hear the question "Does size matter"? The real question is "Does Face Matter?" It matters a lot. Women will never admit to it. they speak of personality and being funny and the rest of it. But they act in a different way.

5. we are retreating to our distant past. DNA studies show that 80% of our female ancestors reproduced while only 40% of males reproduced. Again. top guys got the with the females. this is how nature works. This is what MGTOW has recognized.

6. Try being a guy that is a 5 and getting with some girl on Tinder. Can't do it. No-fault of the guy. He just looks a certain way. 

Conclusion: The avg man is no match in terms of power as compared to the avg woman in the dating game. She wields all the power. Especially on OLD. Avg Men are simply reacting to market conditions just as drivers would react to gasoline rising to $15.00 per gallon. Drivers will give up their cars for bicycles. The Avg guys power remains and will always be the power of commitment in declining to serve these women in marriage with his wallet later in life.

It is harsh. I know. But this is reality and it's going to get much worse.


----------



## OnTheRocks

bobsmith said:


> At least the stuff I saw, I don't think it was so much complete avoidance, it is just avoiding anything that includes "settling down".....I know I for one make no claims about avoiding sex, but if one talks to me about 'settling down', I set them straight real fast.


This is me. I like being in a committed dating relationship, but I won't live with a romantic partner ever again. There's a name for this: Living Apart Together (LAT). 

I am in the middle of a breakup with a girl I was LAT with for almost 10 years, and I'm worried about finding another that will accept the situation.


----------



## bobsmith

I think my thread is sort of stepping more into just modern dating. I will try to refocus on this mgtow or maybe 'red pill' type movement. What I am most interested in is people that or sort of on that path, to what degree, and what lead them there? Again, I do realize I am on a marriage site. I for one don't have any single friends anymore, male or female. It is also not a question that comes up in casual conversation. 

I feel there is WAY more to this way of thinking than just choosing to date because of the female mentality. As I have said, the government now has laws in place that specifically target fathers and husbands. It would be very rare that men get the better side of the stick. All this means is the deck is stacked against men to an insane level. There seems to be no shortage of men willing to walk the plank, but you just cannot excuse the statistics and economics. 

Me just being a number cruncher I have evaluated my chances of actually being in a happy LTR as about 5%. That number is evaluated based on 50% divorce rate, 25% of the married ones are even happy, age, previous LTRs, etc. But I also factored in attraction. For me it does not come down to finding "someone", it comes down to someone I would actually be attracted to, plus be a good human. Those are GONE..... And if they do pop back up, they are seriously damaged. So my mentality is like focusing effort in life to "winning the lottery" and we all know how foolish that is. 

I am just bringing up my reasoning. At least for me this is not like "I hate all women and swear them off", but rather I stopped looking entirely and no longer the focus in any part of my life. I sort of think some guys on this strict mgtow trip might be coming more from a place of total rejection most of their life. I could see where a guy could only take so much.


----------



## Hiner112

MEA said:


> I can understand the desire to swear off relationships after being abused or used. I planned on being alone for the rest of my life after two different a-holes during my twenties seemed to think relationships involved the man being catered to, making bad decisions, and even being abusive, while the woman was just supposed to be happy to be slave to a man. I decided I was better off alone, and research is starting to prove that women in general are better off single unless their partner truly IS Mr. Wonderful.


There's at least one woman on reddit's dating over 40 sub every week that sounds a lot like a female version of MGTOW. IE They've sworn off of men because dating them isn't worth it. @MEA by her how admission was one of them.

I don't begrudge anyone evaluating the benefit to effort and risk for an activity and deciding not to participate in it. No one is obligated to do it and they shouldn't be judged for deciding not to do it. Even if you decide to date, you're not obligated to go about it in a particular way. If you don't want monogamy, you don't have to have monogamous relationships. If you want to wait until marriage before sleeping with someone, then you can do that too.


----------



## anchorwatch

I said it before and I'll say it again... whatever you call it, it's bitter sexist victim hooey! 

Thank god it's not the norm.


----------



## Numb26

anchorwatch said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again... whatever you call it, it's bitter sexist victim hooey!
> 
> Thank god it's not the norm.


You mean like rabid feminists?


----------



## anchorwatch

Numb26 said:


> You mean like rabid feminists?


Them too! lol


----------



## Numb26

anchorwatch said:


> Them too! lol


To me they are just the extremes of both sides.


----------



## OnTheRocks

bobsmith said:


> I think my thread is sort of stepping more into just modern dating. I will try to refocus on this mgtow or maybe 'red pill' type movement. What I am most interested in is people that or sort of on that path, to what degree, and what lead them there? Again, I do realize I am on a marriage site. I for one don't have any single friends anymore, male or female. It is also not a question that comes up in casual conversation.
> 
> I feel there is WAY more to this way of thinking than just choosing to date because of the female mentality. As I have said, the government now has laws in place that specifically target fathers and husbands. It would be very rare that men get the better side of the stick. All this means is the deck is stacked against men to an insane level. There seems to be no shortage of men willing to walk the plank, but you just cannot excuse the statistics and economics.
> 
> Me just being a number cruncher I have evaluated my chances of actually being in a happy LTR as about 5%. That number is evaluated based on 50% divorce rate, 25% of the married ones are even happy, age, previous LTRs, etc. But I also factored in attraction. For me it does not come down to finding "someone", it comes down to someone I would actually be attracted to, plus be a good human. Those are GONE..... And if they do pop back up, they are seriously damaged. So my mentality is like focusing effort in life to "winning the lottery" and we all know how foolish that is.
> 
> I am just bringing up my reasoning. At least for me this is not like "I hate all women and swear them off", but rather I stopped looking entirely and no longer the focus in any part of my life. I sort of think some guys on this strict mgtow trip might be coming more from a place of total rejection most of their life. I could see where a guy could only take so much.



I'm kind of MGTOW lite (or LAT as described in my last post), and being treated so unfairly by the family court system is at least half of the reason why. I also really have a hard time seeing many benefits of living with a partner, and LOTS of drawbacks. I don't want to argue over how many dishes are in the sink, or when the yard gets mowed. I want the entire master bedroom closet to myself. I don't want to be coerced into spending $5k on some patio furniture. Just some examples. The ex wife also seemed to think it was okay to scold me like a child for not doing as I was told, which was typically met with something like "why the F are you talking to me that way?" from me, netting more built up resentment for both of us. Never again.

If you don't live together, the passion hangs around a lot longer. That being said, it's mostly run out in my currently-failing 10 year LAT relationship. Also, if you get in an argument, you can just head home and get back together after you both cool off. This only works for two independent people that are okay with significant alone time. I honestly enjoy being alone.

As far as a straight guy swearing off sex with women forever just on principle, I don't think anyone does that for real unless they just don't have any options. Thankfully, I seem to be in the 20%, and haven't had problems getting attention in OLD when I've used it in the past. I guess I'll be finding out soon if the extra grey hair I have now is going to change that.


----------



## RandomDude

manowar said:


> 1. The dating market is nothing more than another market and can be looked at in terms of economic analysis (for those of you who have studied economics).
> 
> 2. MGTOW is a macro market response to general market conditions. The demand and supply curves have shifted dramatically for the average guy (generally rated as 6 or less). There is greater supply and LESS DEMAND. Women also know there is a never-ending supply of thirsty men. These curves were kept in balance by the_ rule of monogamy_ when women had fewer options and relied upon men earlier in life. Some called it the Patriarchy. In other words, the market was REGULATED where men/women of similar types 6s, 5s, 7s matched up. the best time for average guys was 1900 - 1949 where men pretty much had a guaranteed match.
> 
> 3. What we are seeing today is a DEREGULATED market. Women rule in this environment. This is where female nature is unleashed. We haven't seen this in a long long time. the stuff the bible warned about and most laughed it off as being incidents from a long-ago time. Hey, they warned us. AVG WOMEN wield substantial power in this environment. AVG women have the ability to go upwards and attain men of higher standing (7s,8s,9s). These are the guys who spread their seed far and wide as they are designed to do Hence your 20%ers. Avg men can try all they want but they have little power in this market. There is no demand for them. Why? They are deemed not good looking enough.


Success isn't achieved by staring at the odds and losing one's nerve before putting in their chips. When I met my fiancee I was like the 100th person to hit on her that day, even my approach, using a note, was the 3rd she had received on the same day.

Yes, there's competition especially for the cream of the crop, that's always how it is. Not to mention she has her pick of anyone her age and incredibly successful young men too, instead she picked me, an average guy not even 6ft tall and not nearly as ambitious financially as in the past.

And if there's no demand, create demand. Know how to market yourself.



> 4. LOOKS MATTER: If you are a man and your face is a certain way deemed average or unappealing by the voting females, you are fked. These guys can improve, get muscles, go alpha, but they can't change their face. Nor can a guy 5'5" put on more inches. It is so fking harsh until I stumbled upon this. This is Darwinism in action. We often hear the question "Does size matter"? The real question is "Does Face Matter?" It matters a lot. Women will never admit to it. they speak of personality and being funny and the rest of it. But they act in a different way.


Sure does, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder! So in the end it doesn't even matter for most people!



> 5. we are retreating to our distant past. DNA studies show that 80% of our female ancestors reproduced while only 40% of males reproduced. Again. top guys got the with the females. this is how nature works. This is what MGTOW has recognized.
> 
> 6. Try being a guy that is a 5 and getting with some girl on Tinder. Can't do it. No-fault of the guy. He just looks a certain way.
> 
> Conclusion: The avg man is no match in terms of power as compared to the avg woman in the dating game. She wields all the power. Especially on OLD. Avg Men are simply reacting to market conditions just as drivers would react to gasoline rising to $15.00 per gallon. Drivers will give up their cars for bicycles. The Avg guys power remains and will always be the power of commitment in declining to serve these women in marriage with his wallet later in life.
> 
> It is harsh. I know. But this is reality and it's going to get much worse.


People need to get off OLD. I would have had less than zero chance with my fiancee if online. Its just a simple fact. They need to get out there


----------



## RebuildingMe

I did meet a MGTOW dude that works in underwriting at my company. We went out together at lunch. Just about 7-8 guys eating pizza. I told him of my pending divorce and he confided in me that he was MGTOW. He asked if I heard of it. He was surprised that I did. I took note that he was socially awkward and couldn’t hold a conversation. He’s 50 and lives alone and was never married/no kids. I think he is more in monk mode and it was clear to me he doesn’t get out much. It definitely stunted his emotional growth and he was a very boring guy. But that’s just one I’ve met.


----------



## Rus47

manowar said:


> You're looking at this with your old eyes and old mindset. I used to be in your camp that these guys are whiners and ought to man up the way we did. Then I took a closer look and this is what I discovered.
> 
> 1. The dating market is nothing more than another market and can be looked at in terms of economic analysis (for those of you who have studied economics).
> 
> 2. MGTOW is a macro market response to general market conditions. The demand and supply curves have shifted dramatically for the average guy (generally rated as 6 or less). There is greater supply and LESS DEMAND. Women also know there is a never-ending supply of thirsty men. These curves were kept in balance by the_ rule of monogamy_ when women had fewer options and relied upon men earlier in life. Some called it the Patriarchy. In other words, the market was REGULATED where men/women of similar types 6s, 5s, 7s matched up. the best time for average guys was 1900 - 1949 where men pretty much had a guaranteed match.
> 
> 3. What we are seeing today is a DEREGULATED market. Women rule in this environment. This is where female nature is unleashed. We haven't seen this in a long long time. the stuff the bible warned about and most laughed it off as being incidents from a long-ago time. Hey, they warned us. AVG WOMEN wield substantial power in this environment. AVG women have the ability to go upwards and attain men of higher standing (7s,8s,9s). These are the guys who spread their seed far and wide as they are designed to do Hence your 20%ers. Avg men can try all they want but they have little power in this market. There is no demand for them. Why? They are deemed not good looking enough.
> 
> 4. LOOKS MATTER: If you are a man and your face is a certain way deemed average or unappealing by the voting females, you are fked. These guys can improve, get muscles, go alpha, but they can't change their face. Nor can a guy 5'5" put on more inches. It is so fking harsh until I stumbled upon this. This is Darwinism in action. We often hear the question "Does size matter"? The real question is "Does Face Matter?" It matters a lot. Women will never admit to it. they speak of personality and being funny and the rest of it. But they act in a different way.
> 
> 5. we are retreating to our distant past. DNA studies show that 80% of our female ancestors reproduced while only 40% of males reproduced. Again. top guys got the with the females. this is how nature works. This is what MGTOW has recognized.
> 
> 6. Try being a guy that is a 5 and getting with some girl on Tinder. Can't do it. No-fault of the guy. He just looks a certain way.
> 
> Conclusion: The avg man is no match in terms of power as compared to the avg woman in the dating game. She wields all the power. Especially on OLD. Avg Men are simply reacting to market conditions just as drivers would react to gasoline rising to $15.00 per gallon. Drivers will give up their cars for bicycles. The Avg guys power remains and will always be the power of commitment in declining to serve these women in marriage with his wallet later in life.
> 
> It is harsh. I know. But this is reality and it's going to get much worse.


OK. As I wrote, none of my male descendents or friends are experiencing ANY of what you describe. It isnt my old eyes, theirs are 18 to 75 years old. Heck a guy from church been dating a very nice woman widowed 2 years ago n they just married. In their mid 70s. My male grandkids have all the girls they have time for. None are the prototype "alpha". They just as average as this grandpa.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

bobsmith said:


> For anyone not in the know, that means "men going their own way". Probably some other terms used. This seems to be promoted on youtube, and it is interesting to me just because that is what I have done. I am curious if you guys 'actually' know someone doing this? As I follow some of this stuff, the comments would indicate a bunch of betas feeding into this while still begging for phone numbers.
> 
> I can 100% appreciate the reasons behind this stuff such as how men as father figures is now totally disregarded in the legal system, and they are just financial resources. However, I suspect many are not MGTOW by choice. I have yet to even meet another one!
> 
> I will admit though, the ones online all seem the same.....they have been terribly burned and no longer willing even test the water.
> 
> I think the most entertaining part of this for me is all this "training" I see. How to date, how to talk to a girl, how to approach, what to say, how to hold your arms, your feet, your etc, etc, the list just keeps going! The best is how to learn to be an "alpha male".......Complete with the Brad starter kit! News flash, some people cannot be changed.


It's incel types looking for a fancy excuse for why they are too fearful and/or inadequate to be social enough to do okay with women or why they don't want a woman their own attractiveness level (well, then I'd rather do without). Another board I used to frequent, this all came up a lot. Their entitlement to a good looking girl makes them bitter, but they don't have what it takes and are steadfastly unwilling to make any changes to accomplish success. So they look for supporting validation of this type. I don't know any in real life, but there are LOADS of them staying on the internet in their rooms and rarely venturing out. 

One thing I like about this board, there are few if any incels. They are very infuriating because of their stubbornness and attention seeking, but you're wasting your breath.


----------



## Enigma32

I think there is some correlation between the incel crowd and the MGTOW movement. I've heard about and run into a few guys that are just absolute lost causes. Guys that have zero clue on how to not just get a woman, but how to live their life, how to be a MAN. These guys aren't going to have much luck so they might as well go MGTOW. They probably don't have what it takes to do anything else.

With that said, I've also known plenty of women that are the stereotypical woman the MGTOW people talk about. I have a female friend now that kicked her BF out for having a drinking problem. She forced him to go to rehab for her. What does she do? Get drunk every single weekend, all weekend, and sometimes during the week too. If she drinks, it's just for fun, if dude wants to drink at home after work, he is an alcoholic. Now that he is gone, she thinks most men are beneath her, ignores any guy that tries to hit on her, and she's waiting for Mr Perfect rich guy that's in good shape and younger than her. Dude has to be packing down below too. 

My point is, I think everyone is screwed up these days. The older you are when you try dating, the pickings become slimmer and slimmer. I really don't blame anyone going MGTOW. I came close to doing the same myself, without the actual title. If it wasn't for my GF now, I would probably just sleep around and treat ladies like sexual commodities. Maybe that makes me a bad person but, to quote Omar from _The Wire_, "_The game is the game_."


----------



## lifeistooshort

It seems to me that a certain segment of the male population just doesn't know how to interact with women. I don't claim to understand OLD as I don't do it, but I'm told it's a **** show. For every guy who claims that all the women want a small number of men I could introduce you to women who will tell you that most of the men they meet on OLD are either looking for sex or shopping for the hottest thing they can find.

That's the problem with OLD....it's a shopping experience. If 80% of women were fighting over 20% of men not that many women would be married or partnered, and I'm one of the only women in my circle who isn't married.

Granted we're all middle aged but their kids are all dating too. The 80/20 claim doesn't pass a sniff test.

OLD aside, what does it mean to go one's own way? Does it mean that you're not directly pursuing outlets to find a partner? Because I think that's a good idea....do the things you enjoy and maybe you'll run into someone you like who also enjoys those things. That's how I met my bf in the bike club. Any independent person generally isn't desperate and that's a good partner quality.

Any guy that has a bad experience with a woman when they're 20 and swears them off isn't good partner material.

Would these guys say no to a woman they just happened to meet and click with?


----------



## bobsmith

Ha, Incel, I had to look that up!!! Never heard of it but it sounds like a few examples in this thread are more on that line. I thought mgtow was more like getting burned and choosing to stay out of the fire? IDK. Like I have said, I guess I am on the mgtow spectrum but only because I suffer from what I think is post relation PTSD. I like meeting up and hanging out, but I literally shake when thinking about all the stress that comes with a real relationship. There is no way I could ever do it without constant anxiety of when the end is coming. 

I do agree with above about men being screwed up today. I obviously am but my man traits are still intact and well taught. I will never understand the skinny jean type that can't put gas in a lawn mower! LITERALLY, my ex's ex could not do that!!! That was literally a flag for me that I should have measured because she dated that! But I did learn within the past 5yrs that my extensive skill set means precisely **** to women. Nada. All up in their feelings.


----------



## manowar

Rus47 said:


> OK. As I wrote, none of my male descendents or friends are experiencing ANY of what you describe. It isnt my old eyes, theirs are 18 to 75 years old. Heck a guy from church been dating a very nice woman widowed 2 years ago n they just married. In their mid 70s.



You are drawing from a very small sample. Your two friends from church are from a different era playing by the traditional rules. The old relic of marriage works a lot better under this framework. Traditional rules, dating, courting - whatever we call it - benefits the avg man because the market was regulated.



Rus47 said:


> Sometimes I think we "old-timers" don't understand what the birth of social media has done to the dating market for the youngin's these days. From what I see,* I would never recommend a young man marry in today's market.*


Social media has provided women with vast opportunities due to the gradual deregulation of the market beginning in the 1980s. You also said the above so you are aware that dating has changed from what you experienced in your twenties. You're a baby boomer when the traditional dating rules were still intact but were being challenged. 1960s - 70s.

I should have said traditional eyes. That's what I meant. My apologies.


----------



## Al_Bundy

I do agree with the 80/20 thing, however I would add that at today's level of competition if a guy wants to be in that top 20% he probably can be. The real issue is that you have 100% of women who think they deserve that top 20% of men. You have women who literally weigh as much as The Rock and think they deserve a guy who makes six figures.

My pov is probably a little different in that I got married in my 40s, so most of my dating life was happily single. I'm sure dating is a very different animal if you married your high school gf and divorced in your 40s.


----------



## Enigma32

Al_Bundy said:


> I do agree with the 80/20 thing, however I would add that at today's level of competition if a guy wants to be in that top 20% he probably can be. The real issue is that you have 100% of women who think they deserve that top 20% of men. You have women who literally weigh as much as The Rock and think they deserve a guy who makes six figures.
> 
> My pov is probably a little different in that I got married in my 40s, so most of my dating life was happily single. I'm sure dating is a very different animal if you married your high school gf and divorced in your 40s.


The 80/20 rule is the top 80% of women are going for the top 20% of men. So, not quite all women going for the top 20% of men but most are, and that includes the huge girls. 

The problem with men is they have very little value in the dating market aside from their wallets. Any average girl that's not huge can post a filtered selfie on FB or shake her butt on tiktok and have a legion of male simps coming out of the woodwork to tell her how hot she is. If you're a really good looking guy, you can get the same sort of treatment but average? Not happening. I'm average looking as they come and I've always had to rely on being smarter or a better talker than other men if I wanna get a date. If some poor sap is average across the board....good luck, buddy.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> The 80/20 rule is the top 80% of women are going for the top 20% of men. So, not quite all women going for the top 20% of men but most are, and that includes the huge girls.
> 
> The problem with men is they have very little value in the dating market aside from their wallets. Any average girl that's not huge can post a filtered selfie on FB or shake her butt on tiktok and have a legion of male simps coming out of the woodwork to tell her how hot she is. If you're a really good looking guy, you can get the same sort of treatment but average? Not happening. I'm average looking as they come and I've always had to rely on being smarter or a better talker than other men if I wanna get a date. If some poor sap is average across the board....good luck, buddy.


You're right. Women are, men have to become. I think that's the phrase.

I also think if you are an older guy, we probably don't realize how having to date without today's technology gave us a great skill set.

I consider myself average. Granted I go to the gym, but anyone can do that. I guess that's why I have a hard time with the incel thing because when I was 20, skinny and broke I was at the bottom of the rung too but I didn't just stay there. 

Now the not wanting to get married and deal with the family court system, totally onboard with that. That's one thing they have right.


----------



## Blondilocks

If guys don't want to deal with the family court system, the answer is to not have kids. It isn't rocket science. Man up and take responsibility for your reproductive ability - in other words, get a vasectomy. See, problem solved.


----------



## Diana7

manowar said:


> You're looking at this with your old eyes and old mindset. I used to be in your camp that these guys are whiners and ought to man up the way we did. Then I took a closer look and this is what I discovered.
> 
> 1. The dating market is nothing more than another market and can be looked at in terms of economic analysis (for those of you who have studied economics).
> 
> 2. MGTOW is a macro market response to general market conditions. The demand and supply curves have shifted dramatically for the average guy (generally rated as 6 or less). There is greater supply and LESS DEMAND. Women also know there is a never-ending supply of thirsty men. These curves were kept in balance by the_ rule of monogamy_ when women had fewer options and relied upon men earlier in life. Some called it the Patriarchy. In other words, the market was REGULATED where men/women of similar types 6s, 5s, 7s matched up. the best time for average guys was 1900 - 1949 where men pretty much had a guaranteed match.
> 
> 3. What we are seeing today is a DEREGULATED market. Women rule in this environment. This is where female nature is unleashed. We haven't seen this in a long long time. the stuff the bible warned about and most laughed it off as being incidents from a long-ago time. Hey, they warned us. AVG WOMEN wield substantial power in this environment. AVG women have the ability to go upwards and attain men of higher standing (7s,8s,9s). These are the guys who spread their seed far and wide as they are designed to do Hence your 20%ers. Avg men can try all they want but they have little power in this market. There is no demand for them. Why? They are deemed not good looking enough.
> 
> 4. LOOKS MATTER: If you are a man and your face is a certain way deemed average or unappealing by the voting females, you are fked. These guys can improve, get muscles, go alpha, but they can't change their face. Nor can a guy 5'5" put on more inches. It is so fking harsh until I stumbled upon this. This is Darwinism in action. We often hear the question "Does size matter"? The real question is "Does Face Matter?" It matters a lot. Women will never admit to it. they speak of personality and being funny and the rest of it. But they act in a different way.
> 
> 5. we are retreating to our distant past. DNA studies show that 80% of our female ancestors reproduced while only 40% of males reproduced. Again. top guys got the with the females. this is how nature works. This is what MGTOW has recognized.
> 
> 6. Try being a guy that is a 5 and getting with some girl on Tinder. Can't do it. No-fault of the guy. He just looks a certain way.
> 
> Conclusion: The avg man is no match in terms of power as compared to the avg woman in the dating game. She wields all the power. Especially on OLD. Avg Men are simply reacting to market conditions just as drivers would react to gasoline rising to $15.00 per gallon. Drivers will give up their cars for bicycles. The Avg guys power remains and will always be the power of commitment in declining to serve these women in marriage with his wallet later in life.
> 
> It is harsh. I know. But this is reality and it's going to get much worse.


Women are judged on their looks just as much if not more.


----------



## Diana7

My advise for people on OLD is firstly find a good quality site, so not tinder or one that relies completely on looks and is basically just for casual hook ups. Secondly be persistent and patient. Don't got on for three months and say it doesn't work. I know a lady who met her now lovely husband after 7 years. I met my husband after 2 years of being on a few sites. 
Thirdly dont blame OLD if you don't find anyone. Fourthly don't blame the opposite sex if you don't meet anyone, it's very unappealing and won't help men/women to be attracted to you.


----------



## Rus47

Diana7 said:


> Women are judged on their looks just as much if not more.


Both genders at least initially judge on looks. We all have to play the hand we were dealt, no point sitting in a corner and feeling bad cuz the "10s" aren't beating down the door. I am 5'6', and average looking, nothing could have ever make me 6'2" and handsome. Never knew why wife was attracted, but very glad she was.


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> Both genders at least initially judge on looks. We all have to play the hand we were dealt, no point sitting in a corner and feeling bad cuz the "10s" aren't beating down the door. I am 5'6', and average looking, nothing could have ever make me 6'2" and handsome. Never knew why wife was attracted, but very glad she was.


I think for women it's just as much about character and personality as looks. Men seem to go more for looks only sadly.


----------



## Rus47

Diana7 said:


> I think for women it's just as much about character and personality as looks. Men seem to go more for looks only sadly.


Most of us men are visual creatures. Not to say women aren't ( otherwise male strippers wouldn't have a job). My wife comments often about how I am easily visually excited, laughs at my response to her, says it's "cute". She says emotional connection and "closeness" are more important to women. They *must* be more important to her lol.

Sorry, end T/J:


----------



## Diana7

Rus47 said:


> Most of us men are visual creatures. Not to say women aren't ( otherwise male strippers wouldn't have a job). My wife comments often about how I am easily visually excited, laughs at my response to her, says it's "cute". She says emotional connection and "closeness" are more important to women. They *must* be more important to her lol.
> 
> Sorry, end T/J:


My husband didn't even have a photo on his OLD for a few days.This was 17 years ago. I knew he was special before that


----------



## Al_Bundy

Blondilocks said:


> If guys don't want to deal with the family court system, the answer is to not have kids. It isn't rocket science. Man up and take responsibility for your reproductive ability - in other words, get a vasectomy. See, problem solved.


Family court also deals with division of assets which is the bigger issue.


----------



## OnTheRocks

I felt like the division of assets was pretty fair and straightforward, but we both worked and didn't go after 401ks etc. It's having to pay my cheating ex (who made about 50% more than me when we divorced, and probably still does) 20% of my takehome pay until my kid is 18 that I'll never forgive.


----------



## Enigma32

Blondilocks said:


> If guys don't want to deal with the family court system, the answer is to not have kids. It isn't rocket science. Man up and take responsibility for your reproductive ability - in other words, get a vasectomy. See, problem solved.


We could say the same about ladies about abortion. Don't wanna off your own baby, get your tubes tied. Problem solved, eh? Woman up, ladies.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Diana7 said:


> Women are judged on their looks just as much if not more.


Considering 75% of Americans (probably most Westerners) are overweight/obese, that's a good thing. You can beat 75% of your competition by just not being fat and boom......instantly in the top quartile.


----------



## manowar

Enigma32 said:


> The 80/20 rule is the top 80% of women are going for the top 20% of men. So, not quite all women going for the top 20% of men but most are, and that includes the huge girls.
> 
> The problem with men is they have very little value in the dating market aside from their wallets. Any average girl that's not huge can post a filtered selfie on FB or shake her butt on tiktok and have a legion of male simps coming out of the woodwork to tell her how hot she is. If you're a really good looking guy, you can get the same sort of treatment but average? Not happening. I'm average looking as they come and I've always had to rely on being smarter or a better talker than other men if I wanna get a date. *If some poor sap is average across the board....good luck, buddy.*


this sums it up pretty good. The only thing I'd add is that the avg girls cannot get away with the vast opportunites they have been given due to social media in real life interactions before they were provided with their golden platforms. The way i understand it, all mgtow guys havnt given up on women per se (if one falls from the sky) but they have given up on traditional dating etiquette
and the old behaviors associated with it, and accepting marriage as a given that everyone does at some point in their life.


----------



## Blondilocks

Enigma32 said:


> We could say the same about ladies about abortion. Don't wanna off your own baby, get your tubes tied. Problem solved, eh? Woman up, ladies.


Yeah, but: this thread is about MGTOW and men having a problem with the family court system. If it were WGTOW and women complaining about the family court system you would have a point.


----------



## Rus47

Al_Bundy said:


> My pov is probably a little different in that I got married in my 40s, so most of my dating life was happily single. *I'm sure dating is a very different animal if you married your high school gf and divorced in your 40s.*


Would think that a person put "on the bricks" after a decade or two of marriage would be pretty lost as to how to even start with dating, besides having been badly burned by the divorce industry. Have had a few friends in this boat, and about half never even dated again, one moved off of the grid at age 45 and just dropped out of life in general. But none of them became MGTOW. It was more like "marriage is a life I once lived that is in my past", kinda similar to a widower.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Rus47 said:


> Would think that a person put "on the bricks" after a decade or two of marriage would be pretty lost as to how to even start with dating, besides having been badly burned by the divorce industry. Have had a few friends in this boat, and about half never even dated again, one moved off of the grid at age 45 and just dropped out of life in general. But none of them became MGTOW. It was more like "marriage is a life I once lived that is in my past", kinda similar to a widower.


I know a few guys like that too. You can't blame them. Like you said after getting burned once, you can't really afford to take that risk again especially if you got zeroed out and have to start completely over.


----------



## BruceBanner

Diana7 said:


> I agree. They face one let down in life and can't even understand that it was only one women out of billions. They can't get over one hurtful experience without throwing in the towel. Where is people's resilience, their fortitude, their get up and go?
> Sad really.
> All the young men I know are actually married, going to get married or want to be married which is encouraging.
> I am thankful that we didn't let former marriage break up's stop us, we have a happy marriage to show for it.


All it takes is one let down. Just because you try again does not mean you will succeed. Most relationships and marriages do not work out so I'm not going to fault anyone for tapping out. Also MGTOW types don't tend to make themselves known.


----------



## Rus47

BruceBanner said:


> All it takes is one let down. Just because you try again does not mean you will succeed. Most relationships and marriages do not work out so I'm not going to fault anyone for tapping out. Also MGTOW types don't tend to make themselves known.


And sometimes people have a predisposition to pick poorly. I have a good friend whose second wife treats him exactly as badly as did his first. Would have had a better life had he never gotten married in the first place.


----------



## Al_Bundy

BruceBanner said:


> All it takes is one let down. Just because you try again does not mean you will succeed. Most relationships and marriages do not work out so I'm not going to fault anyone for tapping out. Also MGTOW types don't tend to make themselves known.


I don't think for most it's the letdown of the relationship. If it was as simple just relationships not working out there wouldn't be a MGTOW. It's the financial price that comes with it. Modern women are equal and don't need a man until they walk into a courtroom.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Al_Bundy said:


> I don't think for most it's the letdown of the relationship. If it was as simple just relationships not working out there wouldn't be a MGTOW. It's the financial price that comes with it. Modern women are equal and don't need a man until they walk into a courtroom.


As my story goes, they don’t always walk out of the courtroom with money


----------



## bobsmith

RebuildingMe said:


> As my story goes, they don’t always walk out of the courtroom with money


But you ended up in a courtroom in a legal battle, yes?


----------



## manowar

Rus47 said:


> And sometimes people have a *predisposition to pick poorly*. I have a good friend whose second wife treats him exactly as badly as did his first. Would have had a better life had he never gotten married in the first place.



And whose fault is that? I bet no. 3 would treat him just as poorly over time. As would 4, 5 and 6. Its his nature. I know guys like this as well. they want to be treated this way. Dont know any better. they're weak, compliant and complacent. Bet he bends the knee, adhere's to the myth of woman he was raised on. Your friend should read the Manipulated Man by ester villar and the Predetory fFemale by Rev. Shannon. Wives will treat men this way when they are dissappointed. Part of the female's disappontment is in allowing her to get away with it. The biggest failure is the man who can't stand up to his wife.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> But you ended up in a courtroom in a legal battle, yes?


If she had accepted his offer last year, she would have been $300g ahead. As it is, his attorney fees are $111g so he's way ahead.


----------



## Rus47

manowar said:


> And whose fault is that? I bet no. 3 would treat him just as poorly over time. As would 4, 5 and 6. Its his nature. I know guys like this as well. they want to be treated this way. Dont know any better. they're weak, compliant and complacent. Bet he bends the knee, adhere's to the myth of woman he was raised on. Your friend should read the Manipulated Man by ester villar and the Predetory fFemale by Rev. Shannon. Wives will treat men this way when they are dissappointed. Part of the female's disappontment is in allowing her to get away with it. The biggest failure is the man who can't stand up to his wife.


Actually no, he is far from weak, compliant, and bends a knee to no one. He is a tough competitive athletic big bruiser who takes nothing off of anyone. Anyone gives him any shyt he will kick their a$$ in a heartbeat. And he is an old man now. He was always catnip to the women. Have seen them come up to him in a damn grocery store and start chatting him up. He sticks out in a crowd. He could write the book about being an assertive "alpha" male.

He fought with his first wife for a decade tooth and nail. He picked her cuz she was the hottest he had ever met. Well she had a temper and disposition to match and loved to spend money. He finally divorced her despite the financial pain. After living single and dating for another decade, I was astounded he married another woman he also described as smoking hot ( and she was/is a looker for sure ), she is exactly like the first. And now, he won't divorce because of the financial hit he would take. He is miserable and they fight like cats and dogs all of the time. His picker of wives is broken, and he readily admits he should never have married.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

Rus47 said:


> Actually no, he is far from weak, compliant, and bends a knee to no one. He is a tough competitive athletic big bruiser who takes nothing off of anyone. Anyone gives him any shyt he will kick their a$$ in a heartbeat. And he is an old man now. He was always catnip to the women. Have seen them come up to him in a damn grocery store and start chatting him up. He sticks out in a crowd. He could write the book about being an assertive "alpha" male.
> 
> He fought with his first wife for a decade tooth and nail. *He picked her cuz she was the hottest he had ever met*. Well she had a temper and disposition to match and loved to spend money. He finally divorced her despite the financial pain. *After living single and dating for another decade, I was astounded he married another woman he also described as smoking hot ( and she was/is a looker for sure ), she is exactly like the first.* And now, he won't divorce because of the financial hit he would take. He is miserable and they fight like cats and dogs all of the time. *His picker of wives is broken,* and he readily admits he should never have married.


Sounds like he was picking with his ****, not his brain.


----------



## Enigma32

Rus47 said:


> Actually no, he is far from weak, compliant, and bends a knee to no one. He is a tough competitive athletic big bruiser who takes nothing off of anyone. Anyone gives him any shyt he will kick their a$$ in a heartbeat. And he is an old man now. He was always catnip to the women. Have seen them come up to him in a damn grocery store and start chatting him up. He sticks out in a crowd. He could write the book about being an assertive "alpha" male.


I am friends with a guy that is a straight killer. Special forces military hand to hand combat instructor who spent years fighting in the Middle East. The guy simps for his wife like a teenage boy with his first GF. You can be a tough guy and still be weak with women.


----------



## Rus47

Enigma32 said:


> I am friends with a guy that is a straight killer. Special forces military hand to hand combat instructor who spent years fighting in the Middle East. The guy simps for his wife like a teenage boy with his first GF. You can be a tough guy and still be weak with women.


Agreed. But I have seen friend fights with his wives first hand. He aint weak with anyone, least of all with women. Was surprised his marriages lasted as long as they did. It was kinda like tension between finances, icontrol and sex for him and wives both. Lots of drama


----------



## DownButNotOut

RebuildingMe said:


> As my story goes, they don’t always walk out of the courtroom with money


Have you read your story? Dude, if anyone is a poster child for why the juice ain't worth the squeeze it's you.

I'm glad it turned out they way it did for you, but dang $110k+ in legal fees, being shut out from your kids, all the games ... If a young man was waffling on MGTOW or not, one read through your story could monk-mode him for life.


----------



## RebuildingMe

DownButNotOut said:


> Have you read your story? Dude, if anyone is a poster child for why the juice ain't worth the squeeze it's you.
> 
> I'm glad it turned out they way it did for you, but dang $110k+ in legal fees, being shut out from your kids, all the games ... If a young man was waffling on MGTOW or not, one read through your story could monk-mode him for life.


No doubt, I agree with you. There will never be anything beyond a LTR for me. Never again will I marry, cohabitate and mingle money and assets with another woman. I was merely pointing out that the gold diggers don’t always get what they want. As far as MGTOW, I’m not going off the grid and dropping out of life. I enjoy life too much and enjoy the company of women.

I feel fortunate to ‘escape’ how I did, but yes, it still came at a very steep price, both emotionally and financially for me. A lesson to be learned by the younger male generation.


----------



## EmergeRN

Diana7 said:


> I think for women it's just as much about character and personality as looks. Men seem to go more for looks only sadly.


I think you’re correct about this. I’m in a field that is heavily dominated by women (nursing) and I’ve made the remark a few times to my female colleagues that women are much more forgiving than men are when it comes to looks and the response I almost always get (even from very attractive women) is that personality is much more important thank looks. They’re also looking to have a connection with the guy they date. My fiancé is easily one of the most attractive women on the unit, before we got together guys were always trying to flirt with her or date her. Looks-wise I’m just an average guy but I'm always told that when personality is taken into account that I'm super attractive.

MGTOW are, by definition, a bunch of incels. They have ****ty personalities and then cry about not having a “hot” girlfriend. They’re an embarrassment to males everywhere.


----------



## bobsmith

EmergeRN said:


> I think you’re correct about this. I’m in a field that is heavily dominated by women (nursing) and I’ve made the remark a few times to my female colleagues that women are much more forgiving than men are when it comes to looks and the response I almost always get (even from very attractive women) is that personality is much more important thank looks. They’re also looking to have a connection with the guy they date. My fiancé is easily one of the most attractive women on the unit, before we got together guys were always trying to flirt with her or date her. Looks-wise I’m just an average guy but I'm always told that when personality is taken into account that I'm super attractive.
> 
> MGTOW are, by definition, a bunch of incels. They have ****ty personalities and then cry about not having a “hot” girlfriend. They’re an embarrassment to males everywhere.


This right here is 100% BS! This is the typical woman reply that says one thing but does another. Women chase or desire Chads but may have to settle for something less. Physical traits are very much part of the equation. Way more than woman 'say'. However, I think everyone here could agree that hot airheads, men or women, are rarely going to be desired for an LTR by someone of intelligence. There is no point for me to turn on my charm and personality for a woman that says "like totally, omg, like, like"......

Either I am not MGTOW at all, or there are just various degrees of it. Consider what it means. 'going their own way'. I guess I considered it to mean not making women a priority and eliminating 'simp' from the vocab. 

But if I am in MGTOW camp, there is more BS above regarding personality. I win with a few traits. I have an athletic/healthy build with good leggies. I have a smile that draws them in. Then I hit them with a killer personality and intelligence they were not expecting because apparently I look like a 'jock'. However, I am not 6'4, I don't have dark hair, I don't tan to the color of your coffee. For those reasons, I have watched many walk right by me and go to a friend that is a guaranteed airhead. But it can be a big help. If a woman cannot see through my friend's thick line of BS, she ain't got enough air in the tank......


----------



## Al_Bundy

RebuildingMe said:


> No doubt, I agree with you. There will never be anything beyond a LTR for me. Never again will I marry, cohabitate and mingle money and assets with another woman. I was merely pointing out that the gold diggers don’t always get what they want. As far as MGTOW, I’m not going off the grid and dropping out of life. I enjoy life too much and enjoy the company of women.
> 
> I feel fortunate to ‘escape’ how I did, but yes, it still came at a very steep price, both emotionally and financially for me. A lesson to be learned by the younger male generation.


A great example of how even if the guy "wins" it would still cost you. I think your approach makes the most sense, LTRs are fine but different addresses. Which since women today are soooooo independent, and they don't need a man, that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## RebuildingMe

EmergeRN said:


> I think you’re correct about this. I’m in a field that is heavily dominated by women (nursing) and I’ve made the remark a few times to my female colleagues that women are much more forgiving than men are when it comes to looks and the response I almost always get (even from very attractive women) is that personality is much more important thank looks. They’re also looking to have a connection with the guy they date. My fiancé is easily one of the most attractive women on the unit, before we got together guys were always trying to flirt with her or date her. Looks-wise I’m just an average guy but I'm always told that when personality is taken into account that I'm super attractive.
> 
> MGTOW are, by definition, a bunch of incels. They have ****ty personalities and then cry about not having a “hot” girlfriend. They’re an embarrassment to males everywhere.


Spoken like a true beta. Women are 100% into looks, money and what you can do for them. Don’t think for a second your “hot” girlfriend wouldn’t trade up if given the opportunity. Just the fact you are getting your advice from other women should create suspicion for you.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Al_Bundy said:


> A great example of how even if the guy "wins" it would still cost you. I think your approach makes the most sense, LTRs are fine but different addresses. Which since women today are soooooo independent, and they don't need a man, that shouldn't be a problem.


What I “won” should be the norm for any divorcing father. Unfortunately, it’s not.


----------



## farsidejunky

EmergeRN said:


> I think you’re correct about this. I’m in a field that is heavily dominated by women (nursing) and I’ve made the remark a few times to my female colleagues that women are much more forgiving than men are when it comes to looks and the response I almost always get (even from very attractive women) is that personality is much more important thank looks. They’re also looking to have a connection with the guy they date. My fiancé is easily one of the most attractive women on the unit, before we got together guys were always trying to flirt with her or date her. Looks-wise I’m just an average guy but I'm always told that when personality is taken into account that I'm super attractive.
> 
> MGTOW are, by definition, a bunch of incels. They have ****ty personalities and then cry about not having a “hot” girlfriend. They’re an embarrassment to males everywhere.


Broad generalizations do a disservice to all, including the one perpetuating them.

While I am neither, incels and MGTOW are two dramatically different things.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## farsidejunky

RebuildingMe said:


> Spoken like a true beta. Women are 100% into looks, money and what you can do for them. Don’t think for a second your “hot” girlfriend wouldn’t trade up if given the opportunity. Just the fact you are getting your advice from other women should create suspicion for you.


Jesus, I'm a broken ****ing record today.

Broad generalizations do a disservice to all, including the one perpetuating them.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## RebuildingMe

farsidejunky said:


> Jesus, I'm a broken ****ing record today.
> 
> Broad generalizations do a disservice to all, including the one perpetuating them.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


I see your point. But if this dude’s super hot gf is settling for an average joe (as he describes himself), she probably see’s him as the ultimate provider. Generally, women don’t lust after men they see a safe, beta providers.


----------



## Al_Bundy

RebuildingMe said:


> I see your point. But if this dude’s super hot gf is settling for an average joe (as he describes himself), she probably see’s him as the ultimate provider. Generally, women don’t lust after men they see a safe, beta providers.


But then why not a doctor? Not disagreeing but obviously we don't have all the info. Women tend to marry up which is another broad generalization about broads. (_credit Tom Leykis for the broad joke_)


----------



## Diana7

Enigma32 said:


> We could say the same about ladies about abortion. Don't wanna off your own baby, get your tubes tied. Problem solved, eh? Woman up, ladies.


Most women want children and will look after them.


----------



## MattMatt

RebuildingMe said:


> I see your point. But if this dude’s super hot gf is settling for an average joe (as he describes himself), she probably see’s him as the ultimate provider. Generally, women don’t lust after men they see a safe, beta providers.


*He was a returning troll and had has now been banned.*


----------



## Enigma32

RebuildingMe said:


> Just the fact you are getting your advice from other women should create suspicion for you.


This is a point that I think more men should think about. Men should NOT be getting their relationship advice from females. 

I like to compare dating and relationships to a business. If you are a single person, you are basically a product that you are marketing and trying to sell to ladies. If you heed the advice of the customer in any business, you will lose money because the customer is seeking what is good for them, not what is good for you. That's what happens when a man takes dating advice from females, they will just do what is best for the females and not themselves. Instead, men should take advice from and try to emulate the success of men who have accomplished what they seek to accomplish. 

If you want a hot model GF, and you meet a guy with a hot model GF, ask him what he did to get her, don't ask her how to do it. Back in my mid 20's I was dating this super hot girl that used to model for a motorcyle magazine. I remember I was hanging out with this young guy who asked me how to get a girl like her. I gave him some pointers and my GF objected telling him that stuff wouldn't work. I responded by saying it worked on her and she shut up


----------



## manowar

EmergeRN said:


> I’ve made the remark a few times to my female colleagues that women are much more forgiving than men are when it comes to looks and the response I almost always get (even from very attractive women) is that personality is much more important thank looks.





EmergeRN said:


> I’m just an average guy but* I'm always told *that when personality is taken into account that I'm super attractive.


Those are words. That's what they say. It's what they *always* *say* when interviewed. Focus on Actions. 80/20 rule. We already know this isnt accurate.

Another Study: Men swipe like on 46% of dating profiles.. However women swipe like 14% of the time. Why are women more discriminating? Are they looking for that guy with a super personality, seems really nice, has a stable career, seems to be marriage potential, and/or is a potentially great father? Let's be real. 

When they say personality, it belongs to a top 20%er. As do the other above qualities mentioned. This holds true for OLD. Why? because the 20% are congregated in one place. On a typical night out, there will be far less of these 20% at the night club. 

Going back to a the dating market as an economic market, social media and in particular OLD has presented the dating market with an *exogenous shock* --- an event or development coming from* outside of the system* itself that has great effects on an economy. Wars, natural disasters, new technology, demographic events like the baby boom.

What we are facing is a Martket Failure. MGTOW is evidence of that failure which effects 80% of male participants negatively. Men admit it. Sending out 50-100 messages w/ No Replys. Women with filled up mail boxes from these 80%s. What additional evidence is needed?


----------



## manowar

Enigma32 said:


> I am friends with a guy that is a straight killer. Special forces military hand to hand combat instructor who spent years fighting in the Middle East. The guy simps for his wife like a teenage boy with his first GF. You can be a tough guy and still be weak with women.



The social conditioning is ingrained.. A blue pill alpha. This is where you find your white knights. The baby boomer generation is loaded with guys like this


----------



## bobsmith

Diana7 said:


> Most women want children and will look after them.


I think if you took away the possibility of family court and draining the father's bank account, you would quickly find a bunch of women that were much more careful. At present, there is literally way more incentive to "accidentally" get knocked up and even a known thing. Hell, that is pretty much what my ex did. She wanted to rope and marry the dude so she got after it without any BC. Knocked up in 30 days...... and she is already getting a nice check for her other kid. 

Why do you think the "projects" are loaded up piles of kids, 10 different dads, all single moms? Because there is ZERO consequence for the moms. They are saints! But the dads, they can't even afford to pay attention, but they end up with a court order to pay, and end up in prison over it. 

Yeah, about the time you tell a mom you will take her kid and put her in prison if she cannot care for her kid and watch these pregnancies drop like flies.


----------



## Bluesclues

bobsmith said:


> I think if you took away the possibility of family court and draining the father's bank account, you would quickly find a bunch of women that were much more careful. At present, there is literally way more incentive to "accidentally" get knocked up and even a known thing. Hell, that is pretty much what my ex did. She wanted to rope and marry the dude so she got after it without any BC. Knocked up in 30 days...... and she is already getting a nice check for her other kid.
> 
> Why do you think the "projects" are loaded up piles of kids, 10 different dads, all single moms? Because there is ZERO consequence for the moms. They are saints! But the dads, they can't even afford to pay attention, but they end up with a court order to pay, and end up in prison over it.
> 
> Yeah, about the time you tell a mom you will take her kid and put her in prison if she cannot care for her kid and watch these pregnancies drop like flies.


Good lord. How much money do you think women get for child support? I remember being aghast that my childhood friend divorced her husband and got $24 a week. Years later when I divorced my husband I get $62 a week for two kids. That is a little over $3,200 a year for TWO children. Do you think that really makes a dent in feeding, housing, clothing them? That is with him only seeing them EOW. I am willing to bet money that my XH complains about how much he has to pay in CS…


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> I think if you took away the possibility of family court and draining the father's bank account, you would quickly find a bunch of women that were much more careful. At present, there is literally way more incentive to "accidentally" get knocked up and even a known thing. Hell, that is pretty much what my ex did. She wanted to rope and marry the dude so she got after it without any BC. Knocked up in 30 days...... and she is already getting a nice check for her other kid.
> 
> Why do you think the "projects" are loaded up piles of kids, 10 different dads, all single moms? Because there is ZERO consequence for the moms. They are saints! But the dads, they can't even afford to pay attention, but they end up with a court order to pay, and end up in prison over it.
> 
> Yeah, about the time you tell a mom you will take her kid and put her in prison if she cannot care for her kid and watch these pregnancies drop like flies.


What you talk about may happen but its not the norm. The single mothers I have known, through divorce, death or getting pregnant while dating, have been excellent, caring, dedicated mums. We are not all like your ex.


----------



## Diana7

Bluesclues said:


> Good lord. How much money do you think women get for child support? I remember being aghast that my childhood friend divorced her husband and got $24 a week. Years later when I divorced my husband I get $62 a week for two kids. That is a little over $3,200 a year for TWO children. Do you think that really makes a dent in feeding, housing, clothing them? That is with him only seeing them EOW. I am willing to bet money that my XH complains about how much he has to pay in CS…


Good point, I didnt get much for my youngest either.


----------



## Enigma32

Bluesclues said:


> Good lord. How much money do you think women get for child support? I remember being aghast that my childhood friend divorced her husband and got $24 a week. Years later when I divorced my husband I get $62 a week for two kids. That is a little over $3,200 a year for TWO children. Do you think that really makes a dent in feeding, housing, clothing them? That is with him only seeing them EOW. I am willing to bet money that my XH complains about how much he has to pay in CS…


Child support is determined by income. $62 per week for 2 kids seems low. I have a female friend that gets $75 per week for one kid and her ex husband isn't out there making a lot of money. Also keep in mind that child support is deducted after taxes so while $62 per week doesn't seem like much (and it isn't) the guy obviously doesn't make much and he is now paying over $240 per month on child support. Also, I bet his agreement forces him to pay for 50% of other expenses like medical care. Meanwhile, there is no government help for the person paying child support, but the individual taking care of the child gets huge tax credits, housing assistance, food stamps, and perhaps cash assistance.


----------



## DownButNotOut

All I know is I pay $1250/month, plus med. insurance, plus 50% of other expenses. And I have my kids 50/50. If I hadn't won at least that, I'd be paying even more.

Makes MGTOW seem like a pretty good deal.


----------



## bobsmith

Bluesclues said:


> Good lord. How much money do you think women get for child support? I remember being aghast that my childhood friend divorced her husband and got $24 a week. Years later when I divorced my husband I get $62 a week for two kids. That is a little over $3,200 a year for TWO children. Do you think that really makes a dent in feeding, housing, clothing them? *That is with him only seeing them EOW.* I am willing to bet money that my XH complains about how much he has to pay in CS…


Why does the father only see the kids EOW? 

As for child support, I have family that has actually litigated CS tables at the state level because much of it is complete BS. Yes, it is determined by JOINT income, which means you add both parents up, then you do an offset split to determine the % each parent is responsible for. Assume big Betty makes 25K, Slayer Steve makes 75K. Joint income is 100K for CS calcs. It might say $500 per kid, might be $5000, but Betty assumes 25% of that, and Steve 75%. 

You can see where there is incentive for a mom not to work! There is also very stupid calc for parenting time vs CS. 50/50, everything is equal, 49/51 and it changes HUGE! And why do you think there is so much EOW BS? 

My 2nd ex was collecting 2-3k/mo on one child while trying to whine about giving the father more parenting time. 

I walked away from my kids from 1st ex. Not because of CS or parenting time, it was brain washing my boys and I was just a babysitter, not a parent. Youngest wanted to go back to moms. Oldest made up lies for teachers, and I said "cool, see ya"...... Now they "miss their dad".....tough tiddies.


----------



## RebuildingMe

DownButNotOut said:


> All I know is I pay $1250/month, plus med. insurance, plus 50% of other expenses. And I have my kids 50/50. If I hadn't won at least that, I'd be paying even more.
> 
> Makes MGTOW seem like a pretty good deal.


That sucks. It’s all too common. It’s a rigged system and it’s changing, but far too slowly.


----------



## RebuildingMe

This hurts reading this thread. How so many dads are displaced after divorce. They either lose their money, their kids or both. You don’t see many mom’s starting threads about how they got screwed over in divorce. Very telling…


----------



## OnTheRocks

Bluesclues said:


> Good lord. How much money do you think women get for child support? I remember being aghast that my childhood friend divorced her husband and got $24 a week. Years later when I divorced my husband I get $62 a week for two kids. That is a little over $3,200 a year for TWO children. Do you think that really makes a dent in feeding, housing, clothing them? That is with him only seeing them EOW. I am willing to bet money that my XH complains about how much he has to pay in CS…


I pay $980/mo for one kid that I get EOW, plus I pay health insurance ($300/mo) and 50% of other costs like school uniforms, cell phone bill... Also, my ex W made about 50% more than me when we divorced. She bought a vacation home with Sancho a few years ago (which my kid has been to maybe 3x in 5-6 years). Chew on that.


----------



## CountryMike

OnTheRocks said:


> I pay $980/mo for one kid that I get EOW, plus I pay health insurance ($300/mo) and 50% of other costs like school uniforms, cell phone bill... Also, my ex W made about 50% more than me when we divorced. She bought a vacation home with Sancho a few years ago (which my kid has been to maybe 3x in 5-6 years). Chew on that.


That's gotta suck. Hang in there. I wonder if another trip to court would help you.


----------



## Al_Bundy

CountryMike said:


> That's gotta suck. Hang in there. I wonder if another trip to court would help you.


The only upside there is once she gets used to her subsidized income, she won't know what to do when it ends and spiral down financially while he gets a nice "raise".


----------



## bobsmith

Do you know who ultimately always wins these battles in court? I will take vulture attorneys for $10,000 Alex! 

We have proposed a novel idea to the state that will NEVER get traction.....Which is that all funds provided as "CHILD support" be put in a special account that mothers must draw from, which provides tracking the use of funds. Mom buying a new cell phone is called "mommy support", not child support. Either this or they should call it what is really is....

It is also ridiculous to accept that the more a parent makes, the more it costs to raise a child! Like did the price of food go up? This is where the CS tables are stupid and should be capped. 

Let me explain what really happens. Mom starts getting thousands rolling in, and she uses that to pay her attorney to get more and keep you swinging in court until you are out of money. And then everyone in the country wants to know what is wrong with kids today.....Uh, probably that they were refused access to a father figure!


----------



## RebuildingMe

OnTheRocks said:


> I pay $980/mo for one kid that I get EOW, plus I pay health insurance ($300/mo) and 50% of other costs like school uniforms, cell phone bill... Also, my ex W made about 50% more than me when we divorced. She bought a vacation home with Sancho a few years ago (which my kid has been to maybe 3x in 5-6 years). Chew on that.


Truly disgusting. Would it have been any better with 50/50 (the CS)? Did you want 50/50? If so, why did you settle for EOW?


----------



## Al_Bundy

bobsmith said:


> Do you know who ultimately always wins these battles in court? I will take vulture attorneys for $10,000 Alex!
> 
> We have proposed a novel idea to the state that will NEVER get traction.....Which is that all funds provided as "CHILD support" be put in a special account that mothers must draw from, which provides tracking the use of funds. Mom buying a new cell phone is called "mommy support", not child support. Either this or they should call it what is really is....
> 
> It is also ridiculous to accept that the more a parent makes, the more it costs to raise a child! Like did the price of food go up? This is where the CS tables are stupid and should be capped.
> 
> Let me explain what really happens. Mom starts getting thousands rolling in, and she uses that to pay her attorney to get more and keep you swinging in court until you are out of money. And then everyone in the country wants to know what is wrong with kids today.....Uh, probably that they were refused access to a father figure!


CS should be taxable to the recipient as well. Speaking of taxes, that's the other bonus they get. They can claim the kids and get their nice refund. Ever notice how restaurants and other service related businesses are always short staffed around tax time? Mommy got her refund check, time to call in.


----------



## Numb26

To quote Joshua from "Wargames":

Only winning move is to not play the game


----------



## Bluesclues

OnTheRocks said:


> I pay $980/mo for one kid that I get EOW, plus I pay health insurance ($300/mo) and 50% of other costs like school uniforms, cell phone bill... Also, my ex W made about 50% more than me when we divorced. She bought a vacation home with Sancho a few years ago (which my kid has been to maybe 3x in 5-6 years). Chew on that.


My post was in reply to the idea of women pumping out more kids soley as an income source, not that some men don’t get screwed over. My current husband pays his XW a ton each month and also carries the insurance and 50% costs. He would have a hard time supporting himself if he were on his own. His former in-laws pay all of her bills and buy her a new car every other year. So yeah, he is a tad bitter about her vacations, mani/pedis and ability to spoil the kids at Christmas on what he feels is his dime. The fact that my XH was not screwed over, doesn’t carry the insurance, only has to pay 20% of out of pocket and is thousands of dollars behind on that, feels like a double whammy to my husband.


----------



## manowar

Numb26 said:


> Only winning move is to not play the game



I think this is basically what mgtow is. It seems to me that it's much less about abstinence. A rational reaction to unfavorable market conditions. 

This video shows what a deregulated sexual market looks like. These are for the most part *average women *who maintain power in a one sided marketplace. the stress is on average. They ain't even that pretty is what Im getting at. Average men have no legitimate response to this other than withholding commitment later on. Some lucky (lol) men will be stupid enough to marry these women up. Likely the nice guy who did everything the machine told him to do, except he failed to read the rational male...ha ha.


----------



## bobsmith

Like the dude in the vid! He is on point. All women know there are hordes of simps that will serve them. It took decades to get this bad. I cannot even imagine the anxiety of young men today.


----------



## DownButNotOut

bobsmith said:


> And then everyone in the country wants to know what is wrong with kids today.....Uh, probably that they were refused access to a father figure!


I've always said fathers keep sons out of jail and daughters off stripper poles.


----------



## Enigma32

Al_Bundy said:


> CS should be taxable to the recipient as well. Speaking of taxes, that's the other bonus they get. They can claim the kids and get their nice refund. Ever notice how restaurants and other service related businesses are always short staffed around tax time? Mommy got her refund check, time to call in.


Tax time ballers. Ever heard that term before? At tax time, they go out and spend money like mad. An old friend of mine worked as a car salesman and he joked that they would buy a car with their tax refund and never make one payment just to have the car repo'ed not long after. I've seen it first hand.


----------



## Enigma32

CountryMike said:


> That's gotta suck. Hang in there. I wonder if another trip to court would help you.


That's the last thing you wanna do. Here at least, the way CS works is the court won't look into just lowering the CS, they just reevaluate the case. Meaning, if you approach the courts about your CS payments, you will likely end up paying more, not less.


----------



## manowar

bobsmith said:


> It took decades to get this bad.



Social media and OLD was the exogenous shock that shifted the market to this point of market failure. Women always held a lot of power in dating going back to the 1980s at least, but their power has grown as their options have increased.

the bottom 50% of men should avoid social media and OLD. Get off of it entirely. No more full mailboxes for women since there wouldn't be any messages sent from men. That would leave only the 20% simp bottom feeders who don't count anyway. That would also send a message to the dating sites.


----------



## Enigma32

manowar said:


> Social media and OLD was the exogenous shock that shifted the market to this point of market failure. Women always held a lot of power in dating going back to the 1980s at least, but their power has grown as their options have increased.
> 
> the bottom 50% of men should avoid social media and OLD. Get off of it entirely. No more full mailboxes for women since there wouldn't be any messages sent from men. That would leave only the 20% simp bottom feeders who don't count anyway. That would also send a message to the dating sites.


A guy can use OLD and social media without playing the game they are expected to play. Especially social media. I've been on FB for years but I don't use it to simp for women.


----------



## bobsmith

manowar said:


> *the bottom 50% of men should avoid social media and OLD*. Get off of it entirely. No more full mailboxes for women since there wouldn't be any messages sent from men. That would leave only the 20% simp bottom feeders who don't count anyway. That would also send a message to the dating sites.


Convincing certain men of their status or simping behavior is where that hang up will be. 

Let's just say the "white knight" thing stabs me in my own back at times when I genuinely try to help someone, then think if I would do the same if she was 350#. 

I turned the tables yrs ago. It is not efficient, but effective at times. I roll solo, mind my biz, chat with a few, and women will approach. I flip the table on them. If they don't want to approach, their loss. This gives me the opportunity to reject them! But as my life goes, had a cutie prob 10yrs younger talking to me the other night, then this drunk lady prob 10yrs older than me pretty much butted in. 

See, I tend to think if women are NOT approached, it really messes with them. Imagine a hottie in a room and no one will talk to her.....lmao.... A guy can dream, but there is a simp around every corner. Many are under 30 and don't get it yet.


----------



## RebuildingMe

manowar said:


> Social media and OLD was the exogenous shock that shifted the market to this point of market failure. Women always held a lot of power in dating going back to the 1980s at least, but their power has grown as their options have increased.
> 
> the bottom 50% of men should avoid social media and OLD. Get off of it entirely. No more full mailboxes for women since there wouldn't be any messages sent from men. That would leave only the 20% simp bottom feeders who don't count anyway. That would also send a message to the dating sites.


Guys can definitely use OLD to get laid without the entanglement of the future failed marriage. It might cost a couple of dinners, but hey, that’s entertainment. You have to know how to use it, be honest and lose the ‘oneitess’. When the fatty 5’s realize they ain’t landing Chad and his buddies, they will eventually be squeezed out of the marketplace


----------



## Enigma32

RebuildingMe said:


> Guys can definitely use OLD to get laid without the entanglement of the future failed marriage. It might cost a couple of dinners, but hey, that’s entertainment. You have to know how to use it, be honest and lose the ‘oneitess’. When the fatty 5’s realize they ain’t landing Chad and his buddies, they will eventually be squeezed out of the marketplace


That's pretty much what most guys use OLD for anymore. Smashing and dashing girls just under your level. Ladies ignore guys they are compatible with, fall for the smash and dash, then complain all men just want sex. The cycle continues.


----------



## Diana7

Wow, what a lot of sad and bitter men on here. Thankfully most women aren't as you describe and many men are happy to be married and want to be married. Many are also happy to support their children.
My husband was married in a year after his wife divorced him. He had no bitterness, no resentment and he forgave. I love that.

Hearing men complain about women or women complain about men just because of how their ex behaved is so off putting and unappealing.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> Wow, what a lot of sad and bitter men on here. Thankfully most women aren't as you describe and many men are happy to be married and want to be married. Many are also happy to support their children.
> My husband was married in a year after his wife divorced him. He had no bitterness, no resentment and he forgave. I love that.
> 
> Hearing men complain about women or women complain about men just because of how their ex behaved is so off putting and unappealing.


I think a lot of people have a right to be bitter after the things that have happened to them, men and women both.

As to whether or not you find that sort of thing attractive, that kinda just sounds like an attempt at shaming men into silence. And that's fine, you're entitled to your preferences, but men are still allowed to voice their concerns.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Truth is often bitter. Doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't see bitterness, I see guys living life on their terms. When women do that they're called empowered.


----------



## Diana7

Enigma32 said:


> I think a lot of people have a right to be bitter after the things that have happened to them, men and women both.
> 
> As to whether or not you find that sort of thing attractive, that kinda just sounds like an attempt at shaming men into silence. And that's fine, you're entitled to your preferences, but men are still allowed to voice their concerns.


We have both had terrible things happen to us, but you can choose to let go of the past and forgive and move on.
One if the things I loved about my husband was that he never talked badly or complained about his ex despite what she did to him. He had no bitterness or anger about it and had let it go.
We barely think about it or talk about the past, and moved on long ago.
It's far healthier for us all.


----------



## Diana7

Al_Bundy said:


> Truth is often bitter. Doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't see bitterness, I see guys living life on their terms. When women do that they're called empowered.


I read a lot of bitterness and resentment. It's so bad for us to live that way. Let it go guys.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Diana7 said:


> We have both had terrible things happen to us, but you can choose to let go of the past and forgive and move on.
> One if the things I loved about my husband was that he never talked badly or complained about his ex despite what she did to him. He had no bitterness or anger about it and had let it go.
> We barely think about it or talk about the past, and moved on long ago.
> It's far healthier for us all.


Am I supposed to “let go” of being called a rapist and child molester (of my own damn children) just because some crazy, bitter and angry woman wanted to take my kids and my money from me? That’s a lot to forgive, Diana. My story is typical of many fathers out there, well, except for maybe the ending. Yes, counseling and therapy, here I come.


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> Am I supposed to “let go” of being called a rapist and child molester (of my own damn children) just because some crazy, bitter and angry woman wanted to take my kids and my money from me? That’s a lot to forgive, Diana. My story is typical of many fathers out there, well, except for maybe the ending. Yes, counseling and therapy, here I come.


I think where you are mentally is quite understandable considering what you just went through.

But I do hope for your sake that you are able to let a lot of that go eventually for your own mental well being.

Your ex is a piece of **** but all people deserve evaluation on their own merits. My mother's father sexually abused me when I was a kid and I could easily decide men are scumbags and can't be trusted. But it wasn't "men" who did that...it was him and only him.

You might decide for practical reasons that remarriage isn't for you. Hell, I'm not sure it's for me either. I'm a high earner with my own assets to protect, but I might st least consider it with appropriate protections....I don't know.

Just try not to make the women in your future pay for the sins of your ex. This is something I remind myself of regularly.


----------



## Chaotic

lifeistooshort said:


> Just try not to make the women in your future pay for the sins of your ex. This is something I remind myself of regularly.


^^ This. I know a few women and a few men who don't date anymore because they were scarred by ***ty relationships they had with ***ty people in the past. But they weren't screwed over by an entire gender. They were screwed over by one terrible person.


----------



## RebuildingMe

lifeistooshort said:


> I think where you are mentally is quite understandable considering what you just went through.
> 
> But I do hope for your sake that you are able to let a lot of that go eventually for your own mental well being.
> 
> Your ex is a piece of **** but all people deserve evaluation on their own merits. My mother's father sexually abused me when I was a kid and I could easily decide men are scumbags and can't be trusted. But it wasn't "men" who did that...it was him and only him.
> 
> You might decide for practical reasons that remarriage isn't for you. Hell, I'm not sure it's for me either. I'm a high earner with my own assets to protect, but I might st least consider it with appropriate protections....I don't know.
> 
> Just try not to make the women in your future pay for the sins of your ex. This is something I remind myself of regularly.


Great advice. It's so damn hard. My gf tells me all the time "I am not *___*(ex)". But then I'm also reminded that ex 2 used to tell me that about ex 1.

I know I'm not marriage material because I have difficulty living with anyone else. I like my privacy and my own place to come back to every night. I like staying up as late as I want and going to sleep in my own bed.

Forgiveness with my ex 2 may never happen after what was said. And yes, I know forgiveness is for _me_, not her.


----------



## bobsmith

Diana7 said:


> I read a lot of bitterness and resentment. It's so bad for us to live that way. *Let it go guys*.


Do you mean let the money go? the sanity? what? 

I don't think men in my same mentality totally resent women, but as I mentioned earlier, I consider women like a Cheetah. They are really pretty to look at, you really want to pet them, but have a healthy respect for them because they can F you up in a moment's notice and do it with grace. This is no different than men jumping motorcycles. There is just a risk/reward thing and Testosterone causes us to push into the risk areas of life. 

It might be different if two people really did "go their separate ways" when it doesn't work out, but that is not the norm. Even if the woman cheats, she will still win in court and run off with Chad.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Diana7 said:


> I read a lot of bitterness and resentment. It's so bad for us to live that way. Let it go guys.


That's the whole point of MGTOW. Let it go, and go your own way.

It doesn't take bitterness, or resentment to choose not to play the game. Like I said if the juice ain't worth the squeeze then why pick through the barrel of lemons?


----------



## Al_Bundy

If you want to see sad, bitter men just look at the guys out in public getting dragged around town with their NFL sized wife. Tom Leykis used to call them the beaten dogs because you can see it in their face.

The guys I know who are living life on their own terms are happier, in better shape and even after divorce many eventually become better off financially now that they are the unencumbered.


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> Great advice. It's so damn hard. My gf tells me all the time "I am not *___*(ex)". But then I'm also reminded that ex 2 used to tell me that about ex 1.
> 
> I know I'm not marriage material because I have difficulty living with anyone else. I like my privacy and my own place to come back to every night. I like staying up as late as I want and going to sleep in my own bed.
> 
> Forgiveness with my ex 2 may never happen after what was said. And yes, I know forgiveness is for _me_, not her.


I've never liked the term forgiveness for those who knowingly do ****ty things. I don't forgive my ex...as far as I'm concerned he can **** off.

But what I do have for the most part is acceptance. I accept that he has issues which cause him to do ****ty things. He is who he is, and that is someone who has a massive inferiority complex, can't face getting older, needs a lot of attention to his ego, and is so conflict avoidant that he acts like a passive aggressive **** head who then plays dumb like a coward.

It's quite a sad way to live.

I forgive people who do something ****ty but genuinely don't mean to, or people that truly get what they did and are sorry. My ex falls into neither of those categories, so I file him under acceptance.

And your ex was correct ...she wasn't ex 1. She was her own person with her own set of issues. Evaluated on her own she sucks.

Since I'm an actuary I tend to think in terms of risk mitigation. With greater risk can come greater reward, but the downside potential also goes up. So we evaluate each person on their own merits and do a risk/reward analysis to decide what we're willing to risk.

Ha ha...part of the reason bf and I are doing so well is that we really don't ask anything of each other. We're fully integrated into each other's lives and spend 5 nights a week together, but future plans have never come up and I don't care. We're monogamous and we do talk about things we want to do a material amount of time in the future, so I think we both feel like we're probably in it for the long haul, but beyond that no demands have been made.

I suppose we'll see how things develop.

Methinks you need something like this.


----------



## damo7

I know a guy that makes MGTOW videos on Youtube. He was born into a religious family. He's always been a quiet guy and his friends take advantage of him. He's 30 years old, smokes weed everyday, plays video games everyday and has worked a few part time, dead end jobs and lives at home with his parents. He's a smart guy, did well in school, but hasn't really achieved much as an adult. He picks his nose during conversation and is socially awkward. 
Most of his friends either work part time jobs or not at all, they all smoke weed every day, all day and live in dingy, dirty flats.

He has never had a girlfriend and the girls he meets through his friend group are generally promiscuous and of low moral fiber/intelligence - not what he wants, he wants a young homemaker basically. What he knows of women and the MGTOW movement he's learned online - mostly from others like himself. I don't get it how someone like him thinks they can preach to others about women and relationships. 

Most MGTOW's are either narcissistic abusers whose victim flew the coop, or agreeable, low self esteem desperate little hamsters with poor discernment, willing to over look red flags at a chance for sex and love. Then after they get screwed over their perception of women changes, and they fail to blame themselves for the mistakes they made. 

A lot of MGTOW's quote stories about how profile sports stars/movie stars etc having to pay ridiculous divorce settlements/alimony - but the reality for most of us is that will never affect us. They make videos where they show examples of women behaving badly or promiscuously and use it as 'hard evidence' that ALL women are unfit for marriage. They focus on the worst women. They just want to reinforce the fantasy that women are to blame for their failings in the relationship department.

This guy doesn't have the confidence to even approach a woman, yet he's convinced himself that women are the enemy. If the only women you meet are in bars or clubs, chances are they aren't the type someone like him is looking for. 

"Nice guys finish last. Why do women reject nice guys and go for some bay boy that treats her like crap? I've been talking to her for weeks!" 
Well Mr. Brightspark, sounds like you need to learn better discernment. Decent human beings don't have opposite sex friends that fancy them and want more, they don't get off on attention like that. Maybe she wasn't leading you on, maybe you were just pestering her and she was being nice? In either case, she wasn't interested and if she chose some douche then she's an idiot and not for you, move on. There are A LOT of crap people OF BOX SEXES in the world.


----------



## Goobertron

I'm MGTOW. I've thought of getting the red pill ring which is a ring worn in solidarity for victims of suicide. I was married for years - my wife used the internet to have an emotional affair and it killed the relationship. She married him and is now raising two more kids and wont finish that until her 60s. I had to pay 12 years of child support. The funny thing is everyone used to say how great we seemed together and she never missed an opportunity to tell me she loved me and how happy she was even up until the last day. Then she started saying she never really loved me as she'd already monkey branched to the next guy and was in those butterfly feelings women are constantly drawn toward. 

The dating market is just terrible for men. I've dated single mothers with bratty kids close to psychosis and low incomes and lots of debt and huge body counts. I've done my tours of duty. I've tried to make women happy to just get dumped by text on a random Tuesday. I've had a woman fake being pregnant with my kid. That's 18 years of child support payments - in the end I was worried she was going to deliberately try to get pregnant by me so she could have my child and earn an income and then just cut me off. I have an old female friend from Facebook who within a year met a guy online dating had his child and dumped him. He'd be paying for a child he can never see that she has poisoned against him. Women just don't love men the way men love and commit to women anymore. We're useful assets: like a jeep. There's no accountability or empathy or even an attempt at bonding because they can just start up a Tinder account and have 50 horny guys ogle them for validation. They just need one man for resources, to get their wallet out and to be able to parade out him in front of her social circle for status points in her local matriarchy.


----------



## bobsmith

Well, that was interesting! One guy that posted his outside view of it, basically saying if you are MGTOW, it's because you're a loser, followed by another real statistic of the "system". I also just realized three more of my friends that crashed because their women caught some new feelings. 

Again, I either don't understand MGTOW, or many people just have it wrong. It was my understanding it had nothing to do with guys that are slobs, can't shower, smoke weed, etc, etc. I think about anyone would just consider them deadbeats and they are not dateable for many reasons. These dudes are NOT single by choice!

As for the guy above, he is military and there are always women that go for that, so saying that he "can't find one" is probably not accurate. But rather, not wanting to set life on repeat.


----------



## tech-novelist

bobsmith said:


> I think my thread is sort of stepping more into just modern dating. I will try to refocus on this mgtow or maybe 'red pill' type movement. What I am most interested in is people that or sort of on that path, to what degree, and what lead them there? Again, I do realize I am on a marriage site. I for one don't have any single friends anymore, male or female. It is also not a question that comes up in casual conversation.
> 
> I feel there is WAY more to this way of thinking than just choosing to date because of the female mentality. As I have said, the government now has laws in place that specifically target fathers and husbands. It would be very rare that men get the better side of the stick. All this means is the deck is stacked against men to an insane level. There seems to be no shortage of men willing to walk the plank, but you just cannot excuse the statistics and economics.
> 
> Me just being a number cruncher I have evaluated my chances of actually being in a happy LTR as about 5%. That number is evaluated based on 50% divorce rate, 25% of the married ones are even happy, age, previous LTRs, etc. But I also factored in attraction. For me it does not come down to finding "someone", it comes down to someone I would actually be attracted to, plus be a good human. Those are GONE..... And if they do pop back up, they are seriously damaged. So my mentality is like focusing effort in life to "winning the lottery" and we all know how foolish that is.
> 
> I am just bringing up my reasoning. At least for me this is not like "I hate all women and swear them off", but rather I stopped looking entirely and no longer the focus in any part of my life. I sort of think some guys on this strict mgtow trip might be coming more from a place of total rejection most of their life. I could see where a guy could only take so much.


I'm happily married but if I weren't, I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to get involved with a woman. It is just way too risky in today's environment.
If I were young and single, I would try to find a country less misandrist than the USA.


----------



## Enigma32

tech-novelist said:


> I'm happily married but if I weren't, I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to get involved with a woman. It is just way too risky in today's environment.
> If I were young and single, I would try to find a country less misandrist than the USA.


Yup. That's the best way to go, honestly. Unfortunately, even that route has challenges these days.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Since I'm an actuary I tend to think in terms of risk mitigation. With greater risk can come greater reward, but the downside potential also goes up. So we evaluate each person on their own merits and do a risk/reward analysis to decide what we're willing to risk.


I'm not an actuary but I could play one on TV, and I agree that risk mitigation is essential.

Unfortunately in today's western (US) society, any man getting involved with any woman is taking on a tremendous amount of risk that cannot be mitigated, including divorce, child support, being arrested because she is frightened with no evidence necessary that he has harmed or threatened her.

I'm certainly not an incel and agree that many of them are pathetic losers who could do a lot better by themselves, but you don't have to be an incel to realize how stacked the deck is against men in this society.


----------



## Enigma32

tech-novelist said:


> Unfortunately in today's western (US) society, any man getting involved with any woman is taking on a tremendous amount of risk* that cannot be mitigated*, including divorce, child support, being arrested because she is frightened with no evidence necessary that he has harmed or threatened her.


Not true. As we have seen on this thread, men can always get a vasectomy and give up the ability to even have children. That seems to be the feminist answer to men's issues. We have almost 0 reproductive rights but hold plenty of responsibility.


----------



## manowar

Goobertron said:


> I've had a woman* fake* being pregnant with my kid. That's *18 years of child support payments* - in the end I was worried she was going to deliberately try to get pregnant by me so she could have my child and earn an income and then just cut me off.


they call that the reverse annuity.

Man that is scary.. the sick thing is that its very feasible. Even a strategy. Insanity. what we are seeing now is probably 2nd inning. Its got a long way to go before there is any change in the laws. Marriage rates will have to drop to 1000 year lows.



Goobertron said:


> I was married for years - my wife used the internet to have an emotional affair and it killed the relationship. She married him and is now raising two more kids and wont finish that until her 60s. I had to pay 12 years of child support. The funny thing is everyone used to say how great we seemed together and she never missed an opportunity to tell me she loved me and how happy she was even up until the last day. Then she started saying she never really loved me as she'd already monkey branched to the next guy and was in those butterfly feelings women are constantly drawn toward.



sad story. but have heard something like this hundreds of times. She walks - you get the bill of course. Vows are just words. That's all. that's why the entire marriage system needs to be redesigned. what we have is the old relic from the late 19th century - 1955 which worked well. that era is long gone. What we are left with is a myth. Another market failure as we have in the dating market.


----------



## Laurentium

manowar said:


> That's all. that's why the entire marriage system needs to be redesigned. what we have is the old relic from the late 19th century


The system currently is designed to protect the state from having to support fatherless children. And also from having to decide whether a marriage is viable or not. I guess I'm happy for the state not to do the latter.


----------



## Blondilocks

The days of men playing Johnny Appleseed are over. You don't want to support your children - don't have them. 

Any man who thinks America is misandrist should have had to walk in the shoes of women even 30 years ago. What a bunch of horseshit. You want a subservient wife? Import one and see how that plays out for you. lol Or, take your personage to another country. I promise - you won't be missed.


----------



## CharlieParker

Blondilocks said:


> The days of men playing Johnny Appleseed are over. You don't want to support your children - don't have them.
> 
> Any man who thinks America is misandrist should have had to walk in the shoes of women even 30 years ago. What a bunch of horseshit. You want a subservient wife? Import one and see how that plays out for you. lol Or, take your personage to another country. I promise - you won't be missed.


Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you'll be a mile away and have his shoes.


----------



## Trident

There IS a lot of bitterness on this thread from guys who have failed.

I'm divorced, was paying $8k per month in combined spousal and child support, but you know what? That's over now, and I've dated and been in relationships with some great women since that time, even lived with a woman for years.

All women aren't the same, but if you give people opportunity then yes there is a tendency to take advantage.

So learn from your mistakes, don't get married again if ever, unless she's got more money and assets than you do, in which case "maybe" consider marriage.

As far as living together goes- tread carefully before you give up your independence.

But to give up on all women just because you got screwed due to poor decisions on your own part? It's an over reaction and you're blaming the wrong group of people for your own mistakes and misfortune.


----------



## Numb26

Trident said:


> But to give up on all women just because you got screwed due to poor decisions on your own part? It's an over reaction and you're blaming the wrong group of people for your own mistakes and misfortune.


This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. So what you are saying is my XW's sleeping with multiple people was because of MY poor decision? And that I overreacted and blaming HER because it was MY mistake? GTFO


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> The days of men playing Johnny Appleseed are over. You don't want to support your children - don't have them.
> 
> Any man who thinks America is misandrist should have had to walk in the shoes of women even 30 years ago. What a bunch of horseshit. You want a subservient wife? Import one and see how that plays out for you. lol Or, take your personage to another country. I promise - you won't be missed.


And this is why I advise promising young men to go MGTOW.


----------



## Trident

Numb26 said:


> This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. So what you are saying is my XW's sleeping with multiple people was because of MY poor decision? And that I overreacted and blaming HER because it was MY mistake? GTFO


I don't know the back story but from what I read, my first thought is "how did your ex manage to sleep with multiple people without you being aware?"

Either your head was buried in the sand, or you just kept forgiving her. No, it's not your fault she cheated but you might have made some poor decisions when you became aware of it or the red flags were waving and you chose to ignore them. Or she's just really good at being deceptive and none of the classic cheating signs were there but that's rather unlikely.

Regardless, to project what she did to you onto every other female on the face of the planet is to say the least, a bit shortsighted. Assuming of course that you're part of the "movement".


----------



## Numb26

Trident said:


> I don't know the back story but from what I read, my first thought is "how did your ex manage to sleep with multiple people without you being aware?"
> 
> Either your head was buried in the sand, or you just kept forgiving her. No, it's not your fault she cheated but you might have made some poor decisions when you became aware of it or the red flags were waving and you chose to ignore them. Or she's just really good at being deceptive and none of the classic cheating signs were there but that's rather unlikely.
> 
> Regardless, to project what she did to you onto every other female on the face of the planet is to say the least, a bit shortsighted. Assuming of course that you're part of the "movement".


Maybe you should read my backstop, that way you don't make yourself look like an idiot?


----------



## RebuildingMe

Numb26 said:


> Maybe you should read my backstop, that way you don't make yourself look like an idiot?


Damn it Numb! Don’t you get it??? You allowed your ex to screw others. It’s all your fault!!


----------



## DownButNotOut

Meh. White Knights are gonna knight.


----------



## Blondilocks

I probably have my head up my ass; but, it seems to me that men with the attitude that all women are out to get them may be attracting the very women who would. 

Even if you don't open your trap and spout mgtow or red-pill nonsense, women can pick up on your attitude. Involuntary, automatic body language will tell a woman what you think and where you stand more than words will. And, those who like to play games will play. Some may consider it a challenge and some may do it out of spite because of what some jerk did to her. And, some will get the hell out of Dodge.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Blondilocks said:


> I probably have my head up my ass; but, it seems to me that men with the attitude that all women are out to get them may be attracting the very women who would.
> 
> Even if you don't open your trap and spout mgtow or red-pill nonsense, women can pick up on your attitude. Involuntary, automatic body language will tell a woman what you think and where you stand more than words will. And, those who like to play games will play. Some may consider it a challenge and some may do it out of spite because of what some jerk did to her. And, some will get the hell out of Dodge.


I see your point and I think it all hinges to the degree of how red pilled they really are. A lot of the extreme RP (actually called black pill) or MGTOW are not looking to date or enter into any relationships other the ONS or FWB. So the point is moot. I do consider myself RP aware, have the battle scars to prove that being a beta doormat doesn’t work, but feel I am more than capable of attracting and retaining normal, honest, sexual women. At least now I do.


----------



## Lila

Blondilocks said:


> I probably have my head up my ass; but, it seems to me that men with the attitude that all women are out to get them may be attracting the very women who would.
> 
> Even if you don't open your trap and spout mgtow or red-pill nonsense, women can pick up on your attitude. Involuntary, automatic body language will tell a woman what you think and where you stand more than words will. And, those who like to play games will play. Some may consider it a challenge and some may do it out of spite because of what some jerk did to her. And, some will get the hell out of Dodge.


^^This!

I went out with someone who on the outside was very attractive but was a bitter mess on the inside. It took a few dates to figure out his game and when I called him on it, and told him I wasn't interested in playing, he said " i thought you were the exemption but you're just like all of the others". See he is looking for someone who is willing to overlook his bitterness and prove to him that his perception of women is wrong. Sorry friend. Beauty and the beast is a fairy tale. I am no Belle with the patience to turn the beast to a prince. 

I ran across his dating profile the last time I was online dating (last November) and it was just one bitter rant against women and their preferences. I can't imagine he'd meet Belle that way. Such a shame too.


----------



## TXTrini

Blondilocks said:


> I probably have my head up my ass; but, it seems to me that men with the attitude that all women are out to get them may be attracting the very women who would.
> 
> Even if you don't open your trap and spout mgtow or red-pill nonsense, women can pick up on your attitude. Involuntary, automatic body language will tell a woman what you think and where you stand more than words will. And, those who like to play games will play. Some may consider it a challenge and some may do it out of spite because of what some jerk did to her. And, some will get the hell out of Dodge.


This^^

In my short OLD stint, I came across some men like this, I avoided them like the plague. Even so, I matched with a few, and toyed with them until they admitted they just want to get laid, then blocked and deleted.

Unlike LIla, none of the men who espoused those sentiments were attractive, so it was no skin off my nose.


----------



## lifeistooshort

*Moderator warning:

Let's avoid personal attacks and insults.

We're all capable of discussion without getting nasty.*


----------



## bobsmith

Mod, I understand and agree! It seems like a saucy topic with quite polarized views between those that have been through the fire, and those that talk about what it looks like from the outside. 

I really wish there were clear "membership lines" between all these movements. I am losing track in the MGTOW, incel, red pill, green pill, black pill, castration, etc.....lmao.....

The main way I lead my life now is NOT actively pursue women, just do life. If something rolls in, ALWAYS have an exit strategy, guard certain interests and matters of my life. If I have any medical concern, I am not going to share that. that means weakness. Never ever put a ring on and say the meaningless words. If there is a woman willing to sign on for that, they just might be in the like mind to have a "civil informal union". 

The risk is there. It is not a guess or opinion, it is written into law! Not one law seeks protect men! 

Let me share a story I shared quite a while back where a woman was literally harassing me at a concert, to absolute extremes! Everyone one of my friends had to get involved but I decided to take the high road and ask the TONS of LEOs to use their damn badges and do something about it. They did precisely nothing until it continued for hours and they FINALLY arrested her after even non-associated people were also mentioning it to cops. 

Now flip the tables and I was doing that to her!!!! Talk about the white knights unite! I would have had 15 cops surrounding me, telling me what a POS I am!


----------



## manowar

Laurentium said:


> The system currently is designed to protect the state from having to support fatherless children



Agreed. Its also designed as a massive redistribution of wealth system where nominal child costs of say $550.00 are put on the CSupport schedule for $3300.00. When woman can walk away for any reason (no fault of the man) and still get paid with cash and prizes. She just isn't feeling it anymore. there is a massive inequity that needs to be reexamined. So men have done the smart thing and decided not to marry. The risks are very high for a man who wants to preserve his wealth. the solution is easy - just avoid those risks. 

The old relic is a joke based on emotional love since the commitment is temporary while the risks are one-sided. Pre-relic marriage was based on economic interests and family connections of the upper classes. It did not really matter what the lower classes did. they were on their own to improve their lot without the iron fist of the state. men and women of the lower classes working together in many cases improved their lot in life as a team and actually were in love. 

Im thinking of marriages without these insanely expensive ceremonies that are for 15 years in duration. The parties can then decide if they wish to renew for another 15 years or go their separate ways without all the draconian penalties placed upon the man's shoulders regardless of fault.


----------



## manowar

Blondilocks said:


> I probably have my head up my ass; but, it seems to me that men with the attitude that all women are out to get them may be attracting the very women who would.



Its not that all or no women are out to get them. Most men don't think like this until they are badly burned by a corrupt system. I've never gotten burned badly, but I can understand a man's plight who experienced it and I'd be a fool not to take notice that it could happen to me Rather it's that the woman CAN destroy them at the drop of a hat. Monday everything is fine. Tues ILYBIANILWY. 5 months later - years of monthly alimony. The man's only way out is to take off and change his identity. Not a bad idea especially when children are not involved. From what I understand a lot of those guys end up in New Mexico. That's where id probably go.


----------



## Blondilocks

manowar said:


> Its not that all or no women are out to get them. Most men don't think like this until they are badly burned by a corrupt system. I've never gotten burned badly, but I can understand a man's plight who experienced it and I'd be a fool not to take notice that it could happen to me Rather it's that the woman CAN destroy them at the drop of a hat. Monday everything is fine. Tues ILYBIANILWY. 5 months later - years of monthly alimony. The man's only way out is to take off and change his identity. Not a bad idea especially when children are not involved. From what I understand a lot of those guys end up in New Mexico. That's where id probably go.


Why New Mexico?


----------



## Enigma32

I can't speak for everyone here but I definitely don't think all women are bad or anything like that. I have a few friends that got married long ago and have faithful relationships. I will say this though, if you have a few failed LTR's early on and you're starting to get older, your chances are now slim to none. I think that most of the decent, dateable people get snatched up when they are younger and are taken off the market pretty much forever. What's left are the ladies who for whatever reason are likely incapable of commitment. There are a few nice ladies who just got screwed over in a marriage or something but from my experience, those are rare. 

I am also aware that a lot of the guys out there aren't anything special either. My female friends lament this fact to me often enough. I get it. The difference is, if a woman dates some screwed up guy, she can cut her losses and run easy enough. On the other hand, if a man gets too involved with a messed up girl, she can and likely will ruin his life for the next decade or so. I've just got too many friends that I've seen get financially and emotionally destroyed by the courts after getting married or having kids. If a guy decides that marriage isn't for him, I really don't blame him. Personally, I like ladies far too much to give up on them but not everyone feels that way. 

This all ties into the other conversations we have had on here about men's issues and why men don't speak up. Because as I have said before, when men do speak up, either no one cares or all they do is hurl insults. Men getting their lives ruined by their ex and the courts? Haha must be a MGTOW, unwashed loser that no one wants anyway, right? Aww, poor guy doesn't wanna get ruined by child support payments? Just get a vasectomy and forget ever having kids, right? And don't forget guys, talking about men's problems isn't attractive to females. That's been said often enough here.


----------



## bobsmith

Here is just something that reminded me of this thread. Just today saw several marketing videos talking about "single mom of x number of kids".....Like the struggle. Feel sorry for her. I am all "why are you single?" Like really! You ever see marketing for "single dad of 4 kids?" NOPE. 

I think I have become hyper sensitive to this single mom thing. And EVERY single mom you ask why she is single, there will be a LONG rant about her baby daddy, he is a POS, loser, etc, etc. But she hooked up with that and cranked out the kids! 

I am not trying to just outright slam women here, but it is another prime example of how men have slowly been made into pawns. Everyone should have sympathy for single moms though. Women will never just come out and tell you she was banging the pool boy while her kids were sleeping and her husband was slaving 12hr days to provide. That is the real jive that happens on the daily that never gets told.


----------



## manowar

Blondilocks said:


> Why New Mexico?



Seems like a good place to blend in if you want to disappear. But I really don't know.


----------



## Enigma32

manowar said:


> Seems like a good place to blend in if you want to disappear. But I really don't know.


You can blend in anywhere, really. I am with a girl from Philippines and even though no one knows about it, there is a large-ish community of guys around here that have married girls from Philippines. The ladies all make friends so they have someone from their culture to talk to.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> I can't speak for everyone here but I definitely don't think all women are bad or anything like that. I have a few friends that got married long ago and have faithful relationships. I will say this though, if you have a few failed LTR's early on and you're starting to get older, your chances are now slim to none. I think that most of the decent, dateable people get snatched up when they are younger and are taken off the market pretty much forever. What's left are the ladies who for whatever reason are likely incapable of commitment. There are a few nice ladies who just got screwed over in a marriage or something but from my experience, those are rare.
> 
> I am also aware that a lot of the guys out there aren't anything special either. My female friends lament this fact to me often enough. I get it. The difference is, if a woman dates some screwed up guy, she can cut her losses and run easy enough. On the other hand, if a man gets too involved with a messed up girl, she can and likely will ruin his life for the next decade or so. I've just got too many friends that I've seen get financially and emotionally destroyed by the courts after getting married or having kids. If a guy decides that marriage isn't for him, I really don't blame him. Personally, I like ladies far too much to give up on them but not everyone feels that way.
> 
> This all ties into the other conversations we have had on here about men's issues and why men don't speak up. Because as I have said before, when men do speak up, either no one cares or all they do is hurl insults. Men getting their lives ruined by their ex and the courts? Haha must be a MGTOW, unwashed loser that no one wants anyway, right? Aww, poor guy doesn't wanna get ruined by child support payments? Just get a vasectomy and forget ever having kids, right? And don't forget guys, talking about men's problems isn't attractive to females. That's been said often enough here.


THIS!!!!!

I'm surprised nobody has replied to shame you and tell you to man up. 

BTW, just to add to that. If you don't work out, you're a wuss. If you have muscles then you're a dumb meathead. Also if you don't have money, then you must live at home eating cheetos, if you have money then you are shallow because money can't buy happiness you dumb loser.


----------



## Goobertron

Trident said:


> There IS a lot of bitterness on this thread from guys who have failed.


I'm not bitter by the way. I also don't feel that I failed. I did my best and I've learned some lessons. I just feel the dynamic has changed and its better for me not to try to be in relationships because the juice isn't worth the squeeze anymore. I can't trust the other person in the relationship after the butterfly feelings have gone. They then subconsciously start looking for the next guy that gives them that feeling and nowadays can easily use the power of the internet to tap into a global market.

Women and men are behaviourally programmed by their genes. Women subconsciously seek out the "best man" to mate with and get his DNA and they can't really control that so I'm not blaming them. Men have similar behaviours with going for fertile traits in women however its so much harder for men as women find the majority far less attractive than men find women. It just is what it is. Most guys are invisible but any woman probably has a chance with a guy so they go always for the best one. I've been to speed dating and seen it.

I like talking to women and I've been in LTRs and was married. These days I wouldn't want to attempt to date or be in a long term relationship with one because its expensive emotionally, financially and time-wise and eventually leads to a break up. In most cases she's initiated that break-up for some BS reason but its because its a subconscious thing and they need to rationalise it somehow. I would then lose a lot financially if they'd lived with me for at least 18 months (automatically considered defacto in my State) and I don't think that's something I'd like to go through.


----------



## Enigma32

Al_Bundy said:


> THIS!!!!!
> 
> *I'm surprised nobody has replied to shame you and tell you to man up.*
> 
> BTW, just to add to that. If you don't work out, you're a wuss. If you have muscles then you're a dumb meathead. Also if you don't have money, then you must live at home eating cheetos, if you have money then you are shallow because money can't buy happiness you dumb loser.


I wouldn't care if they did. I've always gone my own way, and in this I am no different. I think that Western culture is absolutely toxic for relationships and family and I have pretty much stepped away from it. I have a GF now who is not from a Westernized culture and we are working on starting a family together one day. For some reason, if that doesn't work out, I will probably just seek out female company when I am in the mood for it but never try relationships again. Not seriously, anyway.


----------



## manowar

Enigma32 said:


> I have a GF now who is not from a Westernized culture



that's a smart move. more guys should try this. 



Enigma32 said:


> I will probably just seek out female company when I am in the mood for it but never try relationships again. Not seriously, anyway.



this is the right attitude for men to take, but then there is the brainwashing that gets those young guys, nice guys, myth guys, white knights . the list goes on and on. You are putting yourself first. men have been socially conditioned ( this runs very deep) to marry and take on all of the corresponding obligations that go with it. For the most part, many don't even think about it. Things are starting to change but very slowly. 20 years ago the man's downside was hardly mentioned. A few men like Rev. Shannon (airline pilot who wrote a book about it in the 1980s) knew the deal. Just talking about it indicates that there are new ideas today from the man's perspective that are showing green shoots. But men are way behind the curve, especially in dating. maybe its always been that way to a certain degree.


----------



## Goobertron

I thought this video was quite good. It's mostly women talking about what MGTOW is and trying to understand why it has become a thing:


----------



## Al_Bundy

I saw a clip from retired UFC fighter Jon Fitch where some chick was trying to shame him with the old who hurt you line. He gave a brilliant and true response, he said I wasn't hurt by a woman, I got hurt by the government.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Goobertron said:


> I thought this video was quite good. It's mostly women talking about what MGTOW is and trying to understand why it has become a thing:


Did you see the second comment on this video (bill notice)........holy FCK!


----------



## manowar

Al_Bundy said:


> Did you see the second comment on this video (bill notice)........holy FCK!


There may be more of this than we realize. There was a guy near me that stopped working. And he'd spend some time in jail when they caught up with him. He didn't care and looked at being locked up as a victory. Defying the system kind of thing. Newspaper made him out to be a deadbeat bum of course. I think he was a stockbroker. Personally, I prefer the identity change and move to New Mexico or where ever, Buenos Aries. I'd wager that Family Court enforcers have more pressing matters than an all-out man-hunt for an alimony deadbeat that disappears off the grid.
It's doable for someone who is motivated enough.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

OnTheRocks said:


> I'm kind of MGTOW lite (or LAT as described in my last post), and being treated so unfairly by the family court system is at least half of the reason why. I also really have a hard time seeing many benefits of living with a partner, and LOTS of drawbacks. I don't want to argue over how many dishes are in the sink, or when the yard gets mowed. I want the entire master bedroom closet to myself. I don't want to be coerced into spending $5k on some patio furniture. Just some examples. The ex wife also seemed to think it was okay to scold me like a child for not doing as I was told, which was typically met with something like "why the F are you talking to me that way?" from me, netting more built up resentment for both of us. Never again.
> 
> If you don't live together, the passion hangs around a lot longer. That being said, it's mostly run out in my currently-failing 10 year LAT relationship. Also, if you get in an argument, you can just head home and get back together after you both cool off. This only works for two independent people that are okay with significant alone time. I honestly enjoy being alone.
> 
> As far as a straight guy swearing off sex with women forever just on principle, I don't think anyone does that for real unless they just don't have any options. Thankfully, I seem to be in the 20%, and haven't had problems getting attention in OLD when I've used it in the past. I guess I'll be finding out soon if the extra grey hair I have now is going to change that.


Oh, there are a whole community with plenty of past relationships so it's not like they can't get women. The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze, like some of the things you mention and other reasons, but mainly it comes down to family court and divorce laws. MGTOW isn't so much about suppressing your sex desire as a man, short of castration or a otherworldly willpower that isn't likely. But there are alternatives. Theres old fashioned masturbation -every married man's best friend only without a nagging wife to hide it from. Then there are sex dolls, extremely realistic however a piece of plastic can be. Some simply use prostitutes but that is kinda cheating IMO. You don't really need women at all, if you need company get a dog or hang out with your friends.


----------



## bobsmith

Damn! I just watched that vid and then saw that comment! It really doesn't surprise me though! What is even more sick is that guy's story likely will never be told or remembered and the sick judge that ruined his life will have zero remorse. It is like a broken record! What is super pathetic is it really doesn't take much common sense thinking to find ways to 'fix' the issues, but no one wants to hear it. A woman should never be granted alimony once she remarries!


----------



## Al_Bundy

manowar said:


> There may be more of this than we realize. There was a guy near me that stopped working. And he'd spend some time in jail when they caught up with him. He didn't care and looked at being locked up as a victory. Defying the system kind of thing. Newspaper made him out to be a deadbeat bum of course. I think he was a stockbroker. Personally, I prefer the identity change and move to New Mexico or where ever, Buenos Aries. I'd wager that Family Court enforcers have more pressing matters than an all-out man-hunt for an alimony deadbeat that disappears off the grid.
> It's doable for someone who is motivated enough.


I'm with you. I knew a guy years ago who worked under the table for cash only to avoid the system. 

One good thing about today's tech is a guy can always liquidate and pull his money off the grid and get out of town. It'd take some planning, but as you said the neither the authorities here or abroad are going to care about hunting down some alimony desperado.


----------



## bobsmith

Yet STILL, women today cannot grasp the situation, convinced they become victims. Anyone care to look up the statistics on how many men are in prison for child support and alimony defaults? How about women? When that changes, I might be willing to reengage life. Until then, I will remain in the neutral zone. Willing to slap asses, but a ring ain't happen'n.....


----------



## RandomDude

Incels with guns go nuts:









Gunman ranted in videos about virginity


A gunman left five dead including a child under ten in a suburban bloodbath last night.




www.news.com.au


----------



## DownButNotOut

What does that have to do with men choosing to not LTR with a woman? (aka MGTOW)


----------



## As'laDain

MGTOW isn't just about avoiding relationships...

The philosophy is also about people saying "**** this social system, I'm doing what i please, society be damned".

Fun fact, i have been paying 20 dollars a month as a paid member of a MGTOW forum for many years now, and yet i am married and am in three long term relationships. 

Some MGTOW types are whiners. Some are just done with ****. 

Some, like me, feel zero need to confirm to society. 

You really can't paint an entire group with the same brush. That almost never works.


----------



## DownButNotOut

As'laDain said:


> MGTOW isn't just about avoiding relationships...
> 
> The philosophy is also about people saying "**** this social system, I'm doing what i please, society be damned".
> 
> Fun fact, i have been paying 20 dollars a month as a paid member of a MGTOW forum for many years now, and yet i am married and am in three long term relationships.
> 
> Some MGTOW types are whiners. Some are just done with ****.
> 
> Some, like me, feel zero need to confirm to society.
> 
> You really can't paint an entire group with the same brush. That almost never works.


Again I ask, what does any of that do with some incel?


----------



## RebuildingMe

As'laDain said:


> MGTOW isn't just about avoiding relationships...
> 
> The philosophy is also about people saying "**** this social system, I'm doing what i please, society be damned".
> 
> Fun fact, i have been paying 20 dollars a month as a paid member of a MGTOW forum for many years now, and yet i am married and am in three long term relationships.
> 
> Some MGTOW types are whiners. Some are just done with ****.
> 
> Some, like me, feel zero need to confirm to society.
> 
> You really can't paint an entire group with the same brush. That almost never works.


So, when you do something wrong, you hear about it from four different women?


----------



## As'laDain

DownButNotOut said:


> Again I ask, what does any of that do with some incel?


I don't understand the question. What are you asking?

MGTOW people generally don't tolerate incels.


----------



## As'laDain

RebuildingMe said:


> So, when you do something wrong, you hear about it from four different women?


No. One of the people I'm dating is a guy. So, two women and one guy.

I'm going to live the way i want. I have done **** that people here wouldn't believe. I feel like i have earned the right to live as i please.


----------



## manowar

RandomDude said:


> Incels with guns go nuts:


this is why society never stamped out prostitution...... its a safety valve. 

back in the day an incel accepted his fate. lol. The dems may have one more victim group.


----------



## BruceBanner

As'laDain said:


> No. One of the people I'm dating is a guy. So, two women and one guy.
> 
> I have done **** that people here wouldn't believe.


Like what? Amd speaking of MGTOW the subreddit was shut down a few days ago despite it being on Reddit for years.



bobsmith said:


> Women will never just come out and tell you she was banging the pool boy while her kids were sleeping and her husband was slaving 12hr days to provide. That is the real jive that happens on the daily that never gets told.


Has that happened to you?


----------



## Enigma32

BruceBanner said:


> Like what? Amd speaking of MGTOW the subreddit was shut down a few days ago despite it being on Reddit for years.


Tiktok likes to ban anyone that comes off as MGTOW too.


----------



## Diana7

RebuildingMe said:


> Am I supposed to “let go” of being called a rapist and child molester (of my own damn children) just because some crazy, bitter and angry woman wanted to take my kids and my money from me? That’s a lot to forgive, Diana. My story is typical of many fathers out there, well, except for maybe the ending. Yes, counseling and therapy, here I come.


Yes it's a lot to forgive but many have forgiven worse. I know people who have forgiven after being sexually abused by a father or other person as children. A man here in the UK was caught up in a bomb set by the IRA many years ago. His daughter died by his side, he forgave. Lots of similar examples of people loosing family in the Holocaust. Corrie Ten Boom for example. 
No it's not easy but ultimately it's us who suffer if we don't.


----------



## Diana7

Lila said:


> ^^This!
> 
> I went out with someone who on the outside was very attractive but was a bitter mess on the inside. It took a few dates to figure out his game and when I called him on it, and told him I wasn't interested in playing, he said " i thought you were the exemption but you're just like all of the others". See he is looking for someone who is willing to overlook his bitterness and prove to him that his perception of women is wrong. Sorry friend. Beauty and the beast is a fairy tale. I am no Belle with the patience to turn the beast to a prince.
> 
> I ran across his dating profile the last time I was online dating (last November) and it was just one bitter rant against women and their preferences. I can't imagine he'd meet Belle that way. Such a shame too.


Yep. Never date a woman hater. I would run a mile from a guy like that.


----------



## Diana7

RandomDude said:


> Incels with guns go nuts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman ranted in videos about virginity
> 
> 
> A gunman left five dead including a child under ten in a suburban bloodbath last night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news.com.au


Horrific isn't it. Yet another angry bitter woman hating guy gone crazy. This thread reminds me of a more mild version of the incels. Men who blame women for all their issues and failures and bitterness when it's they themselves and their attitudes who are to blame. 
What the cold blood murder of a little 3 year old child pushing her dolls pram down the street is going to achieve I have no idea. 
Thankfully he shot himself after he shot the other innocents. The incels think he is some sort of hero, just sick.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> Yes it's a lot to forgive but many have forgiven worse. I know people who have forgiven after being sexually abused by a father or other person as children. A man here in the UK was caught up in a bomb set by the IRA many years ago. His daughter died by his side, he forgave. Lots of similar examples of people loosing family in the Holocaust. Corrie Ten Boom for example.
> No it's not easy but ultimately it's us who suffer if we don't.


I agree with you. I don't think it's a matter of forgiveness so much as it is just letting go of the hate and anger. It does a person no favors to allow anyone to live rent free in their head like that. Let it go and live your best life.


----------



## bobsmith

I find it ridiculous that society insists that you "forgive and make peace".... So sorry not sorry that I don't have that gear. It doesn't mean I want to kill them, but the word forgive ain't gunna fit. My ex decided her way to raise our kids was better and because she had next to no structure, they liked that better. I got tired of them asking when it was time to go to moms, mom lets us do this, etc. Then I had to give some manly discipline to my oldest because either I control it or the law will. Mom did not like that and said I could not see them for a while. I told her not to worry about it. Now I just send a check. Kids "miss" me but I assure you I can bite on a bullet until I break a tooth. They can all suck it. You don't get this dad "your way"......This ain't Burger King. 

But to answer a reply of my previous comment above, what I was referring to is this. Women today (yes, yes, not all, the rare ones hover only on this site) have way more power than they ever have. They can make their own choices, income, hell they can go get a baby put in them with a needle! The first and ONLY thing they want from a man primarily is money. You can slice this up all you want, but it is what it is. You can call it "success", you can call it "driven", you can call it "compatible" but it is amazing how money fixes everything. 

So what generally happens is men are supposed to "work hard" which really just means make a bunch of money. BUT, if you take too much time doing just that, she still won't be happy because she needs all your time too. So you work, you give, she now has but still not happy so she finds a play toy, takes your money, and hops aboard Chad for a while. 

Did this actually happen to me? Nope, but I have seen it again and again. My last one just ended because I resisted spending all of my money on her and she did not like that one bit so she hopped aboard a Chad that would, and he sure did! Bought her the car, new house, 2 kids, and it will all come crashing down in, oh, another 5yrs or so. About the time she no longer needs him to watch the kids. What is funny is I told my friends how it would all shake out and they are shocked that I have been right about everything. They said it would not last a year, and I said she will be knocked up about, oh, NOW..... I can only imagine how vile that home will get before it explodes. They will hide it for years, smile for cameras, and play the game. To say I would "forgive" her? Let me just be very honest, if her car was on fire, I would wave and keep on driving, and I am dead serious about that. She is a pukey person that only thinks of herself. 

And I know I am right when her own family, grandmother, and cousins sided with ME. Her cousin said "she just isn't a good person".....I told her "you could have saved me YEARS by telling me that a lot sooner girl"....


----------



## bobsmith

Oh, I think I only partially answered the question of me. The reality is the women that end up in the divorce cycle due to jumping on a Chad, they eventually end up in the dating pool, and the damnedest thing, they never seem to mention what they did! I have not once heard a women say they screwed things up. They actually never do! The man is 100% at fault! He cheated or something. 

But in ALL fairness to the ladies that think I am an azz, I did have a message on my phone from a friend's doctor office. Her assistant called about stuff that was not her biz but I mentioned to my friend she was quite snooty in the message. I was told who she was, was 35, married a doctor I know, and he divorced her to snag a 20 something so now she is a bitter bich. And is history repeats, she will ONLY be chasing the doctors or at least comparable income and never actually settle into a good life. Obviously she got screwed but for all we know, she became a snooty bich after holding her nose so high and the doctor checked her. I dunno but I will give her some cred. I don't know the full story but I know the doctor and highly likely he was on the prowl.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Ugh, I’m just down on the whole relationship thing. So many women change for the worse during the phases of a relationship. I thought (and still think) LAT is the way to go, but you still have to pick the right person. I’ve been in a LAT situation for 14 months. Even not living together and only seeing each other 1-2 times a week doesn’t seem to be working. A few weeks ago we went out to my cousins 50th bday party. Food, drinks, live band, dancing, you get the picture. Perfect night until she drops me off at 1030 and wants to get home because she’s “tired”. They’re all the same. This time, I just said “go, get home safely” and gave her a soft next for a few days. Next time I go over there she answered the door naked. So she got the picture. But I already got a glimpse of what my future with this woman holds. It’s no different from all the rest. So I spend a week with my kids this week on vacation. Had a great time. Started bonding with my daughter. Heading back home realizing that being alone is better. No expectations and no disappointment. It was actually kind of cool. Of course she wants to see me tomorrow because she “misses me”. But she has her kids again, like always, 85% of the time. I’m thinking I might be busy tomorrow. Getting tired of this crap. Dating single moms is a farce. The kids win out 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Kids of single moms are born to be cockblockers.


----------



## johndoe12299

soooo date a woman with no kids?


----------



## BruceBanner

RebuildingMe said:


> Ugh, I’m just down on the whole relationship thing. So many women change for the worse during the phases of a relationship. I thought (and still think) LAT is the way to go, but you still have to pick the right person. I’ve been in a LAT situation for 14 months. Even not living together and only seeing each other 1-2 times a week doesn’t seem to be working. A few weeks ago we went out to my cousins 50th bday party. Food, drinks, live band, dancing, you get the picture. Perfect night until she drops me off at 1030 and wants to get home because she’s “tired”. They’re all the same. This time, I just said “go, get home safely” and gave her a soft next for a few days. Next time I go over there she answered the door naked. So she got the picture. But I already got a glimpse of what my future with this woman holds. It’s no different from all the rest. So I spend a week with my kids this week on vacation. Had a great time. Started bonding with my daughter. Heading back home realizing that being alone is better. No expectations and no disappointment. It was actually kind of cool. Of course she wants to see me tomorrow because she “misses me”. But she has her kids again, like always, 85% of the time. I’m thinking I might be busy tomorrow. Getting tired of this crap. Dating single moms is a farce. The kids win out 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Kids of single moms are born to be cockblockers.


Why did she answer the door naked?


----------



## Lila

RebuildingMe said:


> Ugh, I’m just down on the whole relationship thing. So many women change for the worse during the phases of a relationship. I thought (and still think) LAT is the way to go, but you still have to pick the right person. I’ve been in a LAT situation for 14 months. Even not living together and only seeing each other 1-2 times a week doesn’t seem to be working. A few weeks ago we went out to my cousins 50th bday party. Food, drinks, live band, dancing, you get the picture. Perfect night until she drops me off at 1030 and wants to get home because she’s “tired”. They’re all the same. This time, I just said “go, get home safely” and gave her a soft next for a few days. Next time I go over there she answered the door naked. So she got the picture. But I already got a glimpse of what my future with this woman holds. It’s no different from all the rest. So I spend a week with my kids this week on vacation. Had a great time. Started bonding with my daughter. Heading back home realizing that being alone is better. No expectations and no disappointment. It was actually kind of cool. Of course she wants to see me tomorrow because she “misses me”. But she has her kids again, like always, 85% of the time. I’m thinking I might be busy tomorrow. Getting tired of this crap. Dating single moms is a farce. The kids win out 7 days a week and twice on Sunday. Kids of single moms are born to be cockblockers.


I read this a a "nice guy" rant. You had a covert contract with your girlfriend expecting sex for the night out at your cousin's 50th birthday. Food for thought. Since you mention her dropping you off after the party, had you been drinking that night? Having been in similar situations, being sober and having sex with a drunk man ain't fun. 

Don't play stupid "nice guy" passive aggressive games. "I’m thinking I might be busy tomorrow. Getting tired of this crap" is for teenagers. If you are upset about something, be a grown person and tell her what's wrong _even if it means you'll piss her off_. If you expect her to have sex with you every time you see each other, _tell her even if it means she says No_. Seriously, if you have a problem with her custodial time with her kids, _tell her even if it means the end of your relationship_. Voice your expectations and boundaries.


----------



## Diana7

RandomDude said:


> Incels with guns go nuts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunman ranted in videos about virginity
> 
> 
> A gunman left five dead including a child under ten in a suburban bloodbath last night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.news.com.au


Horrific isn't it. Yet another angry bitter woman hating guy gone crazy. This thread reminds me of a more mild version of the incels. Men who blame women for all their issues and failures and bitterness when it's they themselves and their attitudes who are to blame.
What the cold blood murder of a little 3 year old child pushing her dools pram down the street is going to achieve I have no idea.
Thankfully he shot himself after he shot the other innocents. The incels think he is some sort of hero, just sick.


bobsmith said:


> I find it ridiculous that society insists that you "forgive and make peace".... So sorry not sorry that I don't have that gear. It doesn't mean I want to kill them, but the word forgive ain't gunna fit. My ex decided her way to raise our kids was better and because she had next to no structure, they liked that better. I got tired of them asking when it was time to go to moms, mom lets us do this, etc. Then I had to give some manly discipline to my oldest because either I control it or the law will. Mom did not like that and said I could not see them for a while. I told her not to worry about it. Now I just send a check. Kids "miss" me but I assure you I can bite on a bullet until I break a tooth. They can all suck it. You don't get this dad "your way"......This ain't Burger King.
> 
> But to answer a reply of my previous comment above, what I was referring to is this. Women today (yes, yes, not all, the rare ones hover only on this site) have way more power than they ever have. They can make their own choices, income, hell they can go get a baby put in them with a needle! The first and ONLY thing they want from a man primarily is money. You can slice this up all you want, but it is what it is. You can call it "success", you can call it "driven", you can call it "compatible" but it is amazing how money fixes everything.
> 
> So what generally happens is men are supposed to "work hard" which really just means make a bunch of money. BUT, if you take too much time doing just that, she still won't be happy because she needs all your time too. So you work, you give, she now has but still not happy so she finds a play toy, takes your money, and hops aboard Chad for a while.
> 
> Did this actually happen to me? Nope, but I have seen it again and again. My last one just ended because I resisted spending all of my money on her and she did not like that one bit so she hopped aboard a Chad that would, and he sure did! Bought her the car, new house, 2 kids, and it will all come crashing down in, oh, another 5yrs or so. About the time she no longer needs him to watch the kids. What is funny is I told my friends how it would all shake out and they are shocked that I have been right about everything. They said it would not last a year, and I said she will be knocked up about, oh, NOW..... I can only imagine how vile that home will get before it explodes. They will hide it for years, smile for cameras, and play the game. To say I would "forgive" her? Let me just be very honest, if her car was on fire, I would wave and keep on driving, and I am dead serious about that. She is a pukey person that only thinks of herself.
> 
> And I know I am right when her own family, grandmother, and cousins sided with ME. Her cousin said "she just isn't a good person".....I told her "you could have saved me YEARS by telling me that a lot sooner girl"....


Maybe it's the women and people you mix with. I don't know anyone who has gone after a man just for money.


----------



## Blondilocks

This thread is so depressing. The OP has never been married and has been in two LTRs - both of which ended badly. He has even written off his children


bobsmith said:


> Kids "miss" me but I assure you I can bite on a bullet until I break a tooth. They can all suck it. You don't get this dad "your way"......This ain't Burger King.


There is a whole lot I can say about this. But, I don't want to get banned. I'll just leave it at WTF.

Then we have a guy recently divorced whose gf has been through hell and back with him because of sticking by him through said nasty divorce and he's ready to give up on her because she wasn't ready to put out on the night she played chauffeur to his family's party. Let's not forget - his kids are ok; but hers are KIDS!!! and they are taking up time that she should be spending on him.

It just might be best if men with this attitude do the women of the world a favor and become Trappist monks. 

Disgusting.


----------



## minimalME

@RebuildingMe, just to recap…

You don’t want to be married again.

You don’t want to be bothered with an actual relationship, where a woman (not your wife) gets tired or prioritizes her dependent children. (Children as cockblockers - I’m guessing you haven’t shared this amazing insight with the judge sitting in on your trial? 🙄)

Yet, you probably also don’t want to bear the expense and shame of going to a prostitute. 

You sound like a two year old who wants his way about everything all the time.

Personally, I vote prostitute - if for nothing else than to free this poor woman from your seething contempt.

But even better would be for you to spend some time alone, and spare the female population all your bitter, entitled awesomeness.


----------



## Numb26

Blondilocks said:


> This thread is so depressing. The OP has never been married and has been in two LTRs - both of which ended badly. He has even written off his children
> 
> There is a whole lot I can say about this. But, I don't want to get banned. I'll just leave it at WTF.
> 
> Then we have a guy recently divorced whose gf has been through hell and back with him because of sticking by him through said nasty divorce and he's ready to give up on her because she wasn't ready to put out on the night she played chauffeur to his family's party. Let's not forget - his kids are ok; but hers are KIDS!!! and they are taking up time that she should be spending on him.
> 
> It just might be best if men with this attitude do the women of the world a favor and become Trappist monks.
> 
> Disgusting.


So you are ok with his EX and kids should be able to walk all over him, disrespect him, etc. just so he can earn the "right" to see his kids? Sounds like the EX and the kids have decided to "go their own way" and he made the right choice in cutting them free.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Or just maybe I’m thinking out loud and venting a bit on this forum? Is that not allowed? I never said I was good in relationships. That’s probably one of the reasons I’m divorced times two.

@Lila I did tell her how I felt after the birthday party. We have a very adult conversation.The mismatched drives came up. She chalked it up to the driving factor and how little we see each other. She said things would be different when I had a house closer by. Well, that’s going to be the case soon so I’ll wait and see what happens.

Agree with you on the passive-aggressive thing. I see that my potential reaction for today would be inappropriate. She wishes her ex would take her kids more. She’s admitted that she jealous about how I handle my kids and wishes she had an ex that gave her more time. He doesn’t want and more time that 4 days a month. He treats his child support payments as paid child care, so he can work and date. It’s not the situation she wants, but it is her reality. She has said before that she would give back the child support in a heartbeat if her ex would spend time with the kids. Even mentioned it to him but he likes this current arrangement.


----------



## Lila

RebuildingMe said:


> Or just maybe I’m thinking out loud and venting a bit on this forum? Is that not allowed? I never said I was good in relationships. That’s probably one of the reasons I’m divorced times two.
> 
> @Lila I did tell her how I felt after the birthday party. We have a very adult conversation.The mismatched drives came up. She chalked it up to the driving factor and how little we see each other. She said things would be different when I had a house closer by. Well, that’s going to be the case soon so I’ll wait and see what happens.
> 
> Agree with you on the passive-aggressive thing. I see that my potential reaction for today would be inappropriate. She wishes her ex would take her kids more. She’s admitted that she jealous about how I handle my kids and wishes she had an ex that gave her more time. He doesn’t want and more time that 4 days a month. He treats his child support payments as paid child care, so he can work and date. It’s not the situation she wants, but it is her reality. She has said before that she would give back the child support in a heartbeat if her ex would spend time with the kids. Even mentioned it to him but he likes this current arrangement.


I understand. Maybe a [vent] tag is needed for posts. 

Something I'm learning is that just because you're not good at relationships doesn't mean you can't get better. We may not see eye to eye on a lot but I do want you to find happiness and succeed in relationships (however you define that). I want that for most people on this forum. 

I hope you find it in you to move past the whole child custody thing this week and try to find somtime to.connect with her. Maybe a lunch date, a gym date, or even grocery shopping trip is in order.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Lila said:


> I understand. Maybe a [vent] tag is needed for posts.
> 
> Something I'm learning is that just because you're not good at relationships doesn't mean you can't get better. We may not see eye to eye on a lot but I do want you to find happiness and succeed in relationships (however you define that). I want that for most people on this forum.
> 
> I hope you find it in you to move past the whole child custody thing this week and try to find somtime to.connect with her. Maybe a lunch date, a gym date, or even grocery shopping trip is in order.


Not a bad idea. I am meeting her today after the home inspection. But today we have all 5 kids. I will plan a night for just us this week. 
She has expressed concern about wrapping up my trial and then jumping into the new house that needs a lot of work. I think she is concerned about us having “our” time. Like I’m jumping right back into the fire again. However, some of this born out of necessity as the kids start up in school in a month and I still live an hour round trip to get them to school.

Sorry for the T/J.


----------



## bobsmith

Numb26 said:


> So you are ok with his EX and kids should be able to walk all over him, disrespect him, etc. just so he can earn the "right" to see his kids? Sounds like the EX and the kids have decided to "go their own way" and he made the right choice in cutting them free.


Let me paint a better picture. My oldest did not want to do chores. he would flat out lie and even tell teachers I was abusing him, which would cause the government to get involved. This happened SEVERAL times and each time, I never backed down and told them "yep, I am a single dad and he is a teen and will do chores at my place. That includes loading the dishwasher and picking up trash".... I even had to deal with the cops because he told his mom I hit him with a 2x4! As soon as I got wind of that, I called the cops myself and told them I want this checked out. They interviewed my kid and made the whole thing up! What is funny is that kid is now a marine and is a model for the "perfect push up" and he is proud that I taught him that! When he was in trouble, he got to do push ups....the right way...

What is very sad is my youngest really is a model child! He has never been a problem, ever, and even got my athletic genes and looking promising as a pitcher. But in order to see him, I would have had to deal with my teen and my psycho ex. I took the high road. 

I think for the women here, when you look at us guys that seem to have a very dark view of relationships, it is because we have walked a dark road for a minute! I am not perfect but I was raised with morals. I found out after my first relationship exploded, she was jogging down to see the neighbor while I was home watching the kids. Then she would come home and climb in MY bed, all while we were going to "couples counseling". This dude would "walk by" my place and chat it up! And then women want to judge me on here! You can 100% bet this has screwed me up for life! I only found all this out while in a relationship with my 2nd ex, and it did a number on the spot. 

So yeah, I have trust issues for SURE.


----------



## Prodigal

bobsmith said:


> So what generally happens is men are supposed to "work hard" which really just means make a bunch of money. BUT, if you take too much time doing just that, she still won't be happy because she needs all your time too. So you work, you give, she now has but still not happy so she finds a play toy, takes your money, and hops aboard Chad for a while.
> Did this actually happen to me? Nope, but I have seen it again and again.


Well, all I can say is we travel in vastly different circles, or should I say, universes My gf's have all worked. They live nice lives, but nothing that says "We have money." Their husbands were hard workers, but I didn't see the imbalance of which you speak. No cheating going on either. Maybe all of us were leading unglamorous, mundane lives. 

I like nice things as much as the next person, but none of the guys I dated when I was single were rolling in dough. Guess they weren't high-powered go-getters. Hell, my first husband was chronically unemployed and I was the one earning just enough to keep us afloat.


----------



## Al_Bundy

On the other side of things, how many guys here have gotten a text from a woman and she straight up says hey I'm at dinner (with a mark) but I'll be over after, want me to bring you anything, I'll have him pay for it. Or the "I don't usually do "fill in the blank" along with I've never done this before. When you see and hear those things over and over again across various ages, creeds, and economic levels it can't help but shape your opinion. An opinion that is just realistic, not hateful although these days anything short of over the top flattery is considered hate.

There is the notion that if you don't subscribe to the love conquers all trope that you are negative and something is wrong with you.


----------



## DownButNotOut

It's like clockwork. A man says he's done with women and marriage, and sure enough here come women to blame and shame. Is it any wonder then that he feels like he does?


----------



## minimalME

DownButNotOut said:


> It's like clockwork. A man says he's done with women and marriage, and sure enough here come women to blame and shame. Is it any wonder then that he feels like he does?


😂

I'm just a silly, American woman.

But I can guarantee you that if I was ever publicly bad-mouthed this way by someone I was being intimate with, he'd be cut off immediately and thrown back into the dating pool to stick his ungrateful penis elsewhere.


----------



## Prodigal

DownButNotOut said:


> It's like clockwork. A man says he's done with women and marriage, and sure enough here come women to blame and shame.


I'm a woman and I'm not doing that. Just pointing out that I haven't experienced what some men are discussing here. There are some pretty lousy people out there regardless of their sex. Maybe it's a matter of having one's picker broken and just choosing garbage. JMO.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Prodigal said:


> I'm a woman and I'm not doing that. Just pointing out that I haven't experienced what some men are discussing here. There are some pretty lousy people out there regardless of their sex. Maybe it's a matter of having one's picker broken and just choosing garbage. JMO.


So the court system works perfectly? Nothing to see there folks! It must be since it's the guys picking wrong. It can't be the fact that we have a legal system that allows one person to be destroyed. Nah, that can't be it.


----------



## Enigma32

Al_Bundy said:


> So the court system works perfectly? Nothing to see there folks! It must be since it's the guys picking wrong. It can't be the fact that we have a legal system that allows one person to be destroyed. Nah, that can't be it.


In @RebuildingMe case, he got the result he wanted but it cost him what, over $100k? I dunno about you but I don't have $100k laying around just to defend myself legally in case someone decides they want to ruin my life.


----------



## bobsmith

I just saw actual footage in a divorce court last night! The wife was whining about how many yrs of alimony and the amounts. Basically she was getting about $10K/mo for alimony and child support for one kid. Even the judge mentioned it was basically leaving the man penniless. The lawyers said "oh he is getting the house, he can sell it"...To which the other party mentioned there was zero equity in the house. They had just built it. 

They agreed on 7yrs and the man was just defeated and agreed to the timeline. Basically this guy gets to pay a stiff mortgage, pay to have hid kid in the house, and pay the ex 10 grand/mo for the next 7. The guy asked for 4yrs and the woman threw a fit. The kid had to sit through it all and just wanted it over. 

Do YOU think you could find a way to function in life with a guaranteed 10k/mo without even having to work? All while the man will slave away knowing he will be in prison if he fails to pay! 

Even the judge was resistant to the agreement as it did not sound fair. That is precisely the goal of divorce court! Very luckily, I am not in a "common law" state!


----------



## DownButNotOut

@bobsmith you might want to give this a read. How this man was treated by our system is nothing short of horrifying.

"The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law"








Amazon.com: The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law eBook : Ellis, Greg, Baldwin, Alec, Depp, Johnny: Kindle Store


Buy The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law: Read Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com



www.amazon.com


----------



## DownButNotOut

Prodigal said:


> Maybe it's a matter of having one's picker broken and just choosing garbage. JMO.


I just wanted to address this point more specifically.

Suppose you're right. His picker is broken. Fine. But he still has no good exit strategy. At that point he is at the mercy of a family court system that is heavily weighted against him. She can be as broken as she wants, but it is that family court system that invariably rules in her favor. It is that system that will give credence to her false accusations, sometimes even in the presence of overwhelming exonerating evidence.

Knowing that 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, that 4/5ths of those divorces are initiated by the woman, and knowing what the family court system promises to do to him, what possible benefit is it to him to engage that system? Even with the acknowledgement that "not all women are like that"?


----------



## RebuildingMe

One common theme I see from TAM women (not all, but many) is that they are divorced, have majority custody of their kids and have gotten/continue to get support payments from their exs. They NEVER complain about the court system, because it hooked them up. It hooked up their sisters and their girlfriends too. Worse, they put down the men that do complain about the rigged system. If I didn’t have the financing to fight, I’d be another broke dad with payments for the next decade financing my ex’s lifestyle. It’s better to not play the game. How many married men on TAM hate their marriage but won’t leave because they don’t want to lose one or both of their testicles? It’s sad to see but so common. If I have a bad night and want to vent about my gf not putting out, I’ll also get vilified for that I know. Because, as we know, all men are pigs and all we want is sex…. Yes, we must all have broken pickers. We’re not pigs when we pay for their meals, hold their hands, help them with their car, houses, whatever. We only turn into pigs at night apparently. Right…got it. I’m still waiting for a female to start a thread about how they get screwed over in court during their divorce….anyone?


----------



## bobsmith

I will say this, I have been bashed badly here because I did not marry my first ex. Together a long time, 2 kids. Something about my intelligence that kept scaring the crap out of me with that word! Men should know you are literally being asked to dance on a tight rope! But since I am such an ass, I actually voluntarily pay MORE than I would be required to for my kids! Why? Because I know she is now raising them. I am VERY lucky she is not vengeful. She knows she did me wrong, we have never involved the courts, and she is more civil than most women. 

Now my 2nd ex was up there on the hot/crazy matrix. She came off as perfect in every way and I actually thought I FINALLY found my partner for life. NOPE! The more I learned, the worse it got. She was in constant legal battles with her baby daddy and SHE was instigating it! Imagine how I felt. She didn't want him to see her, and was always worried about how much she would be getting from him, fearing he would get more visitation and reduce payments. She got slapped many times in the legal system and even I told her the dad has rights too. She did NOT want to hear that from me. 

I was well and good with my 2nd ex in the first several months because I was obligating more time with her in hopes of a forever. But I finally started having to tell her " I have to get some work done". I could not go out 3 nights/week with all your friends, etc. Boy, she did not like that! And the more resentment she shared, the more I pulled back and started looking at what I was dealing with. I am so insanely picky that I probably will never find a forever anything, but this one was probably at 90%, and that was better than I had met in 25yrs so figured it was worth the fight. I was wrong. 

They want wined and dined at some level, constantly! Hell, just read between the lines in marriage books. "Always work on your marriage"....IE, keep giving and giving. It is all part of my generation. 

What is sickening is my parents have been together over 40yrs. I would ask my mom what dad is doing or where he is...she has no clue and not remotely worried about it! That was an eye opener that I was screwed. My parents are model partners that trust and can work independently. This is what I 'thought' a relationship was. It is not today. I literally had to block certain things on my social media from my 2nd ex after 3-4mo because she wanted to know why I was on FB in the middle of the day and who this person was. Apparently a guy can't take a break..... She needed to know what I was doing ALL the time. Hell I would even test her and walk out of the door and she would ask "where are you going?".....

You could all that with a Sigma INTJ personality and you have a disaster! Women today have high expectations, and a roster of plan B-Z if you stop fitting her mold. I am just insanely glad I am good at controlling my load and never knocked that up! GAWD, it would have got bad!


----------



## Prodigal

@DownButNotOut and @Al_Bundy - I said NOTHING about the court system or its workings. I said NOTHING about our legal system. I saId NOTHING about assigning blame or it "being all the man's fault." I DID suggest that men might be choosing women who are just bad people. How is that BLAMING men?

AND YES YOU ARE TARGETING ME WHEN YOU QUOTE MY TEXTS. I NEVER used the words "loser" "incel" or "disgusting." In fact, I was attempting to make as neutral a comment as possible.

You guys should reread what I said and how you responded. I honestly did not want to start WWIII here. I'm going to leave it at that. Apparently even suggesting a man's picker could be broken - and a woman's picker could be just as broken since I WAS NOT trying to insult the men here - I'll just bow out. Too much triggering going on.


----------



## RebuildingMe

minimalME said:


> @RebuildingMe, just to recap…
> 
> You don’t want to be married again.
> 
> 
> *No, not ever. *
> 
> You don’t want to be bothered with an actual relationship, where a woman (not your wife) gets tired or prioritizes her dependent children. (Children as cockblockers - I’m guessing you haven’t shared this amazing insight with the judge sitting in on your trial? 🙄)
> 
> *Yes, kids are cockblockers. I know, I have my own. She doesn’t need to prioritize teenagers. Her kids are not toddlers. The helicopter mom crap needs to end. As to your other part, not sure what any of this has to do with my trial. So I can’t answer that. *
> 
> Yet, you probably also don’t want to bear the expense and shame of going to a prostitute.
> 
> *Nope, I’m not into prostitution, but I wouldn’t be shameful about it if I was. *
> 
> You sound like a two year old who wants his way about everything all the time.
> 
> *Thanks, but I’m 50 and haven’t been 2 in 48 years now. *
> 
> Personally, I vote prostitute - if for nothing else than to free this poor woman from your seething contempt.
> 
> *LOL, “seething contempt” because we hadn’t seen each other in a week and I thought her dropping me off and heading home at 1030pm was a weak move? I called her out on her crap also. *
> 
> But even better would be for you to spend some time alone, and spare the female population all your bitter, entitled awesomeness.
> 
> *I already said I enjoy my alone time and not being with a female 7 days a week, but not for the reasons you cite. I’d like to keep my ex spouse number at TWO, not THREE. So there’s that. *


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> One common theme I see from TAM women (not all, but many) is that they are divorced, have majority custody of their kids and have gotten/continue to get support payments from their exs. They NEVER complain about the court system, because it hooked them up. It hooked up their sisters and their girlfriends too. Worse, they put down the men that do complain about the rigged system. If I didn’t have the financing to fight, I’d be another broke dad with payments for the next decade financing my ex’s lifestyle. It’s better to not play the game. How many married men on TAM hate their marriage but won’t leave because they don’t want to lose one or both of their testicles? It’s sad to see but so common. If I have a bad night and want to vent about my gf not putting out, I’ll also get vilified for that I know. Because, as we know, all men are pigs and all we want is sex…. Yes, we must all have broken pickers. We’re not pigs when we pay for their meals, hold their hands, help them with their car, houses, whatever. We only turn into pigs at night apparently. Right…got it. I’m still waiting for a female to start a thread about how they get screwed over in court during their divorce….anyone?


Hmm...I do believe we have discussed this, but just FYI...I didn't ask for alimony from either husband, I got court-ordered child support from my first husband that the state wouldn't collect because they "couldn't find him" (he had to answer a "do you live here" notice in order to be served to go BACK to court for non-payment...really??)...so they are grown, but he only paid me for 2 out of 13 years and continues to work under the table so they can't garnish his wages. He owes me $70k still, and I'm sure I'll never see any of it.

And I am the pig in my second marriage who my STBX called a "sex addict" because I wanted sex more than once a month. I filed for divorce on him, but I also am the only one paying for it (and he makes 3 times what I do). Which I am NOT complaining about - it's WORTH IT!!!!

I'd rather live in a tent by the ocean than have money and be in an unhappy marriage/relationship.

I don't quite fit into your girl box, I don't think...just remember that. Not EVERY woman is like what you have described...although many are. Just like many men are lying, bullying users (like my STBX)...but I prefer to take a more optimistic view of the men I will meet in the future...!!!!! 

Although...I've also never done any online dating, so maybe I'm blissfully unaware of the ugliness that's out there...?? Lol!


----------



## bobsmith

LisaDiane said:


> And I am the pig in my second marriage who my STBX called a "sex addict" because I wanted sex more than once a month.


Now, I am just a curious man at the moment and know nothing of your story, but what are your dimensions? I am not calling you out, just trying to understand. Something is wrong if a dude (really even a woman) that only wants output 1x/month. I'd bale too!


----------



## LisaDiane

bobsmith said:


> Now, I am just a curious man at the moment and know nothing of your story, but what are your dimensions? I am not calling you out, just trying to understand. Something is wrong if a dude (really even a woman) that only wants output 1x/month. I'd bale too!


I'm not answering that!!! Lol! I'm not "fat", if that's what you are asking!

Don't try to understand him, he makes NO sense...I almost blew a gasket in my brain trying to figure him out.


----------



## farsidejunky

bobsmith said:


> I just saw actual footage in a divorce court last night! The wife was whining about how many yrs of alimony and the amounts. Basically she was getting about $10K/mo for alimony and child support for one kid. Even the judge mentioned it was basically leaving the man penniless. The lawyers said "oh he is getting the house, he can sell it"...To which the other party mentioned there was zero equity in the house. They had just built it.
> 
> They agreed on 7yrs and the man was just defeated and agreed to the timeline. Basically this guy gets to pay a stiff mortgage, pay to have hid kid in the house, and pay the ex 10 grand/mo for the next 7. The guy asked for 4yrs and the woman threw a fit. The kid had to sit through it all and just wanted it over.
> 
> Do YOU think you could find a way to function in life with a guaranteed 10k/mo without even having to work? All while the man will slave away knowing he will be in prison if he fails to pay!
> 
> Even the judge was resistant to the agreement as it did not sound fair. That is precisely the goal of divorce court! Very luckily, I am not in a "common law" state!


Do you really believe this is the norm? Not an exceptional case in any way?

I tend to agree that family courts are less favorable to men, but to try and make this example as the norm crosses over into hyperbole. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## RebuildingMe

LisaDiane said:


> Hmm...I do believe we have discussed this, but just FYI...I didn't ask for alimony from either husband, I got court-ordered child support from my first husband that the state wouldn't collect because they "couldn't find him" (he had to answer a "do you live here" notice in order to be served to go BACK to court for non-payment...really??)...so they are grown, but he only paid me for 2 out of 13 years and continues to work under the table so they can't garnish his wages. He owes me $70k still, and I'm sure I'll never see any of it.
> 
> And I am the pig in my second marriage who my STBX called a "sex addict" because I wanted sex more than once a month. I filed for divorce on him, but I also am the only one paying for it (and he makes 3 times what I do). Which I am NOT complaining about - it's WORTH IT!!!!
> 
> I'd rather live in a tent by the ocean than have money and be in an unhappy marriage/relationship.
> 
> I don't quite fit into your girl box, I don't think...just remember that. Not EVERY woman is like what you have described...although many are. Just like many men are lying, bullying users (like my STBX)...but I prefer to take a more optimistic view of the men I will meet in the future...!!!!!
> 
> Although...I've also never done any online dating, so maybe I'm blissfully unaware of the ugliness that's out there...?? Lol!





LisaDiane said:


> Hmm...I do believe we have discussed this, but just FYI...I didn't ask for alimony from either husband, I got court-ordered child support from my first husband that the state wouldn't collect because they "couldn't find him" (he had to answer a "do you live here" notice in order to be served to go BACK to court for non-payment...really??)...so they are grown, but he only paid me for 2 out of 13 years and continues to work under the table so they can't garnish his wages. He owes me $70k still, and I'm sure I'll never see any of it.
> 
> And I am the pig in my second marriage who my STBX called a "sex addict" because I wanted sex more than once a month. I filed for divorce on him, but I also am the only one paying for it (and he makes 3 times what I do). Which I am NOT complaining about - it's WORTH IT!!!!
> 
> I'd rather live in a tent by the ocean than have money and be in an unhappy marriage/relationship.
> 
> I don't quite fit into your girl box, I don't think...just remember that. Not EVERY woman is like what you have described...although many are. Just like many men are lying, bullying users (like my STBX)...but I prefer to take a more optimistic view of the men I will meet in the future...!!!!!
> 
> Although...I've also never done any online dating, so maybe I'm blissfully unaware of the ugliness that's out there...?? Lol!


Ahh, Lisa…my post was NOT directed at you dear


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> Ahh, Lisa…my post was NOT directed at you dear


Lol!!!
Well, I wasn't sure...plus, I hate when you sound cynical (although I understand why)!!
Maybe I should just let you bash things with your club without interfering, until you get it out of your system...


----------



## bobsmith

LisaDiane said:


> I'm not answering that!!! Lol! I'm not "fat", if that's what you are asking!
> 
> Don't try to understand him, he makes NO sense...I almost blew a gasket in my brain trying to figure him out.


Well, I don't know who 'him' is. Rebuildme or your ex? But asking your dims is insulting online? I mean, women flat out ask me on their first question, "how old are you?" But online those types of questions are outstanding? 

I only replied because I recall thinking I might even have ED because I was less than excited for a few women in my life, but realized it was just a lack of desire. I am not throwing you under the bus here, just trying to understand! Ur guy was around, then lost interest? Why? 

I was thinking about a woman that few know here as a FWB of 3yrs with me. She was pretty much my BF, and passed in a car wreck. I realized with her, I usually wanted to snuggle and hump her. But I have been with other women that I would say were more attractive, but one I recall, I totally stopped having sex with her because it was a struggle. My other head didn't want none! She was sexy, smelled great, but just something was a miss! 

Just an odd miss maybe?


----------



## RebuildingMe

LisaDiane said:


> Lol!!!
> Well, I wasn't sure...plus, I hate when you sound cynical (although I understand why)!!
> Maybe I should just let you bash things with your club without interfering, until you get it out of your system...


LOL, every once in a while things need a good bashing and I am more than happy to oblige.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Enigma32 said:


> In @RebuildingMe case, he got the result he wanted but it cost him what, over $100k? I dunno about you but I don't have $100k laying around just to defend myself legally in case someone decides they want to ruin my life.


$130k, but who’s counting?


----------



## Enigma32

RebuildingMe said:


> $130k, but who’s counting?


Yeah, you can buy a decent house for that much around here. Well you could, before 2021 happened. A court bill of $130k would be crippling if not downright ruinous for most men, and all just so that someone doesn't ruin you in court. It's so stupid that this is a thing that happens.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah, you can buy a decent house for that much around here. Well you could, before 2021 happened. A court bill of $130k would be crippling if not downright ruinous for most men, and all just so that someone doesn't ruin you in court. It's so stupid that this is a thing that happens.


Well, on the bright side, I could’ve spent that money and lost (like she did). So, I like looking at the bright side. I also learned a 130k lesson, to never put myself in a position to have another woman try to ruin me again.


----------



## DownButNotOut

RebuildingMe said:


> Well, on the bright side, I could’ve spent that money and lost (like she did). So, I like looking at the bright side. I also learned a 130k lesson, to never put myself in a position to have another woman try to ruin me again.


You weren't on the hook for her legal fees? Dang, I'm impressed!


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> $130k, but who’s counting?


🤮 🤯


----------



## Prodigal

Al_Bundy: Your response to me was rude and out of line. Yes, people do make bad choices in the partner's they choose. That has NOTHING to do with people being shot for stealing food. Nothing at all. False equivalency. You are overreacting and being argumentative when I made it clear my intention was not to spark outrage. If you are angry at the court system, fine. 

I am asking politely that you stop targeting me. Thank you.


----------



## Al_Bundy

RebuildingMe said:


> Well, on the bright side, I could’ve spent that money and lost (like she did). So, I like looking at the bright side. I also learned a 130k lesson, to never put myself in a position to have another woman try to ruin me again.


Probably the best way to look at it. Have you ever thought about how much money you aren't spending with her out of the picture now?


----------



## 2&out

Been reading/watching this with some interest. I consider myself MGTOW - but maybe not as I see some describe. To me MGTOW isn't avoiding women - it's more not willing to make any life commitment to. 

Responding now because of what I have been seeing and now tonight. Guy 2 houses down from me got married and bought house about 4 yrs ago. Just him and new wife. Then, wife preggo young (19?) daughter needed a place to stay so she moved in. Father "stepped up" and they got married - so he moved in and kid born. Covid... wife laid off. Her sister also and she broke up with her boyfriend she lived with, so she moved in. Did he have any say in any of this ? Lets be real... no. So now 6 people in... and guess what ? Wife daughter pregnant. He works full time blue collar type job. Other male part time... but young kid with an attitude... Now lots of arguing unhappy people. In 3 short yrs this guys life has gone from being optimistic with new wife and house to totally sucks. 

This is his second marriage. Saw him pull in and before he even got in the house the yelling started - at him. I hollered and waved him over. Handed him a beverage and listened... at least 20 minutes... and then said my turn. Dude... walk away. Stop paying all bills and the mortgage. You've got a month to 6 weeks before your credit gets hit - file for divorce, find a place and bolt. BUT THEY ALL DEPEND ON ME !!! I CAN'T DO THAT ! Arg. So are you willing to accept this life for like the next 20 ? You think any of them are going to change and your life is going to get better ? Sink or save yourself.

He then asked me why a couple years ago I had a "regular" woman over (odd way to put it to me) and just some others here and there since, and what happened. I told him something similar to what has happened to you - got married again and a couple yrs into she took over my life and it sucked. The "regular" was someone after and it was starting to happen again. And there is no way. I'm not going there, doing again. 

He asked me about companionship. Do I miss it. Umm... not much. Because my experience is the inner feeling of companionship has been a lot less of the time than the effort and work - and pain - to achieve. He laughed and then nodded knowingly. I told him the brutal truth. My life pursing that is over. I love women... love how they look, laugh, feel, and the way I feel with one I want to be with. But at this point in my life I categorize them as an entertainment expense. My only interest is for fun. 

Go ahead and blast me. I'm pretty blast proof these days and just don't give a **** what women or other men think of me. Somehow I seem to have many friends and being "lonely" just hasn't seemed to be any problem.


----------



## Diana7

DownButNotOut said:


> It's like clockwork. A man says he's done with women and marriage, and sure enough here come women to blame and shame. Is it any wonder then that he feels like he does?


The thing is that if anyone should be this way toward the opposite sex it's me. Deeply hurt by my dad and first husband and a serious boyfriend I had before my first marriage, badly let down and betrayed. Left with three children to care for alone with and very little income.
Guess what though, I am not bitter or angry. I don't moan or complain about 'all men' and how dreadfully they treat women.I don't join in with other women or groups who moan and complain about men, I haven't let it put me off men or marriage because guess what, as a mature adult I understand that not all men are the same. Just because some men in my life acted appallingly I was able to understand that this was their responsibility and not all men's responsibility. I didn't become a man hater, I actually eventually married again and had absolutely no hesitation in doing so because my husband isn't my ex. I have good men in my family, I have a good husband. Just as I know countless lovely decent women who have great integrity. 

I just despair when someone has been hurt or let down by one or two members of the opposite sex and let it make them bitter and anti the whole sex. They blame them for all their problems and issues, rather than put the past behind and change their attitude. Nothing will change until they stop blaming 50% of the population for their woes. Until they move on and forgive.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> I just despair when someone has been hurt or let down by one or two members of the opposite sex and let it make them bitter and anti the whole sex. They blame them for all their problems and issues, rather than put the past behind and change their attitude. Nothing will change until they stop blaming 50% of the population for their woes. Until they move on and forgive.


I don't speak for all these dudes here but I think I understand them. With that said, most of the reasonable MGTOW types aren't blaming all women for their problems, they are blaming the system in place that encourages women to screw men over and then hands them the tools they will need to do it. There is a reason 2/3rds of all divorces are initiated by women despite levels of adultery being close to the same. Women stand to gain a lot from divorce. They can leave their husband, have their hot girl summer promiscuous phase, and make the husband foot the bill for it all. Meanwhile, he just gets another bill, depression, and gets to join OLD where he will get ignored by 90% of females.

So, I get it. I get why some guys just form a little harem of FWBs they can call when they want company. In many ways, a guy is better off being the guy friend that a girl has sex with sometimes than the BF. 

Personally, I don't blame ladies, I blame our culture for supporting this sort of thing. Women are playing the game by the rules, it's just that the rules are a bit rigged in their favor.


----------



## bobsmith

Diana7 said:


> I just despair when someone has been hurt or let down by one or two members of the opposite sex and let it make them bitter and anti the whole sex. They blame them for all their problems and issues, rather than put the past behind and change their attitude. Nothing will change until they stop blaming 50% of the population for their woes. Until they move on and forgive.


I like and share my own analogy because I think it is suiting. It is like trying to befriend a cheetah. They are very pretty and elegant. But through countless encounters, it is well known that the cheetah has insane teeth and claws and will straight up destroy you in today's world. 

It is NOT that we hate the cheetah, but we have learned a healthy respect for it, and the harm it can cause. And the cheetah is basically somewhat oblivious to all of this because it was born with teeth and claws. 

As with many men in this thread, I do not hate women, and actually enjoy them, but I now have a very healthy respect for what they can do to me and I now remain in relative safety to keep myself protected. 

If women do not like all of this, they are going to have to be the ones to tell the government to make the game fair! But I think it will continue to get worse for many more years. See the betas will always be around, willing to serve, feed, and give. The REAL men that build the world you live in are tired of the crap and actually roping one is getting harder and harder!


----------



## Blondilocks

It would be interesting to know how many judges hearing divorce cases are men and how many are women. How many divorce lawyers are men and how many are women. It seems men are ranting against a system run by men.


----------



## anchorwatch

Blondilocks said:


> It would be interesting to know how many judges hearing divorce cases are men and how many are women. How many divorce lawyers are men and how many are women. It seems men are ranting against a system run by men.


...and flowing laws written by male-dominated legislators.

Obvious facts have no place in a zealot's argument


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> It would be interesting to know how many judges hearing divorce cases are men and how many are women. How many divorce lawyers are men and how many are women. It seems men are ranting against a system run by men.


No, we rant against a system run by men, and some women, who have to adhere to the liberal laws that are in place. A judge has to go by the law. However, they have discretion, and yes, we will rant because men get screwed with divorce, custody, etc.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> If women do not like all of this, they are going to have to be the ones to tell the government to make the game fair!


Why would they? According to some male posters, women count on the govmint to make them ladies of leisure who can sit on their asses and eat bonbons while their victimized ex is slaving away in the coal mines.

What I find excruciatingly funny is a guy who expected fidelity from a woman who he refused to commit to (even though she was his baby mama), never went through the court system and pays the woman more than a court would require actually carrying the flag for a cause that doesn't affect him whatsoever. Where's your beef?

Have you actually commenced therapy as you said you would? May I suggest a full-fledged psychiatrist?

Perhaps you're using this cause as your cover for not being in a relationship. Easier to explain to people than the mere fact that you aren't good at relationships? Blameshifting.


----------



## drencrom

Enigma32 said:


> most of the reasonable MGTOW types aren't blaming all women for their problems, they are blaming the system in place that encourages women to screw men over and then hands them the tools they will need to do it.


Yes, this sums it up nicely.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> Why would they? According to some male posters, women count on the govmint to make them ladies of leisure who can sit on their asses and eat bonbons while their victimized ex is slaving away in the coal mines.


You joke, but there are those situations. My X for example. She refuses to get a job. So she gets remarried, he doesn't make alot of money, yet she still refuses to work.

The $ I pay her takes care of my kids portion of their mortgage, utilities, grocery bill, clothing, school expenses, etc. She basically does nothing and if she used the child support for all their needs and for their share of the household expenses, she'd still have a few thousand left over each year to do with as she pleases. She uses my child support as replacement for her refusal to get a job. Therefore my kids do not get the benefit of my money anywhere near the level they should. And on top of that, she puts them up to ask me for more.

And on top of that had to go to court when they were going to move out of state. Judge told me its her choice and nothing I could do about it. Luckily the move didn't happen, but thats what I was told. I had NO rights.

So yes, some of us have x-wives that do almost exactly what you said above. Its not some myth.
And all of this is just totally fair given the fact she was the cheater in the marriage and chose this.


----------



## drencrom

DownButNotOut said:


> It's like clockwork. A man says he's done with women and marriage, and sure enough here come women to blame and shame. Is it any wonder then that he feels like he does?


I'm done with marriage. After dealing with infidelity, then divorce, custody, etc., how can anyone blame?


----------



## lifeistooshort

drencrom said:


> You joke, but there are those situations. My X for example. She refuses to get a job. So she gets remarried, he doesn't make alot of money, yet she still refuses to work.
> 
> The $ I pay her takes care of my kids portion of their mortgage, utilities, grocery bill, clothing, school expenses, etc. She basically does nothing and if she used the child support for all their needs and for their share of the household expenses, she'd still have a few thousand left over each year to do with as she pleases. She uses my child support as replacement for her refusal to get a job. Therefore my kids do not get the benefit of my money anywhere near the level they should. And on top of that, she puts them up to ask me for more.
> 
> So yes, some of us have x-wives that do almost exactly what you said above. Its not some myth.
> And all of this is just totally fair given the fact she was the cheater in the marriage and chose this.


Why did you marry and knock out kids with a woman who wouldn't work?

And another guy married her even though she wouldn't work.

Do the men who get involved with women either of poor character or who won't work have no responsibility at all for choosing such a partner?

My good friend was married to a guy who refused to work for 20 years. He filed for divorce when he thought he found another sugar mana but tried to come back after said sugar mama threw him out. She refused to take him back and he went on a 2 year harassment campaign which included threatening her new bf's life, driving by her house in the car SHE paid for, and calling/texting her constantly with threats. 

He agreed to a lump sum in lieu of alimony....since the kids were grown child support wasn't an issue. She paid rent on the marital home for a full year after the divorce for him to get on his feet.

Nope....never got a job. Whined constantly about how he was going to have to live in his car but still refused to get a job. 

Finally remarried a moron dumb enough to support him. She posts on FB about how much potential he had (he's 47 and has never worked( 😅😅😅

So who should take more responsibility here? The mooch who everyone knows is a mooch or the idiot woman who got involved with him knowing he's mooch because she doesn't want to be alone and he's decent to look at?

If one wants a partner to work one should prioritize having a job when choosing a partner.


----------



## farsidejunky

anchorwatch said:


> ...and flowing laws written by male-dominated legislators.
> 
> Obvious facts have no place in a zealot's argument





drencrom said:


> No, we rant against a system run by men, and some women, who have to adhere to the liberal laws that are in place. A judge has to go by the law. However, they have discretion, and yes, we will rant because men get screwed with divorce, custody, etc.


What people fail to realize is that BOTH of these statements are true.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## CountryMike

Blondilocks said:


> It would be interesting to know how many judges hearing divorce cases are men and how many are women. How many divorce lawyers are men and how many are women. It seems men are ranting against a system run by men.


Because I don't know, how many D lawyers are men, and how many are women I wonder.


----------



## drencrom

Prodigal said:


> @DownButNotOut and @Al_Bundy - I said NOTHING about the court system or its workings. I said NOTHING about our legal system. I saId NOTHING about assigning blame or it "being all the man's fault." I DID suggest that men might be choosing women who are just bad people. How is that BLAMING men?
> 
> AND YES YOU ARE TARGETING ME WHEN YOU QUOTE MY TEXTS. I NEVER used the words "loser" "incel" or "disgusting." In fact, I was attempting to make as neutral a comment as possible.
> 
> You guys should reread what I said and how you responded. I honestly did not want to start WWIII here. I'm going to leave it at that. Apparently even suggesting a man's picker could be broken - and a woman's picker could be just as broken since I WAS NOT trying to insult the men here - I'll just bow out. Too much triggering going on.


I know you weren't trying to insult anyone. As far as mentioning the court/legal system, no you didn't mention it.

But since that is what is being discussed, mentioning a picker being broken, to them, meant you were saying its more a matter of that and not a matter of them being screwed over in court.

I didn't find anything insulting in what you said though.


----------



## CountryMike

Prodigal said:


> @DownButNotOut and @Al_Bundy - I said NOTHING about the court system or its workings. I said NOTHING about our legal system. I saId NOTHING about assigning blame or it "being all the man's fault." I DID suggest that men might be choosing women who are just bad people. How is that BLAMING men?
> 
> AND YES YOU ARE TARGETING ME WHEN YOU QUOTE MY TEXTS. I NEVER used the words "loser" "incel" or "disgusting." In fact, I was attempting to make as neutral a comment as possible.
> 
> You guys should reread what I said and how you responded. I honestly did not want to start WWIII here. I'm going to leave it at that. Apparently even suggesting a man's picker could be broken - and a woman's picker could be just as broken since I WAS NOT trying to insult the men here - I'll just bow out. Too much triggering going on.


Don't do it. Stay, and let the chips fall as they may. 😮😮🙂🙂🙂🙂


----------



## drencrom

lifeistooshort said:


> Why did you marry and knock out kids with a woman who wouldn't work?


Ah the old bait & switch. She had a job when we got married but then wanted to use the SAHM thing to quit. I reluctantly agreed thinking she would go back sooner or later, and on top of that wasn't a cheater.



> Do the men who get involved with women either of poor character or who won't work have no responsibility at all for choosing such a partner?


Yes, if they knew what they were getting in to.

No, like me, who had no idea she was this way.



> If one wants a partner to work one should prioritize having a job when choosing a partner.


I did. Again, bait & switch.

But what do I know? I'm obviously a moron.


----------



## lifeistooshort

drencrom said:


> Ah the old bait & switch. She had a job when we got married but then wanted to use the SAHM thing to quit. I reluctantly agreed thinking she would go back sooner or later, and on top of that wasn't a cheater.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if they knew what they were getting in to.
> 
> No, like me, who had no idea she was this way.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Again, bait & switch.
> 
> But what do I know? I'm obviously a moron.


Your response was thoughtful and your point was taken until your last two sentences.

Those were unnecessary and damaging to your credibility. Snarky comments usually are.


----------



## Blondilocks

drencrom said:


> But what do I know?* I'm obviously a moron.*


You or your lawyer. Most divorces have a clause outlining how far a spouse can move with the kids without the other parent's permission. If you weren't aware of this, your lawyer was derelict in not bringing it to your attention.


----------



## drencrom

lifeistooshort said:


> Your response was thoughtful and your point was taken until your last two sentences.


And even as a mod, you weren't being snarky? Why do I get the feeling you were fishing for a bad response, and when my response was thoughtful, that one line was what you were hoping for?

Thats what happens when someone tells you their experience, and you dismiss it as somehow we were stupid enough to pick a person that does all that. Con artists do exist.



> Those were unnecessary and *damaging to your credibility*. Snarky comments usually are.


Well based on your response to me as if it somehow was my fault for picking a con artist for a spouse, I had no credibility with you to begin with.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> You or your lawyer. Most divorces have a clause outlining how far a spouse can move with the kids without the other parent's permission. If you weren't aware of this, your lawyer was derelict in not bringing it to your attention.


Divorce settlements do nothing against what the law allows.

You know, I'm getting a little sick and tired of the insinuations that our experiences are somehow our own fault. Does anyone need to be reminded this is the Men's Clubhouse?

What would happen if I did this over at the Ladies' Lounge?


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> You or your lawyer. Most divorces have a clause outlining how far a spouse can move with the kids without the other parent's permission. If you weren't aware of this, your lawyer was derelict in not bringing it to your attention.


And that which you replied to dealt with her not working and denying my kids full benefit of my child support money, not moving the kids out of state which in the end, did not happen.


----------



## bobsmith

Blondilocks said:


> What I find excruciatingly funny is a guy who expected fidelity from a woman who he refused to commit to (even though she was his baby mama), never went through the court system and pays the woman more than a court would require actually carrying the flag for a cause that doesn't affect him whatsoever. Where's your beef?
> 
> Have you actually commenced therapy as you said you would? May I suggest a full-fledged psychiatrist?
> 
> Perhaps you're using this cause as your cover for not being in a relationship. Easier to explain to people than the mere fact that you aren't good at relationships? Blameshifting.


You take really about every opportunity to bash me about not marrying my baby mama! I very much don't regret my decision. Something was off. I allowed my concerned brain of massive child support payments for 18yrs with our first to reason to "try to make it work" and we sure tried! But getting married would have just made it worse. She is probably a better person than I paint her, but make no mistake, outside people and even our therapist identified that her screws are not tight! And she really became lost in the world when her dad passed. 

But you seem to think because someone has not been fully bashed by the system, that they have no say? Let me put this on you. I happen to have a bro that I share DNA with, and HIS story is quite different! HIS story is not different than the rest here! Trying to take the child and fighting for 15yrs in courts! We got VERY good in a court room as pro-se so much so that people think we are attorneys. And because of this broken home situation, his son is now struggling in life because he was asked to pick sides and mom had no structure. I will bat tooth and nail for my bro. He is the polar opposite of me, as a model father, husband, and employee. 

What I learned about myself and women is this.....apparently I am attractive enough to entice very attractive women. Unfortunately the hot/crazy matrix really does apply. Hot women feel they are "better" than others just because they were born attractive. Many never work a day in their life other than doing their hair/makeup. But I can't seem to get my brain to chase average women that are probably normal. My options are to engage attractive women knowing they will have issues, or settle for someone I am probably not that attracted to.

My 2nd ex affirmed all my concerns and I am sure I painted that picture in some thread, but she was/is a horrible human, but I really wanted to believe she was different because she goes to church and plays "good girl" on the weekdays. I allowed her to screw up my brain for life. I have had to take responsibility for my part in my failures but I now do agree with you that I am not relationship material any longer. I am not building my life towards a partner. Not because I didn't want that, but the risk is too high for me. I allowed myself to bond to my 2nd ex and her daughter, then get kicked right in the face and I am still digging out of that mental hole today, years later.


----------



## Openminded

Crazy/hot = user. When you base a relationship on that, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t turn out well.


----------



## Blondilocks

drencrom said:


> Divorce settlements do nothing against what the law allows.
> 
> You know, I'm getting a little sick and tired of the insinuations that our experiences are somehow our own fault. *Does anyone need to be reminded this is the Men's Clubhouse?
> 
> What would happen if I did this over at the Ladies' Lounge?*


Members are permitted to post in every subforum.

Probably the same kind of feedback you're getting.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> Members are permitted to post in every subforum.
> 
> Probably the same kind of feedback you're getting.


I know members are permitted. But I'm thinking there are some unwritten rules in gender specific forums....such as not coming in and bashing them for things like their choices in ex spouses, or highlighting the sarcasm of being a "moron" and trying to remove the sarcasm and insinuate I am actually one.

Sure, if I did that in Ladies Lounge, I'm sure I'd be banned toot sweet.


----------



## drencrom

bobsmith said:


> You take really about every opportunity to bash me about not marrying my baby mama! I very much don't regret my decision. Something was off.


Why you even have to defend yourself on that I have no idea. I wish some of us would have had the "something was off" intuition. But when young, some of us tend to trust way to much.

Being married and divorced sure fixed that for me.


----------



## Blondilocks

drencrom said:


> I know members are permitted. But I'm thinking there are some unwritten rules in gender specific forums....such as not coming in and bashing them for things like their choices in ex spouses, or highlighting the sarcasm of being a "moron" and trying to remove the sarcasm and insinuate I am actually one.
> 
> Sure, if I did that in Ladies Lounge, I'm sure I'd be banned toot sweet.


Oh, I doubt that you would be banned tout de suite.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> If guys don't want to deal with the family court system, the answer is to not have kids. It isn't rocket science. Man up and take responsibility for your reproductive ability - in other words, get a vasectomy. See, problem solved.


When we marry for the first time and have dreams of having kids, we didn't imagine we'd every have to deal with the court system.

And yes, after the divorce I got a vasectomy.


----------



## 2&out

Interesting little tidbit on the news page I look at some in the money advice part.
*I’m 57 and my new husband is 80. I’m not on the deed of his house. Instead, he gave me a credit card with a $1,000 spending limit*
It goes on to say how he has 3 kids (1 disabled) and she is questioning his love and commitment to her as he hasn't arranged to take care of her financially as she wants/feels she deserves upon his death. Nice. And here some are questioning why some men would avoid just this thing...


----------



## drencrom

Numb26 said:


> To quote Joshua from "Wargames":
> 
> Only winning move is to not play the game


LOL, otherwise you are playing Global Thermonuclear War.

Love that movie.


----------



## Blondilocks

drencrom said:


> When we marry for the first time and have dreams of having kids, we didn't imagine we'd every have to deal with the court system.
> 
> *And yes, after the divorce I got a vasectomy.*


Thank you.


----------



## lifeistooshort

drencrom said:


> And even as a mod, you weren't being snarky? Why do I get the feeling you were fishing for a bad response, and when my response was thoughtful, that one line was what you were hoping for?
> 
> Thats what happens when someone tells you their experience, and you dismiss it as somehow we were stupid enough to pick a person that does all that. Con artists do exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Well based on your response to me as if it somehow was my fault for picking a con artist for a spouse, I had no credibility with you to begin with.


Please get a grip. We were having a discussion....that's it. I offer things and you offer things....that's how this works.

I'm not responsible for your feelings, especially when you're looking for an argument.

I will not respond again unless you in fact wish to have a discussion.


----------



## drencrom

lifeistooshort said:


> Please get a grip. We were having a discussion....that's it. I offer things and you offer things....that's how this works.
> 
> I'm not responsible for your feelings, especially when you're looking for an argument.
> 
> I will not respond again unless you in fact wish to have a discussion.


I wasn't looking for an argument. I posted some details of my situation. You were the one that responded with your insinuations and dismissal.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

So, I've read 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Either I am led to believe that 70% of men are scumbags or women marry men and quickly grow tired of them for whatever reason. Now, I've met some men that fall in this 70% category and I don't get the scumbag feel. It seems like their wife just grew tired of them. I hear of the 'I'm not happy' quite a bit when digging further. Once I read of the "walkway wife syndrome", "7 year itch" it all kind of clicked into place.

Fellas, the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. It's a hard lesson to learn except through experience.


----------



## drencrom

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, I've read 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Either I am led to believe that 70% of men are scumbags or women marry men and quickly grow tired of them for whatever reason.


Its a mixture obviously. My X simply didn't want to limit herself to the variety of men she could have sex with for the rest of her life.


----------



## bobsmith

Guess I don't have issue with women chiming in with their views, as this is only an inet discussion. But I am curious how a woman could look at the subject objectively and say the system is 'not' rigged in their favor? It is really a full on epidemic with fatherless homes. The system was designed to just make fathers into financial resources for a mother. No one ever even assessed the reality that horrible humans are now being fostered due to a lack of male role models. 

At no point EVER, should a system start anywhere other than 50/50 split custody! 2 parties made the child, so both parties should have equal responsibility. But that is obviously NOT the norm.


----------



## drencrom

bobsmith said:


> Guess I don't have issue with women chiming in with their views, as this is only an inet discussion.


Neither do I. But when the veiled, or not so veiled insults come out, all bets are off.

I would never even think of telling a woman, or insinuating, that she bears responsibility for errors in judgement if she had been treated horribly by a man. Why would I? Not only is that blaming the victim, but I'm in the same shoes.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

drencrom said:


> Its a mixture obviously. My X simply didn't want to limit herself to the variety of men she could have sex with for the rest of her life.


But the question is did she just not want to have sex with you while she was test driving?


----------



## drencrom

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> But the question is did she just not want to have sex with you while she was test driving?


Obviously not, and why would she want to have sex with me? I'm just the same guy she had sex with already. Conquered ground, no newness.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

drencrom said:


> Obviously not, and why would she want to have sex with me? I'm just the same guy she had sex with already. Conquered ground, no newness.


Yeas, she was done with you. Maybe it was being princess for a day, maybe it was finding a sperm donor, but she was done with you by then. You just didn't get the encoded letter typed in womanese.


----------



## lifeistooshort

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, I've read 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Either I am led to believe that 70% of men are scumbags or women marry men and quickly grow tired of them for whatever reason. Now, I've met some men that fall in this 70% category and I don't get the scumbag feel. It seems like their wife just grew tired of them. I hear of the 'I'm not happy' quite a bit when digging further. Once I read of the "walkway wife syndrome", "7 year itch" it all kind of clicked into place.
> 
> Fellas, the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. It's a hard lesson to learn except through experience.


Well I can speak for my father because my mom divorced him and he and I were very close, so we spoke quite a bit about his take on things.

I can tell you that he was miserable and hated being married to my mom and he cheated more then once. She really didn't care because she wasn't much interested in an actual marital relationship.

Now that I'm middle aged and have life experience I understand there were nuances.

I don't think he would've filed for divorce for a few reasons but he was also miserable to live with and made pretty much no effort to improve anything. By the logic of sone my mom filed so my dad is either a huge victim or a scumbag.

Neither is true. He was a good guy but they were incompatible and shouldn't have married, and neither was a peach to live with. While he did have to pay her off (she didn't work until my teens) he fared much better later in life. He still had decent income potential while she burned through the settlement and never made enough to support herself.

They're both gone now but FWIW the last years of his life were much higher quality then the last years of her life.

Long term outcomes are often quite different then short term outcomes.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Yeas, she was done with you. Maybe it was being princess for a day, maybe it was finding a sperm donor, but she was done with you by then. You just didn't get the encoded letter typed in womanese.


My X cheated on me around year 7, by year 8 I wised up to it being the smart guy that I am. But she was checked out by the time she started finding paramour. My daughter had reached age 7 which was past the nesting age so wife flew the coop. She wasn't happy. And honestly neither was I. The sex had dried up and she wasn't the person I married anymore.

I would have probably stayed for life since I seen marriage as a lifelong committed but after the cheating there was so going back. I realize though, if you want loyalty, get a dog.


----------



## BruceBanner

Blondilocks said:


> If guys don't want to deal with the family court system, the answer is to not have kids. It isn't rocket science. Man up and take responsibility for your reproductive ability - in other words, get a vasectomy. See, problem solved.


I guess we should just let the human species go extinct then huh?


----------



## bobsmith

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I realize though, if you want loyalty, get a dog.


That is a fact!!!! My girl is with me 24/7. I give to my dog what I had hoped to give with another human. It is shocking that my head was so screwed up with my 2nd ex that I nearly gave her away! Today people in public are truly amazed at our bond. I hate to say but I need my dog more than I realize. She gives me a purpose.


----------



## Blondilocks

BruceBanner said:


> I guess we should just let the human species go extinct then huh?


Too funny. Next, you'll be bringing up Hitler. When you can't offer a reasonable answer, just catastrophize it.


----------



## farsidejunky

BruceBanner said:


> I guess we should just let the human species go extinct then huh?


So rather than accepting there are things you could have done differently or better, you post hyperbole. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> I like and share my own analogy because I think it is suiting. It is like trying to befriend a cheetah. They are very pretty and elegant. But through countless encounters, it is well known that the cheetah has insane teeth and claws and will straight up destroy you in today's world.
> 
> It is NOT that we hate the cheetah, but we have learned a healthy respect for it, and the harm it can cause. And the cheetah is basically somewhat oblivious to all of this because it was born with teeth and claws.
> 
> As with many men in this thread, I do not hate women, and actually enjoy them, but I now have a very healthy respect for what they can do to me and I now remain in relative safety to keep myself protected.
> 
> If women do not like all of this, they are going to have to be the ones to tell the government to make the game fair! But I think it will continue to get worse for many more years. See the betas will always be around, willing to serve, feed, and give. The REAL men that build the world you live in are tired of the crap and actually roping one is getting harder and harder!


You need to change the sort of women you mix with. I know so many women who are good decent fair people who wouldn't expect to or want to screw over a man. In fact a lot of divorced women like myself ended up with the same or less than the man. Many were fair and acted decently in their divorce. In the UK divorce agreements seem fair in my experience. Plus nearly all women here have to work anyway and often earn more than the man.


----------



## bobsmith

Diana7 said:


> You need to change the sort of women you mix with. I know so many women who are good decent fair people who wouldn't expect to or want to screw over a man. In fact a lot of divorced women like myself ended up with the same or less than the man. Many were fair and acted decently in their divorce. In the UK divorce agreements seem fair in my experience. Plus nearly all women here have to work anyway and often earn more than the man.


That is not the norm in the USA. I have actually heard women talking to each other about how much they can get in their divorce and which atty to use. I think I have some things figured. One of which is prettier women have options. They are reinforced by every man telling them they are pretty. This gives them "princess syndrome" in which they realize they don't need to do much in life, they need to spot a high wage man. They do just that time and time again. But the man falls in the trap too, so you have to put blame there! 

Now women with lesser options seem more content, happy to just find a relationship, and likely to work on the good life. 

As I have said here before, I do find that less attractive people just seem to end up happier in the end.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

I have to say my divorce was fairly pain free. We split the assets and shared custody. I came out slightly worse but I was making more then so I guess that's to be expected. But it was pretty much a clean break. I was lucky in that I had a willing participant, she wanted out and we agreed it was best to remain amicable rather than kill ourselves with lawyer fees and do what was best for our kid.

The key was staying out of the court to decide these things for me. I still had to start over in many respects, but it was a fairly quick recovery. I've heard some horror stories and usually it turns out bad for men when the courts come into play. Though, it's hard to say if this is the exception or the norm. Fortunately, I dodged that bullet.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

bobsmith said:


> That is not the norm in the USA. I have actually heard women talking to each other about how much they can get in their divorce and which atty to use. I think I have some things figured. One of which is prettier women have options. They are reinforced by every man telling them they are pretty. This gives them "princess syndrome" in which they realize they don't need to do much in life, they need to spot a high wage man. They do just that time and time again. But the man falls in the trap too, so you have to put blame there!
> 
> Now women with lesser options seem more content, happy to just find a relationship, and likely to work on the good life.
> 
> As I have said here before, I do find that less attractive people just seem to end up happier in the end.


Looks fade and then they just have to deal with the lousy person they have become with no suitors lining up anymore.


----------



## EleGirl

Blondilocks said:


> Oh, I doubt that you would be banned tout de suite.





UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> So, I've read 70% of divorces are initiated by women. Either I am led to believe that 70% of men are scumbags or women marry men and quickly grow tired of them for whatever reason. Now, I've met some men that fall in this 70% category and I don't get the scumbag feel. It seems like their wife just grew tired of them. I hear of the 'I'm not happy' quite a bit when digging further. Once I read of the "walkway wife syndrome", "7 year itch" it all kind of clicked into place.
> 
> Fellas, the juice just ain't worth the squeeze. It's a hard lesson to learn except through experience.


The real percent of divorce in the US is about 25% of all marriages. So even if all women who file for divorce do so because their husbands are scumbags, that's only 70% of 25% of all married men. The 70% is only 20% more than the female percentage of married person who get divorced. 

My understanding of the reason that more women file for divorce is that there are 3 main reasons: 1) men cheat at a higher rate than women do, 2) the percentage of men who are physically violent is higher than the percentage of women who are physically violent, and 3) women often have lower income than men and are often the primary care takers of children so women tend to file first for financial reasons.


----------



## Diana7

drencrom said:


> I'm done with marriage. After dealing with infidelity, then divorce, custody, etc., how can anyone blame?


Why let one bad experience put you off? We both had similar issues in our first marriages, and worse, we are in a happy second marriage of 16 years. 
If we all stopped doing things because someone acted badly towards us, we would never do anything. We may as well sit in our houses and never go out again. 

You know what they say, when the going gets tough the tough get going.


----------



## DownButNotOut

farsidejunky said:


> So rather than accepting there are things you could have done differently or better, you post hyperbole.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


No. Hyperbole is suggesting that the solution to the family court situation in the US is male sterilization. The entire concept is sick and disgusting.

No man wants to face family court. Ever. So when should this man "man up" and get snipped? At 40, after 2 kids, a divorce, and what the court deems fit to do to him? It's a little late at that point. At 30, when he is hitting his stride and possibly looking to settle down and start a family? That man doesn't want to face family court, but he is still in the "it couldn't happen to me" mindset. How about 20, when he is choosing his life path? 18, the age of majority? None of those men want family court. Should they also sterilize?


----------



## Diana7

2&out said:


> Interesting little tidbit on the news page I look at some in the money advice part.
> *I’m 57 and my new husband is 80. I’m not on the deed of his house. Instead, he gave me a credit card with a $1,000 spending limit*
> It goes on to say how he has 3 kids (1 disabled) and she is questioning his love and commitment to her as he hasn't arranged to take care of her financially as she wants/feels she deserves upon his death. Nice. And here some are questioning why some men would avoid just this thing...


He made a stupid decision, don't blame her.


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> That is not the norm in the USA. I have actually heard women talking to each other about how much they can get in their divorce and which atty to use. I think I have some things figured. One of which is prettier women have options. They are reinforced by every man telling them they are pretty. This gives them "princess syndrome" in which they realize they don't need to do much in life, they need to spot a high wage man. They do just that time and time again. But the man falls in the trap too, so you have to put blame there!
> 
> Now women with lesser options seem more content, happy to just find a relationship, and likely to work on the good life.
> 
> As I have said here before, I do find that less attractive people just seem to end up happier in the end.


As I say, you are around the wrong sort of people.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Diana7 said:


> Why let one bad experience put you off? We both had similar issues in our first marriages, and worse, we are in a happy second marriage of 16 years.
> If we all stopped doing things because someone acted badly towards us, we would never do anything. We may as well sit in our houses and never go out again.
> 
> You know what they say, when the going gets tough the tough get going.


That's sounds good but it ignores the financial risks involved as far as marriage.


----------



## Al_Bundy

As far as who controls the courts, that's easy. Special interest groups, just like any branch of government.


----------



## drencrom

Diana7 said:


> Why let one bad experience put you off?


Well, if it was just a matter of "one bad experience", it wouldn't put me off. But this went way beyond that.

Besides, I like being single so far. Can go to Vegas whenever I want


----------



## drencrom

Diana7 said:


> He made a stupid decision, don't blame her.


Yes, he made a poor decision. He should have asked what she sees in someone his age.

But that doesn't make her any less of a gold digging scumbag. She new what she was doing going after an 80yo wrinkled old codger.


----------



## bobsmith

Diana7 said:


> As I say, you are around the wrong sort of people.


I don't meet those types and when I do, they have 21 questions like "what do you do, where do you live, do you own your home, how many kids do you have, how old, are your parents still married, are you friends with your ex, etc, etc, etc". 

To be right honest, I live in BFE now because I was tired. I am a personality that does better with people that actually know me. I don't enjoy meeting new people much.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> The real percent of divorce in the US is about 25% of all marriages. So even if all women who file for divorce do so because their husbands are scumbags, that's only 70% of 25% of all married men. The 70% is only 20% more than the female percentage of married person who get divorced.
> 
> My understanding of the reason that more women file for divorce is that there are 3 main reasons: 1) men cheat at a higher rate than women do, 2) the percentage of men who are physically violent is higher than the percentage of women who are physically violent, and 3) women often have lower income than men and are often the primary care takers of children so women tend to file first for financial reasons.


Divorce statistics can be a funny thing. There is the crude divorce rate, currently at 2.9/1000 people. That number can be hard to interpret, since it is also dependent on the marriage pool. Most researchers prefer the refined divorce rate which is around 16.9/1000 married women. Now that number is fairly easy to interpret. It is the number of marriages that end in any particular year. But of course when we talk about divorce rates, we laypeople are usually more interested in the probability of a marriage ending divorce throughout the lifetime of that marriage. There is no hard and fast way to come to that number. Most commonly, a researcher will look at historical data and extrapolate from it. Right now, those probabilities come to around a 50% chance of a marriage ending in divorce or separation. That would break down as 41% of all first marriages, 60% of second marriages, and 72% of all third marriages. Note that is the probability of eventual divorce, not the current rate of divorce. But when you are considering marriage, the probability is what you are most likely interested in.


----------



## bobsmith

You know how I do the math? I sit down and jot down the people I know that got married, then how many are now divorced. It is actually much faster to just count the ones that are still married! This assesses real world stats based on your own circle of people. However, it does NOT account for how many are still married but miserable, and I think that number is quite high! Being old enough now, I can actually see the signs of resentment. They are not easy to hide. 

Still very bummed about a classmate/s divorce. He was one of my hopefuls. He is a nice guy and I really liked his wife a lot! She was just so laid back like him, and fun to be around. It snowed on their wedding for for whatever reason I ended up carrying her to the car after the wedding so she did not damage her dress. 

One thing I have realized in life that has just burned me out is all the broken bridges and connections. You spend 10-20yrs with someone, make tons of memories, take pics, etc. Then in order to "move on", you are required to suppress and forget all that time to a degree. I nearly cannot even go to a restaurant now as I see the exact spot where I met my 2nd ex. It makes me want to puke. 

Hell, right now I am chatting with my best friend's ex because we were all best friends. I know he would not approve, but she was my friend. It is all mental chaos that occurs due to that damn ring!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

EleGirl said:


> The real percent of divorce in the US is about 25% of all marriages. So even if all women who file for divorce do so because their husbands are scumbags, that's only 70% of 25% of all married men. The 70% is only 20% more than the female percentage of married person who get divorced.
> 
> My understanding of the reason that more women file for divorce is that there are 3 main reasons: 1) men cheat at a higher rate than women do, 2) the percentage of men who are physically violent is higher than the percentage of women who are physically violent, and 3) women often have lower income than men and are often the primary care takers of children so women tend to file first for financial reasons.


I'm not sure where you get 25%, I have always heard 50% atleast for the US.

Again, according to everything I've read women cheat as much as men. Atleast in the past couple decades.

Ok, domestic abuse would make sense, however I think the stats on that are really inaccurate.

Not sure about the final reason. Seems less financial resources would prevent filing more, unless you are insinuating they are looking for a payday which seems to align with many MGTOW advocates.


----------



## Rus47

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I have to say my divorce was fairly pain free. We split the assets and shared custody. I came out slightly worse but I was making more then so I guess that's to be expected. But it was pretty much a clean break. *I was lucky in that I had a willing participant*, she wanted out and we agreed it was best to remain amicable rather than kill ourselves with lawyer fees and do what was best for our kid.
> 
> *The key was staying out of the court to decide these things for me*. I still had to start over in many respects, but it was a fairly quick recovery. I've heard some horror stories and usually it turns out bad for men when the courts come into play. Though, it's hard to say if this is the exception or the norm. Fortunately, I dodged that bullet.


The men I know that got the biggest shaft were those where the wife went to an attorney that jacked them up about how much the husband owed them, what a bum he was, how she needed to go for the throat. She might originally had it in mind to "be fair", but the attorney will convince her of all the money she is leaving on the table. The woman's attorney of course gets a big paycheck, ( as does the husband's attorney) which was the point of the whole game in the first place.

And if the wife has some divorcee friends, they will coach her through the process. Maybe even hook her up with their shark attorney.

It will never happen, but always thought that a no-fault process using standard algorithms to print out settlements for signature and filing with the county records would be a huge improvement.


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> My understanding of the reason that more women file for divorce is that there are 3 main reasons: 1) men cheat at a higher rate than women do, 2) the percentage of men who are physically violent is higher than the percentage of women who are physically violent, and 3) women often have lower income than men and are often the primary care takers of children so women tend to file first for financial reasons.


I actually filed, but she was going to try to beat me to the punch. She wanted to file because she is a slag.

And I think you might be right about why most women file.
However in my small community they do so for nowhere near those reasons. Where I live, and everyone knows everyone, they do so because they are boning the next available bachelor that sprouts up.


----------



## bobsmith

Rus47 said:


> The men I know that got the biggest shaft were those where the wife went to an attorney that jacked them up about how much the husband owed them, what a bum he was, how she needed to go for the throat. She might originally had it in mind to "be fair", *but the attorney will convince her of all the money she is leaving on the table*. The woman's attorney of course gets a big paycheck, ( as does the husband's attorney) which was the point of the whole game in the first place.
> 
> And if the wife has some divorcee friends, they will coach her through the process. Maybe even hook her up with their shark attorney.
> 
> It will never happen, but always thought that a no-fault process using standard algorithms to print out settlements for signature and filing with the county records would be a huge improvement.


Being experienced dealing with attorneys, I can assure you what they do is right on the line of criminal and I am actually looking to foster legislation on the matter. Not only divorce matters, but most are down right scum. What you will notice when they bring women in, they will ask certain questions to extract exactly how much money is on the line. IE, how much can they charge. They know people will not squawk at a 20K bill if they can get another 100K. Now, you tell a lawyer your STB ex is worth about 5K and has nothing, and you will literally get a lawyer saying, "well, I don't think we are the right fit for you, good luck".....

Yes, 100% attorneys drive the insanity and in many ways, I think they are responsible for many things over priced, like insurance, not to mention the animosity between men/women today. Attorneys commonly bend the law and explain it to a judge as fact. Case load is so high, people just buckle and submit.


----------



## RebuildingMe

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I have to say my divorce was fairly pain free. We split the assets and shared custody. I came out slightly worse but I was making more then so I guess that's to be expected. But it was pretty much a clean break. I was lucky in that I had a willing participant, she wanted out and we agreed it was best to remain amicable rather than kill ourselves with lawyer fees and do what was best for our kid.
> 
> The key was staying out of the court to decide these things for me. I still had to start over in many respects, but it was a fairly quick recovery. I've heard some horror stories and usually it turns out bad for men when the courts come into play. Though, it's hard to say if this is the exception or the norm. Fortunately, I dodged that bullet.


How much child support did you get stuck for?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

DownButNotOut said:


> No. Hyperbole is suggesting that the solution to the family court situation in the US is male sterilization. The entire concept is sick and disgusting.
> 
> No man wants to face family court. Ever. So when should this man "man up" and get snipped? At 40, after 2 kids, a divorce, and what the court deems fit to do to him? It's a little late at that point. At 30, when he is hitting his stride and possibly looking to settle down and start a family? That man doesn't want to face family court, but he is still in the "it couldn't happen to me" mindset. How about 20, when he is choosing his life path? 18, the age of majority? None of those men want family court. Should they also sterilize?


All the women I know wanted kids or want kids in the future. Only half the men I know really care or only got on board because their wife wanted them. Small sample, but my experience. I feel like male sterilization would hurt women more than men.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

RebuildingMe said:


> How much child support did you get stuck for?


None, I have 50/50 custody, so no child support. I did accept paying for insurance but only cuz my X had **** insurance and mine was really good.


----------



## Numb26

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> None, I have 50/50 custody, so no child support.


Full custody, none


----------



## EleGirl

drencrom said:


> I actually filed, but she was going to try to beat me to the punch. She wanted to file because she is a slag.
> 
> And I think you might be right about why most women file.
> However in my small community they do so for nowhere near those reasons. Where I live, and everyone knows everyone, they do so because they are boning the next available bachelor that sprouts up.


Sounds like you need to find a better community. It's sad that there are a fair number of low lives on this earth.


----------



## RebuildingMe

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> None, I have 50/50 custody, so no child support. I did accept paying for insurance but only cuz my X had **** insurance and mine was really good.


50/50 custody does NOT mean no child support in most states. So yes, you got off good. I did as well, but came with a very expensive legal bill. I feel very fortunate to get out, and would never jump back into the shark infested waters called marriage. Having kids makes it far, far worse. Thankfully, having more kids is also out of the question for me.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Numb26 said:


> Full custody, none


You should file for child support. Turn the tables.


----------



## bobsmith

Bro's ex tried to get comp for "insurance" for the kid and he said NOPE, not one dime. Took that all the way to the judge's bench and he laid out the fact that his insurance was 100% free, no fees, everything paid for, but his ex didn't like that! She wanted control of something so she tried to leverage crap insurance and make him pay for it. 

The judge gave his ex stern talk about good, free insurance is hard to come by, so if you feel compelled to get alt insurance, you can pay on your own dime, including out of pocket. She decided she did not like that arrangement. 

These sorts of idiotic fights were so numerous, I can't recall half of them. All while mommy and daddy were paying her legal fees. She was an obese, entitled POS that never got over the fact that my bro made a huge mistake tapping that, but did not make it two by marrying that! EW!!!


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> That is not the norm in the USA. I have actually heard women talking to each other about how much they can get in their divorce and which atty to use. I think I have some things figured. One of which is prettier women have options. They are reinforced by every man telling them they are pretty. This gives them "princess syndrome" in which they realize they don't need to do much in life, they need to spot a high wage man. They do just that time and time again. But the man falls in the trap too, so you have to put blame there!
> 
> Now women with lesser options seem more content, happy to just find a relationship, and likely to work on the good life.
> 
> As I have said here before, I do find that less attractive people just seem to end up happier in the end.


It might not be the norm in the people you interact with. Among my social group and family, women are not like that. The only one I know who tried that is a ex-sisters-in-law. She did not get anywhere near what she thought she was owned by the universe.

I guess the difference is that most of women I know don't suffer from the "princess syndrome". Most have careers, are/were married, raised children. The ones who are divorced got nothing more than 50% of the assets which they earned every bit as much as their husbands did.

When I divorced my son's father I got a small amount of child support. 2 years after we married my now ex unilaterally quit his job as an engineer to go to medical school. I paid all of his expenses for medical school and support him and our son. Once he was out of residency he wanted a divorce. He was very upset that I would have access to HIS money as he then eared 4 times what I earn when he joined a medical practice. He also wanted to be free to chase women. When we divorced I found out that he had moved thousands of "my" money into an account in his mom's name. I was lucky I found the paperwork. I got zero for the about $100,000 I spent putting him through medical school. 

I'm not even touching here the fact that I found out he had been cheating most of the marriage and he was physically abusive.

I could go down the list ... my sister "L" divorced her husband after he pulled a gun on her, threatening to kill her. She was awarded child support but he never paid a penny. He also did not help to raise their 2 children. He ran off with some woman and never looked back.

My friend "A"s husband divorced her to go live with an AP. She was left with 3 children, one a 6 month old baby. The only financial thing she got was child support, which he never paid. He ended up doing the same thing to his AP after he married her, had children and then ran off with another woman.

I could list more but won't bore you. The point is that to paid all women as money grabbers suffering from "princess syndrome" is ignoring the reality that just like there are some bad/spoiled women out there, there are just as many bad/spoiled men out there.


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> Sounds like you need to find a better community. It's sad that there are a fair number of low lives on this earth.


I'm actually good with it. I like knowing everyone. If I ever decided to get back in the game, and honestly right now I have no plans, I can at least know who I am involving myself with, and know who to avoid.


----------



## Numb26

RebuildingMe said:


> You should file for child support. Turn the tables.


Can't get blood from a turnip. Plus I don't need the money


----------



## Trident

16


Numb26 said:


> Can't get blood from a turnip. Plus I don't need the money


You sound like some of the women I've met who are afraid to go after their ex for child support.

The money isn't for YOU, it's not about what you need or don't need. It's about the rights of your children to be fully supported by both parents. You can't morally keep money away from them. Your exwife isn't a plant. When faced with an order to pay child support or go to jail, people find a way to pay up.

You're only hurting your children.


----------



## Numb26

Trident said:


> 16
> 
> 
> You sound like some of the women I've met who are afraid to go after their ex for child support.
> 
> The money isn't for YOU, it's not about what you need or don't need. It's about the rights of your children to be fully supported by both parents. You can't morally keep money away from them. Your exwife isn't a plant. When faced with an order to pay child support or go to jail, people find a way to pay up.
> 
> You're only hurting your children.


I don't think you know my story. My EX has no money. LOL


----------



## Trident

Ok I read some of the backstory she's a loser never mind.


----------



## bobsmith

EleGirl said:


> It might not be the norm in the people you interact with. Among my social group and family, women are not like that. The only one I know who tried that is a ex-sisters-in-law. She did not get anywhere near what she thought she was owned by the universe.
> 
> I guess the difference is that most of women I know don't suffer from the "princess syndrome". Most have careers, are/were married, raised children. The ones who are divorced got nothing more than 50% of the assets which they earned every bit as much as their husbands did.
> 
> When I divorced my son's father I got a small amount of child support. 2 years after we married my now ex unilaterally quit his job as an engineer to go to medical school. I paid all of his expenses for medical school and support him and our son. Once he was out of residency he wanted a divorce. He was very upset that I would have access to HIS money as he then eared 4 times what I earn when he joined a medical practice. He also wanted to be free to chase women. When we divorced I found out that he had moved thousands of "my" money into an account in his mom's name. I was lucky I found the paperwork. I got zero for the about $100,000 I spent putting him through medical school.
> 
> I'm not even touching here the fact that I found out he had been cheating most of the marriage and he was physically abusive.
> 
> I could go down the list ... my sister "L" divorced her husband after he pulled a gun on her, threatening to kill her. She was awarded child support but he never paid a penny. He also did not help to raise their 2 children. He ran off with some woman and never looked back.
> 
> My friend "A"s husband divorced her to go live with an AP. She was left with 3 children, one a 6 month old baby. The only financial thing she got was child support, which he never paid. He ended up doing the same thing to his AP after he married her, had children and then ran off with another woman.
> 
> I could list more but won't bore you. The point is that to paid all women as money grabbers suffering from "princess syndrome" is ignoring the reality that just like there are some bad/spoiled women out there, there are just as many bad/spoiled men out there.


Ouch! Thanks for sharing! I'd like to say there is just an inherent mass supply of deadbeats, but I probably fit that mold these day, having nothing really to do with my boys now! But I guess not like I did that to escape responsibility, or to run off with a cheap hooker. 

I have certainly found in life that women have a mental toughness that men (at least I) don't have. An ability to heal and recover.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Too bad the asset split wasn't based on contribution. Just because someone shares your address doesn't mean they are helping. A lot of people are successful in spite of their spouse, not because of.


----------



## Numb26

bobsmith said:


> I have certainly found in life that women have a mental toughness that men (at least I) don't have. An ability to heal and recover.


Not true. I am proof that it isn't true


----------



## Trident

bobsmith said:


> I have certainly found in life that women have a mental toughness that men (at least I) don't have. An ability to heal and recover.


That's ridiculous.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> my bro made a huge mistake tapping that, but did not make it two by marrying that! EW!!!


Is not bothering to marry the mother of your children a tradition in your family? Weren't you two raised Catholic? Isn't the church a big proponent of marriage?


----------



## bobsmith

Trident said:


> That's ridiculous.


Well for the context of this thread, we can just ignore that, but what I was referring to was a write up by a psychologist a few yrs ago that basically indicated men will suppress, resent, and avoid. Women tend to be able to mentally work through a hardship, accept, and become at peace. Of course this is one doc's evaluation.


----------



## bobsmith

Blondilocks said:


> Is not bothering to marry the mother of your children a tradition in your family? Weren't you two raised Catholic? Isn't the church a big proponent of marriage?


Apparently so! And apparently Blondi has major personal issue with anything less than marriage. I walked away from the church. I am convinced it is all a lie anyway. 

See, this is exactly what I tell young men, and really even women. if you go out and make another life as a mistake, don't make that one mistake in life turn into two by getting married for the wrong reason!


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> I don't think you know my story. My EX has no money. LOL


He can be made to get employment if a court is so inclined. Or he can be put in jail and whatever they force him to earn in jail will be sent.


----------



## Diana7

Al_Bundy said:


> That's sounds good but it ignores the financial risks involved as far as marriage.


All life is a risk surely? I have absolutely no worries at all about finances in our marriage. To me money and possessions aren't my priority in life.


----------



## Trident

bobsmith said:


> Well for the context of this thread, we can just ignore that, but what I was referring to was a write up by a psychologist a few yrs ago that basically indicated men will suppress, resent, and avoid. Women tend to be able to mentally work through a hardship, accept, and become at peace. Of course this is one doc's evaluation.


That's more reasonable. Women are all about emotions and talking through feelings. Guys would prefer to fix something around the house.

Doesn't mean they're mentally tougher.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> And apparently Blondi has major personal issue with anything less than marriage.


Blondi has major personal issue with children not having two role models when growing up. Your ex must have done something right because your older son is a contributing member of society and not playing video games and getting high every day. It's nice that you taught him how to do pushups. It's too bad that your younger son who you say is a good kid doesn't have the benefit of a father. It isn't too late to revive that relationship.


----------



## bobsmith

Blondilocks said:


> Blondi has major personal issue with children not having two role models when growing up. Your ex must have done something right because your older son is a contributing member of society and not playing video games and getting high every day. It's nice that you taught him how to do pushups. It's too bad that your younger son who you say is a good kid doesn't have the benefit of a father. It isn't too late to revive that relationship.


They have a dad.....a step dad. Technically both are good kids by society's standards. Technically I am doing them a favor by not running them through the split family BS between homes. There is a level of consistency. I don't actually have a place for them anyway. Building my place tiny, for me.... They have a nice big home to be in. They are safe and in a good school. Can't ask for too much more.


----------



## Enigma32

Yes, there are women who see this as a way to earn money. PJ Washington Reunites With Son As Rift With Brittany Renner Continues This stupid guy now has to pay his "ex" 200k per month in child support payments. She left the guy high and dry right after she had that baby. Now she is PAID for the next 18 years. He works for her now. I don't care who you are, no one should have to pay 200k a month in child support. Or even 20k. It's just a way to scam men.


----------



## RebuildingMe

My friend took this photo today of a woman driving her Jeep in the parking lot..This is the world we live in now. Child support bought her this car. Truly disgusting. So disgusting she put it on her plate, another $250 a year in NY.


----------



## EleGirl

RebuildingMe said:


> My friend took this photo today of a woman driving her Jeep in the parking lot..This is the world we live in now. Child support bought her this car. Truly disgusting. So disgusting she put it on her plate, another $250 a year in NY.
> 
> View attachment 77637


I find the license plate tacky. But, playing devils advocate here. Do you think she should not be able to have a safe car to drive her kids to school, shop for food, etc?

Do you or your friend know this woman and her situation?


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

bobsmith said:


> Guess I don't have issue with women chiming in with their views, as this is only an inet discussion. But I am curious how a woman could look at the subject objectively and say the system is 'not' rigged in their favor? It is really a full on epidemic with fatherless homes. The system was designed to just make fathers into financial resources for a mother. No one ever even assessed the reality that horrible humans are now being fostered due to a lack of male role models.
> 
> At no point EVER, should a system start anywhere other than 50/50 split custody! 2 parties made the child, so both parties should have equal responsibility. But that is obviously NOT the norm.


The system isn't rigged against men, per se. The system is designed so that the higher-income parent must pay more money to the lower income parent. The system is designed so that the parent without a job gets the kids. It just so happens that in current society men still out-earn women, and women are more frequently the stay-at-home parent if only one works.

I would love to see a more egalitarian society where women made as much money as men, everybody was expected to work to support themselves, everyone get half custody of their kids by default, and there was no such thing as spousal support.


----------



## RebuildingMe

EleGirl said:


> I find the license plate tacky. But, playing devils advocate here. Do you think she should not be able to have a safe car to drive her kids to school, shop for food, etc?
> 
> Do you or your friend know this woman and her situation?


No, I wasn’t with him and he is not the type that would have approached her. I would have if I was there. Child support payments should not be going towards a new Jeep with vanity plates. I respect your opinions, but please don’t try and justify this.


----------



## BruceBanner

EleGirl said:


> 1) men cheat at a higher rate than women do,


Women closed that gap decades ago. Men don't really cheat any more than women do.



Hopeful Cynic said:


> The system isn't rigged against men, per se. The system is designed so that the higher-income parent must pay more money to the lower income parent. The system is designed so that the parent without a job gets the kids. It just so happens that in current society men still out-earn women, and women are more frequently the stay-at-home parent if only one works.
> 
> I would love to see a more egalitarian society where women made as much money as men, everybody was expected to work to support themselves, everyone get half custody of their kids by default, and there was no such thing as spousal support.


The system is definitely rigged against men. Women who are required to pay child support often times get away not paying more than men and are less likely to be thrown in jail.



Blondilocks said:


> Too funny. Next, you'll be bringing up Hitler. When you can't offer a reasonable answer, just catastrophize it.





farsidejunky said:


> So rather than accepting there are things you could have done differently or better, you post hyperbole.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Telling men not to have kids is not a practical solution. Society can't operate correctly without the population replenishing itself.


----------



## Lila

BruceBanner said:


> Telling men not to have kids is not a practical solution. Society can't operate correctly without the population replenishing itself.


You went from catastrophic arguments to altruistic ones 🙄. I have a feeling that any argument short of "men should be allowed to procreate at will without consequences" is unacceptable to you. That's not how life works. 

Let's assume you're right. No one says you have to partner up to have kids. Freezing sperm is so common these days that it's relatively cheap. When single men are ready to have kids, they can hire a surrogate. It's expensive whether you marry, have kids, and divorce or you go the single parent route but at least this way you're not saddled with having to deal with the mother of your child for 18 years. You've done your part to replenish the population for society's sake. 

There is a consequence to every decision we make, good or bad. If the risks are not worth the potential reward, then don't take it.


----------



## Lila

Speaking of babies and MGTOW

MGTOW need to find ways to encourage the government and big pharma to fund male contraceptive research. For every $100,000 that gets used on contraception research, only $100 goes to male contraception.


----------



## Diana7

RebuildingMe said:


> My friend took this photo today of a woman driving her Jeep in the parking lot..This is the world we live in now. Child support bought her this car. Truly disgusting. So disgusting she put it on her plate, another $250 a year in NY.
> 
> View attachment 77637


No, this the way SHE lives now. One woman.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> There is a consequence to every decision we make, good or bad. If the risks are not worth the potential reward, then don't take it.


And right there, you've hit the core principle of MGTOW.


----------



## Rus47

Hopeful Cynic said:


> The system isn't rigged against men, per se. The system is designed so that the higher-income parent must pay more money to the lower income parent. The system is designed so that the parent without a job gets the kids. It just so happens that in current society men still out-earn women, and women are more frequently the stay-at-home parent if only one works.
> 
> I would love to see a more egalitarian society where women made as much money as men, everybody was expected to work to support themselves, everyone get half custody of their kids by default, and there was no such thing as spousal support.


Key is to get the whole process out of the court system as much as feasible, make it "no fault".. Fill out an online form and the computer files the appropriate paperwork with the county. Quick and cheap. No high fees or drama. 50/50 custody default. Whoever wants to appeal for more pays ALL of the court costs.

Of course will never happen, too many making a very nice living off of the existing system.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Lila said:


> Speaking of babies and MGTOW
> 
> MGTOW need to find ways to encourage the government and big pharma to fund male contraceptive research. For every $100,000 that gets used on contraception research, only $100 goes to male contraception.


Economically that will never work. The government would lose money, plus a lot of needs based programs would lose participants which would mean they couldn't justify their budgets which means the govt can't justify their insane tax rates.


----------



## manowar

Rus47 said:


> Key is to get the whole process out of the court system as much as feasible, make it "no fault".. Fill out an online form and the computer files the appropriate paperwork with the county. Quick and cheap. No high fees or drama. 50/50 custody default. Whoever wants to appeal for more pays ALL of the court costs.



It is no fault -- that's where the problem lies. Wife bangs 5 dudes, man gets a bill for 18 years. No Consequences in the eyes of the law. That's ok - she wanted to do that. Who is the state to tell woman what to do. On the other hand, State commands man to pay for 18 years. The men blindly follow so the system chugs along. I'm surprised more men don't run. Check out to Thailand or Berlin.

Secondly, the entire Marriage-Divorce machine is a redistribution scheme to transfer the man's wealth to woman. The only way to avoid it is not to marry or cohabitate. Man - weak man - has allowed this to occur as well as the poor treatment they receive from women. They put up with it. Accept it as the norm. Want someone to blame? it's not the women per se. they are just doing what comes naturally to them. they are seeking the top guys. why shouldn't they? Blame the Beta male for the state of affairs we live in today. The Beta male gave it all away and in doing so he emasculated himself. They became incels. There's a guy on youtube named Kevin Samuels that really knows his sh8t. First i thought he was an empty suit. watched a few of his videos. Boy was I dead wrong.

.Now on the east coast you've got the premarriage parasites convincing the happy couple to spend upwards of 40k plus to celebrate the magical day (on credit of course). who do you think is going along with this sh8t? The Beta Male.


----------



## LisaDiane

Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


I think Dr. Dre might have a few thoughts on that one.


----------



## rockon

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


Any prenup written by a lawyer can be unwritten (nullified) by another lawyer.


----------



## Trident

rockon said:


> Any prenup written by a lawyer can be unwritten (nullified) by another lawyer.


Completely and utterly false.


----------



## rockon

Trident said:


> Completely and utterly false.


Really? I have personally witnessed this 2 times. Both thought they had ironclad prenups.


----------



## Trident

I'm sure a prenuptual agreement can get overturned on occasion- but your statement that _any_ prenup written by an attorney can be overturned by any other attorney is quite the stretch.

That much being said, any prenup can be challenged and you're looking at what could be a drawn out, expensive, stressful and uncertain legal process.

Why bother getting married if you're going to put a prenup out there that might be challenged and possibly nullified because of a technicality or a judges random decision based on nothing more than how he or she felt that day or how you looked at him or her in the courtroom or if his favorite attorney who supported his re-election campaign is representing the petitioner?

It's like buying a new umbrella and tearing holes in it and waiting for the next hurricane.


----------



## Rus47

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


Doubt it. Attorney's can get around any agreement about anything.


----------



## Blondilocks

EleGirl said:


> I find the license plate tacky. But, playing devils advocate here. Do you think she should not be able to have a safe car to drive her kids to school, shop for food, etc?
> 
> Do you or your friend know this woman and her situation?


Yes, it is tacky. I would bet that she did this to tick off her ex. Some guys think they get to dictate how the child support is used and question expenditures.


----------



## Enigma32

Blondilocks said:


> Some guys think they get to dictate how the child support is used and question expenditures.


They probably expect or at least hope their child support payments go to actually supporting the child but that is often not the case.


----------



## EleGirl

Blondilocks said:


> Yes, it is tacky. I would bet that she did this to tick off her ex. Some guys think they get to dictate how the child support is used and question expenditures.


Yep, my take too... that plate is her sticking her finger in the ex's eye. Maybe he deserves it, or maybe not. We don't know.


----------



## EleGirl

Enigma32 said:


> They probably expect or at least hope their child support payments go to actually supporting the child but that is often not the case.


what makes you think the child support is not helping to take care of their child(ren)? Maybe with out she would have to spend some of the money for food, medical care, etc. for a beater car so she could get to her job.

Maybe her ex is a multi-millionaire and she can barely earn enough to support herself and the child(ren). To him the child support is chump change. 

Or maybe, like me, she spent over $100K to send her ex to medical school and he cheated on her the entire time. He now earns 4 times what she does, has never even offered to reimburse her for the medical school expenses. And now he pisses and moans because he has to pay a few hundred a month in child support. She's tired of him harassing her constantly for him demanding that he provide him with an accounting of what she's spends even though they are now divorced.

We have no idea of the circumstances. It's best to not jump to conclusions.


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> what makes you think the child support is not helping to take care of their child(ren)? Maybe with out she would have to spend some of the money for food, medical care, etc. for a beater car so she could get to her job.
> 
> Maybe her ex is a multi-millionaire and she can barely earn enough to support herself and the child(ren). To him the child support is chump change.
> 
> Or maybe, like me, she spent over $100K to send her ex to medical school and he cheated on her the entire time. He now earns 4 times what she does, has never even offered to reimburse her for the medical school expenses. And now he pisses and moans because he has to pay a few hundred a month in child support. She's tired of him harassing her constantly for him demanding that he provide him with an accounting of what she's spends even though they are now divorced.
> 
> We have no idea of the circumstances. It's best to not jump to conclusions.


If she is low income, the state pays for her and the kids to eat. The state also covers medical care, and there is a good chance that any leftover medical care is paid for by the guy paying child support. If her ex is a multi-millionaire, then she is getting PAID in child support. Did you see the article I posted last night about the new NBA star that got a girl pregnant who walked away and hit him for support right after the baby was born? Now she is rich and all she had to do was bang a guy with a good job. 

As to your story, I am sorry that happened to you. I have known 2 husbands that went through something similar, both paying for their wife/gf to get through nursing school and she walked away when she was done. More women are going to and graduating college than men these days, so there is that.


----------



## DTO

EleGirl said:


> I find the license plate tacky. But, playing devils advocate here. Do you think she should not be able to have a safe car to drive her kids to school, shop for food, etc?
> 
> Do you or your friend know this woman and her situation?


I don't know the situation, but that car is $30k for a recent used model. It gets meh gas mileage and still seats only five.

Why not get just an ordinary Accord or Camry that will meet the need just as well?


----------



## DTO

drencrom said:


> Yes, he made a poor decision. He should have asked what she sees in someone his age.
> 
> But that doesn't make her any less of a gold digging scumbag. She new what she was doing going after an 80yo wrinkled old codger.


Yeah I read that and she sucks. Who in the world wants to come in late in someone's life and disinherit his children?

She got told about herself by the person who writes the column BTW.


----------



## DTO

MGTOW came up before. It seems the tenets are not just to avoid women. It's more like everyone is out to use you (men). There's no reason to work for an employer who will take advantage of you, then pay taxes to a "system" (government) stacked against you, to have a partner who will use you in some manner. I am certainly not of thos mindset, and I think few men are that way.

Regarding just relationships: I enjoy women and having companionship, but I feel unlikely to have another serious relationship - at least not for a long time. Why not? First, I'm self sufficient and don't feel pressure to get my needs met.

Two, I'm still busy and lead a good life. I have family and friends. My job and commute is over 50 hours, and I'm trying to build a side gig. I have a house to maintain. My daughter has mental health issues and needs lots of oversight. I only date a little and it would have to be someone special to cut into the little free time I have.

Three, I insist on keeping my property separate. I don't mind splitting what I earn after we tie the knot; everything else (my home, retirement accounts, etc.) will go to my daughter. A pre-nup is a must. I've been told a chunk of ladies would be offended which I suspect is good advice.


----------



## DTO

Regarding ladies having the power in the dating world, that is not entirely true. The finding that most women chase the most attractive men is mischaracterized. If it's what I read, while most ladies chase the better men (men do the same) and find most OLD men average at best, they do reach out to men "in their league" eventually. While it's not the most flattering way, the men ARE being approached.

Attractiveness is much more than the physical. How a guy presents himself, his social skills, his accomplishments in life, his work ethic and determination all are important. I've had ladies tell me that taking good care of my kid as the primary / sole parent while managing to have a really good job, nice home, etc. are huge. I'm attempting to finish my CPA license and build a side gig; I was told it's attractive I show that kind of ambition even though I do well already.

My point is much of what makes us look good is within our control. I'm average height, have a dad bod, not athletic. But I succeed in the world and stand up for good values, and that's enough.


----------



## bobsmith

Blondilocks said:


> Yes, it is tacky. I would bet that she did this to tick off her ex. Some guys think they get to dictate how the child support is used and question expenditures.


That right there is precisely one of the things we are looking to legally change. It is called "child support", not "mom support". Think about this logically. You send money to the school for something. You know what it is going towards and why. You can attempt to argue that "mom needs a safe car, so...." and a Prius has a 5 star crash rating and none of that even matters because this is NOT about mom, it is about the kids!!!! In what universe does the "system" check to make sure the father "drives a safe car"? Right....in many cases, he can't because he is doing good to stay out of prison to pay for mom's car. All while she is living the dream because she has no car payment. 

Yes, I think of you sit down for a few, you will realize you have absolutely no argument when we talk about "child support" being used to support a child! There is also issue with how much is really needed to "support" a child? How many thousands keep a child alive? At what point is this ridiculous? Does the kid need new Nikes every week? When a parent makes more, does that mean the kids cost more to raise? The food price went up, right? Nah, backpacks cost more for high incomes......

Bottom line is this. The system 'thinks' it levels a child's upbringing standards by forcing the higher wage parent to pay the lower wage parent. However, I can show you time after time where that money is NOT used in any way, shape, or form for the kids. We are talking a cruise for mommy and the newest Brad! But we call it "child support". That is the definition of a broken and stacked system that screws men daily.


----------



## bobsmith

EleGirl said:


> what makes you think the child support is not helping to take care of their child(ren)? Maybe with out she would have to spend some of the money for food, medical care, etc. for a beater car so she could get to her job.
> 
> Maybe her ex is a multi-millionaire and she can barely earn enough to support herself and the child(ren). To him the child support is chump change.
> 
> Or maybe, like me, she spent over $100K to send her ex to medical school and he cheated on her the entire time. He now earns 4 times what she does, has never even offered to reimburse her for the medical school expenses. And now he pisses and moans because he has to pay a few hundred a month in child support. She's tired of him harassing her constantly for him demanding that he provide him with an accounting of what she's spends even though they are now divorced.
> 
> We have no idea of the circumstances. It's best to not jump to conclusions.


Ele, first, I realize I have to fight off that "white knight" in me in looking at what you describe as an absolute screw job. I realize there are bad people out there, both men and women. many of us get taken for an emotional ride because we let emotions override our brain. A couple things come to mind in your case. Did you 'really' not see any of this coming? Did you 'really' not have a clue that your ex had the capacity to cheat constantly, use you while he went to school to better himself, and act like life was great? Were you possibly being a bit blonde in this? Maybe not paying attention? Not that I personally feel like it is any way to live feeling like you have to watch ever step your partner takes. 
But I do think you take child support to the extremes, which is more the exception, not the rule. Obviously a millionaire should do the right thing, even if the courts have to order it, to help with child care. I am never opposed to that. I do that because I know my ex is not out spending my child support money on anything but our kids. But there comes a point where child support becomes mommy support and there should be no unwritten rule that just because one parent makes more, that should not force them to make a high roller life for an estranged ex. We are mostly talking about the typical world of excess. 

Ele, you seem like a giving soul that gave too much. I didn't give as much monetarily, but I lost a LOT of years of my life trying to help others that never appreciated it because there was no dollar sign attached. I helped both my ex's achieve a better life through my coaching, watching kids, etc. But I have heard of these "givers" or "fixers". The types that look for broken men unconsciously. I do question that a bit with you.


----------



## manowar

DTO said:


> As far as ladies having the power in the dating world, I don't think that's accurate. First, the finding that most women chase the most attractive men is being mischaracterized. If it's the study I read, the deal is while most ladies chase the better men (men do the same thing) and find most of the OLD men average at best, they actually will start reaching out to men more "in their league" eventually. So while it's not the most flattering way to be approached, the men ARE being approached.
> 
> Then, attractiveness is much more than physical attributes. How a guy presents himself, his social skills, his accomplishments in life,* his work ethic and determination all are important.* *I've had ladies tell me that taking good care of my kid as the primary / sole parent while managing to have a really good job, nice home, etc. are huge. *I've recently decided to go finish my CPA license and build some side income (as I noted earlier) and *have been told* it's very attractive I show that kind of ambition even though I do very well already.
> 
> My point is that much of what makes us look good is within our control. I'm not tall with a full head of hair, have a dad bod, not athletic. But I show that I can succeed well in the world and that I have good values I stand up for,* and that's enough*.



Not sure about that. Depends on what you are looking for.

All beta provider characteristics. A large open wallet is attractive but has its limits. Be careful. there is the lover/provider dichotomy that's well known within the annals of human psychology. this post reeks of social conditioning. I suggest you examine your beliefs. What ladies tell you is one thing friend. They always say that. Nothing new. *How they act is what counts*. Women have power in dating more than ever due to the vehicles for attention they receive from new media. (check out my prior posts re: Dating Economics in this thread). Do you want to be some guy on OLD sending out 70-100 messages for one response? While an average woman's mailbox is filled with responses. It's called the 80/20 rule. Its a real study conducted by OK cupid that they used to publish. It's unbelievable but a harsh reality in a competitive environment. 

If you don't believe me. Take your picture down and put up a photo of a handsome man with a crap bio. See what happens. 

Did any of those ladies who told you how attractive those qualities are come on to you?


My suggestions: read the rational male book and vids. Watch Kevin Samuels -- videos. This guy knows what he's talking about. read Practical Psychology for the Practical man by Joe South. Break your fantasy world or if you prefer remain ensconced within it. It's up to you to raise your SMV (sexual market value) in a highly competitive market.


----------



## Enigma32

manowar said:


> What ladies tell you is one thing friend. They always say that. Nothing new. *How they act is what counts*. Women have power in dating more than ever due to the vehicles for attention they receive from new media. (check out my prior posts re: Dating Economics in this thread). Do you want to be some guy on OLD sending out 70-100 messages for one response? While an average woman's mailbox is filled with responses. It's called the 80/20 rule. Its a real study conducted by OK cupid that they used to publish. It's unbelievable but a harsh reality in a competitive environment.


This is what I learned through about a year's worth of research into OLD by making various profiles and seeing what results I would get. It's a game that is rigged against 80% or so of men out there so there is no reason to play it. If you come to TAM or similar sites for advice you hear the same crap, take better pictures, go to the gym, make a better profile, send out TONS of messages, make sure the messages are super witty so you get attention, etc, etc. All that for what, a handful of replies from women that most of us would never date in the real world? No thanks, bud. 

The last time I tried OLD in the USA, I got 2 dates in 2 months time, one with an older lady that filters her pics to look younger and lies about her age, and the other was a cute but crazy communist girl that admitted to being physically abusive to her ex husband. I'm probably a little better at talking to women than most guys so my reply rate was better than most at a dismal 1/10 chance at a reply for each message sent. However, most of the ladies that did reply were obviously not so interested, or they were just time wasters, or even worse. 

I usually advise men to stay away from OLD unless they have instant success and instead try their hang talking to ladies in more traditional ways. At least where I live there aren't a ton of feminists who will flip out if a man dares speak to them, so you can have some luck out in the world that way.


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> Ele, first, I realize I have to fight off that "white knight" in me in looking at what you describe as an absolute screw job. I realize there are bad people out there, both men and women. many of us get taken for an emotional ride because we let emotions override our brain. A couple things come to mind in your case. Did you 'really' not see any of this coming? Did you 'really' not have a clue that your ex had the capacity to cheat constantly, use you while he went to school to better himself, and act like life was great? Were you possibly being a bit blonde in this? Maybe not paying attention? Not that I personally feel like it is any way to live feeling like you have to watch ever step your partner takes.


To be brief about my situation, medical interns and residents work long shifts, often 100-120 hours a week. I was aware that we had problems. However, unless I followed him around on his shifts how would know what he was doing? The amount of cheating in hospitals is apparently legendary. I also had a demanding job and was raising our young son mostly on our own. I used to be very trusting. Live and learn. Now I live by “trust but verify”.

I was only using my situation as an example. This thread is not about me so I will end the thread jack here.



bobsmith said:


> But I do think you take child support to the extremes, which is more the exception, not the rule. Obviously, a millionaire should do the right thing, even if the courts have to order it, to help with child care. I am never opposed to that. I do that because I know my ex is not out spending my child support money on anything but our kids. But there comes a point where child support becomes mommy support and there should be no unwritten rule that just because one parent makes more, that should not force them to make a high roller life for an estranged ex. We are mostly talking about the typical world of excess.


Of course, I took the examples to the extremes to make the point that making assumptions and then using those assumptions to bash all people of some class (men, women, etc) is folly.

It’s hard to discuss child support because each state has its own rules. Add to that the fact that there are so many different potential situations that must be taken into consideration.

I can talk about my state, New Mexico. The court assumes that a couple spends about 11% of their joint income to raise a child. This includes food, clothing, a bedroom, toys, books, etc. They also take into consideration medical insurance, childcare, school fees, etc. I’ve attached the results of a simple case I ran through the state child support calculator for 2 people, father earns $100,00 annually and mother earns $50,000 annually. Since 50/50 time sharing is the goal in every situation here I did this for 50/50.

Somehow, I think that some woman (or lower earner man) receiving $329 a month in child support is not going to get rich and live high on the hog off that child support.

Child Support Worksheets (nmcourts.gov)


----------



## drencrom

DTO said:


> Yeah I read that and she sucks. Who in the world wants to come in late in someone's life and disinherit his children?
> 
> She got told about herself by the person who writes the column BTW.


I remember everyone coming to Anna Nicole Smith's defense trying to say she loved that man who was what, like 60 years older than her?? Ya, sure.

As a man who isn't anywhere near 80 yet, even I realize there is nothing a woman who is so much younger will see in me other than a sugar daddy. They say age is just a number. Bunk.
I stick with 5 years plus or minus.


----------



## drencrom

RebuildingMe said:


> My friend took this photo today of a woman driving her Jeep in the parking lot..This is the world we live in now. Child support bought her this car. Truly disgusting. So disgusting she put it on her plate, another $250 a year in NY.
> 
> View attachment 77637


Yup, sounds alot like my X-wife. But, in less than 2 years now her gravy train ends, and she is already panicking about it. Worry not, we may end up being screwed for years, but revenge is ours in the end.

And what I mean by being screwed isn't that we are paying child support. I have a sense of pride about that and want my children taken care of. Problem is, they go without because she doesn't use all the money on their expenses.


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> I find the license plate tacky. But, playing devils advocate here. Do you think she should not be able to have a safe car to drive her kids to school, shop for food, etc?
> 
> Do you or your friend know this woman and her situation?


Yes, should have a safe car. But I think we know all about this woman's situation based on her choice of license plate. Petty and ungrateful.


----------



## drencrom

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


No. They aren't binding. Anything anyone has BEFORE marriage is already theirs to be untouched in the event of divorce. The exception might be with the ultra wealthy AND a rogue judge who wants to give more to the other party than what they are entitled. 

Anything accumulated after marriage both spouses are entitled to equally.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> Yes, it is tacky. I would bet that she did this to tick off her ex. Some guys think they get to dictate how the child support is used and question expenditures.


Well when you have an X like mine who would have a few thousand dollars left over each year if she used my money for my kid, then brainwashes my kid to think I don't do enough for him...ya, I think I'd like the right to take her to court and demand to see receipts. 

Its one thing to do with that money as she wishes, its another to do it then try to turn my child against me when he should be wearing really nice clothes and all his needs can be paid for with all that I pay. I don't complain about what I pay, but it pisses me off to no end that she is using that money because she refuses to get a job and pull her weight in her household.


----------



## drencrom

bobsmith said:


> That right there is precisely one of the things we are looking to legally change. It is called "child support", not "mom support".


BINGO! Taking care of my X is her new husband's responsibility, not mine. My kid would want for nothing based on the $ I pay. 

She constantly tells him to go ask me for more money for the things my money should already be paying for because she uses that money for her expenses because she refuses to get a job.

I actually had to make a spreadsheet that show his portion of the household mortgage, taxes, food bill, school expenses, clothes....all of it. Every expense. I had to sit him down and show him this so he knew what kind of clothes he could be wearing and even if she spent all the money on him, she would have a couple thousand left over. I didn't want to sit him down like that, but after years of her brainwashing him into thinking I'm some sort of deadbeat because she won't get a job and use my money for him, enough was enough.


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> Yep, my take too... that plate is her sticking her finger in the ex's eye. Maybe he deserves it, or maybe not. We don't know.


Well if he is paying enough to enrich her life too, maybe a little humility and gratitude would be in order.

As a child support paying parent all I ask is that the money enriches my child's life and she leaves me alone.


----------



## DTO

manowar said:


> Not sure about that. Depends on what you are looking for.
> 
> All beta provider characteristics. A large open wallet is attractive but has its limits. Be careful. there is the lover/provider dichotomy that's well known within the annals of human psychology. this post reeks of social conditioning. I suggest you examine your beliefs. What ladies tell you is one thing friend. They always say that. Nothing new. *How they act is what counts*. Women have power in dating more than ever due to the vehicles for attention they receive from new media. (check out my prior posts re: Dating Economics in this thread). Do you want to be some guy on OLD sending out 70-100 messages for one response? While an average woman's mailbox is filled with responses. It's called the 80/20 rule. Its a real study conducted by OK cupid that they used to publish. It's unbelievable but a harsh reality in a competitive environment.
> 
> If you don't believe me. Take your picture down and put up a photo of a handsome man with a crap bio. See what happens.
> 
> Did any of those ladies who told you how attractive those qualities are come on to you?
> 
> 
> My suggestions: read the rational male book and vids. Watch Kevin Samuels -- videos. This guy knows what he's talking about. read Practical Psychology for the Practical man by Joe South. Break your fantasy world or if you prefer remain ensconced within it. It's up to you to raise your SMV (sexual market value) in a highly competitive market.


To clarify, I don't OLD any more. I did, off and on for a while, not enough payoff for the effort. Now I live my life and keep an open mind to whomever may come across. I belong to a meetup-style group and spend some time there too.

That being said, I had ladies reach out who liked my qualities. This includes one whom I still see (not much now as both of us are busy with work and single / sole parents); BTW, this lady is cute, slender, athletic and has a good job.. I've been told I'm attractive too, but I don't see it that way.

Anyhow, getting back to the main point. MGTOW isn't about getting no attention OLD. It's about not getting attention from ladies _period_. Ladies on the average want a guy who takes reasonable care of himself, has a decent job and won't be a drain on her, has manners, willing to commit and not want just sex, etc. - normal stuff. They aren't looking for someone well-off to support them, you don't have to be a physical specimen. Most of what makes it click is in our control.

If you consistently can't get any attention from ladies, you lack some basic stuff and need to re-evaluate what you're doing. But MGTOW is this self-reinforcing cycle (IMO) where you feel disenfranchised and then angry you can't seem to have what others do. But instead of working to better yourself, you draw inward and pull back from the world - you have your bro friends, play video games and hang out, just get by. MGTOW tells you that you are fine as you are (nothing wrong with that _per se_, but not the best approach if your needs aren't met). And it encourages the behaviors and attitudes which make it more likely you'll stay in that dissatisfied state which made the movement seem appealing in the first place. It's insane.

Having a good job and taking care my family is not being a beta provider. It might be if I just rolled over for whatever treatment and used what I had to "buy" favor, but I don't. I make sure my wants and needs count (_No More Mr. Nice Guy_ refers to it as "taking up space") and lead by example. The attitude and mindset that it takes to succeed in the world and lead your family accordingly is definitely not beta. It's that attitude of "can-do" and positivity that attracts people (in general, not just potential partners).

Lastly, excluding possibly the more extreme cases, a younger lady dating an older guy doesn't mean they are gold diggers. I've dated ladies 15 and 18 years younger; they approached me BTW (it honestly hadn't registered that they had intent). Neither came around to leech off me. They liked that I was not looking just to screw around and have fun. They liked that I built a consistently good career and persevered through some challenging circumstances because we had those goals and attitudes in common; they were looking to build for themselves what I had. The two leechiest ladies I had in my life were my ex-wife (my age) and a lady I dated for a short while who was older than me.


----------



## Trident

Rus47 said:


> Doubt it. Attorney's can get around any agreement about anything.


What is with this ridiculous advice being spewed on this thread as if it has any basis in fact?

Think about what you wrote there. If an attorney can get around any agreement about anything, then what about the attorney on the OTHER side of the agreement? Do they just keep going around and around since each one can get around anything?

Why even bother with contracts in the first place?

_"Shaking my head"_


----------



## Trident

Enigma32 said:


> It's a game that is rigged against 80% or so of men out there so there is no reason to play it.
> 
> The last time I tried OLD in the USA, I got 2 dates in 2 months time
> 
> I usually advise men to stay away from OLD


You don't know that it's "rigged against 80% of guys". Your results are poor, so you generalize that to almost everyone, and you go so far as to advise other guys not to do OLD.

My results were significantly better, I met a lot of women, had a lot of relationships including the 9 year one I'm in now from OK Cupid.

I don't go around telling people to avoid OLD because it's rigged, nor do I tell them it's great because it worked for me.

Results vary.

PS there's nothing special about me, I'm a decent looking guy with a reasonably good build, no major mental problems, I make good money and I own a house and a car.

I think that makes me fairly average.


----------



## drencrom

Trident said:


> What is with this ridiculous advice being spewed on this thread as if it has any basis in fact?


There IS a basis in fact for him to say a lawyer can get around it. A court/judge and deem a prenuptial as "unfair". And if a good attorney can convince a judge the agreement is unfair, then what he said is correct.

Can a Prenuptial Be Legally Binding in Divorce Court? (rodierfamilylaw.com)

I also get that vision in my head, "the fact that my client has been ridden more times than Seattle Slew, is irrelevant."


----------



## bobsmith

Trident said:


> What is with this ridiculous advice being spewed on this thread as if it has any basis in fact?
> 
> Think about what you wrote there. If an attorney can get around any agreement about anything, then what about the attorney on the OTHER side of the agreement? Do they just keep going around and around since each one can get around anything?
> 
> Why even bother with contracts in the first place?
> 
> _"Shaking my head"_


I agree, there should probably be an entire new thread on this discussion. Contracts have been around for hundreds of years. I like to write contracts with people even if they are not 100% by the books for 2 reasons. 1, it forces the parties to examine the obligations of an agreement and can reference that document down the road. 2, even if something went to court for whatever reason, a contract might be considered "not binding" by a judge, but it can be used as evidence to persuade the facts. 

What I am getting at is "miss gold digger, did you sign this piece of paper? why? did you feel forced? could you walk away? why didn't you? did you in fact initial each paragraph that you read them before signing it?" 

What could be examined on this site is how weasel attorneys try to get around a prenup so that can be zipped up. I do know and agree with above that what is yours before marriage is yours. That is one reason I didn't marry. I was scared straight of losing my stuff. 

As well, there is usually language in a contract that indicates laws can/will override a contract, which is what I suspect they use to null a prenup. I can't write you a contract saying I won't fine you for running the stop sign in front of my shop, but I really have no authority to do that. 

But no doubt, attorneys are always looking to write some official looking document for a fee, even if it is worthless.


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> To be brief about my situation, medical interns and residents work long shifts, often 100-120 hours a week. I was aware that we had problems. However, unless I followed him around on his shifts how would know what he was doing? The amount of cheating in hospitals is apparently legendary. I also had a demanding job and was raising our young son mostly on our own. I used to be very trusting. Live and learn. Now I live by “trust but verify”.
> 
> I was only using my situation as an example. This thread is not about me so I will end the thread jack here.
> 
> 
> Of course, I took the examples to the extremes to make the point that making assumptions and then using those assumptions to bash all people of some class (men, women, etc) is folly.
> 
> It’s hard to discuss child support because each state has its own rules. Add to that the fact that there are so many different potential situations that must be taken into consideration.
> 
> I can talk about my state, New Mexico. The court assumes that a couple spends about 11% of their joint income to raise a child. This includes food, clothing, a bedroom, toys, books, etc. They also take into consideration medical insurance, childcare, school fees, etc. I’ve attached the results of a simple case I ran through the state child support calculator for 2 people, father earns $100,00 annually and mother earns $50,000 annually. Since 50/50 time sharing is the goal in every situation here I did this for 50/50.
> 
> Somehow, I think that some woman (or lower earner man) receiving $329 a month in child support is not going to get rich and live high on the hog off that child support.
> 
> Child Support Worksheets (nmcourts.gov)
> View attachment 77690


Why is the woman in that chart earning less than the man, that's sooooooo sexist. How dare they keep women down like that.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Trident said:


> You don't know that it's "rigged against 80% of guys". Your results are poor, so you generalize that to almost everyone, and you go so far as to advise other guys not to do OLD.
> 
> My results were significantly better, I met a lot of women, had a lot of relationships including the 9 year one I'm in now from OK Cupid.
> 
> I don't go around telling people to avoid OLD because it's rigged, nor do I tell them it's great because it worked for me.
> 
> Results vary.
> 
> PS there's nothing special about me, I'm a decent looking guy with a reasonably good build, no major mental problems, I make good money and I own a house and a car.
> 
> I think that makes me fairly average.


If you are in shape that puts you above about 3/4th of the population. Sad isn't it? You're probably more above average than you think. It doesn't hit you till you are talking to someone and they look at you like wtf? Kind of like complaining that you feel weak because you only got a few reps with 405 on the bench today, meanwhile the guy next to you is struggling with a couple quarters.

I think it's definitely skewed even though I personally never had any major issues with dating other than what I consider the normal learning curve between high school and my early 20s.


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> Why is the woman in that chart earning less than the man, that's sooooooo sexist. How dare they keep women down like that.


Good grief... two reasons. 1) the tool makes that distinction and there is no way to edit it. I could have made the edit when I created the screen shoot but it seemed silly. 2) Because the discussion is about how evil women are who get child support. If the woman was the higher earner, then she would be paying him child support.


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> Good grief... two reasons. 1) the tool makes that distinction and there is no way to edit it. I could have made the edit when I created the screen shoot but it seemed silly. 2) Because the discussion is about how evil women are who get child support. If the woman was the higher earner, then she would be paying him child support.


I know right, good grief Charlie Brown!

I think the issue is if you take that calculator and multiply either of the incomes by 5 or more then look at what it spits out. There should be a cap. If a few hundred is enough for person A, then it should be enough for person B regardless of income. One child is not "more expensive" than another child. (not talking special needs obviously)


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> I know right, good grief Charlie Brown!
> 
> I think the issue is if you take that calculator and multiply either of the incomes by 5 or more then look at what it spits out. There should be a cap. If a few hundred is enough for person A, then it should be enough for person B regardless of income. One child is not "more expensive" than another child. (not talking special needs obviously)


Lets say in the situation in which one parent earns significantly less. Let's say the custodial parents earns $30K and the non-custodial parent earns $400K. In this case the custodial parent has to rent an apartment in a very rough neighborhood with very bad schools. The custodial parents can only afford to buy the kid second hand clothing, etc. The parent who earns $400K lives in a very good neighborhood with great schools.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> Lets say in the situation in which one parent earns significantly less. Let's say the custodial parents earns $30K and the non-custodial parent earns $400K. In this case the custodial parent has to rent an apartment in a very rough neighborhood with very bad schools. The custodial parents can only afford to buy the kid second hand clothing, etc. The parent who earns $400K lives in a very good neighborhood with great schools.


Then wouldn't the best interest of the child to be for the $400k parent to be the custodial parent? I mean if the true test is what is in that child's best interest.


----------



## Blondilocks

Al_Bundy said:


> I know right, good grief Charlie Brown!
> 
> I think the issue is if you take that calculator and multiply either of the incomes by 5 or more then look at what it spits out. There should be a cap. If a few hundred is enough for person A, then it should be enough for person B regardless of income. *One child is not "more expensive" than another child. (not talking special needs obviously)*


Yes, they can be. Courts seek to maintain a child's standard of living. If a child is accustomed to receiving a clothing allowance of multi-thousand a month like Tori Spelling had, then the court would take that into consideration. You can't expect a child accustomed to shopping on Rodeo Drive to suddenly start shopping at Penney's in the Valley.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Blondilocks said:


> Yes, they can be. Courts seek to maintain a child's standard of living. If a child is accustomed to receiving a clothing allowance of multi-thousand a month like Tori Spelling had, then the court would take that into consideration. You can't expect a child accustomed to shopping on Rodeo Drive to suddenly start shopping at Penney's in the Valley.


How is an infant or toddler accustomed or even aware of it's standard of living? Also support should be for needs, nobody needs designer labels although I'm sure some would argue that point.


----------



## Blondilocks

Al_Bundy said:


> How is an infant or toddler accustomed or even aware of it's standard of living? Also support should be for needs, nobody needs designer labels although I'm sure some would argue that point.


You are assuming that all children are infants or toddlers at time of their parents' divorce? How very short-sighted of you.


----------



## DTO

Al_Bundy said:


> If you are in shape that puts you above about 3/4th of the population. Sad isn't it? You're probably more above average than you think. It doesn't hit you till you are talking to someone and they look at you like wtf?


Agreed. I feel the same is true for being on good financial footing. News reports cite that 2/3 of Americans don't have $1,000 to cover an emergency. So, just having a few bucks set aside and not being paycheck-to-paycheck sets you apart.

I got that WTF look when I talked about my house being "okay", retirement plans that could be better, etc. What we might see as just living responsibly, many / most see as very successful and perhaps unattainable.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> Then wouldn't the best interest of the child to be for the $400k parent to be the custodial parent? I mean if the true test is what is in that child's best interest.


So in your way of thinking the money is the most important thing to consider when raising a child?

Generally the person who gets primary custody is the parent who has been the primary care giver. That's the parent that the child has the strongest bond with.

Going back to my situation. My ex went so far as to have his attorneys argue in court that he should have 100% custody because I am a lowly engineer and HE is an MD. Never mind that I had been the primary care giver to our son form day one. His father worked 100 hrs+ in his internship and residency. Once he was in a private practice it was not all that much different. He had never purchased food for our son, or clothing, or books, or toys, or set up his music and sports activities... and he had never attended any of them. He did not know our son's teacher, had never gone to a parent/teacher conference. He did not really know our son's friends, cousins, etc. because he considered himself above them. But yea, lets give the custody of children to the parent how has been marginally involved in the kid's life.

Do you know why I got custody? Because the court asked each of us to submit names of custody evaluators. I submitted one name... an organization called "Father and Children". They advocates for fathers and children. After a very thorough investigation, they determined that my ex had almost no relationship with our son and recommended that I get primary custody an that my ex needed to get joint counseling with our son to build a good relationship. It took him 2 years before they felt is was ok to give him one more day a week with our son.

The amount of money a parent earns should not determine which parent gets primary custody. Nor is it in the best interest of the child to have one parent living at near poverty and the other being high income.

I think our child custody and support system needs to be refined. It's happening over time. Before about 1940, a man controlled all income, to include his wife's by law. He could take the assets she brought it the marriage, deny her access to the children, and throw her on the street. And the would could not find a job and supported her at any reasonable level. This is why we have the divorce, alimony, and child support/custody, etc. laws that we have now . In the 1970's the Supreme Court found that divorce laws cannot be based on sex/gender. Now that 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands, the laws are changing ever more. For example over the last 20 years California laws have changed so that the low income spouse has to get a job and become self supporting within some time period after the divorce or alimony & child support will be recalculated. 

The problem is that people who divorce basically cannot get along. So we have to have laws, attorneys, and judges make the decisions. They get caught in a piss fight between spouses and parents.


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> How is an infant or toddler accustomed or even aware of it's standard of living? Also support should be for needs, nobody needs designer labels although I'm sure some would argue that point.


So you advocate for a very wealthy person to refuse their child a standard of living similar to that of the very wealthy parent? So when the child goes to spend time with the wealthy parent and this parents new family who live high on the hog, the child is wearing goodwill hand-me-downs, has no access to electronics, etc. I know this is an extreme case, but it's what you advocate for.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Blondilocks said:


> You are assuming that all children are infants or toddlers at time of their parents' divorce? How very short-sighted of you.


You're assuming child support only in the case of marriage, also short sighted. What about outside of marriage?


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> So you advocate for a very wealthy person to refuse their child a standard of living similar to that of the very wealthy parent? So when the child goes to spend time with the wealthy parent and this parents new family who live high on the hog, the child is wearing goodwill hand-me-downs, has no access to electronics, etc. I know this is an extreme case, but it's what you advocate for.


Take two women, both make 45k a year. Both get pregnant from a ONS. One slept with a professional athlete, the other with the guy stocking shelves at the grocery store. Why does one deserve more than the other?


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> Take two women, both make 45k a year. Both get pregnant from a ONS. One slept with a professional athlete, the other with the guy stocking shelves at the grocery store. Why does one deserve more than the other?


It's about the children. The law says that child deserves to live at the standard that can be provided if the incomes of both parents are combined. You are focused on the women. Focus on the child.


----------



## Al_Bundy

If it's truly about the child then why doesn't the law make sure the money actually goes to the child? The law stops caring once the state gets their cut in monthly fees.


----------



## Trident

Al_Bundy said:


> If it's truly about the child then why doesn't the law make sure the money actually goes to the child? The law stops caring once the state gets their cut in monthly fees.


Laws aren't stupid. Laws don't even think and they certainly don't care.

The people that make the laws are another story entirely.

Don't look for anything that resembles common sense when trying to figure this stuff out.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> So in your way of thinking the money is the most important thing to consider when raising a child?
> 
> Generally the person who gets primary custody is the parent who has been the primary care giver. That's the parent that the child has the strongest bond with.
> 
> Going back to my situation. My ex went so far as to have his attorneys argue in court that he should have 100% custody because I am a lowly engineer and HE is an MD. Never mind that I had been the primary care giver to our son form day one. His father worked 100 hrs+ in his internship and residency. Once he was in a private practice it was not all that much different. He had never purchased food for our son, or clothing, or books, or toys, or set up his music and sports activities... and he had never attended any of them. He did not know our son's teacher, had never gone to a parent/teacher conference. He did not really know our son's friends, cousins, etc. because he considered himself above them. But yea, lets give the custody of children to the parent how has been marginally involved in the kid's life.
> 
> Do you know why I got custody? Because the court asked each of us to submit names of custody evaluators. I submitted one name... an organization called "Father and Children". They advocates for fathers and children. After a very thorough investigation, they determined that my ex had almost no relationship with our son and recommended that I get primary custody an that my ex needed to get joint counseling with our son to build a good relationship. It took him 2 years before they felt is was ok to give him one more day a week with our son.
> 
> The amount of money a parent earns should not determine which parent gets primary custody. Nor is it in the best interest of the child to have one parent living at near poverty and the other being high income.
> 
> I think our child custody and support system needs to be refined. It's happening over time. Before about 1940, a man controlled all income, to include his wife's by law. He could take the assets she brought it the marriage, deny her access to the children, and throw her on the street. And the would could not find a job and supported her at any reasonable level. This is why we have the divorce, alimony, and child support/custody, etc. laws that we have now . In the 1970's the Supreme Court found that divorce laws cannot be based on sex/gender. Now that 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands, the laws are changing ever more. For example over the last 20 years California laws have changed so that the low income spouse has to get a job and become self supporting within some time period after the divorce or alimony & child support will be recalculated.
> 
> The problem is that people who divorce basically cannot get along. So we have to have laws, attorneys, and judges make the decisions. They get caught in a piss fight between spouses and parents.


Ele you are moving goalposts. None of that was in your example. Here it is again:


> Lets say in the situation in which one parent earns significantly less. Let's say the custodial parents earns $30K and the non-custodial parent earns $400K. In this case the custodial parent has to rent an apartment in a very rough neighborhood with very bad schools. The custodial parents can only afford to buy the kid second hand clothing, etc. The parent who earns $400K lives in a very good neighborhood with great schools.


In that situation, why is it not better to place the child with the only parent capable of providing for that child's needs? There is nothing there about career, primary caregiver, relationships, medical issues, etc. So in your example, wouldn't it be better for that child to live with the parent in Pasadena over the parent in Compton?


----------



## manowar

EleGirl said:


> It's about the children. The law says that child deserves to live at the standard that can be provided if the incomes of both parents are combined. You are focused on the women. Focus on the child.


"it's about the children" - that's the classic liberal mantra. Always has been. It's like the woman saying she wants to meet a nice guy. Someone who is her best friend and makes her laugh. 

Baloney. It might have been in the beginning. Now its something else entirely. Its a social program to redistribute wealth. Back in the day before modern alimony divorce laws -- all advocated by and supported by the beta male - family cohesiveness was a core priority of society. A fundamental building block. Cant have a stable society without it. Women didn't have the easy out like they do today for terrible behavior and failing as a wife. Cheating amongst women was very low because she knew what the consequences were in a fault divorce system.

More men had access to women under the old system. Men who would have made great husbands and fathers but aren't the greatest lovers or hottest guys. But the women don't want these guys. Women are hardly aware that there are a ton of guys who simply get nothing. (I didn't realize this until later in life though I suspected it). Little to no access to sex due to a variety of reasons. A good friend of mine never had a LTR. No woman ever pointed to this guy claiming him as "her guy". This is a grown successful highly intelligent normal professional man. (not getting into the reasons now) . Women have their pick. We know what they want. It always starts with a (very) good-looking man and then they are forced to compromise. Today with female nature set free, look what you have. Men in the end game turned into ATM machines. this is the man's complaint. Yes - most men are stupid. But they are finally getting smarter. 

A woman who ain't feeling it or is getting railed at the Hilton in threesomes because her husband doesn't do it for her anymore is free to do so.. Hey, that's fine by me. She ain't feeling it. She can walk so long as she doesn't have the right to take half the guy's stuff or his kids. Leave. Don't let the door hit you in the azz. But this out-of-control system says -- leave with the guy's money. And the man gets the reverse annuity in the bargain. If the man is a terrible husband, cheats, neglects, etc..etc... - he should pay child support and alimony and have limited custody. I do not advocate throwing a nice girl who was a good wife and really tried out on the street. I say give her half of this a-holes stuff. There are guys like this and they should be penalized. But today, the fking idiot nice-guy gets shafted.

Regarding the intent of the LAw -- I point you to The Law -- by Frederic Bastiat. You're being a bit naive regarding the goodness of our legislators and gov't.


----------



## Enigma32

Trident said:


> You don't know that it's "rigged against 80% of guys". Your results are poor, so you generalize that to almost everyone, and you go so far as to advise other guys not to do OLD.
> 
> My results were significantly better, I met a lot of women, had a lot of relationships including the 9 year one I'm in now from OK Cupid.
> 
> I don't go around telling people to avoid OLD because it's rigged, nor do I tell them it's great because it worked for me.
> 
> Results vary.
> 
> PS there's nothing special about me, I'm a decent looking guy with a reasonably good build, no major mental problems, I make good money and I own a house and a car.
> 
> I think that makes me fairly average.


Studies have shown OLD is rigged against 80% of guys. My own usage of OLD just illustrated that. There have been several OLD studies and the like produced that show what I am talking about here, it's not something I made up. 

Once I quit using OLD, my dating life actually improved, along with my confidence. The current OLD experience for most guys, sending out tons of messages only to be ignored, is a confidence killer. It's not helpful. I also mentioned that if you have immediate success than go ahead and stick around. That's you. Most likely, you are in the top 20% of guys. I have a couple friends that cleaned up and smashed half the females in town using OLD. No hate for them, that's just their experience. Everyone else I know pretty much had it like I did.


----------



## Trident

Enigma32 said:


> That's you. Most likely, you are in the top 20% of guys. I have a couple friends that cleaned up and smashed half the females in town using OLD. No hate for them, that's just their experience. Everyone else I know pretty much had it like I did.


I didn't get a huge response to my messages, and sometimes I'd send out dozens at a time. But I got enough. 
I was never short for first dates by the time the weekend came around. It was a bit frustrating at times when the hotties wouldn't reply but it wasn't a confidence killer, I figured they get tons of messages and can't possibly respond to all of them. I didn't take it personally.


----------



## Enigma32

Trident said:


> I didn't get a huge response to my messages, and sometimes I'd send out dozens at a time. But I got enough.
> I was never short for first dates by the time the weekend came around. It was a bit frustrating at times when the hotties wouldn't reply but it wasn't a confidence killer, I figured they get tons of messages and can't possibly respond to all of them. I didn't take it personally.


Imagine sending hundreds of messages and getting maybe 1-2 replies like some of these guys get. Imagine doing that for a year or even years. You might have been getting shut down by hotties but you still got dates. I have a couple friends who have been on OLD for YEARS and still get nothing.


----------



## bobsmith

I can't put any faith in any data set for OLD because there are WAY too many variables! Like, I am VERY certain if I start picking women that are obese or otherwise just 2-5s, I'd probably bang out a 90% success rating, putting me at the "top of the food chain!".....However, what do you actually select? 

Then you have this swipe to date conversion thing, or whatever. What does that even mean? Are you supposed to do a date, or at least try to date, every woman you match? Are people really that hard up just to go on a date? 

Personally I probably have 50 matches in my roster, and I am not having conversations with any of them. None of them are really a good match, and call me cheap but I look at how much time/money I would waste just to "go on a date". I really don't care that much. 

As I have said before, it is not very nice, but I think OLD is reserved for women that otherwise struggle to get male attention. Not all of them though, and the ones that are actual catches make up about 1% of the crowd so of course they are too busy and I don't even attempt to fight with the Betas over a single fish. 

So if I sat down right now, I am 100% certain I can have a few dates lined up for tomorrow eve......but does that impress someone? I am not shooting for statistic goals. All I know for certain is this...1) the women on there are mostly trying to shoot 2 numbers over their own. That is evidenced by who I actually match with. I had to downgrade a bit, but I certainly won't lower standards over it, so I guess no dates for me. 2) Women radically inflate themselves and it is downright depressing. In many cases I can find them on social media and can usually confirm they are less than 1yr out of an LTR, were fat, then lost a few lbs, and now expect that the world owes them a stud. They are always the ones with several pics of them "working out", and always share "love to work out"..... She sure didn't 6mo ago, or even for the last 5yrs! 

It sounds like I am body shaming here, but really, I just think they are shooting their expectations through the moon because OLD is all about the illusion of snagging a catch. In most cases, these women are on there for years and eventually come back to reality when it doesn't work out. They might get dates, but no second dates.....

As the hilarious saying goes, "if we go on a date, and you don't look like your profile pics, you are buying my drinks until you do"......


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> So in your way of thinking the money is the most important thing to consider when raising a child?


I don't think that way.....until its obvious the X isn't using the money I pay for his benefit. When the amount is great enough to meet all his needs to where she doesn't need to use any of the household money for his care, and he isn't wearing nice clothes, is being told no on extra-curricular expenses, and brainwashes him into thinking I don't support him....then yes, I feel he needs to be with me.


----------



## Blondilocks

manowar said:


> More men had access to women under the old system. Men who would have made great husbands and fathers but aren't the greatest lovers or hottest guys. But the women don't want these guys. Women are hardly aware that there are a ton of guys who simply get nothing.


And, here it is in a nutshell. The quintessential whine of all men with no game. "I can't help it if I'm ugly, have no class, can't string two sentences together, am uneducated and weigh 400 pounds. But, damn it, I deserve to be loved and have lots and lots of sex with hot women".

🤮


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> And, here it is in a nutshell. The quintessential whine of all men with no game. "I can't help it if I'm ugly, have no class, can't string two sentences together, am uneducated and weigh 400 pounds. But, damn it, I deserve to be loved and have lots and lots of sex with hot women".
> 
> 🤮


Never miss an opportunity to use extremes to shame average men.


----------



## drencrom

DownButNotOut said:


> Never miss an opportunity to use extremes to shame average men.


And in The Men's Clubhouse to top it off.


----------



## Blondilocks

DownButNotOut said:


> Never miss an opportunity to use extremes to shame average men.


The majority of men in the world are average as are the women. We're not talking average. What do you guys want? A lottery system where the poor slobs who get nothing get to have one night of sex if they win and then what? The system has to round up a bunch of women and the woman who draws the short straw has to provide a pity screw or spend the night in the slammer?

Or, do you want the 'old system' where a woman was basically sold into marriage?


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> The majority of men in the world are average as are the women. We're not talking average. What do you guys want? A lottery system where the poor slobs who get nothing get to have one night of sex if they win and then what? The system has to round up a bunch of women and the woman who draws the short straw has to provide a pity screw or spend the night in the slammer?
> 
> Or, do you want the 'old system' where a woman was basically sold into marriage?


Of course we are talking about average men. 


> Men who would have made great husbands and fathers but aren't the greatest lovers or hottest guys.


That sounds to me like a perfectly average guy. But of course that can't stand. No that has to be recast to an extreme so that he can be shamed.

What do I want? To not be faced with misandry here when men try to talk about their issues.


----------



## Trident

Blondilocks said:


> Or, do you want the 'old system' where a woman was basically sold into marriage?


Depends on how much she costs.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Trident said:


> Depends on how much she costs.


Upfront pricing would be nice. Currently you don't know the total till at the end. Perhaps a warranty too.


----------



## Trident

Al_Bundy said:


> Upfront pricing would be nice. Currently you don't know the total till at the end. Perhaps a warranty too.


Getting married does have some parallels to buying a used car, most notably the common tactic of bait and switch.


----------



## As'laDain

Anyone able to log into MGTOW.com?

It's been a few months since i last logged in. I can't even load the web site today.


----------



## As'laDain

Trident said:


> Getting married does have some parallels to buying a used car, most notably the common tactic of bait and switch.


Eh, marriage has worked out for me. No bait and switch. I just have an eternal sparring partner. And a partner in crime. And honestly, i wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Blondilocks

Al_Bundy said:


> Upfront pricing would be nice. Currently you don't know the total till at the end. Perhaps a warranty too.


LOL. Y'all don't ask for much.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> Then wouldn't the best interest of the child to be for the $400k parent to be the custodial parent? I mean if the true test is what is in that child's best interest.


Are you kidding...?? The parent with MONEY should be considered the best interest of the child?

Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point about her point...?


----------



## manowar

Blondilocks said:


> And, here it is in a nutshell. The quintessential whine of all men with no game. "I can't help it if I'm ugly, have no class, can't string two sentences together, am uneducated and weigh 400 pounds. But, damn it, I deserve to be loved and have lots and lots of sex with hot women".


It's not the extremes but those in the center or just below center. Today those guys are getting priced out of the market whereas under the old system they had a place.
next time you go to Home Depot or Wall -Mart or a public place, keep an eye out for the invisible guys. they are there. In plain sight. You just never looked like all the other chicks. You're too busy looking at the hot guy. You walk right past them. Don't even know they are there. Your everyday run of the mill dudes. rank in file. The kind of guys that would have gotten taken out in body bags during WW2 or Vietnam. Its guys like this who invented modern plumbing, agriculture, physics, medicine, mathematics, the internet, our systems of morality, the nation-state, every single road, bridge, or house ever built. Some of these guys are incels. It's always been like this. 1920s, 1880s, 1600s, year 3 AD, prehistoric times. 



DownButNotOut said:


> Never miss an opportunity to use extremes to shame average men.



Men are held to a Higher Standard. Being a man is tough. Women don't care about our struggles. We are expected not to complain, get the job done, and we do it. 

In a way she's right. the mating game is highly competitive and it's not fair. Not a place where everyone gets a trophy. it is pure Darwinism in which the fittest survive. Women are very discriminating in who they select and don't do it out of being nice or out of pity. It's up to the man to succeed.


----------



## As'laDain

LisaDiane said:


> Are you kidding...?? The parent with MONEY should be considered the best interest of the child?
> 
> Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point about her point...?


I think his point is that money shouldn't be the only consideration. I could be wrong.


----------



## As'laDain

I could be wrong. In not afraid of being labeled a jackass by people with opinions. I have been labeled dead by doctors, so hey... **** happens.


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> That right there is precisely one of the things we are looking to legally change. It is called "child support", not "mom support". Think about this logically. You send money to the school for something. You know what it is going towards and why. You can attempt to argue that "mom needs a safe car, so...." and a Prius has a 5 star crash rating and none of that even matters because this is NOT about mom, it is about the kids!!!! In what universe does the "system" check to make sure the father "drives a safe car"? Right....in many cases, he can't because he is doing good to stay out of prison to pay for mom's car. All while she is living the dream because she has no car payment.
> 
> Yes, I think of you sit down for a few, you will realize you have absolutely no argument when we talk about "child support" being used to support a child! There is also issue with how much is really needed to "support" a child? How many thousands keep a child alive? At what point is this ridiculous? Does the kid need new Nikes every week? When a parent makes more, does that mean the kids cost more to raise? The food price went up, right? Nah, backpacks cost more for high incomes......
> 
> Bottom line is this. The system 'thinks' it levels a child's upbringing standards by forcing the higher wage parent to pay the lower wage parent. However, I can show you time after time where that money is NOT used in any way, shape, or form for the kids. We are talking a cruise for mommy and the newest Brad! But we call it "child support". That is the definition of a broken and stacked system that screws men daily.


The child support I got for my youngest child was so we had food and she had a roof over her head. I didn't have a car, couldn't afford it. Didn't have holidays, couldn't afford them. 
I have never met a single mum who could afford any sort of luxuries.


----------



## bobsmith

manowar said:


> Its guys like this who invented modern plumbing, agriculture, physics, medicine, mathematics, the internet, our systems of morality, the nation-state, every single road, bridge, or house ever built. Some of these guys are incels. It's always been like this. 1920s, 1880s, 1600s, year 3 AD, prehistoric times.


I either made this point very clear earlier or it was one of my posts that the mods deleted because I started getting too "real".....
Something I have come to bet on with women is their actions rarely match their words. Watch or read anything out there from women about what they want and they will ALWAYS say successful!!!!! ALWAYS!!!! This means guys that have a normal job, making 50-75K are nothing. 

As well, the ONLY marker of "success" is money to women. SURE, they will march right back into this thread and announce that is not true, but in fact, I have NEVER seen hot women drool over a guy that just cured cancer! Never happen. Hell, the majority of the world doesn't even know who Nichola Tesla is!!! They think it is a car!! 

There are only TWO things that actually get women wet, TWO.... Money and looks. The rest is like getting a complimentary air freshener in your new car.....in the NTH (nice to have) file. 

Sure, there are some rare bumblebees around, but they are exceptions only. There is one very attractive woman on youtube that is building a remote off grid home with her husband. Those women are friggin unicorns!


----------



## bobsmith

I spent some time looking at my social media today and I guess paying more attention because of this thread. I notice all the snotty but decent looking women I went to school with are all married into money. Every single one. I bet all their guys were just "really good at cooking"..lol

Then I notice all the single ladies. Most of them post countless memes about single life, basically hanging their fruit out there like "HEY, I AM SINGLE".....oh we get it!!! And we don't want it! These are the same women that end up in forums talking about "where are all the good guys?" Yeah, they passed them up when young, got traded when the guy started making more money, and they are out! Now they are willing to lower their standards to 'whatev'.....

I am doing a social experiment where I am sending out friend requests to women like candy. It's really funny to see how they all act the same! Even outside my circle. Hell there is one that is practically liking everything single thing I post or do. I checked her profile, yup single, about 1yr, and 6mo ago she was hefty. Like clock work.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> The child support I got for my youngest child was so we had food and she had a roof over her head. I didn't have a car, couldn't afford it. Didn't have holidays, couldn't afford them.
> *I have never met a single mum who could afford any sort of luxuries.*


Then you really don't get out much. I see single moms posting their road trip and vacation pictures all over Facebook.


----------



## manowar

bobsmith said:


> *"HEY, I AM SINGLE".....oh we get it!!! And we don't want it! *These are the same women that end up in forums talking about "where are all the good guys?" Yeah, they passed them up when young, got traded when the guy started making more money, and they are out! Now they are willing to lower their standards to 'whatev'.....



funny as sh+t!!! how old are you Smith?


----------



## bobsmith

manowar said:


> funny as sh+t!!! how old are you Smith?


42 but I play 35 when I am on the field....
Never thought I would be "that guy" who really only talks to younger women, but to be honest, many approach me, and they all hover around 30yo. I think that is just about the age where things get real for them but they are still light and fun. Women my age are "on a mision" and it straight shows! They are tired of mowing their own lawn!!! lmao...


----------



## Bluesclues

bobsmith said:


> I spent some time looking at my social media today and I guess paying more attention because of this thread. I notice all the snotty but decent looking women I went to school with are all married into money. Every single one. I bet all their guys were just "really good at cooking"..lol
> 
> Then I notice all the single ladies. Most of them post countless memes about single life, basically hanging their fruit out there like "HEY, I AM SINGLE".....oh we get it!!! And we don't want it! These are the same women that end up in forums talking about "where are all the good guys?" Yeah, they passed them up when young, got traded when the guy started making more money, and they are out! Now they are willing to lower their standards to 'whatev'.....
> 
> I am doing a social experiment where I am sending out friend requests to women like candy. It's really funny to see how they all act the same! Even outside my circle. Hell there is one that is practically liking everything single thing I post or do. I checked her profile, yup single, about 1yr, and 6mo ago she was hefty. Like clock work.


So if a woman is a 5 and works hard to get healthy and fit and turns into a 7, she really isn’t a 7 because she was once “hefty”? How long after this transformation is she still a 5? Is a probationary period or is that a life sentence? Does it work in reverse - if someone was an 8 and they let themselves go and get fit again, can she be an 8 again or is that title stripped? Does success and personality play any role in these rankings or is it purely done on physique, facial structure and hair?

Is it the same for men? Why does the whole Red Pill thing encourage men to work out and become their best selves if they will always be a 5 or lower? I am guessing the “rules” are different and that men can move up?

I am genuinely curious because it seems like a very complicated system.

And I don’t know Bob, but if it were me I would be spending more on how to reestablish a relationship with my children, not testing Tina from high school on how many likes she’s given me versus how many pounds she’s lost. Many men that have replied to your thread have literally fought to have time with their children. I find it insulting to those fathers that you comment on the negative impact of fatherless homes in our society and yet leave your own children fatherless voluntarily. Get help. You are not championing a cause by being the antithesis of what these men are fighting for.


----------



## bobsmith

Ah, it seems we have another one that thinks you must play the game in order to understand it. You should probably read more on why I don't see my kids. I am not going to do hard time or end up in a legal battle over it because one of mine wants to lie and make up stories. This is exactly what happens to men from their scorned ex wives. 

Hell, my best friend was investigated because there were stories of sexual assault! I've known that man my entire life and guarantee that didn't happen, and the 5-0 didn't think so either after the dust settled. But THAT was scary!!!!

As to my fitness rules. I have no problem with women improving themselves, but for many, it will be temporary only. As well, they tend to take their fitness too far in expecting a Chad. Actually, in some cases, that is all they want! That validation that Chad wanted to bone them!


----------



## EleGirl

As'laDain said:


> I think his point is that money shouldn't be the only consideration. I could be wrong.


I think his point is that money should be the primary consideration in determining which parent gets primary custody. The parent who makes more money should have the kid(s).


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> Never miss an opportunity to use extremes to shame average men.


Not much different from all the posts on this thread shamming women and lumping all into one group that are money grabbing, terrible people.


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> I think his point is that money should be the primary consideration in determining which parent gets primary custody. The parent who makes more money should have the kid(s).


I could be wrong... I don't have the energy to go back and look it all over.


But it seemed like he was being ironic and bitter.


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> Not much different from all the posts on this thread shamming women and lumping all into one group that are money grabbing, terrible people.


Yeah, that's pretty annoying. 

I'm not sure how to feel about this kind of stuff. Im not man or woman. I'm a freak of nature that can't be called either. Surgeon general Koop found out about me and pumped me full of so many meds that i didn't know sideways from Sunday. 

I try to understand both sides. I try to empathize with both as well.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> I think his point is that money should be the primary consideration in determining which parent gets primary custody. The parent who makes more money should have the kid(s).


My point was that in your example, yes the money would be the determining factor. Because in your example we only have two bits of information: the respective incomes, and the respective living situations. It seems obvious to me that the child will have the best potential outcome in a nice neighborhood with nice schools. Therefore, if we are only considering the best interest of the child, the parent most able to provide that should have primary custody of that child. Frankly I'm surprised that view is considered controversial.

Notice how I never gendered the two parents. In the example there was no assumption of which parent was 400K and which was 30K. Nor was there any other information that could sway the balance of what is in that child's best interest.


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> Are you kidding...?? The parent with MONEY should be considered the best interest of the child?
> 
> Do you really believe that, or are you just making a point about her point...?


It's certainly no less arbitrary than the tender years doctrine that's guided custody decisions for decades. I'm all for taking a holistic view of the situation when deciding what is in the child's best interest. But the key has to be the child's interest, not the parents'. When it comes to money, it isn't the money itself it's the opportunity that the money provides - better neighborhoods, better schools, better social contacts, often better nutrition. All of those are in the best interest of that child. If one parent can provide those, and the other cannot as was the situation in Ele's example, I do believe that should weigh into custody decisions.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> Not much different from all the posts on this thread shamming women and lumping all into one group that are money grabbing, terrible people.


I won't defend that type of post. When you see them feel free to call them out.

I let quite a bit slide. But in this thread it is particularly egregious. So yes, I'm calling it out.


----------



## Blondilocks

bobsmith said:


> I am not going to do hard time or end up in a legal battle over it because one of mine wants to lie and make up stories.


This is confusing. Didn't you say your older son who pulled those shenanigans is now a Marine?


----------



## Blondilocks

Bluesclues said:


> So if a woman is a 5 and works hard to get healthy and fit and turns into a 7, she really isn’t a 7 because she was once “hefty”? How long after this transformation is she still a 5? Is a probationary period or is that a life sentence? Does it work in reverse - if someone was an 8 and they let themselves go and get fit again, can she be an 8 again or is that title stripped? Does success and personality play any role in these rankings or is it purely done on physique, facial structure and hair?
> 
> Is it the same for men? Why does the whole Red Pill thing encourage men to work out and become their best selves if they will always be a 5 or lower? I am guessing the “rules” are different and that men can move up?
> 
> I am genuinely curious because it seems like a very complicated system.
> 
> And I don’t know Bob, but if it were me I would be spending more on how to reestablish a relationship with my children, not testing Tina from high school on how many likes she’s given me versus how many pounds she’s lost. Many men that have replied to your thread have literally fought to have time with their children. I find it insulting to those fathers that you comment on the negative impact of fatherless homes in our society and yet leave your own children fatherless voluntarily. Get help. You are not championing a cause by being the antithesis of what these men are fighting for.


👍👍👍

You must remember some men only chase 'hot' women. They're ticked off that those women are out of their league. Instead of looking in the mirror and adjusting their expectations, they talk trash about women.


----------



## MattMatt

@bobsmith Your posts were deleted because they were in breach of the rules. No more, no less.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> 👍👍👍
> 
> You must remember some men only chase 'hot' women. They're ticked off that those women are out of their league. Instead of looking in the mirror and adjusting their expectations, they talk trash about women.


The same could be said about all the Lizzo's out there who think they deserve a Chris Pine.

But that isn't what this thread is about.


----------



## Blondilocks

DownButNotOut said:


> The same could be said about all the Lizzo's out there who think they deserve a Chris Pine.
> 
> *But that isn't what this thread is about*.


See the very first post on this thread. You're right - women are also guilty of overestimating their SMV.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> My point was that in your example, yes the money would be the determining factor. Because in your example we only have two bits of information: the respective incomes, and the respective living situations. It seems obvious to me that the child will have the best potential outcome in a nice neighborhood with nice schools. Therefore, if we are only considering the best interest of the child, the parent most able to provide that should have primary custody of that child. Frankly I'm surprised that view is considered controversial.
> 
> Notice how I never gendered the two parents. In the example there was no assumption of which parent was 400K and which was 30K. Nor was there any other information that could sway the balance of what is in that child's best interest.


I explained that it was the tool that gave that added the gender not me. The outcome would be the same whether the custodial parent were male or female. The point of the example was that the the amount of child support in most cases for people who are not very well off is not enough to enrich anyone.

This is a forum were we can only discuss such things at a high level. If you want to try actual, real life custody & child support cases go for it. But TAM is not a good place to do that.


----------



## As'laDain

I apparently underestimate my SMV. Then again, i disregard the whole idea of SMV. 

I have been dating a woman in the air force recently. She is fit, and quite attractive. But that's not why I'm interested. I find her interesting because she grew up in Italy, did humanitarian work in Brazil, and then found her way to the US. Then joined the US air force. 

To hell with SMV. Give me someone with an eye patch and a story.


----------



## As'laDain

On the other hand, i date guys too. 
And it doesn't bother me when someone is not interested in _me._

its rare that I'm interested in anyone. Most people are boring.


----------



## Blondilocks

As'laDain said:


> I apparently underestimate my SMV. Then again, i disregard the whole idea of SMV.
> 
> I have been dating a woman in the air force recently. She is fit, and quite attractive. But that's not why I'm interested. I find her interesting because she grew up in Italy, did humanitarian work in Brazil, and then found her way to the US. Then joined the US air force.
> 
> To hell with SMV. *Give me someone with an eye patch and a story.*


Yes, way more interesting than plastic tits and botox.


----------



## As'laDain

I broke my nose while sparring a couple days ago. One of my students popped me. They be learning! 😁
My wife hasn't bothered me about the blood on the floor, but i need to clean it up. I'll get to that in a few minutes. 

I guess I'm not boring either?
🤷


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> I explained that it was the tool that gave that added the gender not me. The outcome would be the same whether the custodial parent were male or female. The point of the example was that the the amount of child support in most cases for people who are not very well off is not enough to enrich anyone.
> 
> This is a forum were we can only discuss such things at a high level. If you want to try actual, real life custody & child support cases go for it. But TAM is not a good place to do that.


Not the worksheet. Your second example: parents earning 400k and 30k respectively. I am talking at a high level. What I'm saying is that all other things being equal, ability to provide for the child should be a primary consideration when custody decisions need to be made. Too often "child's best interest" is considered in name only. When the ultimate goal is actually one parent's desire not what is most likely to produce the best outcome for that child.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> It's certainly no less arbitrary than the tender years doctrine that's guided custody decisions for decades. I'm all for taking a holistic view of the situation when deciding what is in the child's best interest. But the key has to be the child's interest, not the parents'. When it comes to money, it isn't the money itself it's the opportunity that the money provides - better neighborhoods, better schools, better social contacts, often better nutrition. All of those are in the best interest of that child. If one parent can provide those, and the other cannot as was the situation in Ele's example, I do believe that should weigh into custody decisions.


I guess I just don't believe that who has the most money should be ANY consideration AT ALL...how well do rich parents treat and raise their kids?? I'm pretty sure the drug use and emotional problems rival that of those from abject poverty.

NOT that ALL rich parents are like that (nor those in abject poverty), but there isn't much that I've seen that tells me that rich kids are less neglected and happier and have a higher emotional intelligence than kids from more moderate to lower income families.


----------



## As'laDain

LisaDiane said:


> I guess I just don't believe that who has the most money should be ANY consideration AT ALL...how well do rich parents treat and raise their kids?? I'm pretty sure the drug use and emotional problems rival that of those from abject poverty.
> 
> NOT that ALL rich parents are like that (nor those in abject poverty), but there isn't much that I've seen that tells me that rich kids are less neglected and happier and have a higher emotional intelligence than kids from more moderate to lower income families.


This.

I don't really know what the solution is though. 
Its hard to tell who is the better parent without invading their whole life. 

In my case, I'm almost certain that if my wife and i divorce, i would lose custody because I'm gone on deployment so often. 

That's just life.


----------



## manowar

Blondilocks said:


> You must remember some men only chase 'hot' women.* They're ticked off that those women are out of their league*. Instead of looking in the mirror and adjusting their expectations, they talk trash about women.



If certain women are out of a man's league, the man soon finds out and adjusts. This is part of male nature. Honestly very few average guys are going to go for these hotties. One because of male insecurities and two lack of social skill (game of lack of a better term) .


----------



## As'laDain

manowar said:


> If certain women are out of a man's league, the man soon finds out and adjusts. This is part of male nature. Honestly very few average guys are going to go for these hotties. One because of male insecurities and two lack of social skill (game of lack of a better term) .


That's... Not what i have seen. I see men getting judged for their partner all the time. Ever heard the term "eye candy"?

I don't think i have ever heard it applied to a man, though can be, in theory. 

A lot of men grow up believing that they are worth less if they have a less attractive spouse. So they get super insecure about it. 

I don't believe in "leagues". If i did, i would have to admit that I'm breaking rules all the damned time. I have been dating a girl that is an inch taller than me and weighes 10 pounds less than me for two years!

The best piece of advice i can give to anyone growing up these days is "don't be boring".


----------



## As'laDain

And maybe "don't be an asshole"


But that seems to be tolerated more than being boring.


----------



## As'laDain

My bad... It's 2021... 

I have been dating her for 3 years now.


----------



## farsidejunky

bobsmith said:


> I either made this point very clear earlier or it was one of my posts that the mods deleted because I started getting too "real".....


Speaking as a Moderator:

Other mods have exercised tremendous (and undue) restraint regarding not only your posts making negative generalizations and rude commentary, but also openly challenging moderators...the latter for which I have little tolerance.

Last warning. Next time it happens, your posting privileges will be suspended.



Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> I guess I just don't believe that who has the most money should be ANY consideration AT ALL...how well do rich parents treat and raise their kids?? I'm pretty sure the drug use and emotional problems rival that of those from abject poverty.
> 
> NOT that ALL rich parents are like that (nor those in abject poverty), but there isn't much that I've seen that tells me that rich kids are less neglected and happier and have a higher emotional intelligence than kids from more moderate to lower income families.


At that point, is the child's interests primary any more? There is plenty of data that suggests success later in life is strongly correlated to the socio-economic conditions during childhood. Safer neighborhoods and better schools have a higher rate of producing successful adults. Why should that not have "any consideration at all"?

And here is where we can tie it back to MGTOW. In the current system, a father who wants to make the case that gaining custody of the child is in the child's best interest is facing an almost insurmountable struggle. First is the still referenced "tender years doctrine" which assumes a child is best placed with their mother independent of other circumstances. I think he should be able to argue that he provides a more stable, safer environment if that is true. But real case law shows that those arguments do not work. Barring the mother being grossly unfit - say actively in rehab, or in jail - custody is still presumed to reside with the mother. Flip the script, and place the father in a SAHD situation, and he fares no better. Although he can show that he is has been the child's primary caregiver, he also faces the wall of the "tender years doctrine". What's more, since he is a man, his employment gap is viewed far more negatively than were he a SAHM. His odds of showing his fitness for custody are very long indeed. And in both cases, all it takes is a false SA or DV accusation from the child's mother to seal that man's fate. I'd point you to any number of divorce threads on this forum where the OP is male. In almost every case one of the first bits of advice to him is to immediately begin to VAR every interaction with his Stbx. That advice is rarely given such importance in the reverse situation. Why? Because false SA/DV accusations against the husband are a more common tactic. So common that lawyers often probe for them when representing the wife. Only evidence as strong as recorded video is enough to have a chance at refuting false charges of that nature. Even that may not be enough. Meanwhile, the mere accusation is enough to derail that man's life and career. Breadwinner or SAHD the outcome is the same. It is a lose/lose for him. 

MGTOW accepts that this is a lose/lose game. The only winning move is not to play.


----------



## bobsmith

Stumbled into this gem today! I didn't dig into any further details but this is something men have to have in their mind! When a woman wants to screw you over, the law will 100% buy her story unless you have video. This is precisely what the above poster just said! This dude just wanted to get laid man! I am shocked they not only arrested, they charged the dude! 
He should not "be happy it was dismissed", he should have filed a defamation suit asap! That is ridiculous!


----------



## Enigma32

bobsmith said:


> Stumbled into this gem today! I didn't dig into any further details but this is something men have to have in their mind! When a woman wants to screw you over, the law will 100% buy her story unless you have video. This is precisely what the above poster just said! This dude just wanted to get laid man! I am shocked they not only arrested, they charged the dude!
> He should not "be happy it was dismissed", he should have filed a defamation suit asap! That is ridiculous!


The problem is that with the way our culture is now, victimhood has become a currency, so there is motive for someone to make this sort of thing up. Also, once charges like this are leveled against a man, even if he is innocent in the eyes of the law, this crap will follow him wherever he goes.


----------



## DownButNotOut

bobsmith said:


> Stumbled into this gem today! I didn't dig into any further details but this is something men have to have in their mind! When a woman wants to screw you over, the law will 100% buy her story unless you have video. This is precisely what the above poster just said! This dude just wanted to get laid man! I am shocked they not only arrested, they charged the dude!
> He should not "be happy it was dismissed", he should have filed a defamation suit asap! That is ridiculous!


I know I posted this earlier in the thread. But read this man's story. It's heartbreaking.









Amazon.com: The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law eBook : Ellis, Greg, Baldwin, Alec, Depp, Johnny: Kindle Store


Buy The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law: Read Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com



www.amazon.com


----------



## drencrom

bobsmith said:


> Stumbled into this gem today! I didn't dig into any further details but this is something men have to have in their mind! When a woman wants to screw you over, the law will 100% buy her story unless you have video. This is precisely what the above poster just said! This dude just wanted to get laid man! I am shocked they not only arrested, they charged the dude!
> He should not "be happy it was dismissed", he should have filed a defamation suit asap! That is ridiculous!


LOL, she was slobbering all over him in the bar and it looked like he even initially was trying to avoid being kissed. Probably just wanted a sip of his drink. LOL.


----------



## RebuildingMe

bobsmith said:


> Stumbled into this gem today! I didn't dig into any further details but this is something men have to have in their mind! When a woman wants to screw you over, the law will 100% buy her story unless you have video. This is precisely what the above poster just said! This dude just wanted to get laid man! I am shocked they not only arrested, they charged the dude!
> He should not "be happy it was dismissed", he should have filed a defamation suit asap! That is ridiculous!


And what happens to the girl and her friend that reported him to the police falsely? Absolutely NOTHING! On to their next victim…


----------



## Blondilocks

Since this thread has turned into a kitchen sink of gripes against women, why don't you bring up the fact that more women are graduating from college than men. I'm sure there is a boatload of built up resentment over that.


----------



## drencrom

Blondilocks said:


> Since this thread has turned into a kitchen sink of gripes against women, why don't you bring up the fact that more women are graduating from college than men. I'm sure there is a boatload of built up resentment over that.


Please, you have been griping about men as well. It goes both ways.


----------



## farsidejunky

Blondilocks said:


> Since this thread has turned into a kitchen sink of gripes against women, why don't you bring up the fact that more women are graduating from college than men. I'm sure there is a boatload of built up resentment over that.


Resentment, no.

But there is something to be said for boys being left behind in education. My son (only child) has an awards ceremony at the end of each school year. Females are the ones receiving the awards, to the tune of >90%, every single year.

I suspect it has less to do with 'evil wimminz', and more to do with the methods of teaching. But to ignore it is a disservice the the men of the future.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## drencrom

farsidejunky said:


> Resentment, no.
> 
> But there is something to be said for boys being left behind in education. My son (only child) has an awards ceremony at the end of each school year. Females are the ones receiving the awards, to the tune of >90%, every single year.
> 
> I suspect it has less to do with 'evil wimminz', and more to do with the methods of teaching. But to ignore it is a disservice the the men of the future.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Would have to see a study or statistics on why that is. But I'm thinking alot of it has to do with men have more options than having to have a secondary education based on jobs that require physical strength. Not saying women aren't strong, but they tend not to really want to operate a jackhammer.


----------



## farsidejunky

drencrom said:


> Would have to see a study or statistics on why that is. But I'm thinking alot of it has to do with men have more options than having to have a secondary education based on jobs that require physical strength. Not saying women aren't strong, but they tend not to really want to operate a jackhammer.


For secondary and post secondary education, certainly. 

In primary education, a future career (or limitations of such) is the last thing on boys minds. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bobsmith

Even when I was in college, the admissions office was working with me to see if any grants were available. because I didn't come here from another country, was not a woman, was not a single mom, etc, etc, I got the shaft and got to pay through the nose for my education. 

But then statistic geniuses flip this around and say "look, women are achieving!!" Sure, their achievement was handed to them, FREE!!! 

Women already had power due to their biology. But you couple that with a degree and business suit, and you can find some serious arrogance! Seriously, I know several women that are attorneys and every single one of them are arrogant and mostly single. They exchanged their feminine card for the corporate ladder, and now confused why men won't engage them.


----------



## Jamieboy

I have read this whole thread with interest and I have to say it has not convinced me of the merits of MGTOW, most of the evidence is anecdotal for and against. The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?

I ask because, unless these movements have a purpose, they tend to lose credibility and attract the fringe elements of society, hell bent on revenge against the world. 

I am genuinely interested in a proper answer, if anyone is game to supply it


----------



## As'laDain

Jamieboy said:


> I have read this whole thread with interest and I have to say it has not convinced me of the merits of MGTOW, most of the evidence is anecdotal for and against. The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?
> 
> I ask because, unless these movements have a purpose, they tend to lose credibility and attract the fringe elements of society, hell bent on revenge against the world.
> 
> I am genuinely interested in a proper answer, if anyone is game to supply it


MGTOW isn't really a movement so much as a philosophy. There _are_ men's rights groups that advocate for more fairness in divorce court, family court, men's shelters, etc, but MGTOW itself doesn't really have a goal. 

A lot of them are already on the fringes of society, but most of them don't want revenge, they just want to be left alone.


----------



## bobsmith

Jamieboy said:


> I have read this whole thread with interest and I have to say it has not convinced me of the merits of MGTOW, most of the evidence is anecdotal for and against. The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?
> 
> I ask because, unless these movements have a purpose, they tend to lose credibility and attract the fringe elements of society, hell bent on revenge against the world.
> 
> I am genuinely interested in a proper answer, if anyone is game to supply it


I created the thread, not to attempt to persuade anyone towards any "movement", but rather see how prevalent it might be. Just me personally, as it seems with some others, life experiences coupled with an obviously biased legal system, has just created a level of caution and distrust.


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> Even when I was in college, the admissions office was working with me to see if any grants were available. because I didn't come here from another country, was not a woman, was not a single mom, etc, etc, I got the shaft and got to pay through the nose for my education.
> 
> But then statistic geniuses flip this around and say "look, women are achieving!!" Sure, their achievement was handed to them, FREE!!!
> 
> Women already had power due to their biology. But you couple that with a degree and business suit, and you can find some serious arrogance! Seriously, I know several women that are attorneys and every single one of them are arrogant and mostly single. They exchanged their feminine card for the corporate ladder, and now confused why men won't engage them.


What you post here is just not true. A college education is not "handed to them, FREE!!!".

My father paid for my brother's college education because per him, a man needs a college education. All 5 of us females in my family had to pay for our own college education by working full time while going to college, and getting loans. There were also Pell grants that are equally available to men and women.

All of my children and my nieces/nephews did the same thing. My daughter and all my nieces did not get any finance preference that my sons and nephews did not get.

More females are getting college education because women have a disadvantage in obtaining well paid positions without a degree. Sadly, most of the degrees that women are getting are basically useless.

We get it. You are bitter towards women. Maybe even hate women for the most part. But your posts on this thread are getting more and more bizarre. You would most likely benefit from some psychiatric counseling to deal with this.

Women owe more student debt then men do. Cleary women are not getting their education for free.
Student Loan Debt by Gender [2021]: Men vs Women (educationdata.org)


----------



## bobsmith

EleGirl said:


> What you post here is just not true. A college education is not "handed to them, FREE!!!".
> 
> My father paid for my brother's college education because per him, a man needs a college education. All 5 of us females in my family had to pay for our own college education by working full time while going to college, and getting loans. There were also Pell grants that are equally available to men and women.
> 
> All of my children and my nieces/nephews did the same thing. My daughter and all my nieces did not get any finance preference that my sons and nephews did not get.
> 
> More females are getting college education because women had disadvantage in obtaining well paid positions without a degree. Sadly, most of the degrees that women are getting are basically useless.
> 
> We get it. You are bitter towards women. Maybe even hate women for the most part. But your posts on this thread are getting more and more bizarre. You would most likely benefit from some psychiatric counseling to deal with this.
> 
> Women owe more student debt then men do. Cleary women are not getting their education for free.
> Student Loan Debt by Gender [2021]: Men vs Women (educationdata.org)


I shared my person experience with college. Granted this was many years ago, but most certainly there were grants only available to very specific demographics. I recall one specifically for single moms, wondering why single dads was not on that list! Maybe those grants have been done away with, but.....


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> What you post here is just not true. A college education is not "handed to them, FREE!!!".
> 
> My father paid for my brother's college education because per him, a man needs a college education. All 5 of us females in my family had to pay for our own college education by working full time while going to college, and getting loans. There were also Pell grants that are equally available to men and women.
> 
> All of my children and my nieces/nephews did the same thing. My daughter and all my nieces did not get any finance preference that my sons and nephews did not get.
> 
> More females are getting college education because women had disadvantage in obtaining well paid positions without a degree. Sadly, most of the degrees that women are getting are basically useless.
> 
> We get it. You are bitter towards women. Maybe even hate women for the most part. But your posts on this thread are getting more and more bizarre. You would most likely benefit from some psychiatric counseling to deal with this.
> 
> Women owe more student debt then men do. Cleary women are not getting their education for free.
> Student Loan Debt by Gender [2021]: Men vs Women (educationdata.org)


It kinda makes sense that women have more student loan debt these days. They just recently surpassed men in terms of which gender is more likely to have a degree. 









Percentage of the U.S. population with a college degree by gender 1940-2021 | Statista


In an impressive increase from years past, 39.1 percent of women in the United States had completed four years or more of college in 2021.




www.statista.com





Not that i have any issue with it. For the longest time, men had more degrees simply because of the GI bill, which men got as a result of WW2 , Korea, and Vietnam. I wonder how much of the gender pay gap can be attributed to the imbalance in education after those wars? They didn't draft women, so more men gained access to education. Before that, the rates were similar between the genders.


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> I shared my person experience with college. Granted this was many years ago, but most certainly there were grants only available to very specific demographics. I recall one specifically for single moms, wondering why single dads was not on that list! Maybe those grants have been done away with, but.....


86% of single parent families are led by women.

Grants/scholarships for single parents are given by independent foundations that can give grants/scholarships to anyone they want to. Most give very small amounts of money... a few hundred at best.

If you think that there is a shortage of such programs for single fathers, you could always start one. GoFundMe is a good place to start to get people in join you in this endeavor. Why expect others to do what you think should be done?

A google search for "scholarships for single fathers" turned up 2.48 million sites.

_"most single-parent college scholarships and grants are open to both genders, to make sure single dads have equal opportunity to pay for school. "_
Scholarships For Single Fathers - Scholarships.com 

Scholarships for Single Mothers and Fathers | Best Colleges 

25 Great Scholarships for Single Parents (A-J) – Top Ten Online Colleges (top10onlinecolleges.org) 

Top Grants for Single Dads | Frank Financial Aid (withfrank.org)

That's just a few


----------



## EleGirl

As'laDain said:


> It kinda makes sense that women have more student loan debt these days. They just recently surpassed men in terms of which gender is more likely to have a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Percentage of the U.S. population with a college degree by gender 1940-2021 | Statista
> 
> 
> In an impressive increase from years past, 39.1 percent of women in the United States had completed four years or more of college in 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statista.com





As'laDain said:


> Not that i have any issue with it. For the longest time, men had more degrees simply because of the GI bill, which men got as a result of WW2 , Korea, and Vietnam. I wonder how much of the gender pay gap can be attributed to the imbalance in education after those wars? They didn't draft women, so more men gained access to education. Before that, the rates were similar between the genders.


Are you saying that that before WW2, Korea, and Vietnam war the pay was about equal for men and women? That's just not true. Women were not hired into many jobs simply because they were women. Women were mostly only hired into lower level jobs. 

After I graduated from college and started my first job as a software engineer I was paid $20,000 less in salary than males in my company with the the same education level and less experience. I was also always asked to make photo copies, make coffee for meetings, etc. by these same men. It took some time to get this nonsense to stop. The company had a 'special talents' list for those who would be promoted into upper management. There were only men on the list. It was not until a woman sued the company that the inequality in pay and promotions started to change. The company had to pay millions based on that law suit.


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> *Are you saying that that before WW2, Korea, and Vietnam war the pay was about equal for men and women? *That's just not true. Women were not hired into many jobs simply because they were women. Women were mostly only hired into lower level jobs.
> 
> After I graduated from college and started my first job as a software engineer I was paid $20,000 less in salary than males in my company with the the same education level and less experience. I was also always asked to make photo copies, make coffee for meetings, etc. by these same men. It took some time to get this nonsense to stop. The company had a 'special talents' list for those who would be promoted into upper management. There were only men on the list. It was not until a woman sued the company that the inequality in pay and promotions started to change. The company had to pay millions based on that law suit.


No, i think its a possible factor that i hadn't considered until today. Now that i think about it, i don't think i have ever heard anyone bring it up in regards to pay equality.


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> What you post here is just not true. A college education is not "handed to them, FREE!!!".


It is if they qualify for the full FAFSA.

And there is the American Opportunities Act on top of that.


----------



## EleGirl

drencrom said:


> It is if they qualify for the full FAFSA.
> 
> And there is the American Opportunities Act on top of that.


The American Opportunities Act is not based on gender/sex.


----------



## Enigma32

I just finished a degree about 6 years ago and yeah, there are more grants made specifically for women. I applied for and got a few grants myself but many of them I did not qualify for because I am not a woman. Yet I found no degrees specifically for men. While it seems silly that there are more grants made for the gender that is already getting more degrees, I don't much care. I definitely would have gotten much more free money had I been a female though. 

Women have more money in student debt because there are more women going to college and getting degrees. That answer seems rather obvious.


----------



## manowar

Jamieboy said:


> The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?



In the very least, it provides men with an opportunity to compare notes. Women naturally develop support groups for these sorts of issues. Women have had a monopoly on dating/marriage and their real motivations for a very long time. In fact, men weren't even worthy opponents. IOW men have been clueless.

Men on the other hand, just internalize their experiences and go it alone. This was before these forums were available due to technology. I've always said men are not stupid. Men have been brainwashed into believing a fairy tale, concerning female nature. They've also been taught a myth by media, culture, education, their good old clergyman, tv, movies (the romantic comedy), Christmas. These Avg. guys give it the old college try and end up with consistent failure. They internalize this thinking it's only them. Each individual guy thinking he sucks with women. Now by comparing notes they realize that a great majority of men are simply disrespected and treated like sh8t. Next step - men delve deeper into the whys.......Why do they treat us like sh=t they ask? One answer is because they can. Women hold more power in dating than men. Men didn't know this. The sisterhood has always been aware of this fact. The second answer is because men themselves have allowed it to happen. This is on the Beta Man who is weak and lets everything go. They've made women into objects of worship -- _to honor or show reverence_.

Men are catching up, albeit slowly, but they now have some perspective on dating and marriage that they never had before. Re; the unjust family law system. That's not even debatable dude. A lot of these guys are no longer opting as Plan B, C, or even D as they were before. After the girl has her fun she goes with the nice stable guy who financially supports her. They have learned these girls are settling for them. So men have responded by opting not to marry. Not to risk the perils of the Marriage-Divorce Industrial Complex. That place is where the man's wealth gets redistributed by the iron hand of the State. They know they don't want to go there. All because of forums like MGTOW. 

Men are only going to get smarter. It's their nature to figure stuff out. The days of them getting run over IMO are coming to an end. Men are starting to respect themselves. They've allowed women to disrespect them for decades. That's the key to change as well as flushing out the Beta Men. Simps are irrelevant. Enough Beta's have to flip and the whole dating/marriage dynamic will shift.


----------



## RebuildingMe

manowar said:


> In the very least, it provides men with an opportunity to compare notes. Women naturally develop support groups for these sorts of issues. Women have had a monopoly on dating/marriage and their real motivations for a very long time. In fact, men weren't even worthy opponents. IOW men have been clueless.
> 
> Men on the other hand, just internalize their experiences and go it alone. This was before these forums were available due to technology. I've always said men are not stupid. Men have been brainwashed into believing a fairy tale, concerning female nature. They've also been taught a myth by media, culture, education, their good old clergyman, tv, movies (the romantic comedy), Christmas. These Avg. guys give it the old college try and end up with consistent failure. They internalize this thinking it's only them. Each individual guy thinking he sucks with women. Now by comparing notes they realize that a great majority of men are simply disrespected and treated like sh8t. Next step - men delve deeper into the whys.......Why do they treat us like sh=t they ask? One answer is because they can. Women hold more power in dating than men. Men didn't know this. The sisterhood has always been aware of this fact. The second answer is because men themselves have allowed it to happen. This is on the Beta Man who is weak and lets everything go. They've made women into objects of worship -- _to honor or show reverence_.
> 
> Men are catching up, albeit slowly, but they now have some perspective on dating and marriage that they never had before. Re; the unjust family law system. That's not even debatable dude. A lot of these guys are no longer opting as Plan B, C, or even D as they were before. After the girl has her fun she goes with the nice stable guy who financially supports her. They have learned these girls are settling for them. So men have responded by opting not to marry. Not to risk the perils of the Marriage-Divorce Industrial Complex. That place is where the man's wealth gets redistributed by the iron hand of the State. They know they don't want to go there. All because of forums like MGTOW.
> 
> Men are only going to get smarter. It's their nature to figure stuff out. The days of them getting run over IMO are coming to an end. Men are starting to respect themselves. They've allowed women to disrespect them for decades. That's the key to change as well as flushing out the Beta Men. Simps are irrelevant. Enough Beta's have to flip and the whole dating/marriage dynamic will shift.


So, what’s your story? Married? Divorced and paying crap tons on alimony and support? How did you find RP? You’ve obviously done your research, the same research I’ve done. You’ve had the “awakening” and I’m interested to learn what led to that.


----------



## bobsmith

That moment when one of your social media friends is also on OLD..... The dating app basically says "single and ready to mingle", yet the social page has multiple recent kissy pics with another dude. Appears I caught a monkey branch forming before my very eyes!!! But that can't be right........... Also caught that age lie of about 10yrs......but who is counting, right? The extremely filtered pics are quite the sight. Good thing I had some real content to reference.


----------



## Jamieboy

I see the word beta, used again and again by you guys talking up the MGTOW thing, however you must all be betas, because all of you have been taken to the cleaners by your old ladies. Before the "awakening", which hasn't turned into alpha, just bitter betas, the thing is, you say it's about comparing notes, but to me it looks like the male equivalent of a bunch of bitter divorced women hating on non child support paying fathers and extending that logic to all women.

The truth might be that the system can be abused by certain types of women. But, I refuse to believe that decent women are turned into gold diggers by an unfair family law system. They were sh8tty people to begin with and you had the misfortune of being married to them.

I see no benefit to this other than perhaps catharsis, I may be bang wrong, but I've never been chewed up by the system, so guess I'm just sat on a ticking time bomb for my lady to discover she can rinse me and bang other guys.


----------



## Enigma32

Jamieboy said:


> I see the word beta, used again and again by you guys talking up the MGTOW thing, however you must all be betas, because all of you have been taken to the cleaners by your old ladies. Before the "awakening", which hasn't turned into alpha, just bitter betas,* the thing is, you say it's about comparing notes, but to me it looks like the male equivalent of a bunch of bitter divorced women hating on non child support paying fathers and extending that logic to all women.*
> 
> The truth might be that the system can be abused by certain types of women. But, I refuse to believe that decent women are turned into gold diggers by an unfair family law system. They were sh8tty people to begin with and you had the misfortune of being married to them.
> 
> I see no benefit to this other than perhaps catharsis, I may be bang wrong, but I've never been chewed up by the system, so guess I'm just sat on a ticking time bomb for my lady to discover she can rinse me and bang other guys.


There is probably some truth to what you say. The thing is, there is some truth to what the bitter, divorced women say too. I have known some ladies who got divorced or had kids with a loser and that guy never helped in the slightest with the kids. They have cause for their bitterness. Just because someone is bitter doesn't mean that everything they say is BS.


----------



## manowar

RebuildingMe said:


> So, what’s your story? Married? Divorced and paying crap tons on alimony and support? How did you find RP? You’ve obviously done your research, the same research I’ve done. You’ve had the “awakening” and I’m interested to learn what led to that.


Thanks for asking. I read the sht show you went thru.

Unmarried. Long-term relationship for around 20+ years up to about 2 years ago. We did not marry. It's possible. She was separated when we met. She demanded a ring or said she's going to date. i said - then date. She found a nice guy in three weeks. of course right. there's always a beta in waiting. we still talk. She's emotionally bonded. The nice guy can't understand it after all the sh=t talk she told him about me. Basically, the situation is a nice guy who stepped into a situation he didn't belong. I retired several years ago. Im still pretty successful with dating for an older guy (59). Do pretty well online though I'm terrible w/ chatting. the drive to actually go out (compared w/ my younger years) has been knocked down a few notches. nature has no need for me to be out there spreading my seed I guess. But truthfully I enjoy talking to women more than men. My friends don't talk anymore. They go off on tirades about the election or some other sh*t. i can't get a word in edge-wise. Ha ha.

How did I get awakened? Lots of dating between 19- 35. A tremendous amount in the club scene in the Northeast and south Fla. there were still large regional differences in the 1980s/early 90s. 

70% of my research was in the field.- lol. I didn't know it at the time of course. But I picked up on certain things. The more women who you are with, date (LT and ST), women who sleep with you, women who lead you on, women who dumped me, women I dumped, women I really liked but didn't reciprocate (rejection), women who liked me but I didn't reciprocate --- there are patterns that emerge. WTF was going on? Enough to gain insights into what's really happening. RP filled in the rest because it matched my experiences. It was uncanny. A guy has to have a certain amount of experiences to see the connections. Some guy who married his HS sweetheart will say that RP is nonsense and there's no such thing as female nature. Some posters claim there is no such thing as Alpha and beta men. That it is a construct. No way. Just ask the girls. They know if a man is a nice guy in 2 seconds. Im only one guy but it matches up. It boils down to psychology. This is why I recommend Female Psychology for the practical man - joe south. . It provided a grounding for understanding female behavior. I should have read a few psych books because that's where the main principles come from. The RP guys took the first principles from studies that were done in the first half of the 20th century. Realized in my thirties that a man doesn't have to get married. But I too started out as an 18 yr old nice guy who believed in the myth. 

I dodged a bullet (probably a bazooka) in my early 30s. A real stunner party girl who was on top of the world wanted to marry. I guess she had her epiphany stage. After she had her fun. You know what that means. But I really liked her a lot. She was very difficult to deal with. Those looks made her very wealthy in the dating market. Part of the awakening. Not wife material. So no alimony problems. I walked because I didn't want her to have access to my money or business. When you don't think in terms of myths and fables and what the clergy expect, you can think rationally and put yourself first.


----------



## Diana7

bobsmith said:


> I shared my person experience with college. Granted this was many years ago, but most certainly there were grants only available to very specific demographics. I recall one specifically for single moms, wondering why single dads was not on that list! Maybe those grants have been done away with, but.....


Could be because there are far more single mums because the dads have abdicated all responsibility.


----------



## Diana7

Jamieboy said:


> I see the word beta, used again and again by you guys talking up the MGTOW thing, however you must all be betas, because all of you have been taken to the cleaners by your old ladies. Before the "awakening", which hasn't turned into alpha, just bitter betas, the thing is, you say it's about comparing notes, but to me it looks like the male equivalent of a bunch of bitter divorced women hating on non child support paying fathers and extending that logic to all women.
> 
> The truth might be that the system can be abused by certain types of women. But, I refuse to believe that decent women are turned into gold diggers by an unfair family law system. They were sh8tty people to begin with and you had the misfortune of being married to them.
> 
> I see no benefit to this other than perhaps catharsis, I may be bang wrong, but I've never been chewed up by the system, so guess I'm just sat on a ticking time bomb for my lady to discover she can rinse me and bang other guys.


A really good post here Jamie. I so agree about the description of 'beta'. I hate lebelling people and putting them into boxes. Nearly all men are probably a mixture of the two anyway. There is no 100% alpha nor 100% beta male. 
I also agree about the description of women. Yes there are some women who act badly, but just as some men who do. I am fortunate enough to know many lovely, decent women of integrity. I have no idea why others havent met any, it must be the circles they mix in. 
Its not helpful at all to try and label all of one sex as bad, that just alienates that sex and achieves nothing. It just serves to perpetuate the persons bitterness and anger. It stops them meeting a decent partner.


----------



## manowar

Diana7 said:


> Nearly all men are probably a mixture of the two anyway. There is no 100% alpha nor 100% beta male.


Agree...


----------



## Rus47

Jamieboy said:


> I see the word beta, used again and again by you guys talking up the MGTOW thing, however you must all be betas, because all of you have been taken to the cleaners by your old ladies. Before the "awakening", which hasn't turned into alpha, just bitter betas, the thing is, you say it's about comparing notes, but to me it looks like the male equivalent of a bunch of bitter divorced women hating on non child support paying fathers and extending that logic to all women.
> 
> The truth might be that the system can be abused by certain types of women.* But, I refuse to believe that decent women are turned into gold diggers by an unfair family law system. *They were sh8tty people to begin with and you had the misfortune of being married to them.
> 
> I see no benefit to this other than perhaps catharsis, I may be bang wrong, but I've never been chewed up by the system, so guess I'm just sat on a ticking time bomb for my lady to discover she can rinse me and bang other guys.


I don't believe in the RP ethic. But on the point in bold, I have many friends who were ground up in the divorce machine. It isn't the "system" that did them in, rather their wives' attorneys. The process would begin with the wife wanting to be fair and have an amiable separation and divorce. Once they retained an attorney though, the attorney would convince them that they needed to go for the throat. Of course the attorney is counting billable hours and fees. So a simple process of the couple filling in blanks on a form and filing it isn't appealing.

I notice you are in Britain. In the USA the process is much worse.


----------



## Jamieboy

Enigma32 said:


> There is probably some truth to what you say. The thing is, there is some truth to what the bitter, divorced women say too. I have known some ladies who got divorced or had kids with a loser and that guy never helped in the slightest with the kids. They have cause for their bitterness. Just because someone is bitter doesn't mean that everything they say is BS.


I absolutely agree, what they say is tough lessons learned through personal experience, the issue I think I have is the doctrine they have adopted is then espoused as the right way for all men to live henceforth and that men that don't are betas. 

My presence on this site is because my marriage was not all that I needed it to be. I wanted help and the benefit of experience. I have used that experience along with my own to form my own opinion and action plan of how to live my life going forward. Rather than blindly following a greedo. 

I dont consider myself a beta, but nor am I an alpha as I understand it. But im happy with the changes I have brought about. Although truthfully I wish I had gone about it in a different way. People like @Diana7 I rarely agree with, but I have found wisdom In some of things she says, and so I appreciate her differing view points for being just that. 

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is, surrounding yourself with people who only think the same way as you, inhibits personal growth and reinforces negative behaviours and beliefs.


----------



## Jamieboy

Rus47 said:


> I don't believe in the RP ethic. But on the point in bold, I have many friends who were ground up in the divorce machine. It isn't the "system" that did them in, rather their wives' attorneys. The process would begin with the wife wanting to be fair and have an amiable separation and divorce. Once they retained an attorney though, the attorney would convince them that they needed to go for the throat. Of course the attorney is counting billable hours and fees. So a simple process of the couple filling in blanks on a form and filing it isn't appealing.
> 
> I notice you are in Britain. In the USA the process is much worse.


I agree the US seems much worse than here in good old blighty, and I can certainly agree on lawyers being the root of all evil, I only have to look at my sisters divorce and watching her hand over 25% of all the martial assets to lawyers to get the same offer that was made by her initially.

However in the cases above where the wives chewed up your friends, there must have been some sense of entitlement or revenge at play if they didn't see the logic of working it out sans attorney


----------



## Trident

bobsmith said:


> I know several women that are attorneys and every single one of them are arrogant and mostly single. They exchanged their feminine card for the corporate ladder, and now confused why men won't engage them.


They’re not confused Bob. They are simply not interested. Their experiences with frustrated and bitter guys such as you have them convinced all guys are losers.


----------



## Rus47

Jamieboy said:


> I agree the US seems much worse than here in good old blighty, and I can certainly agree on lawyers being the root of all evil, I only have to look at my sisters divorce and watching her hand over 25% of all the martial assets to lawyers to get the same offer that was made by her initially.
> 
> However in the cases above where the wives chewed up your friends, there must have been some sense of entitlement or revenge at play if they didn't see the logic of working it out sans attorney


Most of my friends who divorced wives were SAHM. Only one of the divorces involved infidelity. Over years they had grown apart for various reasons. So neither spouse was really angry with the other, they just wanted to move in a different direction. But when a woman is contemplating life without a breadwinner, raising kids, going back to work with maybe lacking skills after being married awhile, their attorney will "educate" them about what their case is "worth". I have one "friend of a friend" who lost a large ranch in his divorce settlement, which now belongs to the wife's attorney.

Happens commonly here also with personal injury situations. There are ads on TV several times a day here about winning a big settlement for the injured from the big bad insurance companies. More than once have wished had gone into law and become a politician.


----------



## In Absentia

Wow... not a good advert for men this thread...


----------



## Jamieboy

Rus47 said:


> Most of my friends who divorced wives were SAHM. Only one of the divorces involved infidelity. Over years they had grown apart for various reasons. So neither spouse was really angry with the other, they just wanted to move in a different direction. But when a woman is contemplating life without a breadwinner, raising kids, going back to work with maybe lacking skills after being married awhile, their attorney will "educate" them about what their case is "worth". I have one "friend of a friend" who lost a large ranch in his divorce settlement, which now belongs to the wife's attorney.
> 
> Happens commonly here also with personal injury situations. There are ads on TV several times a day here about winning a big settlement for the injured from the big bad insurance companies. More than once have wished had gone into law and become a politician.


I agree with wishing I was a lawyer, those guys always get paid. My personal belief, and acted upon when I separated, is that my SAHM wife had contributed to our wealth by allowing me the freedom to develop my career, as a result I gave her an amount of child support that meant we both had an equivalent income, in my mind it was only fair and was more than the state would mandate.

It was also important to me that my children always had the same standard of living regardless of which parent they lived with. I appreciate this is not how all folks feel and not all SAHM are equal, but in my case, I felt my wife was entitled to a share of the success she helped create.


----------



## Rus47

Jamieboy said:


> *I agree with wishing I was a lawyer, those guys always get paid*. My personal belief, and acted upon when I separated, is that my SAHM wife had contributed to our wealth by allowing me the freedom to develop my career, as a result I gave her an amount of child support that meant we both had an equivalent income, in my mind it was only fair and was more than the state would mandate.
> 
> It was also important to me that my children always had the same standard of living regardless of which parent they lived with. I appreciate this is not how all folks feel and not all SAHM are equal, but in my case, I felt my wife was entitled to a share of the success she helped create.


At least in the USA it is a grueling task to become an attorney, especially to become well paid as member of a good firm. Here there are a lot who work at positions beneath the effort they put into it. Kinda like doctors who are well paid after they invest 10-15 years becoming licensed.

Apaologies, end t/j


----------



## drencrom

EleGirl said:


> The American Opportunities Act is not based on gender/sex.


Neither of them are. I was talking about getting "free" college in general. If somehow a group of people based on gender/race are getting free college on that alone, and I don't know if such a thing exists, the other avenues are FAFSA and AOA


----------



## Al_Bundy

Jamieboy said:


> I have read this whole thread with interest and I have to say it has not convinced me of the merits of MGTOW, most of the evidence is anecdotal for and against. The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?
> 
> I ask because, unless these movements have a purpose, they tend to lose credibility and attract the fringe elements of society, hell bent on revenge against the world.
> 
> I am genuinely interested in a proper answer, if anyone is game to supply it


For me it just means taking an honest look at my beliefs and where they came from. Am I doing something because I want to or because it's been programmed into me (parents, religion, society, etc...). Going your own way means just that. Making yourself your own point of origin. You don't care when people shame you for being "selfish" or not a "real man".


----------



## bobsmith

Al_Bundy said:


> For me it just means taking an honest look at my beliefs and where they came from. Am I doing something because I want to or because it's been programmed into me (parents, religion, society, etc...). Going your own way means just that. *Making yourself your own point of origin. You don't care when people shame you for being "selfish" or not a "real man".*


This! To be honest, I was on a different path years ago, knowing nothing of this MGTOW thing. All I knew is what I had experienced. All I would ever be told here is "not all women are like that", but I could also agree with some women's assessments of me, which is that my "picker is broken".... No longer having a directive of finding a forever partner, settling with kids, etc, does not mean a guy is in 'hate camp'. It is just a resort of priorities in life to make self preservation primary. 

There is no way I would tell my boys not to ever marry. Largely because it wouldn't work anyway! If there is one common factor in MGTOW we could probably agree on, it is largely that men have to get burned before they see the fire differently. I can say with certainty that I never would have guessed I would be here today! I think there are some guys on youtube that seem to invite other men in this MGTOW thing. That is something I don't discuss with anyone outside this forum. Not with family, friends, women, etc. But it is interesting to learn other men's stories and what brought them to a similar mentality.


----------



## Sfort

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


----------



## EleGirl

drencrom said:


> Neither of them are. I was talking about getting "free" college in general. If somehow a group of people based on gender/race are getting free college on that alone, and I don't know if such a thing exists, the other avenues are FAFSA and AOA


I agree.

I helped my kids and several of their friends apply to college and get any financial support they could. There was nothing gender based in any of it. They really did not get much at all in the way of scholarships or grants. Mostly they got student loans.


----------



## Diana7

Sfort said:


> The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


That doesn't surprise me at all. Why start a marriage planning a divorce senario? If you are that paranoid about your money they dont get married!


----------



## drencrom

Sfort said:


> The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


Sounds about right since those marriages aren't starting out with trust in the first place.


----------



## EleGirl

Sfort said:


> The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


I googled this and cannot find anything that says this. All if can find is that 5% of marriages have prenups and approx 50% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce rates are higher (~75%) in 2nd (and more) marriages and these are the ones more likely to have prenups.

My guess is that prenups are more in second marriages when a spouse has a lot of separate property and perhaps children from a previous relationship.


----------



## Sfort

EleGirl said:


> I googled this and cannot find anything that says this. All if can find is that 5% of marriages have prenups and approx 50% of marriages end in divorce. Divorce rates are higher (~75%) in 2nd (and more) marriages and these are the ones more likely to have prenups.
> 
> My guess is that prenups are more in second marriages when a spouse has a lot of separate property and perhaps children from a previous relationship.


I don't doubt your analysis. Other than that, I'm just the messenger.


----------



## EleGirl

Diana7 said:


> That doesn't surprise me at all. Why start a marriage planning a divorce senario? If you are that paranoid about your money they dont get married!


They are not always done for a 'divorce scenario'. Often it's for inheritance to protect the inheritance of the children from a previous relationship.


----------



## EleGirl

Sfort said:


> I don't doubt your analysis. Other than that, I'm just the messenger.


I'm just curious and was hoping you'd recall where you got that number.


----------



## Diana7

EleGirl said:


> They are not always done for a 'divorce scenario'. Often it's for inheritance to protect the inheritance of the children from a previous relationship.


Which is the case for me, but there was no way I was going to ask for a prenup. We have made wills to take case of that.


----------



## bobsmith

Sfort said:


> The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


This would not seem shocking. It would seem to be a form of distrust from the start. There is no longer an incentive to "hang in there" in hopes of a payday.


----------



## bobsmith

deleted


----------



## Sfort

EleGirl said:


> I'm just curious and was hoping you'd recall where you got that number.


I'm pretty sure it was from Zig Ziglar.


----------



## LisaDiane

Sfort said:


> The last statistic I heard is that 92% of marriages with a prenuptial agreement fail.


Yes, but did the prenups remain valid?

Because maybe they failed because the people in them felt more protected from the negative financial consequences of divorce, so felt freer to do what they really wanted, instead of being trapped in an unhappy marriage because of financial considerations (which sounds like hell on earth to me).


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> Yes, but did the prenups remain valid?
> 
> Because maybe they failed because the people in them felt more protected from the negative financial consequences of divorce, so felt freer to do what they really wanted, instead of being trapped in an unhappy marriage because of financial considerations (which sounds like hell on earth to me).


Excellent point.


----------



## manowar

Rus47 said:


> big bad insurance companies.



When you need them the most, they will let you down. I know of what I speak. especially for the guy whose paid his premiums for 35 years like a good dutiful little boy. And expects to be treated with common courtesy when the time comes. Sure they'll pay on those little claims no problem. Dents and those sorts of things. A stolen water bottle taken from the vehicle.

I battled these companies and when I say don't trust them please keep that in the back of your mind.


----------



## Sfort

LisaDiane said:


> Yes, but did the prenups remain valid?


I don't have that information.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Hello everyone, just found this thread by accident, and have been MGTOW for the past 13 years.
No need to avoid women or marriage, what you need to avoid as a man is the western justice system, and the western family courts. When I was divorced (and asset stripped) in the UK after 30 years of marriage I just moved to a country with a justice system that favours men (lots of countries to choose from). No need to complain about not getting the women you deserve, or risking the assets you accumulated over your lifetime ........ just move somewhere else.

No need for prenups, I have no financial responsibilities at all if she chooses to divorce.
While I live in her house, I make the repayments on her mortgage.
Happily married and living with a much younger wife and our 10 year old son.
(as happy as an old guy in his 60's can be)
MGTOW all the way.

Women are not the problem, welfare and an unfair justice system are the problem.


----------



## Rus47

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Hello everyone, just found this thread by accident, and have been MGTOW for the past 13 years.
> No need to avoid women or marriage, what you need to avoid as a man is the western justice system, and the western family courts. When I was divorced (and asset stripped) in the UK after 30 years of marriage I just moved to a country with a justice system that favours men (lots of countries to choose from). No need to complain about not getting the women you deserve, or risking the assets you accumulated over your lifetime ........ just move somewhere else.
> 
> No need for prenups, I have no financial responsibilities at all if she chooses to divorce.
> While I live in her house, I make the repayments on her mortgage.
> Happily married and living with a much younger wife and our 10 year old son.
> (as happy as an old guy in his 60's can be)
> MGTOW all the way.
> 
> *Women are not the problem, welfare and an unfair justice system are the problem*.


This ^^^^^


----------



## In Absentia

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Women are not the problem, welfare and an unfair justice system are the problem.


What flag is that? It doesn't tell you when you hover on it with your mouse... I'd like to know where this heaven for men is...


----------



## Personal

In Absentia said:


> What flag is that?


Thailand.


----------



## In Absentia

Personal said:


> Thailand.


yes, just found it...  I'll look into Thailand's fair justice and welfare system... won't be a minute!


----------



## As'laDain

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Hello everyone, just found this thread by accident, and have been MGTOW for the past 13 years.
> No need to avoid women or marriage, what you need to avoid as a man is the western justice system, and the western family courts. When I was divorced (and asset stripped) in the UK after 30 years of marriage I just moved to a country with a justice system that favours men (lots of countries to choose from). No need to complain about not getting the women you deserve, or risking the assets you accumulated over your lifetime ........ just move somewhere else.
> 
> No need for prenups, I have no financial responsibilities at all if she chooses to divorce.
> While I live in her house, I make the repayments on her mortgage.
> Happily married and living with a much younger wife and our 10 year old son.
> (as happy as an old guy in his 60's can be)
> MGTOW all the way.
> 
> Women are not the problem, welfare and an unfair justice system are the problem.


Were you on MGTOW.com? Your story sounds familiar...


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

As'laDain said:


> Were you on MGTOW.com? Your story sounds familiar...


It's a dead forum with about 10 members, I wouldn't be allowed to join as I'm married.


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Hello everyone, just found this thread by accident, and have been MGTOW for the past 13 years.
> No need to avoid women or marriage, what you need to avoid as a man is the western justice system, and the western family courts. When I was divorced (and asset stripped) in the UK after 30 years of marriage I just moved to a country with a justice system that favours men (lots of countries to choose from). No need to complain about not getting the women you deserve, or risking the assets you accumulated over your lifetime ........ just move somewhere else.
> 
> No need for prenups, I have no financial responsibilities at all if she chooses to divorce.
> While I live in her house, I make the repayments on her mortgage.
> Happily married and living with a much younger wife and our 10 year old son.
> (as happy as an old guy in his 60's can be)
> MGTOW all the way.
> 
> Women are not the problem, welfare and an unfair justice system are the problem.


How can you be MGTOW if you are married? You may be living in your wife's house and escaping any financial pitfalls; but, that doesn't make you MGTOW.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Blondilocks said:


> How can you be MGTOW if you are married? You may be living in your wife's house and escaping any financial pitfalls; but, that doesn't make you MGTOW.


What's more going your own way than moving out of your country and marrying a much younger woman? He's doing what he wants, that's literally what it's about.


----------



## In Absentia

Lots of men are moving to Thailand, where they can have a young wife who does everything for them, it's a lot cheaper to live and eat and you can do whatever you like.


----------



## Blondilocks

Al_Bundy said:


> What's more going your own way than moving out of your country and marrying a much younger woman? He's doing what he wants, that's literally what it's about.


He's the one who said MGTOW wouldn't allow him to join because he's married.


----------



## As'laDain

ElwoodPDowd said:


> It's a dead forum with about 10 members, I wouldn't be allowed to join as I'm married.


Not true. I'm married, and I'm a member. 
I haven't logged on in forever though.


----------



## Rus47

In Absentia said:


> Lots of men are moving to Thailand, where they can have a young wife who does everything for them, it's a lot cheaper to live and eat and you can do whatever you like.


I am married to a woman whose family was a refuge from (internal) war (not Vietnam) in that part of the world. She was raised for early part of her life in a third world country, and her attitudes about life are very much simpler than those prevailing in the west. When I met her in HS, she was shy mainly because was just learning to speak English. She has never been one to do "everything for hubby", And she will be the first to tell you that a woman's place is not under a man's thumb. But on the other hand she has never behaved as an entitled person, often expresses gratitude that she managed to become a citizen of the USA (after 5 years of studying). She is the most fervent patriot have ever met.


----------



## Trident

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Happily married and living with a much younger wife and our 10 year old son.
> (as happy as an old guy in his 60's can be)
> MGTOW all the way.


That's not MGTOW, as I understand it. It's my understanding that MGTOW don't have anything to do with women at all, they consider them to be evil.

You've got a wife and you're not against women, but you're protecting your ASSets.

That's completely different.


----------



## Jamieboy

In Absentia said:


> Lots of men are moving to Thailand, where they can have a young wife who does everything for them, it's a lot cheaper to live and eat and you can do whatever you like.


I suspect Gary Glitter would disagree😬


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Blondilocks said:


> How can you be MGTOW if you are married? You may be living in your wife's house and escaping any financial pitfalls; but, that doesn't make you MGTOW.


MGTOW isn't against marriage per se. They are against marriage while living within a court system that caters to feminist interests. As long as that is the norm, as AL Bundy famously said "no ma'am".

Also MGTOW followers don't even hate women, women will be women, they just don't want to commit financial suicide by tying themselves to one. The easiest way to avoid that is to check out of the dating population.

I think there is a general confusion. INCELS hate women. MGTOW hates the westernized marriage system that rips out men's wallet through their asshole.


----------



## Trident

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> MGTOW isn't against marriage per se.
> 
> Also MGTOW followers don't even hate women,


The standard definition of MGTOW seems to differ from your explanation.

*Men Going Their Own Way*_ (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.

All over the world, straight men are making the conscious decision not to be involved with women.
This isn't a decision in any sort of metaphorical sense. These men are literally cutting women out of their lives, completely_


----------



## As'laDain

Trident said:


> That's not MGTOW, as I understand it. It's my understanding that MGTOW don't have anything to do with women at all, they consider them to be evil.
> 
> You've got a wife and you're not against women, but you're protecting your ASSets.
> 
> That's completely different.


That's exactly why a lot MGTOW men end up MGTOW though. So they don't have to put everything at risk, in most cases, again. 

You will find people griping about hypergamy, but a lot of them just don't want to lose everything they have worked for, so they don't put themselves at the risk. 

I take a different approach, but you almost have to be psycho to pull it off.


----------



## Trident

As'laDain said:


> That's exactly why a lot MGTOW men end up MGTOW though.


Is that like saying a lot of men end up men?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Trident said:


> The standard definition of MGTOW seems to differ from your explanation.
> 
> *Men Going Their Own Way*_ (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.
> 
> All over the world, straight men are making the conscious decision not to be involved with women.
> This isn't a decision in any sort of metaphorical sense. These men are literally cutting women out of their lives, completely_


I don't think that is completely accurate. They are anti-feminist because feminism has led to the failings of our court system toward men in many ways. MGTOW is the male reaction to the excesses of feminism. So, yes in that sense,, the society is corrupted by modern day feminism.

Cutting all women out of their lives is a little strange. They have jobs, so they work with women. They have mothers so it's not like sorry ma I'm MGTOW now, peace. Maybe some hardliners do, I don't know. It's not like a club you join and you have to pay a yearly subscription and take a 'no vagina' oath. 

It's just a realization that marriage and relationships are detrimental to men in today's society. And until something changes the juice just ain't worth the squeeze.


----------



## Trident

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I don't think that is completely accurate.


Clearly the term has numerous interpretations. It would seem that "going own way" means in a direction other than that of a woman.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Trident said:


> Clearly the term has numerous interpretations. It would seem that "going own way" means in a direction other than that of a woman.


That's is correct.


----------



## As'laDain

Trident said:


> Clearly the term has numerous interpretations. It would seem that "going own way" means in a direction other than that of a woman.


What it really means is "not following societal expectations, I'm doing my own thing"

Some MGTOW men are married. Most aren't. Some go monk. Some don't. You will find a variety of circumstances in MGTOW circles. 

They don't always agree with each other on everything, but they are all doing their own thing.


----------



## Trident

As'laDain said:


> What it really means is "not following societal expectations, I'm doing my own thing"
> 
> Some MGTOW men are married. Most aren't. Some go monk. Some don't. You will find a variety of circumstances in MGTOW circles.
> 
> They don't always agree with each other on everything, but they are all doing their own thing.


Oh, so we can all be MGTOW, even those who are happily married, in long term relationships with women they love.

For them, that's their own thing.

In other words, MGTOW is like the word "Love" as described on a random greeting card. It can mean virtually anything which of course makes it meaningless.


----------



## As'laDain

Trident said:


> Oh, so we can all be MGTOW, even those who are happily married, in long term relationships with women they love.
> 
> For them, that's their own thing.
> 
> In other words, MGTOW is like the word "Love" as described on a random greeting card. It can mean virtually anything which of course makes it meaningless.


In a sense, it kinda is like that. But it tends to lean towards non-participation.

The main thing is not following societal expectations simply because they were taught to, taught that they had to. 

Deciding that one will do whatever the heck they want is often referred to as "leaving the plantation". 

A cringey reference, i know...

It's not about hating women. It's more about recognizing that what they were led to believe as fact in regards to their self worth simply isn't true.


----------



## bobsmith

Trident said:


> Clearly the term has numerous interpretations. It would seem that "going own way" means in a direction other than that of a woman.


I think clearly someone is here to call MGTOW a complete contradiction, in which it is not. What does it stand for again? Did is somewhere say "go the opposite way as women"? 

Let me be clear about something. There are basically two types of women, in the world. Those that are married, and those that want to be married. There are many that may 'say', they don't want to get married, but many are flat out lying.

So the mounting pressure moved to men because if they want to "keep" a woman, they are supposed to back themselves in a corner and get a ring. And many governments use that ring and signature to basically sign up for financial death.  SURE, there are a few men that come out OK, but take a good tour in just this site and you will learn what MGTOW men are trying to avoid. It has NOTHING to do with "not being a man", nothing to do with "manning up", or "being mature" or any other BS people want to use as a label. When the hammer drops, it is really called "being smart" and vigilant about a society that works to crush men. 

MGTOW does NOT mean avoid women! It means do NOT marry them! It means do NOT knock them up! Obviously many here take strong offense to that notion as it is quite opposite of "marriage", but it should really be noted that many of these men would happily marry if there were more mutual understandings and neutral ground. Sure, there are many nice women, but you don't know hell's fury until to set a woman and her girlfriends off. 

One woman poster here even chimed in a few pages back about NONE of her girlfriends have ever went after men, but only one and she "did not get what she thought she would get"..... I did not even bring it up, but let me right now. Women are not born, or even attend school thinking "if I divorce this dude, I can take at least half his stuff, even though I bought nothing".....They learn it FROM someone. I have heard the talk with my own ears how women will sit around a table and tell stories about "what they got"..... I think as a man, when you see the same thing over, and over, and over, etc, etc, etc, you start to realize it is more than a theory.

Let me just edit a bit by saying that that I think either sex can be quite vengeful. I think Ele is quite an example of a woman getting taken advantage of. I know plenty of men that I think have no morals at all. I guess I think I do, but I largely ignore them anymore. I mean, really, there could be a WGTOW for all I know, and I would support that too, but I really think there are two camps. feminists that can't get a date, and women that want a ring.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Trident said:


> Clearly the term has numerous interpretations. It would seem that "going own way" means in a direction other than that of a woman.


For me, going my own way is not getting married or cohabiting under a legal system which makes me the indentured servant of a woman.

I don't hate women, I don't avoid women, but I've already donated 2/3 of my lifetime accumulated assets to one woman (including a house, car, 4 children, my dog and 50% of my pension) and I don't have enough left to play that game again.

I'm happily married (12 years) in a country where my wife has no entitlement to anything I own, and I have no entitlement to anything she owns.


----------



## LisaDiane

Trident said:


> The standard definition of MGTOW seems to differ from your explanation.
> 
> *Men Going Their Own Way*_ (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.
> 
> All over the world, straight men are making the conscious decision not to be involved with women.
> This isn't a decision in any sort of metaphorical sense. These men are literally cutting women out of their lives, completely_


Where did you get that definition...because it sounds pretty biased against the movement. I wouldn't trust a definition like that, if it is. Is this how they describe themselves?


----------



## In Absentia

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I'm happily married (12 years) in a country where my wife has no entitlement to anything I own, and I have no entitlement to anything she owns.


What happens if you have children? Let's say your wife doesn't work, looks after the children, so she depends on you. What happens if you, one day, decide to leave her? What happens to the children? Genuine question.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

In Absentia said:


> What happens if you have children? Let's say your wife doesn't work, looks after the children, so she depends on you. What happens if you, one day, decide to leave her? What happens to the children? Genuine question.


She managed before me, she'll manage after me. Strong independent woman and all that.
Her 23yo daughter just finished high school and university, just started her first job last month and moved out.
Our 10yo son will have to manage, but I'm sure his mom and older sister will cope.
More likely I'll leave them due to my death, which can't be far away now (I'm 65, and most of my pals didn't make 70).


----------



## In Absentia

ElwoodPDowd said:


> She managed before me, she'll manage after me. Strong independent woman and all that.
> Her 23yo daughter just finished high school and university, just started her first job last month and moved out.
> Our 10yo son will have to manage, but I'm sure his mom and older sister will cope.
> More likely I'll leave them due to my death, which can't be far away now (I'm 65, and most of my pals didn't make 70).


Ok, so to you it's fair to leave your children and your wife with no support whatsoever in case you decide to divorce her? I can (maybe) understand your wife, but your child? Seems not very fair on him.


----------



## Lila

ElwoodPDowd said:


> For me, going my own way is not getting married or cohabiting under a legal system which makes me the indentured servant of a woman.
> 
> I don't hate women, I don't avoid women, but I've already donated 2/3 of my lifetime accumulated assets to one woman (including a house, car, 4 children, my dog and 50% of my pension) and I don't have enough left to play that game again.
> 
> I'm happily married (12 years) in a country where my wife has no entitlement to anything I own, and I have no entitlement to anything she owns.


You posted this on a different thread



ElwoodPDowd said:


> I think they can still be good parents, I also think morality is a product of location. Where I live marriage is a business arrangement between a man and a woman, to accumulate land and property and to raise children. Sex is viewed purely as entertainment.
> Sometimes guys will set up a second household with another woman, and have more kids, with both women knowing about the other.
> 
> My current wife (of 12 years) has certainly had boyfriends (not so much now she's 40), and I've also had other girlfriends (not so much now I'm 65) but last year I was seeing a girl on the side every week. I don't feel my wife or I are bad parents, our 10 year old son seems happy enough.
> 
> But then again is it cheating if you're both OK with it?
> It's just sex.



You mentioned that in the country you live "marriage is to accumulate land and property" but your other post says neither of you are entitled to anything the other owns. You also state "I'm happily married (12 years) in a country where my wife has no entitlement to anything I own, and I have no entitlement to anything she owns.". I'm confused. Is your wife entitled to her share of the assets accumulated during the marriage? How do you keep separate assets during marriage?

I'm trying to understand why you would even get married (again) if you're both cheating (or at least have a don't ask and don't tell open marriage) and don't have legal recourse to the other's assets. What was the purpose?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

In Absentia said:


> Ok, so to you it's fair to leave your children and your wife with no support whatsoever in case you decide to divorce her? I can (maybe) understand your wife, but your child? Seems not very fair on him.


Life isn't fair.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Lila said:


> I'm trying to understand why you would even get married (again) if you're both cheating (or at least have a don't ask and don't tell open marriage) and don't have legal recourse to the other's assets. What was the purpose?


I needed a VISA to stay here, she wanted a loan on her family farm paid, and a son with white skin. It was a simple business deal, which is how most marriages in the world work.
We both got something we wanted.
IMHO it's worked out quite well as we're still together after 12 years.


----------



## Lila

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I needed a VISA to stay here, she wanted a loan on her family farm paid, and a son with white skin. It was a simple business deal, which is how most marriages in the world work.
> We both got something we wanted.
> IMHO it's worked out quite well as we're still together after 12 years.


Gotcha! Visa (or Green Cards as we lovingly call them in the US) marriages are common in the US. I have several of those in my family as well. If it works for you, more power to you.


----------



## In Absentia

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Life isn't fair.


And some legal systems, apparently. But you like that, because it's good for you. Who cares about other people?


----------



## In Absentia

Lila said:


> If it works for you, more power to you.


Great for their son as well...


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

In Absentia said:


> And some legal systems, apparently. But you like that, because it's good for you. Who cares about other people?


If I cared about other people I wouldn't be 'going my own way'.
People spend too much time worrying about other people, when all that really matters is yourself.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

In Absentia said:


> Great for their son as well...


Worked out well for my step-daughter, she got a high school and university education, in place of the 3 different children by 3 different guys many of her village friends ended up with.
My wife also got a free high school education, and half a university degree (she dropped out) as a bonus.

Can't predict the future, so can't say for my son, he seems happy enough at the moment.


----------



## RebuildingMe

manowar said:


> Thanks for asking. I read the sht show you went thru.
> 
> Unmarried. Long-term relationship for around 20+ years up to about 2 years ago. We did not marry. It's possible. She was separated when we met. She demanded a ring or said she's going to date. i said - then date. She found a nice guy in three weeks. of course right. there's always a beta in waiting. we still talk. She's emotionally bonded. The nice guy can't understand it after all the sh=t talk she told him about me. Basically, the situation is a nice guy who stepped into a situation he didn't belong. I retired several years ago. Im still pretty successful with dating for an older guy (59). Do pretty well online though I'm terrible w/ chatting. the drive to actually go out (compared w/ my younger years) has been knocked down a few notches. nature has no need for me to be out there spreading my seed I guess. But truthfully I enjoy talking to women more than men. My friends don't talk anymore. They go off on tirades about the election or some other sh*t. i can't get a word in edge-wise. Ha ha.
> 
> How did I get awakened? Lots of dating between 19- 35. A tremendous amount in the club scene in the Northeast and south Fla. there were still large regional differences in the 1980s/early 90s.
> 
> 70% of my research was in the field.- lol. I didn't know it at the time of course. But I picked up on certain things. The more women who you are with, date (LT and ST), women who sleep with you, women who lead you on, women who dumped me, women I dumped, women I really liked but didn't reciprocate (rejection), women who liked me but I didn't reciprocate --- there are patterns that emerge. WTF was going on? Enough to gain insights into what's really happening. RP filled in the rest because it matched my experiences. It was uncanny. A guy has to have a certain amount of experiences to see the connections. Some guy who married his HS sweetheart will say that RP is nonsense and there's no such thing as female nature. Some posters claim there is no such thing as Alpha and beta men. That it is a construct. No way. Just ask the girls. They know if a man is a nice guy in 2 seconds. Im only one guy but it matches up. It boils down to psychology. This is why I recommend Female Psychology for the practical man - joe south. . It provided a grounding for understanding female behavior. I should have read a few psych books because that's where the main principles come from. The RP guys took the first principles from studies that were done in the first half of the 20th century. Realized in my thirties that a man doesn't have to get married. But I too started out as an 18 yr old nice guy who believed in the myth.
> 
> I dodged a bullet (probably a bazooka) in my early 30s. A real stunner party girl who was on top of the world wanted to marry. I guess she had her epiphany stage. After she had her fun. You know what that means. But I really liked her a lot. She was very difficult to deal with. Those looks made her very wealthy in the dating market. Part of the awakening. Not wife material. So no alimony problems. I walked because I didn't want her to have access to my money or business. When you don't think in terms of myths and fables and what the clergy expect, you can think rationally and put yourself first.


Thanks for sharing your story. I think a guy your age, no children and no grandchildren and never married can do well with the younger women. But be careful, the 35-40 age may want kids. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you to always be in charge of the birth. You don’t sound like a guy who would be easily trapped. I got snipped about 5 years ago to prevent any mistakes. I recommend it. One less thing I have to think about. 

I have been through hell and back with my two divorces, especially the last one. Neither one broke me to catastrophic levels, but this last one did do damage by way of my legal costs. Even though I married “up”, I still got banged around.

I am a big believer now in no marriage and no cohabitation. Been dating someone for 14 months who’s “on board” with this philosophy….for now…


----------



## Trident

LisaDiane said:


> Where did you get that definition...because it sounds pretty biased against the movement.


Internet search comes right up


----------



## In Absentia

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Worked out well for my step-daughter, she got a high school and university education, in place of the 3 different children by 3 different guys many of her village friends ended up with.
> My wife also got a free high school education, and half a university degree (she dropped out) as a bonus.
> 
> Can't predict the future, so can't say for my son, he seems happy enough at the moment.


Thanks for your explanations. I I can't say I agree with your philosophy and I wish your son well.


----------



## Jung_admirer

MGTOW seems to be self-defeating from my perspective. I don't mistrust my WW because she is a woman (misogyny). I mistrust her because she lied, cheated and stole while gaslighting me for over a year while she engaged in a PA with a former college boyfriend from 20 yrs ago. MGTOW suggests the courts are biased towards women. This is certainly true, but the court biases based on race & wealth are equally destructive. My problem was not that my WW is a person of poor character and integrity. My problem is that I was not able to discern these deficits at the start of the relationship. That's on me, n'est ce-pas?


----------



## DownButNotOut

Jung_admirer said:


> MGTOW seems to be self-defeating from my perspective. I don't mistrust my WW because she is a woman (misogyny). I mistrust her because she lied, cheated and stole while gaslighting me for over a year while she engaged in a PA with a former college boyfriend from 20 yrs ago. MGTOW suggests the courts are biased towards women. This is certainly true, but the court biases based on race & wealth are equally destructive. My problem was not that my WW is a person of poor character and integrity. My problem is that I was not able to discern these deficits at the start of the relationship. That's on me, n'est ce-pas?


Self defeating how?

My 5-year plan is get my post-D money sorted, purchase a new-to-me larger sailing yacht, retire early and starting around the world single-handed. I'm not interested in anyone who would put that in jeopardy, or in any relationship longer than a passage or two. To me, LTRs are not worth the hassle. Getting out of them can be prohibitively expensive. Far better to write it off and go my own way. What never ceases to amaze me though, is the vitriol commonly aimed at this approach though. I mean, I'm not playing your game so what's the beef? It's like when some women hear you're MGTOW, they take it personally.


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> Thanks for sharing your story. I think a guy your age, no children and no grandchildren and never married can do well with the younger women. But be careful, the 35-40 age may want kids. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you to always be in charge of the birth. You don’t sound like a guy who would be easily trapped. I got snipped about 5 years ago to prevent any mistakes. I recommend it. One less thing I have to think about.
> 
> I have been through hell and back with my two divorces, especially the last one. Neither one broke me to catastrophic levels, but this last one did do damage by way of my legal costs. Even though I married “up”, I still got banged around.
> 
> I am a big believer now in no marriage and no cohabitation. Been dating someone for 14 months who’s “on board” with this philosophy….for now…


I have a real question for you...wouldn't couples get more sex if they lived together?


----------



## LisaDiane

Trident said:


> Internet search comes right up


I just meant what site...like Wiki or something like that.
Because from the sound of it, I don't know if what you found can be called the "standard" definition of what they stand for.

I am just curious, because I like to get unbiased information when I'm trying to make up my mind about something, but that definitely sounds biased. Which is fine, of course...but then it has no credibility or usefulness to me.


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> I have a real question for you...wouldn't couples get more sex if they lived together?


You'd think so. But the "Sex in Marriage" subforum seems to give the lie to that one.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> You'd think so. But the "Sex in Marriage" subforum seems to give the lie to that one.


Well, don't marry...I don't see any need for that in middle age! 

But for people who have a desire (need) for sex more often than 2 times a week, wouldn't living together make that easier?
And more FUN...??


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> Well, don't marry...I don't see any need for that in middle age!
> 
> But for people who have a desire (need) for sex more often than 2 times a week, wouldn't living together make that easier?
> And more FUN...??


It's not the ring, it the living together. All I'm saying is there seems to be far more sex in the infidelity forum than in the sex forum.


----------



## manowar

RebuildingMe said:


> I think a guy your age, no children and no grandchildren and never married can do well with the younger women. But be careful, the 35-40 age may want kids.


Younger women are not really a priority. Been there done that. If one comes along, that's fine (as a FWB or bonus) but not looking for any commitment/marriage on my part. I have no problem with 45-55. Much more in common.  The only woman that I would marry is the 20 year LTR I had. I know exactly what I'm getting and we can grow old together. No way would I jump through hoops for a younger attractive woman that demands high levels of material goods and services in return. That's what younger provider men focused on careers are for. I like my peace. I don't understand the whole sugar baby thing. More than any of the atrocities in modern dating, SBs are the most sickening. I think these are men who made some money and can finally get the attention of the hot 20 something they never had. But it's transactional. Attention has a price of course. Money never buys attraction. It's sad that these older guys are some of the dumbest fkers on the planet to allow themselves to be voluntarily used this way. It's an embarrassment to the rest of us. There have to be insecurities to be exploited as well. 



RebuildingMe said:


> I have been through hell and back with my two divorces, especially the last one.


Your story is a rough one. You did win the war in the end after losing a few battles early on. Most guys give in. You didn't. I applaud your courage. The system is designed to make the man buckle. It's like trying to drive the golf ball into 200mph winds blowing against you. . I guess you had a different belief system when you went into these marriages. Saw the world a certain way. Your role - her role. Expectations, etc..... But reality turned out to be something entirely unexpected. Now you see the world a different way. Some guys wake up. Many others never do. there's a site called Surviving Infidelity -- it should be called "clueless men who never wake up". The main premise and complaint is how their cheating wife didn't conform to the myth they were raised on. The presupposition from which all subsequent beliefs are derived is that the BP narrative is for the most part true and accurate.



RebuildingMe said:


> I am a big believer now in no marriage and no cohabitation. Been dating someone for 14 months who’s “on board” with this philosophy….for now…


That's because you are making it perfectly clear from the beginning what you expect in the relationship. She knows what to expect from you and is willing to get behind you. Women appreciate it. Many men don't do this and it creates uncertainty or worse puts the woman in the position of directing the relationship due to a vacuum left by the man's indecision. You don't have to get married. I did it for 20 years in a very good relationship. If she values you, she'll choose to stay with you. Marriage doesn't have to be the default. You know first hand the downside. No Cohabitation will keep her attraction strong. It's a good move. Maintain what you are doing because it works. At the same time, you are avoiding the provider trap which weakens the man's sexual attraction. This stuff is fk up. Its a shame guys haven't caught on. The litmus test is going to come when she demands marriage. Be prepared to hold your position. She's going to eventually test your resolve. Never cohabitate.


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> I have a real question for you...wouldn't couples get more sex if they lived together?


I think the posts about sexless marriages on this site alone answer that question.


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> Well, don't marry...I don't see any need for that in middle age!
> 
> But for people who have a desire (need) for sex more often than 2 times a week, wouldn't living together make that easier?
> And more FUN...??


People find a way when they're really into each other. And when the new wears off, they aren't stuck at the same address.


----------



## Enigma32

manowar said:


> But it's transactional. Attention has a price of course. Money never buys attraction.


I would make the argument that almost every single romantic relationship ever is transactional.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> I would make the argument that almost every single romantic relationship ever is transactional.


Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> I would make the argument that almost every single romantic relationship ever is transactional.


I'd agree and add,
Everyone disses guys that live with their parents, you'd think women would appreciate a guy that still gets on with his parents and cares for them, but the problem is, there's no free house to be had.

Nearly all sex is transactional, I prefer the potential transaction to be less than my home.


----------



## Enigma32

Al_Bundy said:


> Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault


I won't lay that down entirely on the ladies because men are looking for things too. Men have a list of things they expect from a partner and so do ladies. If those things start to disappear, so will your partner.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> But for people who have a desire (need) for sex more often than 2 times a week, wouldn't living together make that easier?
> And more FUN...??


Getting married because you want sex, is like buying a jumbo jet because you like eating peanuts.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> I won't lay that down entirely on the ladies because men are looking for things too. Men have a list of things they expect from a partner and so do ladies. If those things start to disappear, so will your partner.


Very true, we don't like to admit it but we do things that benefit ourselves. Even giving to charity, we get the benefit of feeling good.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Jung_admirer said:


> MGTOW seems to be self-defeating from my perspective. I don't mistrust my WW because she is a woman (misogyny). I mistrust her because she lied, cheated and stole while gaslighting me for over a year while she engaged in a PA with a former college boyfriend from 20 yrs ago. MGTOW suggests the courts are biased towards women. This is certainly true, but the court biases based on race & wealth are equally destructive. My problem was not that my WW is a person of poor character and integrity. My problem is that I was not able to discern these deficits at the start of the relationship. That's on me, n'est ce-pas?


Expecting to discern the motives of another person is a losing move.
People are inherently unpredictable, and their motives obscure.
Trust no-one, least of all the person sharing your bed.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I'd agree and add,
> Everyone disses guys that live with their parents, you'd think women would appreciate a guy that still gets on with his parents and cares for them, but the problem is, there's no free house to be had.
> 
> Nearly all sex is transactional, I prefer the potential transaction to be less than my home.


Yeah, my GF is Filipino and she doesn't understand that either. To her, it shows that the guy is a family man and it is seen as a positive in her culture. Just funny how things work.


----------



## bobsmith

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I'd agree and add,
> Everyone disses guys that live with their parents, you'd think women would appreciate a guy that still gets on with his parents and cares for them, but the problem is, there's no free house to be had.
> 
> Nearly all sex is transactional, I prefer the potential transaction to be less than my home.


LMAO! It's called "asset inventory". I've seen it with my own eyes. Drag one home and they want to "see everything"...."so do you own this? what about this?"


----------



## RebuildingMe

LisaDiane said:


> I have a real question for you...wouldn't couples get more sex if they lived together?


Absolutely not. Women get lazy in bed the minute they tie the man up. Been there, done that.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> I won't lay that down entirely on the ladies because men are looking for things too. Men have a list of things they expect from a partner and so do ladies. If those things start to disappear, so will your partner.


My list,
I'm looking for lady aged 30-35 years old, and weighting 38-50Kg.
Had to add the lower weight limit after spending time in the Philippines.


----------



## DTO

Trident said:


> Internet search comes right up


Agreed. I looked it up the last time this topic came around. Misogyny wasn't referenced, but it did talk about if you ditch women because they want to use you, then you don't need to develop a career to support one and thus commit yourself to a boss who will use you and pay taxes and a system that allows women to use you.

It's on that basis that it seems like MGTOW guys are not just avoiding marriage but ducking out of life. Who strives to not only avoid relationships but also to avoid developing yourself and your skill set at least a little bit.


----------



## DTO

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah, my GF is Filipino and she doesn't understand that either. To her, it shows that the guy is a family man and it is seen as a positive in her culture. Just funny how things work.


The difference is the rationale for living at home. A guy here in the U.S. living at home so he can take care of his parents is okay, for many people at least. It's the guy who's living at home and still having mom and dad take care of him (pay his bills, etc.) that becomes the problem.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DTO said:


> The difference is the rationale for living at home. A guy here in the U.S. living at home so he can take care of his parents is okay, for many people at least. It's the guy who's living at home and still having mom and dad take care of him (pay his bills, etc.) that becomes the problem.


Nah, living with mom and dad is death on the dating scene, no matter what the reason.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Nah, living with mom and dad is death on the dating scene, no matter what the reason.


Pretty much, yeah.


----------



## In Absentia

RebuildingMe said:


> Women get lazy in bed the minute they tie the man up. Been there, done that.


Can I ask you one question: have you been with all the women in the world?


----------



## Personal

RebuildingMe said:


> Absolutely not. Women get lazy in bed the minute they tie the man up. Been there, done that.


That's your experience.

I've been married twice, been in a longer term sexual relationship outside of that and had numerous other short flings, one night pick ups etc.

And in both of my marriages and the other longer relationship, the sex never waned. The variety was and has always been tremendous (lots of non vanilla stuff), quality was/is always great and the frequency had/has always remained extremely high as well.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Personal said:


> And in both of my marriages and the other longer relationship, the sex never waned. The variety was and has always been tremendous (lots of non vanilla stuff), quality was/is always great and the frequency had/has always remained extremely high as well.


Maybe you're in the top 20% of men, that portion of men that women really want.
Most of us guys are in the bottom 80% that women only endure (as infrequently as possible) for our Beta bucks.


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Maybe you're in the top 20% of men, that portion or men that women really want.
> Most of us guys are in the bottom 80% that women only endure (as infrequently as possible) for our Beta bucks.


I don't buy into the idea that women only want 20% of men. Lots of women desire and enjoy sex, so it's really not very difficult for men to get plenty of it. All it takes is a smile, some social skills, and a little banter.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> It's not the ring, it the living together. All I'm saying is there seems to be far more sex in the infidelity forum than in the sex forum.


Lol!! Well, not for the OPs who are posting...


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> Absolutely not. Women get lazy in bed the minute they tie the man up. Been there, done that.


That's funny...in MY experience, it's the MEN who turn into lazy duds after they get married...

Of course, I only married two of them, so maybe they aren't all like that...??


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> That's funny...in MY experience, it's the MEN who turn into lazy duds after they get married...
> 
> Of course, I only married two of them, so maybe they aren't all like that...??


I'd say it happens to both genders, likely equally. I admit I got kinda lazy with it when I was married. Just wasn't feeling it as much as before.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> I'd say it happens to both genders, likely equally. I admit I got kinda lazy with it when I was married. Just wasn't feeling it as much as before.


That makes THREE!!!!!


----------



## RebuildingMe

Enigma32 said:


> I'd say it happens to both genders, likely equally. I admit I got kinda lazy with it when I was married. Just wasn't feeling it as much as before.


If TAM is any indication, and I’m not saying it is, the sexless marriage threads are started by men, probably 5:1, if not greater.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

nothing kills passion like marriage...


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> Lol!! Well, not for the OPs who are posting...


Kinda proves my point. The sex ain't with who they're living with.


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> If TAM is any indication, and I’m not saying it is, the sexless marriage threads are started by men, probably 5:1, if not greater.


I agree it's higher...but that doesn't make those of us who are in the group of 1 feel any better when we are going through it. 
In fact, I take a hard line against anyone who selfishly refuses their partner's sexual needs, male or female.

It's crushing...and I used to tell my STBX, unapologetically, sex is the ONLY reason I'm in a monogamous relationship.
I don't want any of the responsibilities of being a wife if I don't get to enjoy the main benefit (to ME).


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> I agree it's higher...but that doesn't make those of us who are in the group of 1 feel any better when we are going through it.
> In fact, I take a hard line against anyone who selfishly refuses their partner's sexual needs, male or female.
> 
> It's crushing...and I used to tell my STBX, unapologetically, sex is the ONLY reason I'm in a monogamous relationship.
> I don't want any of the responsibilities of being a wife if I don't get to enjoy the main benefit (to ME).


See, I just don't understand that idea. If I just wanted to get laid, I would stay single. Have sex with basically whoever you want with no real issues.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Enigma32 said:


> See, I just don't understand that idea. If I just wanted to get laid, I would stay single. Have sex with basically whoever you want with no real issues.


Well, there is always a chance you get metoo'd. It's not without risks and you have to wear condoms...


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, there is always a chance you get metoo'd. It's not without risks and you have to wear condoms...


I never have!


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I never have!


 Never been metoo'd or never wore condoms?


----------



## RebuildingMe

LisaDiane said:


> I agree it's higher...but that doesn't make those of us who are in the group of 1 feel any better when we are going through it.
> In fact, I take a hard line against anyone who selfishly refuses their partner's sexual needs, male or female.
> 
> It's crushing...and I used to tell my STBX, unapologetically, sex is the ONLY reason I'm in a monogamous relationship.
> I don't want any of the responsibilities of being a wife if I don't get to enjoy the main benefit (to ME).


It’s the main “benefit” for me also, but the risks that come along with marriage just aren’t worth all the sex in the world. Sadly, the “benefit” of sex is one of the first things to go in a marriage and once it’s gone, it’s usually gone for good. Yes, I’ve read the stories some have on here about getting their wife to reawaken sexually. However, when they describe that awakening I’m thinking to myself, meh, that still doesn’t sound all that good and it’s far too much work.


----------



## RebuildingMe

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, there is always a chance you get metoo'd. It's not without risks and you have to wear condoms...


I’ve worn a condom ONE time in my entire life. Come to think of it, that could explain the five kids . 
Getting snipped was one of the best decisions of my life. I don’t sleep with skanks, strippers or crack whores, so I’m not too worried about the whole STD thing. But it’s always there in the back of my mind.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Never been metoo'd or never wore condoms?


Hardly ever wore condoms.
When a lady produces a condom, I just say, "Sorry I'm a Catholic".
My immortal soul is more important to me than a quick encounter.
But usually they just agree to do it without a condom.


----------



## Enigma32

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Well, there is always a chance you get metoo'd. It's not without risks and you have to wear condoms...


Stay away from blue-haired feminists and as long as you aren't actually doing anything shady the odds of dealing with a MeToo moment are really slim. There's plenty of risks in relationships too. I had an ex stop taking her BC because she wanted to have my baby. Only reason I didn't get trapped like the next sucker is because her sister liked me and filled me in.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Enigma32 said:


> Stay away from blue-haired feminists and as long as you aren't actually doing anything shady the odds of dealing with a MeToo moment are really slim. There's plenty of risks in relationships too. I had an ex stop taking her BC because she wanted to have my baby. Only reason I didn't get trapped like the next sucker is because her sister liked me and filled me in.


Always control the birth, brother. Never, ever rely on what a woman is telling you they are doing with respect to birth control.

My ex BIL was trapped. At 40 he started dating this chunky girl who was 41. He’s never been married, never had kids and never seemed interested in either. She also was never married and no kids. Her clock was ticking and she only had one or two opportunities left to trap. Three months into the relationship, she’s pregnant. Three months later, they get married. He claims it was an accident. She was on the pill. Claims he’s “happy” about the pregnancy. She proceeds to gain another 80 pounds. Was still wearing her maternity clothes when the kid was five years old. He’s a cop with a good pension. Due to retire in three more years. Last time I spoke to him was two years ago. He’s completely miserable. Has sex about twice a month. She hit the jackpot. He’d get wiped out in a divorce and he knows it. Trapped and stuck!


----------



## Diana7

As'laDain said:


> What it really means is "not following societal expectations, I'm doing my own thing"
> 
> Some MGTOW men are married. Most aren't. Some go monk. Some don't. You will find a variety of circumstances in MGTOW circles.
> 
> They don't always agree with each other on everything, but they are all doing their own thing.


Society is all about doing your own thing these days.


----------



## Diana7

RebuildingMe said:


> Thanks for sharing your story. I think a guy your age, no children and no grandchildren and never married can do well with the younger women. But be careful, the 35-40 age may want kids. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you to always be in charge of the birth. You don’t sound like a guy who would be easily trapped. I got snipped about 5 years ago to prevent any mistakes. I recommend it. One less thing I have to think about.
> 
> I have been through hell and back with my two divorces, especially the last one. Neither one broke me to catastrophic levels, but this last one did do damage by way of my legal costs. Even though I married “up”, I still got banged around.
> 
> I am a big believer now in no marriage and no cohabitation. Been dating someone for 14 months who’s “on board” with this philosophy….for now…


After 2 divorces I wouldn't marry again either. I wouldn't date either though, as to me dating is to find the one to marry.


----------



## DTO

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Maybe you're in the top 20% of men, that portion of men that women really want.
> Most of us guys are in the bottom 80% that women only endure (as infrequently as possible) for our Beta bucks.


Ah, the old "exception that proves the rule" argument.


----------



## bobsmith

Here is some fun BS that I spotted today. I've gotten a bit "friend happy" on social media since having to restart it. Apparently sent a request to a woman, probably because she was attractive. Impulse click....lol So she accepted and I glanced at her page. She has several pics of screen shot texts from guys. They are obviously simping to the max, but the fact that she put these dudes on BLAST, even with their name in there!!! I was easily able to find two of these guys. How would you like that guys? You try to talk to a woman, so they take everything you say and share it with the world? 

This woman has princess syndrome to the MAX! But you bet, she has no shortage of simps that send txt, after txt, after txt.....They help reinforce the behavior!


----------



## manowar

bobsmith said:


> LMAO! It's called "asset inventory". I've seen it with my own eyes. Drag one home and they want to "*see everything"...."so do you own this? what about this?*"



Smith - right again. This is an accurate statement.


----------



## manowar

RebuildingMe said:


> My ex BIL was trapped. At 40 he started dating this chunky girl who was 41. He’s never been married, never had kids and never seemed interested in either. She also was never married and no kids. Her clock was ticking and she only had one or two opportunities left to trap. Three months into the relationship, she’s pregnant. Three months later, they get married. He claims it was an accident. She was on the pill. Claims he’s “happy” about the pregnancy. She proceeds to gain another 80 pounds. Was still wearing her maternity clothes when the kid was five years old. He’s a cop with a good pension. Due to retire in three more years. Last time I spoke to him was two years ago. *He’s completely miserable.* Has sex about twice a month. *She hit the jackpot. *He’d get wiped out in a divorce and he knows it. *Trapped* and stuck!



Another sad story. Looks like a plausible strategy. men generally don't think like this so he's trusting w/ reference to her explanation. I guess you were referring to this when you gave me the heads up. Anyone can get trapped by letting his guard down. I'm certainly no exception.


----------



## RebuildingMe

delete.


----------



## Talker67

do we know any?
sure. lots of guys who have been thru the divorce wringer become MGTOW. 
they may date for sex, but seriously do not want long term relationships at all, ESPECIALLY if the woman has kids or is somewhat crazy


----------



## In Absentia

RebuildingMe said:


> Always control the birth, brother. Never, ever rely on what a woman is telling you they are doing with respect to birth control.
> 
> My ex BIL was trapped. At 40 he started dating this chunky girl who was 41. He’s never been married, never had kids and never seemed interested in either. She also was never married and no kids. Her clock was ticking and she only had one or two opportunities left to trap. Three months into the relationship, she’s pregnant. Three months later, they get married. He claims it was an accident. She was on the pill. Claims he’s “happy” about the pregnancy. She proceeds to gain another 80 pounds. Was still wearing her maternity clothes when the kid was five years old. He’s a cop with a good pension. Due to retire in three more years. Last time I spoke to him was two years ago. He’s completely miserable. Has sex about twice a month. She hit the jackpot. He’d get wiped out in a divorce and he knows it. Trapped and stuck!


Sounds like he trapped himself...


----------



## DownButNotOut

In Absentia said:


> Sounds like he trapped himself...


Sounds like she lied to him about the pill.


----------



## bobsmith

RebuildingMe said:


> Always control the birth, brother. Never, ever rely on what a woman is telling you they are doing with respect to birth control.
> 
> My ex BIL was trapped. At 40 he started dating this chunky girl who was 41. He’s never been married, never had kids and never seemed interested in either. She also was never married and no kids. Her clock was ticking and she only had one or two opportunities left to trap. Three months into the relationship, she’s pregnant. Three months later, they get married. He claims it was an accident. She was on the pill. Claims he’s “happy” about the pregnancy. She proceeds to gain another 80 pounds. Was still wearing her maternity clothes when the kid was five years old. He’s a cop with a good pension. Due to retire in three more years. Last time I spoke to him was two years ago. He’s completely miserable. Has sex about twice a month. She hit the jackpot. He’d get wiped out in a divorce and he knows it. Trapped and stuck!


I've said it here before, if she says she's on the pill, double wrap it! One of the big risks of dating down is the woman will trap the man. I watched it all happen to my brother. But we talked him into leaving her before the kid was even born. She had him convinced they must get married asap...... I see that woman and wonder how drunk my bro must have been. She made it her life mission to try to destroy my bro and our family through lies, but her own evil showed through, even in the courts. Now her health is so poor she can barely function.....tears.....


----------



## Rus47

One of the benefits of a vasectomy is all that foolishness is in the rear view mirror.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Rus47 said:


> One of the benefits of a vasectomy is all that foolishness is in the rear view mirror.


That's all and good when you're far enough along in life to have a rear view mirror. For the 20-somethings who might hope to have a family one day baby-traps are a real thing.


----------



## minimalME

DownButNotOut said:


> That's all and good when you're far enough along in life to have a rear view mirror. For the 20-somethings who might hope to have a family one day baby-traps are a real thing.


Be less self-serving, and ‘baby traps’ won’t be a problem.


----------



## DownButNotOut

minimalME said:


> Be less self-serving, and ‘baby traps’ won’t be a problem.


You mean more self-serving. I tell young men to always wrap it up. Every time. No exceptions until you want to try for a kid. I don't care what form of birth control she says she's on - wrap it up. And use your own supply.

Plenty of documented cases of women 'accidentally' getting pregnant thinking it will lock down the guy. Or 'accidentally' getting pregnant when the relationship turns rocky in the hopes of keeping the guy around.

"Come on, we've been exclusive for a year. It feels so much better without a condom, and I'm on the pill. Don't you (love/trust) me?"


----------



## LisaDiane

bobsmith said:


> I've said it here before, if she says she's on the pill, double wrap it! One of the big risks of dating down is the woman will trap the man.


Maybe this is one of the benefits of dating an older woman...NO baby traps...?? Lol!!


----------



## LisaDiane

RebuildingMe said:


> delete.


Now I'm SO CURIOUS...!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LisaDiane

Diana7 said:


> After 2 divorces I wouldn't marry again either. I wouldn't date either though, as to me dating is to find the one to marry.


Can't dating be to spend time with someone you like being with and having fun together?
I mean, as long as everyone is honest about what they want and expect...isn't it fun to date?


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> Can't dating be to spend time with someone you like being with and having fun together?
> I mean, as long as everyone is honest about what they want and expect...isn't it fun to date?


Agreed. Hell isn't dating usually the best time of most relationships?


----------



## minimalME

DownButNotOut said:


> *You mean more self-serving. *I tell young men to always wrap it up. Every time. No exceptions until you want to try for a kid. I don't care what form of birth control she says she's on - wrap it up. And use your own supply.
> 
> Plenty of documented cases of women 'accidentally' getting pregnant thinking it will lock down the guy. Or 'accidentally' getting pregnant when the relationship turns rocky in the hopes of keeping the guy around.
> 
> "Come on, we've been exclusive for a year. It feels so much better without a condom, and I'm on the pill. Don't you (love/trust) me?"


No - I meant what I wrote. 

If you don't want an unpleasant surprise, don't be promiscuous. That's a guaranteed equation. Unlike condoms - or even vasectomies.

And men and women are equally manipulative in order to get whatever it is they're after. 

Just like a woman may lie to get pregnant, men lie about having a condom on or std status or having a girlfriend/wife or being in love, etc.

I could be wrong, but I bet there are more men willing to bareback (because that's what suits them) than there are women trying to trick men into marriage.


----------



## DownButNotOut

minimalME said:


> No - I meant what I wrote.
> 
> If you don't want an unpleasant surprise, don't be promiscuous. That's a guaranteed equation. Unlike condoms - or even vasectomies.
> 
> And men and women are equally manipulative in order to get whatever it is they're after.
> 
> Just like a woman may lie to get pregnant, men lie about having a condom on or std status or having a girlfriend/wife or being in love, etc.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I bet there are more men willing to bareback (because that's what suits them) than there are women trying to trick men into marriage.


Feel free to WGTOW.

I didn't reference casual encounters at all. The 'baby trap' happens within a dating relationship where the woman willingly and knowingly conceives by deception.

When men lie about condom use, or std status they can be, and have been, charged with sexual assault.


----------



## RebuildingMe

LisaDiane said:


> Now I'm SO CURIOUS...!!!!!!!!!


I was going all bam bam, lol.


----------



## bobsmith

LisaDiane said:


> Maybe this is one of the benefits of dating an older woman...NO baby traps...?? Lol!!


 How old we talking? lol 

What I was referencing was more the "dating down" thing. Pretty common that dudes will hook up with a lesser or chubby woman just to get some, but the woman may see it as an actual relationship and seek to "close the deal". This is extremely common with high income guys, but hey, they guy engaged, so..... 

What I have told younger guys is that very young women likely don't understand their body like they think they do. They get horned up and don't think. This is where I ended up with my first ex. She most certainly did NOT want to get preg but was not taking the pill properly. Luckily there are much better methods these days.


----------



## farsidejunky

House panel backs requiring women to register for the draft


The House Armed Services Committee vote follows a similar vote in the Senate to expand the Selective Service System to include women.




www.politico.com





Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bobsmith

farsidejunky said:


> House panel backs requiring women to register for the draft
> 
> 
> The House Armed Services Committee vote follows a similar vote in the Senate to expand the Selective Service System to include women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Though I would agree to include women in the draft, since most seek to be "equal" with men, I can see a few issues. I doubt we will encounter an actual draft in my lifetime but I would think there would be a horde of women getting themselves knocked up to avoid the draft. As well, if both parents of a child are drafted, there may be no one to care for the child. 

It all sounds like a mess.


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> Can't dating be to spend time with someone you like being with and having fun together?
> I mean, as long as everyone is honest about what they want and expect...isn't it fun to date?


That depends. I think dating CAN be fun when you actually find someone worth dating. However, that's the tough part, weeding through the refuse while you look for that one diamond in the rough. Until you find that one person, you have to deal with a huge load of crap from everyone else. Like how every single female is already bangin some dude, either a FWB or an ex, and as the new guy, you are gonna have to contend with him. Or how when you try OLD 9 out of 10 women just outright ignore you like you don't exist. That's not fun.


----------



## LisaDiane

bobsmith said:


> How old we talking? lol
> 
> What I was referencing was more the "dating down" thing. *Pretty common that dudes will hook up with a lesser or chubby woman just to get some*, but the woman may see it as an actual relationship and seek to "close the deal". This is extremely common with high income guys, but hey, they guy engaged, so.....
> 
> What I have told younger guys is that very young women likely don't understand their body like they think they do. They get horned up and don't think. This is where I ended up with my first ex. She most certainly did NOT want to get preg but was not taking the pill properly. Luckily there are much better methods these days.


Lol!! Well, obviously women who are old enough that they can't get pregnant anymore!

As for the part I bolded -- that's pretty hateful and cold-hearted...you do realize THAT is what most women who resist sex after the first few dates are trying to avoid, right? NONE of us want to be used, regardless of gender.

Men fear being lied to and used for their money/resources by women, and women fear being lied to and having their bodies used as masturbation objects for men.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> That depends. I think dating CAN be fun when you actually find someone worth dating. However, that's the tough part, weeding through the refuse while you look for that one diamond in the rough. Until you find that one person, you have to deal with a huge load of crap from everyone else. Like how every single female is already bangin some dude, either a FWB or an ex, and as the new guy, you are gonna have to contend with him. Or how when you try OLD 9 out of 10 women just outright ignore you like you don't exist. That's not fun.


UGH...


----------



## Diana7

DownButNotOut said:


> That's all and good when you're far enough along in life to have a rear view mirror. For the 20-somethings who might hope to have a family one day baby-traps are a real thing.


Maybe if they dont sleep around it wont happen. Every time you have sex there is a risk of pregnancy. With or without birth control.


----------



## bobsmith

LisaDiane said:


> Lol!! Well, obviously women who are old enough that they can't get pregnant anymore!
> 
> As for the part I bolded -- that's pretty hateful and cold-hearted...you do realize THAT is what most women who resist sex after the first few dates are trying to avoid, right? NONE of us want to be used, regardless of gender.
> 
> Men fear being lied to and used for their money/resources by women, and *women fear being lied to and having their bodies used as masturbation objects for men*.


Nope. Just like how some men can't seem to catch the eye of any ladies, women also run into this, in which they seek out sex just for the sake of saying they 'did that'..... I am saying that some women WANT to be used. I am, however, not saying they are mentally OK though. Some women want attention, any way they can get it. Which both sexes do! But taking that to the level of getting knocked up is pretty snide. 

It is just a danger zone men (especially younger) need to be aware of. I am sure most women don't think like this, but some men just win the lottery.


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> Men fear being lied to and used for their money/resources by women, and *women fear being lied to and having their bodies used as masturbation objects for men*.


This is definitely a thing. I get that 100%. A lot of guys will lie and say just about anything if it will get them some sex. That's why, IMO, ladies shouldn't use sex as some sort of bargaining chip, which they often do. They see sex as some sort of trade for the relationship they want and are then disappointed when they have sex but no relationship follows. Instead, ladies should have sex if they want to only. Don't do it and then think you are entitled to anything because you gave it up.


----------



## Rus47

Enigma32 said:


> This is definitely a thing. I get that 100%.* A lot of guys will lie and say just about anything if it will get them some sex.* That's why, IMO, ladies shouldn't use sex as some sort of bargaining chip, which they often do. They see sex as some sort of trade for the relationship they want and are then disappointed when they have sex but no relationship follows. Instead, ladies should have sex if they want to only. Don't do it and then think you are entitled to anything because you gave it up.


This is a surprise to women?!!? Surely not. I thought they learned that before puberty. That it has always been common knowledge a male will say just about anything to get in a female's knickers. It is even part of a lot of jokes. In the *old* days the females knew full well what the males had in mind and kept all of the "bargaining chips" in the drawer until the ring was on the finger and the paperwork was signed.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Diana7 said:


> Maybe if they dont sleep around it wont happen. Every time you have sex there is a risk of pregnancy. With or without birth control.


Again ... 'baby trap' has nothing to do with promiscuity. I am referring to within a relationship deceiving your bf about birth control and purposefully getting pregnant to tie him down.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> Maybe this is one of the benefits of dating an older woman...NO baby traps...?? Lol!!


Best is to move to Asia where unmarried moms have no rights to child maintenance.
All these MGTOW problems are caused by the unfair western justice system.


----------



## Enigma32

Rus47 said:


> This is a surprise to women?!!? Surely not. I thought they learned that before puberty. That it has always been common knowledge a male will say just about anything to get in a female's knickers. It is even part of a lot of jokes. In the *old* days the females knew full well what the males had in mind and kept all of the "bargaining chips" in the drawer until the ring was on the finger and the paperwork was signed.


Yeah. Now it's just the 80/20 rule. Woman meets good looking, charming guy she is interested in. He is only interested in getting laid from her since he ultimately feels he can do better. They smash, she wants to commit and he wants a FWB. Then she is angry and feels used.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah. Now it's just the 80/20 rule. Woman meets good looking, charming guy she is interested in. He is only interested in getting laid from her since he ultimately feels he can do better. They smash, she wants to commit and he wants a FWB. Then she is angry and feels used.


It's almost as if they want a man with game, and then are surprised when they get played.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownButNotOut said:


> It's almost as if they want a man with game, and then are surprised when they get played.


GAME is great for getting you a free ONS with a club 'girl' when you're young.
But it won't get you a LTR, you need a house and money for that.
I used to follow Roosh (top PUA), and he posted photos, I didn't see him with one woman I would have wanted.
And then when he hit 40 he couldn't get anything, too old for any GAME to work.


----------



## LisaDiane

Rus47 said:


> This is a surprise to women?!!? Surely not. I thought they learned that before puberty. That it has always been common knowledge a male will say just about anything to get in a female's knickers. It is even part of a lot of jokes. In the *old* days the females knew full well what the males had in mind and kept all of the "bargaining chips" in the drawer until the ring was on the finger and the paperwork was signed.


No, you are right...it's common knowledge among women. I just pointed it out because sometimes it sounds like men think women are the only "users" in relationships, and that's not true at all.
I freely admit that there are plenty of PEOPLE who are willing to use anyone, but that's mostly a character flaw, not a gender flaw. And I find it disgusting.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> This is definitely a thing. I get that 100%. A lot of guys will lie and say just about anything if it will get them some sex. *That's why, IMO, ladies shouldn't use sex as some sort of bargaining chip, which they often do.* They see sex as some sort of trade for the relationship they want and are then disappointed when they have sex but no relationship follows. Instead, ladies should have sex if they want to only. Don't do it and then think you are entitled to anything because you gave it up.


I agree with you completely!!!


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah. Now it's just the 80/20 rule. Woman meets good looking, charming guy she is interested in. He is only interested in getting laid from her since he ultimately feels he can do better. They smash, she wants to commit and he wants a FWB. Then she is angry and feels used.


She WAS used, though. And if she was worried about that being a possibility (that he didn't care about HER at all), she shouldn't have had sex. But some men call that a game, when she's really just not interested in sharing her body with someone who only wants to "smash".


----------



## Rus47

LisaDiane said:


> No, you are right...it's common knowledge among women. I just pointed it out because sometimes it sounds like men think women are the only "users" in relationships, and that's not true at all.
> I freely admit that there are plenty of PEOPLE who are willing to use anyone, but that's mostly a character flaw, not a gender flaw. And I find it disgusting.


Well, IMO men saying or doing anything for sex isn't a "flaw" but a "feature" of the gender. My wife laughs about it all of the time because she knows what is on my mind and reads me like a book. Her statement is "that's the male animal in there" and giggles. We watch the bucks chase the does during the rut every spring on our place, the does MAKE the bucks chase them to find the one with best genes. It is just nature at work to perpetuate the species.

When I was young, birth control wasn't as sure a thing as today, so the females curbed their own natural desires and controlled the agenda because they were the ones who would pay the penalty if they were impregnated They had to be sure that whoever impregnated them would be there to support them and child. So the norm was no ring, no fun. And in some cases the female's male relatives enforced the norm, hence "shotgun" weddings. A male knew if he made a girl pregnant, he was going to marry her. Both males and females knew the rules of the mating game. 

Sri t/j...


----------



## Al_Bundy

ElwoodPDowd said:


> GAME is great for getting you a free ONS with a club 'girl' when you're young.
> But it won't get you a LTR, you need a house and money for that.
> I used to follow Roosh (top PUA), and he posted photos, I didn't see him with one woman I would have wanted.
> And then when he hit 40 he couldn't get anything, too old for any GAME to work.


Your game has to evolve, women have different expectations as you pointed out but you still need some level of game and awareness to go with it otherwise you're just a kid with dynamite.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah. Now it's just the 80/20 rule. Woman meets good looking, charming guy she is interested in. He is only interested in getting laid from her since he ultimately feels he can do better. They smash, she wants to commit and he wants a FWB. Then she is angry and feels used.


Wife has a friend who is literally 300lbs. She gets plenty of matches on tindr, yet never the relationship. She thinks because a good looking guy will smash it that's also her "level" as far as relationships and won't give guys on her level even a glance. This is despite the fact the tindr guys never want to even be seen with her in public. At 300lbs and with the "fat and sassy" attitude, she still complains about how it's not fair that she can't get the same kind of guy as her friends who are literally half her size and aren't constantly arguing about dumb ish.


----------



## bobsmith

Al_Bundy said:


> Wife has a friend who is literally 300lbs. She gets plenty of matches on tindr, yet never the relationship. She thinks because a good looking guy will smash it that's also her "level" as far as relationships and won't give guys on her level even a glance. This is despite the fact the tindr guys never want to even be seen with her in public. At 300lbs and with the "fat and sassy" attitude, she still complains about how it's not fair that she can't get the same kind of guy as her friends who are literally half her size and aren't constantly arguing about dumb ish.


Exactly! I got bit earlier for saying this as it sounded "mean" but really the truth. And I must totally use OLD wrong, because I hear of all these ONSs, yet everyone I chat with wants to "go out".... I recently flat told one "no body pics, I don't advance".... Seems cold but I think this is a strategy with women to purposely hide their figure. Then they are the ones blasting the net with "he was so rude and left me there".... Imagine going to buy a BMW for a song only to learn it was a Honda with BMW emblems. 

I got a bad taste when I met a couple and one was bigger than me. I was nice and shelled out $50 for food/drinks, and realized I would go broke trying to play this game. I wanted to be out of that scene before we even sat down.


----------



## Diana7

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Best is to move to Asia where unmarried moms have no rights to child maintenance.
> All these MGTOW problems are caused by the unfair western justice system.


Not sure most of us want to live in Asia.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> Not sure most of us want to live in Asia.


Yeah, a lot of people who have never been there will talk about how they know they never wanna live there. I plan to retire overseas myself.


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> She WAS used, though. And if she was worried about that being a possibility (that he didn't care about HER at all), she shouldn't have had sex. But some men call that a game, when she's really just not interested in sharing her body with someone who only wants to "smash".


Was she used though? If some below average girl decides to hop into bed with a guy she barely knows, that's on her. She's only banging the guy because he is good looking. If she didn't want to do it, then she shouldn't. If she expects a relationship, that is just her faulty logic. It's not his fault she is using sex as some relationship currency without his knowlege even, as is often the case.

I love y'all ladies, I do. But ya can't go hooking up with guys and then pretend you got used somehow just because things didn't work out the way you planned. It's a well known thing that guys go slumming around with less attractive females for easy sex. Usually, these guys don't even try to hide their intentions. If he only calls at 11pm, won't take you in public, and just wants to "chill" then he doesn't like you, bottom line. If you go over there anyway, get laid, then complain about being used, I have no sympathy.


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> GAME is great for getting you a free ONS with a club 'girl' when you're young.
> *But it won't get you a LTR, you need a house and money for that.*


Really!!!???

Although I don't care for all of that PUA nonsense.

I've certainly never needed a house and money to have some long term relationships and two marriages.

Surely you know that, since lots of men manage to get married without having a house and money?

At the end of the day unless there is something wrong with the man, it's pretty easy to pick up women or have long term relationships with them.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Personal said:


> I've certainly never needed a house and money to have some long term relationships and two marriages.


I've not noticed homeless unemployed men having much luck on the dating scene.
You may be the first.


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I've not noticed homeless unemployed men having much luck on the dating scene.
> You may be the first.


Most people when they first get married don't own a house. Likewise lots of people in long term sexual relationships whether married or not, live in rental housing as well. How you conflate that to homelessness is beyond me.


----------



## DTO

Personal said:


> I've certainly never needed a house and money to have some long term relationships and two marriages.
> 
> Surely you know that, since lots of men manage to get married without having a house and money?
> 
> At the end of the day unless there is something wrong with the man, it's pretty easy to pick up women or have long term relationships with them.


This exactly! There's nothing wrong with not having money and a house - lots of single people don't.

But if you're struggling just to get by and don't try to improve your situation, yes you'll have problems getting a (decent) lady. That lack of ambition is a huge red flag that you'll be a burden and not contributing to building stability. 

But, MGTOW says not striving to improve your position is perfectly fine. So, go ahead, keep buying into that philosophy and be your own worst enemy.

BTW, lack of ambition / not giving a crap turns men off as well; do you want a women who's just good with whatever?


----------



## bobsmith

Personal said:


> Most people when they first get married down own a house. Likewise lots of people in long term sexual relationships whether married or not, live in rental housing as well. How you conflate that to homelessness is beyond me.


Elwood is correct, though he failed to include age and the pretty factor of the woman. 

18-25yo men are perfectly acceptable to women to have few resources. However, once in mid 30s and beyond, women will expect a man to offer her "gifts" (aka cash) in a relationship transaction. However, we have not yet factored in God given beauty. I think we all know that women that are just born pretty quickly learn that they are entitled to 'more' of everything, because, you know, they are special. Not by any real analysis like IQ, just pretty. 

What this means is a 4-5 may have to accept a 35/up guy without all the gifts, but I guarantee you an 8-9 will NOT accept a 35/up without a nice 401K, house, cars, steady income, etc, etc, etc. Remember, she is special by right. 

Now you take an 8-10 woman WITH an education and her own good income stream, and you have a recipe for a feminist. Why? Because they feel they are at the very top and deserve nothing but what they feel is the best! Does that mean a "good" man? Hell no! That means a man that makes more than her, has more homes and cars than her, and is better looking. Remember, women only date up. They might date sideways, but that means they will be looking upward. 

You won't find the same standards with men, because beauty is THE standard. This is easily proved in homes where the guy stumbled into success, many times in a family owned business, and have hot wives that are airheads. This type of woman is a lot more common than above. I've met many that seem to bank on their looks to 'get them the farm'. If they are good looking enough, they usually succeed. 

Now when you consider the 4-5 women, or even lower, even finding a man to stick around is a challenge! I am NOT trying to insult women on this, but I know many that are just struggling bad to even find a guy! They are average women, but the internet shows you should be able to get a 10 if you pay $30/mo! These women end up being perfectly cool with "whatever" just to get a guy to stick around.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Personal said:


> Most people when they first get married don't own a house. Likewise lots of people in long term sexual relationships whether married or not, live in rental housing as well. How you conflate that to homelessness is beyond me.


Maybe you're a lot younger than me, I've never known any married couples happily living in rented housing, past the first year or two. If the guy didn't buy a house fairly quickly, he was normally dumped.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> I've met many that seem to bank on their looks to 'get them the farm'. If they are good looking enough, they usually succeed.


Haha, my current wife was a 9/10 when I met her, one of her mom's conditions for marriage was I paid off the loan on her family farm (sticky rice and tobacco). Best $3,000 I ever spent.


----------



## bobsmith

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Haha, my current wife was a 9/10 when I met her, one of her mom's conditions for marriage was I paid off the loan on her family farm (sticky rice and tobacco). Best $3,000 I ever spent.


It should really stand out that men are "escaping" the bullshi& of the US and moving away, and taking their cash with them! I know as I close out the reality of my own life, which is that I won't be doing the wife/kids/dog/house thing, I am starting to look beyond this whole deal. I'm really not into asian women but I am looking around. My entire family will think I am nuts so probably wait till my parents pass, then consider moving on. The USA is on the verge of extinction anyway.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> It should really stand out that men are "escaping" the bullshi& of the US and moving away, and taking their cash with them! I know as I close out the reality of my own life, which is that I won't be doing the wife/kids/dog/house thing, I am starting to look beyond this whole deal. I'm really not into asian women but I am looking around. My entire family will think I am nuts so probably wait till my parents pass, then consider moving on. The USA is on the verge of extinction anyway.


The entire western culture is on the edge of extinction.
Marriage no longer works for men, there's absolutely nothing in it for them.
Housing is too expensive for the average person (male or female) to buy.
Property taxes, income taxes, local taxes and utility prices are through the roof.
Wages are going down, while the price of everything rises.
Education is unaffordable, it'll take the rest of your life to pay off your student loan.
Healthcare will bankrupt you at your first serious treatment.
Stronger cultures from more violent and primitive countries are taking over.

The entire thing has become a poop show.
Best to escape and enjoy life somewhere warm while you can.


----------



## Personal

bobsmith said:


> Now you take an 8-10 woman WITH an education and her own good income stream, and you have a recipe for a feminist. Why? Because they feel they are at the very top and deserve nothing but what they feel is the best! Does that mean a "good" man? Hell no! That means a man that makes more than her, has more homes and cars than her, and is better looking. Remember, women only date up. They might date sideways, but that means they will be looking upward.


Well I found that hilarious.

Especially since I have been married to a very aesthetically attractive woman through 21 years, who has a STEM degree amongst lots of other tertiary qualifications. Who has enjoyed a successful career with a very high income in both the private and public sector. Who is also a Feminist, and was when we first met a Feminist activist and organiser as well.

Yet I was earning less than her when we first met, and was still on less when she asked me out on our first date, some weeks later. When she was in a sexual relationship with an older man (that she dumped after being with me), whose income was more than hers.

While today my now wife still earns plenty more than I do.

And she hasn't been the only one who has been keen on me or dumped other men to be with me, Over the years I've had all sorts of attractive, successful (earning more) and educated woman variously offer me sex, ask me out, ask to be in relationships with me and ask to marry me. To the point that I've never lacked having a tremendously rich sex life or attractive suitors either.

Also amongst my friends and my wife's friends, I know other successful, educated and attractive women, who are in de facto relationships or marriages, wiith other successful men, who still earn less than them. plus there's even a few who have stay at home male partners as well.

Likewise one of my nephews who is a successful engineer (he isn't the only one), is married to a successful medical doctor who earns more than him as well.

So given reality, I am not buying what you're selling.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Personal said:


> specially since I have been married to a very aesthetically attractive woman through 21 years, who has a STEM degree amongst lots of other tertiary qualifications. Who has enjoyed a successful career with a very high income in both the private and public sector. Who is also a Feminist, and was when we first met a Feminist activist and organiser as well.
> 
> Yet I was earning less than her when we first met, and was still on less when she asked me out on our first date, some weeks later. When she was in a sexual relationship with an older man (that she dumped after being with me), whose income was more than hers.
> 
> While today my now wife still earns plenty more than I do.


Very impressive,
With all that joint earning and success, it's odd you are in your 50s (21 years second wife, x years first wife) and don't own a house or have any money.

I've had very little success,
But have managed to buy 2 houses with 2 wives that contributed nothing.
..... and still managed to retire at age 45.


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Very impressive,
> With all that earning, it's odd you don't own a house or have any money.


I didn't say I don't (now) own a house or don't have any money. Yet I certainly didn't own a house when I married my wife.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Personal said:


> I didn't say I don't (now) own a house or don't have any money. Yet I certainly didn't own a house when I married my wife.


So your claims of keeping a woman without buying her a house was just a fantasy?


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> So your claims of keeping a woman without buying her a house was just a fantasy?


My wife bought our house.


----------



## Personal

ElwoodPDowd said:


> The entire western culture is on the edge of extinction.


It's probably not that dire.



> Marriage no longer works for men, there's absolutely nothing in it for them.


Sure that applies to plenty of men and women, yet it doesn't for all.



> Housing is too expensive for the average person (male or female) to buy.
> Property taxes, income taxes, local taxes and utility prices are through the roof.
> Wages are going down, while the price of everything rises.
> Education is unaffordable, it'll take the rest of your life to pay off your student loan.


Yep.



> Healthcare will bankrupt you at your first serious treatment.


That is highly dependant upon where you live, and is certainly not the case where I live.



> Stronger cultures from more violent and primitive countries are taking over.


Well some would like that outcome.


----------



## In Absentia

Personal said:


> My wife bought our house.


Nothing wrong with that, but you arguing against a completely different system, where the Western man can buy the assets he lost in the Western world in countries where spouses and children have no rights. It's like comparing oranges and apples. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Rus47

ElwoodPDowd said:


> The entire western culture is on the edge of extinction.
> Marriage no longer works for men, there's absolutely nothing in it for them.
> Housing is too expensive for the average person (male or female) to buy.
> Property taxes, income taxes, local taxes and utility prices are through the roof.
> Wages are going down, while the price of everything rises.
> Education is unaffordable, it'll take the rest of your life to pay off your student loan.
> Healthcare will bankrupt you at your first serious treatment.
> Stronger cultures from more violent and primitive countries are taking over.
> 
> The entire thing has become a poop show.
> Best to escape and enjoy life somewhere warm while you can.


I believe there is an exit tax to renounce US citizenship, and if you keep citizenship you are still liable for federal taxes ( and penalties ), and sanctions for assets held in a foreign country. One website I looked at encouraged consulting a tax accountant *before* becoming an expat. 

And of course, most other entities a person might migrate to also have taxes and fees, some more onerous ( and corrupt ) than what the US has. 

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of non-citizens striving to enter the country by any means, including surrendering their life's savings for help from smugglers. Guess they think it is better than where they are leaving.

BTW, there are plenty of (very) warm places to live in the US if that is a criteria.


----------



## In Absentia

Rus47 said:


> I believe there is an exit tax to renounce US citizenship


I believe he is British...


----------



## Rus47

In Absentia said:


> I believe he is British...


I was writing in generic terms, often hear or read my countrymen voicing threats to exit.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I've not noticed homeless unemployed men having much luck on the dating scene.
> You may be the first.


Hardly the first. I've known a lot of unemployed and homeless men since I've done a lot of work helping people in this type if situation. As a rule they have no problem finding women to date and even have long term relationships with. Most of the women they hook up with are in the same situation they are in.

Generally people date and marry within the same social and economic strata.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> So your claims of keeping a woman without buying her a house was just a fantasy?


In the US and in Europe, generally the married couple buys the house together. Both contribute to the purchase in most cases.


----------



## MattMatt

bobsmith said:


> Elwood is correct, though he failed to include age and the pretty factor of the woman.
> 
> 18-25yo men are perfectly acceptable to women to have few resources. However, once in mid 30s and beyond, women will expect a man to offer her "gifts" (aka cash) in a relationship transaction. However, we have not yet factored in God given beauty. I think we all know that women that are just born pretty quickly learn that they are entitled to 'more' of everything, because, you know, they are special. Not by any real analysis like IQ, just pretty.
> 
> What this means is a 4-5 may have to accept a 35/up guy without all the gifts, but I guarantee you an 8-9 will NOT accept a 35/up without a nice 401K, house, cars, steady income, etc, etc, etc. Remember, she is special by right.
> 
> Now you take an 8-10 woman WITH an education and her own good income stream, and you have a recipe for a feminist. Why? Because they feel they are at the very top and deserve nothing but what they feel is the best! Does that mean a "good" man? Hell no! That means a man that makes more than her, has more homes and cars than her, and is better looking. Remember, women only date up. They might date sideways, but that means they will be looking upward.
> 
> You won't find the same standards with men, because beauty is THE standard. This is easily proved in homes where the guy stumbled into success, many times in a family owned business, and have hot wives that are airheads. This type of woman is a lot more common than above. I've met many that seem to bank on their looks to 'get them the farm'. If they are good looking enough, they usually succeed.
> 
> Now when you consider the 4-5 women, or even lower, even finding a man to stick around is a challenge! I am NOT trying to insult women on this, but I know many that are just struggling bad to even find a guy! They are average women, but the internet shows you should be able to get a 10 if you pay $30/mo! These women end up being perfectly cool with "whatever" just to get a guy to stick around.


This is, of course, your opinion. There are many women who are financially independent who would be very angry to be described as feminists. 

You say you were not trying to insult women. But you were able to insult women without trying.


----------



## OnTheRocks

RebuildingMe said:


> Truly disgusting. Would it have been any better with 50/50 (the CS)? Did you want 50/50? If so, why did you settle for EOW?


Of course I wanted 50/50; that would've meant no CS, and all costs are split equally... Sounds great! My lawyer advised me that it would be a losing battle before the judge I would be facing (and expect to blow 6 figures to protest this, which I didn't have). I got bent over the same as most other divorcees with penises in my area at the time. This was in 2011 in Texas; YMMV and/or things may have changed.


----------



## bobsmith

That's the typical play. Men required to buy their rights to see their own kids. Apparently the women here just can't see this. It has nothing to do with the very select few that do OK, it is about "the norm", which is in divorce, kids automatically go with mom more than 50%, which is designed to tip the scale on CS payments, so she can now afford a good attorney on the man's dime to milk things for even more.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> That's the typical play. Men required to buy their rights to see their own kids. Apparently the women here just can't see this. It has nothing to do with the very select few that do OK, it is about "the norm", which is in divorce, kids automatically go with mom more than 50%, which is designed to tip the scale on CS payments, so she can now afford a good attorney on the man's dime to milk things for even more.


Where I currently live there is no child maintenance or welfare, and during separation the women generally fight NOT to have the kids, as they bring no money. The man is just as likely to end up with them as the women.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> Was she used though? If some below average girl decides to hop into bed with a guy she barely knows, that's on her. She's only banging the guy because he is good looking. If she didn't want to do it, then she shouldn't. If she expects a relationship, that is just her faulty logic. It's not his fault she is using sex as some relationship currency without his knowlege even, as is often the case.
> 
> I love y'all ladies, I do. But ya can't go hooking up with guys and then pretend you got used somehow just because things didn't work out the way you planned. It's a well known thing that guys go slumming around with less attractive females for easy sex. Usually, these guys don't even try to hide their intentions. If he only calls at 11pm, won't take you in public, and just wants to "chill" then he doesn't like you, bottom line. If you go over there anyway, get laid, then complain about being used, I have no sympathy.


It's still being used, whether a person consents to it or not, or whether they are mutually using eachother or not.

YES...women are well aware from the time we are in our early teens that men will lie and trick us to try and get sex from us. And THAT is why women are cautious when deciding when to have sex with a guy they really like and are turned on by. Men cannot always be trusted to tell the truth about why they are giving us attention and saying nice things to us. So even when a woman WANTS to have sex with a guy she genuinely likes, she needs to be cautious that she knows what his real intentions are, so she can make the choice that meets HER needs and expectations too. That's NOT playing games or manipulating men, or weaponizing sex...that's really only having a lack of TRUST in a potential partner.

I also wonder if you are willing to give women who use men for their money a pass at being considered "users", simply because men should know better...? Because I wouldn't do that for women either -- using is USING. Period. 

And I don't really think it's a big deal unless people LIE to do it...that's the immorality of it to me, LYING. If two people want to mutually use eachother, that is fine for them, in my opinion. But if people are liars, I have a strong moral objection to that. For any reason, actually.


----------



## Livvie

ElwoodPDowd said:


> So your claims of keeping a woman without buying her a house was just a fantasy?


I don't understand this "buying her a house" ****. Maybe you guys are just trying to date uneducated, unmotivated, unemployed women or something? When I was in my twenties all of my female friends had professional jobs and were either in the process of buying or saving for their own homes, or contributing JOINTLY towards that goal with their partner. Now that my son is in his 20s I see the same things.


----------



## Enigma32

LisaDiane said:


> That's NOT playing games or manipulating men, or weaponizing sex...that's really only having a lack of TRUST in a potential partner.
> 
> I also wonder if you are willing to give women who use men for their money a pass at being considered "users", simply because men should know better...? Because I wouldn't do that for women either -- using is USING. Period.


From my experience, most people are being so obvious about it all that yeah, I have no sympathy for those being "used" and that includes some of the men being used for money. If the guy you are talking to refuses to take you out and only invites you over to his house late at night, he doesn't like you. If he never wants to introduce you to your friends, he doesn't like you. Men value our money, so if he never wants to spend money on you...he doesn't like you. What ladies do is ignore all those obvious reg flags, show up at his house for a hookup at 1am and then get angry when they find out she was never gonna be his GF.

A lot of the ladies using men for money are the same. I've had women actually come right out and ask me for money. Or they tell you all about their financial problems right away with some sob story. Or, if she is 35 years younger than you and she dresses like a prostitute then she might actually be one. I have a Filipino GF so I have heard plenty of stories from her about idiots losing their money to ladies and it's always the same. I don't feel bad for 95% of those guys because the writing was on the wall, he just can't read it.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> Or, if she is 35 years younger than you and she dresses like a prostitute then she might actually be one. I have a Filipino GF so I have heard plenty of stories from her about idiots losing their money to ladies and it's always the same. I don't feel bad for 95% of those guys because the writing was on the wall, he just can't read it.


I always assume any young and attractive woman that talks to me socially is a hooker.
Why else would they talking to a rather dull old, fat, bald guy?


----------



## DTO

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I always assume any young and attractive woman that talks to me socially is a hooker.
> Why else would they talking to a rather dull old, fat, bald guy?


Your biggest enemy is your (self-fulfilling) attitude that women are just out to take advantage of men. You drop that attitude and treat them (and yourself) like you have something to offer, and you might find some ladies that like what you got going on enough to overlook the age gap.

My last two GFs were 18 and 15 years younger; I certainly didn't win them over because I'm some Adonis nor did I shower them with gifts. Apply yourself, have to goals and accomplishments, and you'll get there. Of course, that's the opposite of MGTOW.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DTO said:


> My last two GFs were 18 and 15 years younger; I certainly didn't win them over because I'm some Adonis nor did I shower them with gifts.


Yeah, but I'm 65, and I wouldn't be bothered with 47 or 50 year old woman ....... too old.
Age 30-35 and weighing 38-50Kg are the only women for which I have interest.


----------



## DTO

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Yeah, but I'm 65, and I wouldn't be bothered with 47 or 50 year old woman ....... too old.
> Age 30-35 and weighing 38-50Kg are the only women for which I have interest.


Well, that's just too much age difference. And even at that, I didn't chase my last two... they came and looked me up after we were acquainted.

Your statement begs the question as to what you want with someone that much younger? I doubt it's to share life experiences and common goals.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DTO said:


> Your statement begs the question as to what you want with someone that much younger? I doubt it's to share life experiences and common goals.


My wife wouldn't be all that happy with me doing more than sex with other women.
Not that I even want that much these days.

I don't really chase women at all, not since my early 20s, I've always let them approach me.


----------



## DownButNotOut

DTO said:


> Apply yourself, have to goals and accomplishments, and you'll get there. Of course, that's the opposite of MGTOW.


Nah. That fits with MGTOW fine. Just do it for yourself, not for attracting women. You seem to think that MGTOW is giving up on life. It is not. It is giving up on modern relationships. There is plenty of living to do out there without worrying about LTRs.


----------



## Livvie

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Yeah, but I'm 65, and I wouldn't be bothered with 47 or 50 year old woman ....... too old.
> Age 30-35 and weighing 38-50Kg are the only women for which I have interest.


To each his own. On the flip side there are a lot of 47 to 50 year old women who wouldn't be interested in you, because you are WAY WAY too old for them, so it all evens out, really.

I question why a 30 year old woman would want a 65 year old man.


----------



## LisaDiane

Enigma32 said:


> From my experience, most people are being so obvious about it all that yeah, I have no sympathy for those being "used" and that includes some of the men being used for money. If the guy you are talking to refuses to take you out and only invites you over to his house late at night, he doesn't like you. If he never wants to introduce you to your friends, he doesn't like you. Men value our money, so if he never wants to spend money on you...he doesn't like you. What ladies do is ignore all those obvious reg flags, show up at his house for a hookup at 1am and then get angry when they find out she was never gonna be his GF.
> 
> A lot of the ladies using men for money are the same. I've had women actually come right out and ask me for money. Or they tell you all about their financial problems right away with some sob story. Or, if she is 35 years younger than you and she dresses like a prostitute then she might actually be one. I have a Filipino GF so I have heard plenty of stories from her about idiots losing their money to ladies and it's always the same. I don't feel bad for 95% of those guys because the writing was on the wall, he just can't read it.


I agree with you!! And I don't feel bad for men or women who foolishly allow themselves to be used, and then want sympathy for it. 

Well...ok, I feel a LITTLE bad for them, but only because they are stupid...Lol!!


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I always assume any young and attractive woman that talks to me socially is a hooker.
> Why else would they talking to a rather dull old, fat, bald guy?


MONEY...?? Lol!!!


----------



## LisaDiane

I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


----------



## farsidejunky

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


For the most part, it's women who believe that men can actually be their friends without wanting to sleep with them.

There are exceptions, but for the most part it's simply not true.

Do you have a friend who is a man? Without even knowing details, my money is on him wanting to sleep with you.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Asked ......


LisaDiane said:


> I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


Answered ......


ElwoodPDowd said:


> My wife wouldn't be all that happy with me doing more than sex with other women.
> Not that I even want that much these days.
> I don't really chase women at all, not since my early 20s, I've always let them approach me.


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


There are some who completely give up, they are usually referred to as black pilled. It's never gonna work so just throw your hands up in the air and give up. I'm on the side of be the best version of yourself and do what you want regardless of what other people/society think. 

As far as friendships with women, I've never been friends with an ugly or fat chick.........


----------



## LisaDiane

farsidejunky said:


> For the most part, it's women who believe that men can actually be their friends without wanting to sleep with them.
> 
> There are exceptions, but for the most part it's simply not true.
> 
> Do you have a friend who is a man? Without even knowing details, my money is on him wanting to sleep with you.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Ok...without conceding that I agree with you (because I'm not sure yet)...do men want to sleep with the women who they are friends with out of true desire? Or just because she's a female?


----------



## LisaDiane

Al_Bundy said:


> There are some who completely give up, they are usually referred to as black pilled. It's never gonna work so just throw your hands up in the air and give up. I'm on the side of be the best version of yourself and do what you want regardless of what other people/society think.
> 
> *As far as friendships with women, I've never been friends with an ugly or fat chick.........*


What if she was really nice and fun to be around (but unattractive)...??


----------



## Numb26

LisaDiane said:


> Ok...without conceding that I agree with you (because I'm not sure yet)...do men want to sleep with the women who they are friends with out of true desire? Or just because she's a female?


Probably some of both. Depending on the situation


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Asked ......
> 
> 
> Answered ......


Oh, your answers are always all over the place...I never know WHAT you really think!!! Lol!


----------



## LisaDiane

Numb26 said:


> Probably some of both. Depending on the situation


I thank you for this non-answer...


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> What if she was really nice and fun to be around (but unattractive)...??


Wouldn't rule it out, always good to build your network. But as a general rule she'd have to be at least bangable.


----------



## LisaDiane

Al_Bundy said:


> Wouldn't rule it out, always good to build your network. But as a general rule she'd have to be at least bangable.


"Bangable" to be A FRIEND...?? Lol!!!

"Build your network"...?? Lol!!!!!

Are you being serious...really?


----------



## Personal

farsidejunky said:


> Do you have a friend who is a man? Without even knowing details, my money is on him wanting to sleep with you.


I friend-zoned a very pretty Portuguese woman, through my separation and divorce from my ex-wife. All because I found the sound of her laugh unpleasant, so I decided that I didn’t want to share sex with her.

It was all dandy through 2 years of going out occasionally just as friends, while I variously had other sexual partners.

Until she blew up at me one day, while we were out together. Asking if she is wasting her time going out with me.

The answer was yes, and I never went out with her again after that.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> What if she was really nice and fun to be around (but unattractive)...??


What if she bought me dinner, drinks, coffee, took me to the cinema and paid for the tickets and popcorn, took me on holiday to foreign countries and paid for everything?
Yeah, I think that friendship would work .............


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


100% behind 'When Harry Met Sally' - men and women can't be friends. Acquaintances? Sure. Coworkers? Yep But actual friends? Nope - the guy is trying to stealth into a relationship or at least sex.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Livvie said:


> I question why a 30 year old woman would want a 65 year old man.


Provided they're both honest with each other, what does it matter what 2 consenting adults do together?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Something that strikes me about the attitude of a lot of guys on this thread is that many of you create self fulfilling prophesies.

Ok, so you got screwed over by a woman or two. So now you're going to show the rest by keeping your distance and maybe looking for a screw as it suits you.

You're not going to attract high quality women this way. You're going to attract lower quality women who are ok being treated like that, then use the fact that they're low quality as further proof that women suck. 

The attitudes I see here offer nothing a high quality woman would want. 

If you wish to move to Asia and buy a wife half your age knock yourself out. I have no problem with business deals as long as both parties agree that's what it is and are good with it. Marriages have historically been business arrangements anyway so more power to you. My issue comes in when the woman is expected to be better...ie the guy can use shallow criteria to buy a woman he has nothing else to offer but she should somehow still be above that and love him for him or she's a horrible gold digger. If you're on the same page that's great.

Just understand that you're going to get what you give and don't expect her to be better then you. As far going one's own way, I think that's a good idea for everyone. Do your thing and find things you enjoy and maybe you'll bump into someone who shares those interests. That makes for the best relationships.


----------



## Livvie

DownButNotOut said:


> Provided they're both honest with each other, what does it matter what 2 consenting adults do together?


Did I say it did?

I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to a poster who is 65 and stated he will only want a woman who is 30 to 35 years old. He says woman who are 47 years old are to old for him (being 18 years younger than him as it is). Haaaaaaaaa.

My THOUGHT remains the same. I question why a 30 year old woman would want to partner up long term with a 65 year old man.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Livvie said:


> Did I say it did?
> 
> I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to a poster who is 65 and stated he will only want a woman who is 30 to 35 years old. He says woman who are 47 years old are to old for him (being 18 years younger than him as it is). Haaaaaaaaa.
> 
> My THOUGHT remains the same. I question why a 30 year old woman would want to partner up long term with a 65 year old man.


I suspect the short answer is that she can't do any better where she is.

I've been told by a few women friends from Eastern Europe that the ones who are open to being mail order brides are usually the ones who are not desirable over there so can't do any better.

Women who are in demand among their peers will typically choose from said peers.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Livvie said:


> Did I say it did?
> 
> I wasn't replying to you. I was replying to a poster who is 65 and stated he will only want a woman who is 30 to 35 years old. He says woman who are 47 years old are to old for him (being 18 years younger than him as it is). Haaaaaaaaa.
> 
> My THOUGHT remains the same. I question why a 30 year old woman would want to partner up long term with a 65 year old man.


Got it. You were just taking an opportunity to shame a man who expressed preference for younger women. Cool.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Something that strikes me about the attitude of a lot of guys on this thread is that many of you create self fulfilling prophesies.
> 
> Ok, so you got screwed over by a woman or two. So now you're going to show the rest by keeping your distance and maybe looking for a screw as it suits you.
> 
> You're not going to attract high quality women this way. You're going to attract lower quality women who are ok being treated like that, then use the fact that they're low quality as further proof that women suck.
> 
> The attitudes I see here offer nothing a high quality woman would want.
> 
> If you wish to move to Asia and buy a wife half your age knock yourself out. I have no problem with business deals as long as both parties agree that's what it is and are good with it. Marriages have historically been business arrangements anyway so more power to you. My issue comes in when the woman is expected to be better...ie the guy can use shallow criteria to buy a woman he has nothing else to offer but she should somehow still be above that and love him for him or she's a horrible gold digger. If you're on the same page that's great.
> 
> Just understand that you're going to get what you give and don't expect her to be better then you. As far going one's own way, I think that's a good idea for everyone. Do your thing and find things you enjoy and maybe you'll bump into someone who shares those interests. That makes for the best relationships.


You're still viewing it through a relationship-uber-alles lens. The point of going your own way is that you aren't trying to attract anyone. Who cares what your idea of what a 'high quality woman' wants. It ain't gonna happen, because by definition a MGTOW has taken himself off the market. So yes, it is a self fulfilling prophecy in that regard.

Men that look to other cultures for wives aren't really by definition MGTOW. Yes, they have rejected the modern western women in favor of another culture's ideal of the feminine. But they are still seeking beneficial long term relationships. They are generally seeking very traditional gender roles in their relationship, and they do so in a culture where there is not nearly so much stigma attached to large age gaps.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> You're still viewing it through a relationship-uber-alles lens. The point of going your own way is that you aren't trying to attract anyone. Who cares what your idea of what a 'high quality woman' wants. It ain't gonna happen, because by definition a MGTOW has taken himself off the market. So yes, it is a self fulfilling prophecy in that regard.
> 
> Men that look to other cultures for wives aren't really by definition MGTOW. Yes, they have rejected the modern western women in favor of another culture's ideal of the feminine. But they are still seeking beneficial long term relationships. They are generally seeking very traditional gender roles in their relationship, and they do so in a culture where there is not nearly so much stigma attached to large age gaps.


No I'm not. I'm saying that this attitude creates a self fulfilling prophesy because that attitude will attract low quality women which will be used as further justification for why women aren't worth it. That's all.

Nobody is required to be on the market. There have always been groups of people who have no desire for a relationship and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of older women in particular will tell you that men aren't worth the effort because after a certain age they need caring for. It's well known that as people get older happily married men enjoy much better health then single counterparts but women don't see such benefits because they're usually the care giver.

As for large age gaps, there's plenty of that in western culture. The guys who don't have that much to offer but still want such an arrangement go overseas where everyone is broke so he seems like a better deal.

I don't mean any if this to sound judgemental....I'm a live and let live type as long as everyone is honest. I have a very nice guy who does want a regular woman in his life so what a group of guys I don't know and don't want does is of no consequence to me.

It's just my observations.


----------



## Livvie

DownButNotOut said:


> Got it. You were just taking an opportunity to shame a man who expressed preference for younger women. Cool.


Really, are you that sensitive that you have to term it "shaming "? 

Anyone who declares that people 18 years younger than themselves are "too old" and that they need someone 30 to 35 years younger should be prepared for some wtf comments. Do you not see the hypocrisy???? He thinks people 18 years younger than himself are too old for him, yet at the same time, only a woman 30 to 35 years younger than himself will do. 

18 years younger is too old for him but he wants someone who has to deal with him, at 30 to 35 years OLDER than herself. Yeah, wtf.


----------



## bobsmith

DownButNotOut said:


> Men that look to other cultures for wives aren't really by definition MGTOW.


Not sure I entirely agree, as the whole "going their own way" would seem to simply be in a direction that is not dictated by social norms. Those norms, at least in the US, are to hover within a 5yr age gap, get married, max out debt to what your banker 'says' you can afford, get that new house and cars, crank off those kids, and blast social media with all your "success"....

Even Lisa mentioned that marriage is a business agreement! It is! And for the man in the US, it is like gambling against the house, and you know the house stacks cards against you. 

Regarding friendships with women, I find it odd that the questions are asked if 'men' can be just friends. But in my experience, women are the ones that have motives. Apparently a single, eligible man 'must' be on the market. Every one of my single female friends eventually made a pass at me. One even used the word 'we are going here' to entice me to go out. When I got there, I realize it was just her and I....hmmm....

But in each case, I have learned that women feel it is perfectly normal and acceptable to friend zone a guy and he should just remain a friend, etc. But if a woman gets friend zoned, she will vanish! Thus, her motives have nothing to do with friendship. I have a long list of female friends, that though we are still friendly, they no longer contact me to see "how I am doing".....Hell, I had one really fun woman I simply drove home about 3mi from a backyard deal that I did not even take her to. Was just being helpful. About to get out of my truck and she gets all in my biz to try to make out. I shut it down and changed subject. She eventually removed me from social media. I did nothing to her but deflect her pass! Hell, she is 12y younger than me! Not another word of that was ever shared. 

Now if a man does that!? Oh, he is immature, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Jamieboy

I don’t believe you can have true opposite sex friends outside of a few rare circumstance. My experience was that I had a close circle of female friends in my early 20s, when I met my wife, she was ok-ish with it, she had no choice without coming off as controlling . However, as my friends got into relationships, their partners were not ok with it once they got serious. One after another, my female friends very kindly but firmly dropped me. We occasionally speak on social media but only in a very perfunctory way. However not one of my male friends have dropped me and I have gone on to make new ones.

My now wife won’t tolerate me having new female friends, and married women aren’t interested in forming friendships with married men in my experience. So even if my wife was cool with it, what’s the point of befriending a single female, only to be dropped as soon as she couples up.

just an anecdotal point of view


----------



## farsidejunky

LisaDiane said:


> Ok...without conceding that I agree with you (because I'm not sure yet)...do men want to sleep with the women who they are friends with out of true desire? Or just because she's a female?


I would think it's attraction. 

Something that is important to note, though, is just because they want to sleep with you doesn't mean they will. 

But make no mistake...they have fantasized in their head what you look and sound like while underneath them.

Sleep tight! 


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> Nobody is required to be on the market. There have always been groups of people who have no desire for a relationship and there's nothing wrong with that. Lots of older women in particular will tell you that men aren't worth the effort because after a certain age they need caring for. It's well known that as people get older happily married men enjoy much better health then single counterparts but women don't see such benefits because they're usually the care giver.


OMG, stop!!!! Single men are less healthy than married men??? You really going to try that BS? Provide the studies? Every married dude I know is either fat or stressed to the max, or both! Let me just drop an example for you, I share DNA with my bro. We are the same. But I have had several people question that, one young man asking if I was his "younger bro". Which will live longer? I would say him because I intend to go out with a bang, doing something fun, not rocking the great grand kids and stroke out. But in terms of health? You could not get a better comparison than us! I am leaner, more fit, more active, more hair, less stress.....But by social norms, "I" am the one that has a bad life. 

I think what your perspective is really missing is that women's health deteriorates much quicker than men, and that IS supported by studies! It is due to testosterone and women have much less, as well as other health factors. 

My ex was 7y younger and was already going to regular doc visits for GI, OB, STIs, cancer screenings, etc, etc. I have not had a real physical in 20yrs. I go in every few to collect my requested blood work, I monitor my BP, HR, O2, etc. I am 5lbs over my bada&& weight I entered college football at. Can I lose that? in 2-3weeks if I cared. 

Bottom line is from my (man) perspective, and again not trying to outright insult women's health that some just cannot change, it is a real factor for me anymore! Most women my age hit the doctor at least monthly now! 

Now, I really do think there is something to men's T levels with each generation! Society is feminizing men more and more but there has to be more to this! My great grandfather was probably like 5'5, but that man could have literally picked me up and thrown me like a rag doll. Men were studs 100yrs ago! Now the only way you are a stud is with weekly Test or Tren injections! There is literally pressure from the women's side for men to be what they were 100y ago, so injections.....and shrink those nads!


----------



## leftfield

DownButNotOut said:


> 100% behind 'When Harry Met Sally' - men and women can't be friends. Acquaintances? Sure. Coworkers? Yep But actual friends? Nope - the guy is trying to stealth into a relationship or at least sex.


To me it really depends on how we define friend.
For me personally, I would spend time with a woman if I enjoyed her company, even if I didn't want to have sex with her. But these are the casual friendships. A few year later when life circumstances change, I would not be making any effort to reach out to them.


----------



## DownButNotOut

leftfield said:


> To me it really depends on how we define friend.
> For me personally, I would spend time with a woman if I enjoyed her company, even if I didn't want to have sex with her. But these are the casual friendships. A few year later when life circumstances change, I would not be making any effort to reach out to them.


That, in my book, sounds more like an acquaintance


----------



## DownButNotOut

bobsmith said:


> Not sure I entirely agree, as the whole "going their own way" would seem to simply be in a direction that is not dictated by social norms. Those norms, at least in the US, are to hover within a 5yr age gap, get married, max out debt to what your banker 'says' you can afford, get that new house and cars, crank off those kids, and blast social media with all your "success"....


I hesitate to expand the definition much. In this thread, MGTOW has been equated to PUA, and also to Incels. It is neither. Nor is it some Ayn Randian fantasy of going Galt. It arose specifically around eschewing relationships with women. You'll see hypergamy, family court, child custody, and #metoo listed as among the reasons to do so along with the phrase "juice ain't worth the squeeze". IMO getting soft around the edges of that definition risks diluting the message to the point of meaningless. Then MGTOW becomes nothing more than a label to either trigger women, or shame men.


----------



## lifeistooshort

bobsmith said:


> OMG, stop!!!! Single men are less healthy than married men??? You really going to try that BS? Provide the studies? Every married dude I know is either fat or stressed to the max, or both! Let me just drop an example for you, I share DNA with my bro. We are the same. But I have had several people question that, one young man asking if I was his "younger bro". Which will live longer? I would say him because I intend to go out with a bang, doing something fun, not rocking the great grand kids and stroke out. But in terms of health? You could not get a better comparison than us! I am leaner, more fit, more active, more hair, less stress.....But by social norms, "I" am the one that has a bad life.
> 
> I think what your perspective is really missing is that women's health deteriorates much quicker than men, and that IS supported by studies! It is due to testosterone and women have much less, as well as other health factors.
> 
> My ex was 7y younger and was already going to regular doc visits for GI, OB, STIs, cancer screenings, etc, etc. I have not had a real physical in 20yrs. I go in every few to collect my requested blood work, I monitor my BP, HR, O2, etc. I am 5lbs over my bada&& weight I entered college football at. Can I lose that? in 2-3weeks if I cared.
> 
> Bottom line is from my (man) perspective, and again not trying to outright insult women's health that some just cannot change, it is a real factor for me anymore! Most women my age hit the doctor at least monthly now!
> 
> Now, I really do think there is something to men's T levels with each generation! Society is feminizing men more and more but there has to be more to this! My great grandfather was probably like 5'5, but that man could have literally picked me up and thrown me like a rag doll. Men were studs 100yrs ago! Now the only way you are a stud is with weekly Test or Tren injections! There is literally pressure from the women's side for men to be what they were 100y ago, so injections.....and shrink those nads!


No problem...this one from Harvard was quite easy to find:









Marriage and Men's Health - Harvard Health Publishing - Harvard Health


Statistics on marriage and health show that married men are healthier than unmarried or divorced men, and are also more likely to live longer. However, marital stress has a negative effect on physi...




www.health.harvard.edu





You should probably take a breath before going off the rails. Just because you don't like it or it isn't what you've personally observed doesn't mean it isn't so.

Your personal experience doesn't make a study.


----------



## Al_Bundy

lifeistooshort said:


> No problem...this one from Harvard was quite easy to find:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage and Men's Health - Harvard Health Publishing - Harvard Health
> 
> 
> Statistics on marriage and health show that married men are healthier than unmarried or divorced men, and are also more likely to live longer. However, marital stress has a negative effect on physi...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.health.harvard.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably take a breath before going off the rails. Just because you don't like it or it isn't what you've personally observed doesn't mean it isn't so.
> 
> Your personal experience doesn't make a study.


Correlation is not causation. Marriage doesn't cause good health.

People who get checkups and take care of themselves are healthier.


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> What is she bought me dinner, drinks, coffee, took me to the cinema and paid for the tickets and popcorn, took me on holiday to foreign countries and paid for everything?
> Yeah, I think that friendship would work .............


Lolol!!!!!

But...now YOU sound like all those money-grubbing women you guys hate...!!!!! I'm SO confused!


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> 100% behind 'When Harry Met Sally' - men and women can't be friends. Acquaintances? Sure. Coworkers? Yep But actual friends? Nope - the guy is trying to stealth into a relationship or at least sex.


So how do female friendships figure into the MG-movement? Maybe not at all?


----------



## LisaDiane

Al_Bundy said:


> Correlation is not causation. Marriage doesn't cause good health.
> 
> People who get checkups and take care of themselves are healthier.


I think it just means that married men are nagged into taking better care of themselves.

So having the influence of a GOOD woman in their lives is a benefit to most men, especially as they age...instead of going it alone like Lord of the Flies!


----------



## LisaDiane

farsidejunky said:


> I would think it's attraction.
> 
> Something that is important to note, though, is just because they want to sleep with you doesn't mean they will.
> 
> But make no mistake...they have fantasized in their head what you look and sound like while underneath them.
> 
> Sleep tight!
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Lol!!! Oh EEEK!!!!!! You've ruined ALL my male friendships now...


----------



## lifeistooshort

Al_Bundy said:


> Correlation is not causation. Marriage doesn't cause good health.
> 
> People who get checkups and take care of themselves are healthier.


An entity such as Harvard should be quite aware of this and should've controlled as best they could for other factors.

But people will believe what they want.

One this is certain....people greatly overvalue their own experience. I work in data and statistics and that's a well known thing.


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> No problem...this one from Harvard was quite easy to find:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage and Men's Health - Harvard Health Publishing - Harvard Health
> 
> 
> Statistics on marriage and health show that married men are healthier than unmarried or divorced men, and are also more likely to live longer. However, marital stress has a negative effect on physi...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.health.harvard.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably take a breath before going off the rails. Just because you don't like it or it isn't what you've personally observed doesn't mean it isn't so.
> 
> Your personal experience doesn't make a study.


whoopsie! 








Opinion | We Thought Marriage Made Us Healthier. We Were Wrong


Single people all over the world love their life. And we’re beginning to understand why.




www.nbcnews.com





Remember, I am countering the accusation YOU made that "married men enjoy much better health than their single counterparts. The study linked can be found in it's full text, and would seem to be a vastly larger study, indicating what I would expect, that humans are on a trip in their honeymoon phase, then the ride slows down and reality sets in. 

My personal experience was offered as an example. Obviously your opinion trumps my experience with someone I share DNA with.


----------



## DTO

lifeistooshort said:


> Something that strikes me about the attitude of a lot of guys on this thread is that many of you create self fulfilling prophesies.
> 
> Ok, so you got screwed over by a woman or two. So now you're going to show the rest by keeping your distance and maybe looking for a screw as it suits you.
> 
> You're not going to attract high quality women this way. You're going to attract lower quality women who are ok being treated like that, then use the fact that they're low quality as further proof that women suck.
> 
> The attitudes I see here offer nothing a high quality woman would want.
> 
> Just understand that you're going to get what you give and don't expect her to be better then you.


This - all of this right here.


----------



## Al_Bundy

lifeistooshort said:


> An entity such as Harvard should be quite aware of this and should've controlled as best they could for other factors.
> 
> But people will believe what they want.
> 
> One this is certain....people greatly overvalue their own experience. I work in data and statistics and that's a well known thing.


So then you are aware how us data folk can twist and turn the numbers. Well.....I can only speak for the private sector which makes you suspicious of any number.

I would say wealth has more of an impact on one's health. If you're broke then having your wife nagging you to go to the free clinic isn't going to help your life expectancy.


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> So how do female friendships figure into the MG-movement? Maybe not at all?


They don't. Men and women can't be friends.


----------



## lifeistooshort

bobsmith said:


> whoopsie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | We Thought Marriage Made Us Healthier. We Were Wrong
> 
> 
> Single people all over the world love their life. And we’re beginning to understand why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, I am countering the accusation YOU made that "married men enjoy much better health than their single counterparts. The study linked can be found in it's full text, and would seem to be a vastly larger study, indicating what I would expect, that humans are on a trip in their honeymoon phase, then the ride slows down and reality sets in.
> 
> My personal experience was offered as an example. Obviously your opinion trumps my experience with someone I share DNA with.


Hey, you are free to believe what you want.

I have no interest in arguing semantics and the appropriate use of "MUCH" with someone who's convinced women are evil.

I offered am opinion for discussion. If you don't like it feel free to ignore it....I'll sleep just fine. If you wish to discuss rationally that's different.


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> I think it just means that married men are nagged into taking better care of themselves.
> 
> So having the influence of a GOOD woman in their lives is a benefit to most men, especially as they age...instead of going it alone like Lord of the Flies!


Never in a million years would I rate a nag as a good woman. I agree with Proverbs 21:9 on this one:


Proverbs 21:9 NIV said:


> Better to live on a corner of the roof
> than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Al_Bundy said:


> So then you are aware how us data folk can twist and turn the numbers. Well.....I can only speak for the private sector which makes you suspicious of any number.
> 
> I would say wealth has more of an impact on one's health. If you're broke then having your wife nagging you to go to the free clinic isn't going to help your life expectancy.



Of course. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. That's why people believe what they wamt.

If we're going to start with our personal experience I have observed that men are far less likely to take their behind to the doctor unless their woman "nags" them. I have friends in the ER that will tell you that men are much more likely to wait until they're half dead to seek medical care unless their wife drags them in.

My ex, who fancied himself a health nut, in fact lived on pasta, crackers, and frozen pizza. But he ran a lot so he must have been healthy. 

When I was there he ate spinach, kale, and home made food. I hear he's back to pasta and crackers.

But that's my experience and it's worth what it's worth.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> Never in a million years would I rate a nag as a good woman. I agree with Proverbs 21:9 on this one:


I prefer the KJV...so much more descriptive! And does that mean that MGTOW is Biblical?? Lol!!

Ok, but seriously, I would certainly agree with you in most circumstances...but I know a few men who, when left to their own choices have seriously damaged their life and health. I have my doubts that nagging (or influencing) could have prevented any of it, and I'm a big believer in freedom and consequences...but it's very hard to watch.


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> So having the influence of a GOOD woman in their lives is a benefit to most men, especially as they age...instead of going it alone like Lord of the Flies!


A good woman is benefit, no doubt. I agree with others who have said that a person should complement your life, not complicate it.


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> An entity such as Harvard should be quite aware of this and should've controlled as best they could for other factors.
> 
> But people will believe what they want.
> 
> One this is certain....people greatly overvalue their own experience. I work in data and statistics and that's a well known thing.


The reason I seemed to "jump off the rails" is because you actually said married men were much healthier as more or less a matter of known fact. Then you provided a link to a Harvard writeup that is not even a study at all! It is a clickbait writeup! 

When you read a little further, it becomes obvious that all census type surveys. Like men die sooner if their wives have more education than them? It is literally in your link. I am just saying, you can about bunk that page to the curb as nonsense. 

What it does, though, it seem to persuade the masses that "marriage will make you better".... What you will find in my link at the end of the page, which is just a conclusion of the study, is singles (HAPPY) are on the uptick by far! It is not rocket science to figure out that as women can now get educated and earn their own living, men have become nothing but an exchangeable accessory to them. Men like me are learning this and following suit. 

Now I might agree towards end up life and having help, it is something I am already thinking about if we get there. I won't have anyone to help me with anything. I think rather than hand my estate over to my kids and let them liquidate and squander, I will sell everything and buy a tiny place in town where I can finish off life. But I literally laugh when people ask me "what if this happens to you at your place and no one is there to help?" Yeah, like what if? We are supposed to be looking forward to that nonexistent thing called heaven, yet be afraid to die? lol I just want to outlive my mom.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> Lolol!!!!!
> 
> But...now YOU sound like all those money-grubbing women you guys hate...!!!!! I'm SO confused!


I love money-grubbing women ......... but I want to put limits on the amount they can grub.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Livvie said:


> Anyone who declares that people 18 years younger than themselves are "too old" and that they need someone 30 to 35 years younger should be prepared for some wtf comments. Do you not see the hypocrisy???? He thinks people 18 years younger than himself are too old for him, yet at the same time, only a woman 30 to 35 years younger than himself will do.


I've always wanted women aged 30-35 years old and weighing 38-50Kg.
It's never been about how much younger they were than me.

Lots of strange talk about high quality women, what's one of them?
Wealth, education, assets, income?
Give me a clue?

Asian definition of high quality woman
A woman who has never been alone with a man (excluding her father/brother/husband).
But I suspect most of you won't like that definition.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Lots of strange talk about high quality women, what's one of them?
> Wealth, education, assets, income?
> Give me a clue?


From my experience, what other women consider a "high value woman" is anything but. I'd take a pretty, feminine, nice girl with a good attitude and $0 in the bank over a rich, ultra-educated feminist even if the feminist was somehow more physically attractive. I'm still gonna be expected to pay for dinner anyway, but with the first girl, at least I know I will be able to enjoy my meal.


----------



## Livvie

Enigma32 said:


> From my experience, what other women consider a "high value woman" is anything but. I'd take a pretty, feminine, nice girl with a good attitude and $0 in the bank over a rich, ultra-educated feminist even if the feminist was somehow more physically attractive. I'm still gonna be expected to pay for dinner anyway, but with the first girl, at least I know I will be able to enjoy my meal.


...But then, men complain about paying support and losing their assets in a divorce because they have married a woman who contributes nothing financial to the marriage and can't support herself. Go figure .


----------



## Enigma32

Livvie said:


> ...But then, men complain about paying support and losing their assets in a divorce because they have married a woman who contributes nothing financial to the marriage and can't support herself. Go figure .


That's why ya do what @ElwoodPDowd did and go to another country where the legal system does not punish a guy for getting married. It sounds like he is living the dream over there.


----------



## bobsmith

Livvie said:


> ...But then, men complain about paying support and losing their assets in a divorce because they have married a woman who contributes nothing financial to the marriage and can't support herself. Go figure .


What he is trying to say is what is mostly known to us men....that high wage women put themselves on a pedestal, not us men. We actually don't care all that much. I can tell you my moral compass was tested many yrs ago with a doctor that had millions in the bank, drove a Maserati as a daily, and wanted to shack up...... I declined....... If I wanted a woman for money, that was my meal ticket.....

But I do sort of agree with you Livvie. I know several that seem to want to live rolling dimes, yet no formal education, and no real smarts that I can tell, and usually a dead end job. What do they do? Buy bright red lipstick and heels. Those are the ones that certainly want to know what that man drives, where he lives, and how much he makes. Why men sign up for that deal is beyond me.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Livvie said:


> ...But then, men complain about paying support and losing their assets in a divorce because they have married a woman who contributes nothing financial to the marriage and can't support herself. Go figure .


Attraction is not symmetrical. The things women may find attractive in men is not the same that men find attractive in women. A woman's financial success isn't important to men (in general). It isn't something men consider when selecting for a mate. Divorce is also much easier to obtain, and much less stigmatized than in previous generations. Divorce law is more concerned with placing the burden of continued support on the high earner (predominantly men) to thus prevent the lower earner (predominantly women) from becoming a ward of the State. The outcome isn't based so much on fairness, but on the State's interest in avoiding assuming financial responsibility for the lower earner. Some states are moving toward a more balanced support model. But change is of course slow.

So until the system is more balanced, the answer is MGTOW.


----------



## Enigma32

bobsmith said:


> I know several that seem to want to live rolling dimes, yet no formal education, and no real smarts that I can tell, and usually a dead end job. What do they do? Buy bright red lipstick and heels. Those are the ones that certainly want to know what that man drives, where he lives, and how much he makes. Why men sign up for that deal is beyond me.


Because those types are at least smart enough to become appealing.


----------



## manowar

LisaDiane said:


> Lol!!! Oh EEEK!!!!!! You've ruined ALL my male friendships now...



How many of these 'friends' did you put in the friendzone?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> Why men sign up for that deal is beyond me.


Frequent hot sex with a '10' .......... nothing else matters .........


----------



## manowar

LisaDiane said:


> So how do female friendships figure into the MG-movement? Maybe not at all?



they really dont ....because men and women can never be friends on the same level that two men can be friends. It's not the same. Men who allow themselves to be put in the friendzone are wasting their time. this is nothing new. It's one of the major blunders that some guys allow. these are for the most part weaker guys w/ little game. the nice guy. I'm referring to the man who actually wants something more. Being nice is not a competitive advantage. I've never heard of a case in which women fought over the nicest guy.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> I've never heard of a case in which women fought over the nicest guy.


Up until my Brit divorce I had spent my entire life being nice (and dull), I never got drunk, never did anything even slightly naughty. Result was ZERO female attention, not even my wife wanted me.

Then the divorce, allegations of drunkenness and cruelty, police picking me up, holding overnight and releasing. Suddenly at age 52, I had a 23 year old gf, a 60 year old gf, the local female bar owner circling with interest, and other women waiting their turn.

Women want violent men ........ strange but true.


----------



## bobsmith

idk if we can share memes here, but this was too damn funny so I will try.


----------



## Livvie

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Frequent hot sex with a '10' .......... nothing else matters .........


Until these men come crying years later that they lost half of their assets and are paying support for the next 20 years because they chose to marry and stay with someone who doesn't work and has no skills. 

But no matter....cuz she was a 10 you ****ed for awhile, right?


----------



## LisaDiane

Al_Bundy said:


> A good woman is benefit, no doubt. I agree with others who have said that a person should complement your life, not complicate it.


I also think a good partner for ME is someone who isn't afraid to challenge me (respectfully, of course)...and who is ready to answer all my questions...Lol!!


----------



## LisaDiane

manowar said:


> How many of these 'friends' did you put in the friendzone?


Well...the truth is I don't really have any actual male friends, outside of the men I know through my STBX or my family...and now I don't know if I want any...!!!! Lol!


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I've always wanted women aged 30-35 years old and weighing 38-50Kg.


Females weighing 77 - 110 pounds are typically referred to as children in the US. How much did your ex-wife weigh and was she British or Asian?


----------



## 2&out

Livvie - high probability going to have to "pay" one way or another... so yes ! might as well get the most for the $ and be banging the hottest babe possible !!   
I agree Elwood on this one,,, frequent hot sex is about all that matters.


----------



## In Absentia

Livvie said:


> Until these men come crying years later that they lost half of their assets and are paying support for the next 20 years because they chose to marry and stay with someone who doesn't work and has no skills.
> 
> But no matter....cuz she was a 10 you ****ed for awhile, right?


He's moved to Thailand, where married men are not in that position.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Livvie said:


> Until these men come crying years later that they lost half of their assets and are paying support for the next 20 years because they chose to marry and stay with someone who doesn't work and has no skills.
> But no matter....cuz she was a 10 you ****ed for awhile, right?


My only assets are my pensions, the worst that can happen is I run out of money before the end of the month.
The house is hers, the farm is hers, the forest on the mountain is hers, even my motorcycle is hers.
I gave up on owning much stuff after my last divorce, where I walked with just a cabin suitcase.

As for support, 
1) there's none to be had in the country where I live, and 
2) as an old guy, I doubt I've more than 5 years left anyway.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> Attraction is not symmetrical. The things women may find attractive in men is not the same that men find attractive in women. A woman's financial success isn't important to men (in general). It isn't something men consider when selecting for a mate. Divorce is also much easier to obtain, and much less stigmatized than in previous generations. *Divorce law is more concerned with placing the burden of continued support on the high earner (predominantly men) to thus prevent the lower earner (predominantly women) from becoming a ward of the State. The outcome isn't based so much on fairness, but on the State's interest in avoiding assuming financial responsibility for the lower earner.* Some states are moving toward a more balanced support model. But change is of course slow.
> 
> So until the system is more balanced, the answer is MGTOW.


YES!!! And didn't this come about due to Welfare Reform in the 90s?


----------



## DownButNotOut

LisaDiane said:


> YES!!! And didn't this come about due to Welfare Reform in the 90s?


You'll have to go back a wee bit further on that one. (ex-)Wife support laws date well into the BCE's.

The current situation isn't so much due to any welfare reform, but can be tied more directly to no-fault divorce. Prior to around 1970, alimony could only be awarded due to marital misconduct because misconduct had to be shown for a divorce to be legally granted. And more importantly, only granted in the case of the husband's marital misconduct.

The ease of divorce today for any, or no, reason while still maintaining the older alimony expectations increases the financial risk to the higher earner -- overwhelmingly to the man. At a time when the probability of a marriage ending in divorce is ~50%, you're asking that man to risk not only half of everything he has, but also what he will earn even post-divorce on a coin flip.


----------



## Cletus

DownButNotOut said:


> The ease of divorce today for any, or no, reason while still maintaining the older alimony expectations increases the financial risk to the higher earner -- overwhelmingly to the man. At a time when the probability of a marriage ending in divorce is ~50%, you're asking that man to risk not only half of everything he has, but also what he will earn even post-divorce on a coin flip.


The risks don't just accrue to the higher earner.

My wife left the work force for 12 years to raise our children. That came with a commensurate loss of prestige, seniority, on the job experience, and all that comes with it. If you desire to be a stay at home mom, and by definition become the lower bread winner, then you too have taken on substantial financial risk in the marriage. 

Risk that, IMHO, should be taken, and compensated for if the marriage dissolves.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> The risks don't just accrue to the higher earner.
> 
> My wife left the work force for 12 years to raise our children. That came with a commensurate loss of prestige, seniority, on the job experience, and all that comes with it. If you desire to be a stay at home mom, and by definition become the lower bread winner, then you too have taken on substantial financial risk in the marriage.
> 
> Risk that, IMHO, should be taken, and compensated for if the marriage dissolves.


You have to take into account that it is the woman who initiates 80% of all divorces. Her risk, while present, is mitigated by the expectation of receiving court awarded financial compensation in addition to her share of assets accrued in the marriage. In a long marriage, that still normally means for life.

In any event, it is your own personal risk that you need to weigh when entering a legal contract. The other party is assumed to be evaluating their own personal risk as well and making their own decision about it. In this case it is the risk that after years of marriage, a man who has committed no marital misconduct will not only face dissolution of his marriage contract, but subsequently be legally bound by a new purely financial contract. I am saying that when that risk is essentially a coin flip, the smart move is to not enter into in that contract. The risk is simply too high.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Cletus said:


> If you desire to be a stay at home mom, and by definition become the lower bread winner, then you too have taken on substantial financial risk in the marriage.
> 
> Risk that, IMHO, should be taken, and compensated for if the marriage dissolves.


Most women can't wait to give up work ...... and neither could I.
You think people should be compensated for doing something they want?
And in most marriages it's the woman that chooses to end them, by cheating, denying sex or just because she feels like it.


----------



## Enigma32

Blondilocks said:


> Females weighing 77 - 110 pounds are typically referred to as children in the US. How much did your ex-wife weigh and was she British or Asian?


So petite women are children to you?


----------



## manowar

DownButNotOut said:


> The ease of divorce today for any, or no, reason while still maintaining the older alimony expectations increases the financial risk to the higher earner -- overwhelmingly to the man. At a time when the probability of a marriage ending in divorce is ~50%, you're* asking that man to risk not only half of everything he has, but also what he will earn even post-divorce on a coin flip.*


 Is it surprising that marriage rates have plummetted to 100-year lows? As I've said before the nice guy may be naive re female nature and the rest of it, but he isn't stupid when it comes to his assets.

the older alimony expectations are remnants from the mythic 1950 view of marriage - the old relic that is broken combined with part 2 of the forced redistribution scheme.

Unintended consequences -- MGTOW and men not marrying. Men are getting a lot smarter than the stupid chumps they've been for at least 100 years. Women have been running the show for a long time and there are some changes coming. Look at all those RP channels cluing men in on the reality of dating and relationships. I do blame men however for the predicament they find themselves in. It's our beta predecesors who are to blame for rising women to objects of worship (roughly 1880s+) as pathetic as this sounds. this is the argument (and it's a good one imo) made by ester villar in the Manipulated Man, 1973.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> So petite women are children to you?


I wouldn't even call them petite women ......... about half the women (under 40 years old) in Asia weigh less than 50Kg. The western world is full of obese people, desperately telling themselves their size is normal.

At 6' tall,
When I lived in the west I was nearly 100Kg and OK with it.
Now I live in Asia I'm 78Kg, and still feeling a little overweight.


----------



## bobsmith

manowar said:


> Unintended consequences -- MGTOW and men not marrying. Men are getting a lot smarter than the stupid chumps they've been for at least 100 years. Women have been running the show for a long time and there are some changes coming. Look at all those RP channels cluing men in on the reality of dating and relationships. I do blame men however for the predicament they find themselves in. It's our beta predecesors who are to blame for rising women to objects of worship (roughly 1880s+) as pathetic as this sounds. this is the argument (and it's a good one imo) made by ester villar in the Manipulated Man, 1973.


Not sure I agree with that assessment. Men were way more manly 100y ago. Docs really have not yet figured out the Testosterone issue facing younger men today. I think the 'real' men of yesteryear were busy trying to save the world either through innovation, business, or paid the ultimate sacrifice for their own country! I pay the greatest respect to a man that has the sack to step to the line with his rifle and uncertain fate. 

But who picks up the slack? The weak betas that rub feet and help pick out perfume. As a social experiment, I was throwing out friend requests like nutso to women. What I get back are mostly obese or married women. A few are super attractive though, and I think their angle is to get some attention! It is amazing, they will post something totally stupid, not even warranting a response, and 100 guys will 'have' to say something. Like do they realize this? 

And as I still tour OLD, i'd almost like to build my own stats, because seriously I think about 75% of them are obese! Some at a young age since I set my filters down to 25yo just to see what is on deck. Many are very demanding, but the older ones look defeated. You think they even care how men actually feel? NO! These obese women are shopping for a SIX PACK!!! It all just blows my mind. 

The government and women have every incentive to promote marriage. Young women most certainly are not born knowing how the system works. They are taught that!!! Hell, even some of the women have slipped up on this thread and admitted how they "expect" things in divorce. I think most men here are reasonable and would be open to reasonable terminations. Hell, I even think the marriage rate might get better as women would no longer be incentivized to divorce, and men would be less leery of it. 

But for any woman thinking marriage is NOT a business transaction, I would say they are blowing wasted hot air. When a woman marries, she is literally in an investment transaction, just like a pension. All those years of living at home? It can get rough! You have to get to that nail salon by 9am! Then get to the gym. then meet the girls for brunch so you can gossip. Continue this rough life for YEARS and the judge will award you half of the estate! Obviously that is a win. Hell, I should learn to sword fight and find me a guy! What I am saying is every minute a woman is in a marriage, it is being counted by the woman and government. Sure, she will say "it is about love", right until she is ready to check out at the store. Then we get right down to timelines and receipts. 

Then I see countless posts and videos of complaining women wondering "where all the good men have gone".....Yeah, they are in my camp, chasing 20 somethings for short term flings as the long term play does not seem to be good for the pocket book. And you don't even know a scorned woman until they hit 40 and 'they' realize their own SMV. In OLD, I could pile up women older than me for DAYS. They are 45, trying to chase 35 because they got their bodies in shape! All that BS about 'women want older' goes right out the window at 40.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> And as I still tour OLD, i'd almost like to build my own stats, because seriously I think about 75% of them are obese! Some at a young age since I set my filters down to 25yo just to see what is on deck. Many are very demanding, but the older ones look defeated. You think they even care how men actually feel? NO! These obese women are shopping for a SIX PACK!!! It all just blows my mind.


Just put an upper weight limit on your profile.
On mine I put, "not interested in women weighing more than 50Kg, and will walk away if you lie about your weight".


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Any MGTOWers or just guys interested in RP should listen to Turd Flinging Monkey. Dude is a genius.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Any MGTOWers or just guys interested in RP should listen to Turd Flinging Monkey. Dude is a genius.


Listening to other guys, isn't 'going your own way'
What you are suggesting is more PUA, male supremacist rubbish.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Listening to other guys, isn't 'going your own way'
> What you are suggesting is more PUA, male supremacist rubbish.


MGTOW isn't interested in PUA.


----------



## bobsmith

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Just put an upper weight limit on your profile.
> On mine I put, "not interested in women weighing more than 50Kg, and will walk away if you lie about your weight".


That does not work because most women flat out lie. Most include things like "I work out", though it is obvious that started about 5min ago. I am more open to more than 50kg because I tend to prefer taller women that just weigh more. I think my acceptable range has bee 5'6-5'10, but had a really fun fling with a woman that was 5'1. 

But most of this is just a social experiment anymore. I realized my SMV on OLD was much less so I stopped worrying about it. I have run into some of these "hotties" on OLD at places and realized how I only presented real pics, and they dolled theirs with perfection because I have had probably 5 now that have approached me, that also declined me on OLD, and want to get to know me 'fast'..... But in 10sec I realize I am not even close to attracted to them. 

There is just nothing that compared to bumping elbows with someone. There is a vibe you cannot get with any picture. Some look or act smart on OLD, but if you meet them, you realize quick, they are a dud.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> That does not work because most women flat out lie.


Which is why you meet them at a coffee bar with a window, then sit across the road/mall until you see what they look like from a safe position. If they lied, you walk, no need to even say hello.

You really do need to up your game a little.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

bobsmith said:


> That does not work because most women flat out lie. Most include things like "I work out", though it is obvious that started about 5min ago. I am more open to more than 50kg because I tend to prefer taller women that just weigh more. I think my acceptable range has bee 5'6-5'10, but had a really fun fling with a woman that was 5'1.
> 
> But most of this is just a social experiment anymore. I realized my SMV on OLD was much less so I stopped worrying about it. I have run into some of these "hotties" on OLD at places and realized how I only presented real pics, and they dolled theirs with perfection because I have had probably 5 now that have approached me, that also declined me on OLD, and want to get to know me 'fast'..... But in 10sec I realize I am not even close to attracted to them.
> 
> There is just nothing that compared to bumping elbows with someone. There is a vibe you cannot get with any picture. Some look or act smart on OLD, but if you meet them, you realize quick, they are a dud.


The only women you are gonna find for flings on OLD are worn broken down women. They probably have several venereal diseases along with some leftovers still inside her from last night.

Honestly the whole OLD scene is awful, by the time it takes to swipe through these worn out women, you could have just rubbed one off and spent your time doing something constructive.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Which is why you meet them at a coffee bar with a window, then sit across the road/mall until you see what they look like from a safe position. If they lied, you walk, no need to even say hello.
> 
> You really do need to up your game a little.



Really. I would always meet them at a bar, so atleast if they were ugly or fat, a few beers later they usually start looking better.


----------



## bobsmith

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Which is why you meet them at a coffee bar with a window, then sit across the road/mall until you see what they look like from a safe position. If they lied, you walk, no need to even say hello.
> 
> You really do need to up your game a little.


My game is just fine in person. I don't meet women of OLD. Just don't. Every encounter was weird. I will never understand this "coffee bar" thing. I drink coffee but I am a night owl and I meet women at night. 

But I have really jacked with OLD women by asking if they want to go on a jog..... 99% vaporize. 

And I am sure many just paint me as an a&& but i've been athletic my whole life to some degree, and I only hang out with women that can casually jog a mile without dying! That is a HARD damn find in my area!!!! Now in CO, that is totally different! I am considering a move.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> The only women you are gonna find for flings on OLD are worn broken down women. They probably have several venereal diseases along with some leftovers still inside her from last night.
> 
> Honestly the whole OLD scene is awful, by the time it takes to swipe through these worn out women, you could have just rubbed one off and spent your time doing something constructive.


Last woman I met from OLD, a month or two back was 23 and 43Kg, we met outside a coffee bar then went on to a hotel. Didn't like her much, she keeps wanting to meet again but I haven't replied, too young for me.

I usually turn my OLD account on, wait a day, then sort through the 20-30 women that reply to see which one I will meet.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> My game is just fine in person. I don't meet women of OLD. Just don't. Every encounter was weird. I will never understand this "coffee bar" thing. I drink coffee but I am a night owl and I meet women at night.


My wife doesn't like me going out at night, and all bars have been shut for the past year.
Also I'm too mean to commit myself to spending more than $1.50 without seeing what's on offer first. (so bars and restaurants are out)


----------



## bobsmith

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My wife doesn't like me going out at night, and all bars have been shut for the past year.
> Also I'm too mean to commit myself to spending more than $1.50 without seeing what's on offer first. (so bars and restaurants are out)


Well I am confused as you state you are married but go out with other women? 

I am sure where you live, things are different. I am probably not one to get in a cheating type situation, but i have really had to expand my life beyond this BS "catholic one wife" deal. I realized most women fake that fosho. 

Just finding women that are not fake in the US is a challenge! But just being honest, Thai women don't do it for me. I like American southern women with some morals. They are like finding a flick of Gold in a mountain side. Rare........


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

bobsmith said:


> Well I am confused as you state you are married but go out with other women?
> 
> I am sure where you live, things are different. I am probably not one to get in a cheating type situation, but i have really had to expand my life beyond this BS "catholic one wife" deal. I realized most women fake that fosho.
> 
> Just finding women that are not fake in the US is a challenge! But just being honest, Thai women don't do it for me. I like American southern women with some morals. They are like finding a flick of Gold in a mountain side. Rare........


I am happily married. (my wife appears to me to be happily married, but one can never be sure)
I do have sex with other women (not so much now), it's totally accepted where I live.
Sex is considered recreational rather than meaningful.
Quite a lot of guys run two families at the same time, and it's considered entirely normal.
Muslims are allowed legally to have three wives.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I am happily married. (my wife appears to me to be happily married, but one can never be sure)
> I do have sex with other women (not so much now), it's totally accepted where I live.
> Sex is considered recreational rather than meaningful.
> Quite a lot of guys run two families at the same time, and it's considered entirely normal.
> Muslims are allowed legally to have three wives.


Yeah, I know of a young-ish white guy who moved to Thailand and married a girl there. His wife said that ladies like marrying white guys because when those white guys have sex with other women, they will pick dark skinned girls, which are considered ugly in their culture. It's all kinda crazy to me. 

That's why it's funny to me when the feminists here start talking about the patriarchy. Maybe in 1950 they would be right but in 2021 USA? Not even close. They should check out another country if they wanna see a real patriarchy. I heard some crazy stories talking to ladies in SE Asia.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> His wife said that ladies like marrying white guys because when those white guys have sex with other women, they will pick dark skinned girls, which are considered ugly in their culture. It's all kinda crazy to me.


The women here are very into 'skin lightening', my wife said she dreamed of having a baby with white skin. Our kid came out so white everyone assumes she is the nanny of a white couple.
So she's very happy with the result.

I'm not sure foreigners deliberately choose women with dark skin, it's more like they are really up for breeding with us, and we take what's offered. Can't say I've ever been bothered about a woman's skin colour.

One of my wife's conditions for marriage was I didn't beat her more than once a week, and when I did there should be no broken bones. I'm the first guy she met that didn't hit her at all, her mom can't quite believe I never hit her....... even when she's been naughty.


----------



## manowar

bobsmith said:


> Not sure I agree with that assessment.* Men were way more manly 100y ago.* Docs really have not yet figured out the Testosterone issue facing younger men today. I think the 'real' men of yesteryear were busy trying to save the world either through innovation, business, or paid the ultimate sacrifice for their own country! I pay the greatest respect to a man that has the sack to step to the line with his rifle and uncertain fate.


You're right. But this is when men started to put women on the pedestal as a higher form. This is where the flowers and candy, and excessive gentlemanliness began as a norm. there are plenty of guys out there still playing it this way if you can believe it.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Honestly the whole OLD scene is awful


Old attitudes die hard or not at all. Did you ever come across those helpful hints of first messages. To be witty and original - a combination of mark twain and richard pryor. Here is the message I receive from every single woman who messages me first. Everyone sends this message. _Hi how r you._

For the 40+ set it's about validation or pure fantasyland. Rule number 1 -- never validate. Rule no. 2 - use old sparingly or not at all. Its awful because legions of men are supplicating to the female imperative as usual. the primary reason it's terrible is that it allows women to stay fully within their rational mode of thinking. In-person they are more prone to slide into emotional logic.


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> Well I am confused as you state you are married but go out with other women?
> 
> I am sure where you live, things are different. I am probably not one to get in a cheating type situation, but i have really had to expand my life beyond this BS "catholic one wife" deal. I realized most women fake that fosho.
> 
> Just finding women that are not fake in the US is a challenge! But just being honest, Thai women don't do it for me. I like American southern women with some morals. They are like finding a flick of Gold in a mountain side. Rare........


It seems that you have a profound dislike of women. Maybe you should give up on women. Since you think men are so much better than women, why not date men? Just a thought.


----------



## EleGirl

LisaDiane said:


> YES!!! And didn't this come about due to Welfare Reform in the 90s?


No, it came as a result of centuries of unfair laws that gave a man all the power in marriage and let women in a very vulnerable situation.

It used to be that when a woman married, all of her assets went to her husband. They were no longer hers. So if she say inherited a home, farm, etc... she no longer owned them. Legally it was very easy for a man to throw his wife out on the street with nothing when a husband no longer wanted to be married. Men also got 100% custody of the children. Keep in mind that it was also legal for men to beat their wives. Then, as though all that is not bad enough, women could not earn enough to support herself. If she had her children because he husband did not want custody of them, she could not support herself and her children. Women were in a very very very bad situation.

As women started to get legal rights these things changed. Over time new laws were put in place that gave women rights. Now both spouses can keep any inheritance as separate assets. They could also keep as sole property any assets they owned prior to the marriage. If the couple divorced, assets are not generally split 50/50 as marriage is now looked at as a partnership of equals. 

Decades ago, when these new laws came to be, women still could not earn a livable wage. So that's where alimony came in. Taxpayers don't want to have to support people, how were divorced women support to support themselves and their children if they cannot earn a living? Over time these new laws became gender neutral, so now alimony would be paid by the higher earning spouse. However, laws and society are changing over time. Today 70% of married women earn a living. 50% of married women earn as much or more than their husbands. Since most women now can support themselves, alimony is rarely ordered today. And if it is ordered it's usually short term rehabilitative alimony to help a SAHM get a place to live, get a job, etc. In most states alimony is reserved for long term marriages in which the lower earner spouse has not worked for decades. 

In California, spousal support will last for half the length of a less than 10 years long marriage. For marriages over 10 years, the court will not set alimony duration. However, there is a expectation that the spouse who receives alimony to become self supporting in a reasonable amount of time or lose the alimony. In New Mexico, alimony is not even considered until after 20 years of marriage. These are just 2 examples. 

Basically it's getting harder to get alimony because it's not necessary in most divorces. Alimony is ordered in about 15% of divorces. The average amount of alimony is $300 a month. And the average length of alimony is 3 years.

If anyone wants to avoid things like alimony in marriage the can just make sure they marry someone who is not overly dependent on them financially. 

There is a lot of ranting going on that just does not even resemble reality.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> You have to take into account that it is the woman who initiates 80% of all divorces.


While women do file for divorce more often, that does not mean that the husband does no have significant fault in getting to the divorce. Women tend to have more need to not put off filing because women usually are the primary care taker of the children and need child custody and support dealt with.

Just about every women I know who filed for divorce filed for either physical abuse, their husband's infidelity, or both. In my first divorce it was both. In my second divorce it as infidelity, his refusal to get a job for 12 years, and his refusal to help raise his children and do anything around the house. 



DownButNotOut said:


> Her risk, while present, is mitigated by the expectation of receiving court awarded financial compensation in addition to her share of assets accrued in the marriage. In a long marriage, that still normally means for life.


Approximately 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands these days. In all 70% of all married women work. These women also have to split the assets they earned during the marriage 50/50.

15% of women get alimony when in a divorce. The average alimony payment is $300 and lasts for 3 years while the woman gets on her feet financially.



DownButNotOut said:


> In any event, it is your own personal risk that you need to weigh when entering a legal contract. The other party is assumed to be evaluating their own personal risk as well and making their own decision about it. In this case it is the risk that after years of marriage, a man who has committed no marital misconduct will not only face dissolution of his marriage contract, but subsequently be legally bound by a new purely financial contract. I am saying that when that risk is essentially a coin flip, the smart move is to not enter into in that contract. The risk is simply too high.


While it might be the woman who usually files the divorce papers, women have the same risk in marriage. There is a way to protect against the financial imbalance that exists in some marriages ... marry someone who earns as much as you do and then either one stays home to raise the children.


----------



## In Absentia

Feels like fighting the anti-vaxxers in the Covid thread here...


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Which is why you meet them at a coffee bar with a window, then sit across the road/mall until you see what they look like from a safe position. If they lied, you walk, no need to even say hello.
> 
> You really do need to up your game a little.


LOL... and she might just be sitting across the road doing the same thing... LOL I sure would be. Men lie like crazy in their profiles. This is why most people avoid online dating anymore. Both men and women on those sites don't match up with their profiles, shall we say.


----------



## Blondilocks

Enigma32 said:


> So petite women are children to you?


No.

See what the standard size of women in Thailand is:






○ BOI : The Board of Investment of Thailand







www.boi.go.th





5'1" and 125.6 lbs with chest of 36", waist of 31.5" and hips of 38".


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> While women do file for divorce more often, that does not mean that the husband does no have significant fault in getting to the divorce. Women tend to have more need to not put off filing because women usually are the primary care taker of the children and need child custody and support dealt with.
> 
> Just about every women I know who filed for divorce filed for either physical abuse, their husband's infidelity, or both. In my first divorce it was both. In my second divorce it as infidelity, his refusal to get a job for 12 years, and his refusal to help raise his children and do anything around the house.
> 
> 
> Approximately 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands these days. In all 70% of all married women work. These women also have to split the assets they earned during the marriage 50/50.
> 
> 15% of women get alimony when in a divorce. The average alimony payment is $300 and lasts for 3 years while the woman gets on her feet financially.
> 
> 
> While it might be the woman who usually files the divorce papers, women have the same risk in marriage. There is a way to protect against the financial imbalance that exists in some marriages ... marry someone who earns as much as you do and then either one stays home to raise the children.


I hear you Ele. But we are talking past each other.

My experience, and that of the men I know, are more closely tied to "walk away wife syndrome". No abuse. No infidelity. No marital misconduct. And yet, they lost access to their children. They lost the homes they spent years creating. In my personal case, I am paying significantly more than your $300/mo average, and will do so until social security kicks in. I also lost every penny of my family inheritance, while being stuck with 100% of the marital debt. And my ex was not stay-at-home. She worked full time, and continues to do so. 

With all due respect, the risk women take in entering marriage is not relevant to a man's choice to marry. They are free to assess their risk, and make their own decisions based on that. What I am saying is that for men -- young men considering a first marriage -- the risks are high enough compared to the benefits that I would encourage them to view bachelorhood as the better deal.


----------



## LisaDiane

DownButNotOut said:


> I hear you Ele. But we are talking past each other.
> 
> My experience, and that of the men I know, are more closely tied to "walk away wife syndrome". No abuse. No infidelity. No marital misconduct. And yet, they lost access to their children. They lost the homes they spent years creating. In my personal case, I am paying significantly more than your $300/mo average, and will do so until social security kicks in. I also lost every penny of my family inheritance, while being stuck with 100% of the marital debt. And my ex was not stay-at-home. She worked full time, and continues to do so.
> 
> With all due respect, the risk women take in entering marriage is not relevant to a man's choice to marry. They are free to assess their risk, and make their own decisions based on that. What I am saying is that for men -- young men considering a first marriage -- the risks are high enough compared to the benefits that I would encourage them to view bachelorhood as the better deal.


This is sickeningly unfair.


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> While women do file for divorce more often, that does not mean that the husband does no have significant fault in getting to the divorce. Women tend to have more need to not put off filing because women usually are the primary care taker of the children and need child custody and support dealt with.
> 
> Just about every women I know who filed for divorce filed for either physical abuse, their husband's infidelity, or both. In my first divorce it was both. In my second divorce it as infidelity, his refusal to get a job for 12 years, and his refusal to help raise his children and do anything around the house.
> 
> 
> Approximately 50% of women earn as much or more than their husbands these days. In all 70% of all married women work. These women also have to split the assets they earned during the marriage 50/50.
> 
> 15% of women get alimony when in a divorce. The average alimony payment is $300 and lasts for 3 years while the woman gets on her feet financially.
> 
> 
> While it might be the woman who usually files the divorce papers, women have the same risk in marriage. There is a way to protect against the financial imbalance that exists in some marriages ... marry someone who earns as much as you do and then either one stays home to raise the children.


All these stats probably hold true for men and women who are around the median income level. I'm talking about guys who actually bring in some cash. The risk becomes asymmetrical and it's not as easy as just finding someone who earns as much as you. That advice probably works find around 50k.


----------



## Cletus

DownButNotOut said:


> You have to take into account that it is the woman who initiates 80% of all divorces.


Perhaps I do. WHY are women initiating the majority of the divorces? The number itself doesn't tell me much. 



> Her risk, while present, is mitigated by the expectation of receiving court awarded financial compensation in addition to her share of assets accrued in the marriage. In a long marriage, that still normally means for life.


And I agree with that. Let's not forget why one partner in the marriage takes that risk - to raise offspring. Perhaps daycare doesn't raise a generation of monsters, but you'll be hard pressed to not get broad agreement from society that parents raising their own children, when possible, is the best situation. For that to happen, one person has to walk away from the workforce and become dependent on and vulnerable to another.



> In any event, it is your own personal risk that you need to weigh when entering a legal contract. The other party is assumed to be evaluating their own personal risk as well and making their own decision about it. In this case it is the risk that after years of marriage, a man who has committed no marital misconduct ...


A little casual reading should help uncover the answer to the question at the top of the post. Marital misconduct up to and including adultery is among the primary reasons women file for divorce.



> ... will not only face dissolution of his marriage contract, but subsequently be legally bound by a new purely financial contract. I am saying that when that risk is essentially a coin flip, the smart move is to not enter into in that contract. The risk is simply too high.


For you. That 60% of first time marriages do not end in divorce are odds I would take to Vegas any day of the week. If I actually want a family and family life, the reward is worth the risk. To me. Your mileage clearly varies, but you do not have some objective universal truth here. 

Personally, I find viewing marriage as a zero-sum game pretty much a disqualifying mindset from the start.


----------



## Cletus

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Most women can't wait to give up work ...... and neither could I.
> You think people should be compensated for doing something they want?
> And in most marriages it's the woman that chooses to end them, by cheating, denying sex or just because she feels like it.


I get well compensated precisely for doing something I want. I could have been a ditch digger, but I chose to go to college and get a career in a field of my choosing. I have moved around between jobs until I found a place where I wanted to work where they were willing to compensate me at a level we both found acceptable.

All along, I wasn't weighed down by taking a sick day to watch a child. I didn't have to run around in the morning feeding two children and packing a school lunch. I had no immediate domestic responsibilities that couldn't wait until the weekend, so I was free to work my way up the corporate ladder at my pace, discretion, and business of choosing.

All while enjoying a rewarding family life with the bonus of coming home to a hot meal. Ask a man in a classical family unit what he wants to be doing, and 9 out of 10 will tell you they would rather earn the paycheck than stay at home with the children. They too are doing what they want. You want to punish women for having the nurturing instinct that's sort of, you know, important for the propagation of the species? 

So yes, I do think people should be compensated for doing what they want, when what they do has economic value.


----------



## In Absentia

DownButNotOut said:


> I hear you Ele. But we are talking past each other.
> 
> My experience, and that of the men I know, are more closely tied to "walk away wife syndrome". No abuse. No infidelity. No marital misconduct. And yet, they lost access to their children. They lost the homes they spent years creating. In my personal case, I am paying significantly more than your $300/mo average, and will do so until social security kicks in. I also lost every penny of my family inheritance, while being stuck with 100% of the marital debt. And my ex was not stay-at-home. She worked full time, and continues to do so.


This is so unfair that I don't see how a court could do that?


----------



## Blondilocks

The oft made statement that marriage rates have plummeted to 100 year low is amusing. It's used to imply that it's men who don't want to marry (because women are just...!). Hello? It takes two to tango and it may be that women don't want to marry, either.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Blondilocks said:


> The oft made statement that marriage rates have plummeted to 100 year low is amusing. It's used to imply that it's men who don't want to marry (because women are just...!). Hello? It takes two to tango and it may be that women don't want to marry, either.


I think women want to marry more simply because they have a biological impulse to reproduce. Many men also want that, but many just do it because of their wife or they are told it's what you do.

I think women marry less today simply because their standards are unreasonable or they think of themselves too highly. A large lady fighting a thin lady for the same level of men. Many find themselves on the wrong side of 30 desperate to have babies and its too late.


----------



## Blondilocks

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I think women want to marry more simply because they have a biological impulse to reproduce. Many men also want that, but many just do it because of their wife or they are told it's what you do.
> 
> I think women marry less today simply because their standards are unreasonable or they think of themselves too highly. A large lady fighting a thin lady for the same level of men. Many find themselves on the wrong side of 30 desperate to have babies and its too late.


You are entitled to your conjecture and speculation. That is all it is, though. Hope it helps you to feel better about yourself.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> Perhaps I do. WHY are women initiating the majority of the divorces? The number itself doesn't tell me much.
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with that. Let's not forget why one partner in the marriage takes that risk - to raise offspring. Perhaps daycare doesn't raise a generation of monsters, but you'll be hard pressed to not get broad agreement from society that parents raising their own children, when possible, is the best situation. For that to happen, one person has to walk away from the workforce and become dependent on and vulnerable to another.
> 
> 
> 
> A little casual reading should help uncover the answer to the question at the top of the post. Marital misconduct up to and including adultery is among the primary reasons women file for divorce.
> 
> 
> 
> For you. That 60% of first time marriages do not end in divorce are odds I would take to Vegas any day of the week. If I actually want a family and family life, the reward is worth the risk. To me. Your mileage clearly varies, but you do not have some objective universal truth here.
> 
> Personally, I find viewing marriage as a zero-sum game pretty much a disqualifying mindset from the start.


There was a time I thought very similar to you Cletus. I made decisions based on the idea that marriage is forever. I do still agree that the primary purpose is to provide a safe, stable environment for the raising of children. And I agree that an at-home parent is far better than warehousing your children with strangers.

Of course marriage is often not forever. The average (median) length of marriage in the US is 8.2 years, 7 years I believe for a first marriage. Does that still sound like a winning bet?

I think Vegas would love to cover that bet. A one-shot bet that if you win, you're generally financially where you would be if you'd stayed single, but if you lose you could lose your shirt. At an average 8.2 years, that is also in direct conflict with the purpose of a stable, safe environment for raising children. Since on average, a child will face their parents' separation some time during elementary school if not before.

You don't even have control over the outcome. You can be a perfect, model husband and still be faced with a divorce you didn't want, and didn't see coming for any or no reason at all. 

All of this of course is with hindsight.


----------



## DownButNotOut

In Absentia said:


> This is so unfair that I don't see how a court could do that?


It isn't all bad. That was the only way to ensure I would be able to retire. She didn't want anyone to look at her state pension. So my 401k stayed mine.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Blondilocks said:


> You are entitled to your conjecture and speculation. That is all it is, though. Hope it helps you to feel better about yourself.


I only speak from my experiences. Men are fairly easy to please. Women not so much.


----------



## Blondilocks

One of the best things that parents can do for their children is to tell them at birth that there are no guarantees in life. Prepare them for disappointment and possible defeat 

It seems there are just as many men as women who believe in fairy tales. Yes, the prince married Cinderella and they lived happily ever after. Or, did they? Maybe, Cinderella had to actually clean up some cinders occasionally. Or, the prince ran the kingdom into the ground.


----------



## Cletus

DownButNotOut said:


> All of this of course is with hindsight.


Of course. A ton of this is situational. I might think like you having lived your life.

In my world, your story is the anomaly. Most of the people I know have been married a long time and either had no children or have already released them into the wild. Only 1 close friend had to halve his holdings in a childless divorce, but in the end he still had the means to retire at 50. My 30 year old son married 3 years ago. She was making more than him at the time. They will not have children, and she will be able to support herself without alimony in the event of a split.


----------



## Cletus

Should my wife ever divorce me, half of everything we accrued over 35 years will go to her. I will not begrudge her that payment, even though in strictly dollar terms it is substantial and ~90% generated by my labor. 

That's the deal I signed on for when I bought her with a $50 marriage certificate. When I leave, she will have to learn how to do her own auto and home maintenance. That alone will be revenge enough for me.


----------



## uphillbattle

It took me a week to get to the end of this thread. I think I puked in my mouth quite a few times. I may just be some ignorant beta but the take I get is men have had absolute control for thousands of years and now that it's evening out some men are so ALPHA that they can't handle it.


----------



## RebuildingMe

uphillbattle said:


> It took me a week to get to the end of this thread. I think I puked in my mouth quite a few times. I may just be some ignorant beta but the take I get is men have had absolute control for thousands of years and now that it's evening out some men are so ALPHA that they can't handle it.


Even? I trust you've never gone through a divorce having minor children.


----------



## Cletus

RebuildingMe said:


> Even? I trust you've never gone through a divorce having minor children.


It seems to me to be following the course of all history - whenever there is an "evening out", there is an inevitable over correction on the pendulum. 

Like sexual harassment. We had to go through a stage not far back when any claim was grounds for dismissal - college students were run out of schools because a passing ex hauled a mattress around campus for a week. Now we are seeing the backlash to the overcorrection. Eventually, things will find a better more nuanced balance.

Yeah, it sucks to be one of the men caught up in it, I get it.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> It seems to me to be following the course of all history - whenever there is an "evening out", there is an inevitable over correction on the pendulum.
> 
> Like sexual harassment. We had to go through a stage not far back when any claim was grounds for dismissal - college students were run out of schools because a passing ex hauled a mattress around campus for a week. Now we are seeing the backlash to the overcorrection. Eventually, things will find a better more nuanced balance.
> 
> Yeah, it sucks to be one of the men caught up in it, I get it.


Then wouldn't it follow that the proper course is to avoid the pendulum all together until it swings back to the midpoint? 

Which is really what I've been saying here in regards to MGTOW.


----------



## Blondilocks

uphillbattle said:


> It took me a week to get to the end of this thread. I think I puked in my mouth quite a few times. I may just be some ignorant beta but the take I get is men have had absolute control for thousands of years and now that it's evening out *some men are so ALPHA that they can't handle it.
> *



I don't think a true alpha man would be on a message board whining about losing some of his toys. 

When white men in the US carry on about being the downtrodden, it is downright laughable. Suck it up, buds. Just like your sisters have had to do for a couple of hundred years.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Cletus said:


> It seems to me to be following the course of all history - whenever there is an "evening out", there is an inevitable over correction on the pendulum.
> 
> Like sexual harassment. We had to go through a stage not far back when any claim was grounds for dismissal - college students were run out of schools because a passing ex hauled a mattress around campus for a week. Now we are seeing the backlash to the overcorrection. Eventually, things will find a better more nuanced balance.
> 
> Yeah, it sucks to be one of the men caught up in it, I get it.


It will still get you fired, kicked out and destroy your career and family even if you are innocent. Just the hint of it alone is enough. The whole metoo movement has spurred a lot of workplace nuances right before covid forced people back into their homes. The Mike Pence rule became normalized behavior. Bringing in witnesses when a male female meeting happens or having it recorded. The backlash resulted in men being afraid to hire women. 

Not all women have nefarious schemes but all it takes is one to ruin a man's life.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

DownButNotOut said:


> Then wouldn't it follow that the proper course is to avoid the pendulum all together until it swings back to the midpoint?
> 
> Which is really what I've been saying here in regards to MGTOW.


Absolutely, that is why MGTOW followers aren't against women or marriage per se. They are against the carnage that takes place on men in the courts. Until that changes its not worth it.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> I don't think a true alpha man would be on a message board whining about losing some of his toys.
> 
> When white men in the US carry on about being the downtrodden, it is downright laughable. Suck it up, buds. Just like your sisters have had to do for a couple of hundred years.


Still can't pass up an opportunity to take a stab at evol menz I see.


----------



## Blondilocks

DownButNotOut said:


> Still can't pass up an opportunity to take a stab at evol menz I see.


Trying to stay in the spirit of the thread. And, you?


----------



## Al_Bundy

DownButNotOut said:


> Still can't pass up an opportunity to take a stab at evol menz I see.


And pull the race card too, can't forget that.


----------



## uphillbattle

Blondilocks said:


> I don't think a true alpha man would be on a message board whining about losing some of his toys.
> 
> When white men in the US carry on about being the downtrodden, it is downright laughable. Suck it up, buds. Just like your sisters have had to do for a couple of hundred years.


My apologies I thought the sarcasm was noticeable enough.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Blondilocks said:


> Trying to stay in the spirit of the thread. And, you?


Just hangin', callin' out misandry when it pops up.


----------



## uphillbattle

RebuildingMe said:


> Even? I trust you've never gone through a divorce having minor children.


Actually I have 2 children. I got 50/50 custody and still paid child support. But I also understood that my children's standard of living shouldn't fluctuate from house to house just because of my dislike for their mother. I understood that the focus of the court wasn't about sticking it to the one who works harder but to give my children as little disruption as possible.


----------



## DownButNotOut

uphillbattle said:


> Actually I have 2 children. I got 50/50 custody and still paid child support. But I also understood that my children's standard of living shouldn't fluctuate from house to house just because of my dislike for their mother. I understood that the focus of the court wasn't about sticking it to the one who works harder but to give my children as little disruption as possible.


Congratulations. You were lucky. Give this book a read for a different perspective. I found it heartbreaking, and eye opening.









Amazon.com: The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law eBook : Ellis, Greg, Baldwin, Alec, Depp, Johnny: Kindle Store


Buy The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law: Read Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com



www.amazon.com


----------



## uphillbattle

DownButNotOut said:


> Congratulations. You were lucky. Give this book a read for a different perspective. I found it heartbreaking, and eye opening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law eBook : Ellis, Greg, Baldwin, Alec, Depp, Johnny: Kindle Store
> 
> 
> Buy The Respondent: Exposing the Cartel of Family Law: Read Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


I will read said book because I like differing point of views but I can probably summarize. I got ****ed and it's all because of a rigged system and here are some biased half filled statistics to rope you in with conformation bias. Oh and lawyers are awful wastes of human beings.


----------



## DownButNotOut

uphillbattle said:


> I will read said book because I like differing point of views but I can probably summarize. I got ****ed and it's all because of a rigged system and here are some biased half filled statistics to rope you in with conformation bias. Oh and lawyers are awful wastes of human beings.


If that is how you want to look at it. It is a telling of his personal experience in the family court when his wife blind sided him with divorce papers, and subsequently made false allegations against him to the court.


----------



## uphillbattle

DownButNotOut said:


> If that is how you want to look at it. It is a telling of his personal experience in the family court when his wife blind sided him with divorce papers, and subsequently made false allegations against him to the court.


As I said, I will read it.


----------



## Cletus

DownButNotOut said:


> Then wouldn't it follow that the proper course is to avoid the pendulum all together until it swings back to the midpoint?
> 
> Which is really what I've been saying here in regards to MGTOW.


If the balance sheet for you comes up negative, then sure.

I'm not here to tell you what to do with your life. I'm only here to point out that you seem incredulous that all of MANkind doesn't see it the same way when our balance sheets are different because we don't view marriage as a primarily economic institution.


----------



## Cletus

uphillbattle said:


> Oh and lawyers are awful wastes of human beings.


On that at least we can all agree!


----------



## Enigma32

Blondilocks said:


> No.
> 
> See what the standard size of women in Thailand is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ○ BOI : The Board of Investment of Thailand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.boi.go.th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5'1" and 125.6 lbs with chest of 36", waist of 31.5" and hips of 38".


What does the "standard size" have to do with anything? I'm sure you are aware people can deviate from the standard. It's also OK for someone to have a preference that deviates from that so-called standard. Just ask any female that says she prefers taller men, as 6' is definitely not the standard size for a male in the USA. So, if Elwood prefers more petite ladies, he can go right ahead. There are plenty of them to pick from where he lives.


----------



## Enigma32

uphillbattle said:


> It took me a week to get to the end of this thread. I think I puked in my mouth quite a few times. I may just be some ignorant beta but the take I get is men have had absolute control for thousands of years and now that it's evening out some men are so ALPHA that they can't handle it.


What exactly does the lives of other men over the years have to do with people living today? If men were in power 1000 years ago it's not like I, as a man living today, should just shut up and take a bunch of BS because some long dead dude had it better.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Blondilocks said:


> When white men in the US carry on about being the downtrodden, it is downright laughable. Suck it up, buds. Just like your sisters have had to do for a couple of hundred years.


I don't have any sisters!


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Blondilocks said:


> I don't think a true alpha man would be on a message board whining about losing some of his toys.
> 
> When white men in the US carry on about being the downtrodden, it is downright laughable. Suck it up, buds. Just like your sisters have had to do for a couple of hundred years.


I'm pure beta and proud of it.
Zero leadership skills, can't lift, no six pack, don't want to improve myself.
All I was ever good at was earning money, I feel no need to try and be something I'm not.

My mating strategy was to hold up a wad of $$$$$s, then jump out of the way to avoid the stampede of single moms trying to grab them. No young Christian virgins from good families for me!


----------



## manowar

EleGirl said:


> No, it came as a result of centuries of unfair laws that gave a man all the power in marriage and let women in a very vulnerable situation.
> 
> It used to be that when a woman married, all of her assets went to her husband. They were no longer hers. So if she say inherited a home, farm, etc... she no longer owned them. Legally it was very easy for a man to throw his wife out on the street with nothing when a husband no longer wanted to be married. Men also got 100% custody of the children.



I don't know the history but I will concede this for the purpose of this discussion. There certainly were some injustices in the past. But nothing like today where men are blown up in what has become nothing more than a redistribution scheme. Part of the problem is that the men go along with this insane arraignment. Child support payments are inflated. Actual cost is $500.00 Court imposed cost $3,000.00.

Anyway, we have a huge injustice right here. See Loveisblind's thread. OP was the sole supporter. One of the best beta providers on the planet. Wife withdraws. Enters what may be a bdsm relationship with an elderly man for several years. Her contribution to the marriage is a cheating wife for a large portion of the marriage. Just what OP signed up for I'm sure. Op has no recourse. Is stuck with her. If her gets rid of her he gets destroyed in family court. Loses a big chunk of his assets no questions asked. This is not an unusual story but rather the norm nowadays.

Guys -- to avoid this -- Dont marry!!! You can't pay alimony or child support if you never marry. They can't get you. See John Noble - you tube divorce lawyer. This is pretty much his advice.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I'm pure beta and proud of it.
> Zero leadership skills, can't lift, no six pack, don't want to improve myself.
> All I was ever good at was earning money, I feel no need to try and be something I'm not.
> 
> My mating strategy was to hold up a wad of $$$$$s, then jump out of the way to avoid the stampede of single moms trying to grab them. No young Christian virgins from good families for me!


If it makes you feel better, almost every excessively successful person is a beta male. You think Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk are alpha? Nope. Beta af and running the world. A lot of the alpha types end up peaking in high school then spend their later years talking about all the hot girls they smashed at college parties. Don't ask me how I know.


----------



## manowar

A short excerpt from The Manipulated Man - ester villar. pg. 40.


Any man who wishes to be a success with women — and is there one
who doesn't?! — must acquire a variety of qualifications. Apart from
intelligence, ambition, industry, and pertinacity, he must know exactly
how to behave in the presence of women. With this aim in view, women
have established certain norms which are called good manners. Basically,
the rule is that any man who has a sense of self-respect must, at all
times, *treat a woman like a queen*. Similarly, a self-respecting woman
must, at all times, *give man every opportunity of treating her like a*
*queen.*​


----------



## Al_Bundy

manowar said:


> A short excerpt from The Manipulated Man - ester villar. pg. 40.
> 
> 
> Any man who wishes to be a success with women — and is there one
> who doesn't?! — must acquire a variety of qualifications. Apart from
> intelligence, ambition, industry, and pertinacity, he must know exactly
> how to behave in the presence of women. With this aim in view, women
> have established certain norms which are called good manners. Basically,
> the rule is that any man who has a sense of self-respect must, at all
> times, *treat a woman like a queen*. Similarly, a self-respecting woman
> must, at all times, *give man every opportunity of treating her like a*
> *queen.*​


 I don't disagree with that unfortunately I think that notion died last century. Today it's more like if you treat her like a queen, she'll treat you like a peasant.


----------



## Diana7

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah, a lot of people who have never been there will talk about how they know they never wanna live there. I plan to retire overseas myself.


 I have never known anyone who wants to live in Asia.


----------



## Numb26

Diana7 said:


> I have never known anyone who wants to live in Asia.


I am from and part time live in Asia. It is beautiful here!


----------



## Diana7

Numb26 said:


> I am from and part time live in Asia. It is beautiful here!


Yet my country has people falling over themselves to come here. My husband is Australian and really likes it here. Wouldn't want to live anywhere else. 
If I had to leave it would be either to Canada or NZ.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

Diana7 said:


> I have never known anyone who wants to live in Asia.


Uh, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Just as the fact that you know a few people who have succeeded at X doesn't mean that everyone can.


----------



## Enigma32

Diana7 said:


> I have never known anyone who wants to live in Asia.


Now you can say you do! Kinda. One of my friends is going to retire there and I plan to do the same. Almost every problem the MGTOW guys complain about doesn't really exist over there, the cost of living is super low, and the culture is much more family oriented. I love the USA but our culture is going downhill fast.


----------



## manowar

Al_Bundy said:


> Today it's more like if you treat her like a queen, she'll treat you like a peasant.


Yes, I agree 100%. And its always been that way. Female nature hasn't changed in a few decades. Female nature is the same today as it was in the ancient world. ester vilar isn't condoning this behavior. She's not endorsing some act of chivalry. She's calling it out for what it is. (something along the lines of simping by men). what she's saying is that women have established these rules of behavior (manners) and men have been manipulated into following them -- consequently treating women like queens. Where Woman is giving Man the honor of treating her like a Queen. So vilar would also agree with you. 



Another excerpt: pg 7, The Manipulated Man.

Women let men work for them, think for them, and take on their
responsibilities — in fact, they exploit them. Yet, since men are strong,
intelligent, and imaginative, while women are weak, unimaginative, and
(redacted), why isn't it men who exploit women?

Could it be that strength, intelligence, and imagination are not
prerequisites for power but merely qualifications for slavery?

Could it be that the world is not being ruled by experts but by beings
who are not fit for anything else — by women? And if this is so, how do
women manage it so that their victims do not feel themselves cheated
and humiliated, but rather believe themselves to be what they are least
of all — masters of the universe?

How do women manage to instill in
men this sense of pride and superiority that inspires them to ever greater
achievements?

Why are women never unmasked?​


----------



## LisaDiane

manowar said:


> A short excerpt from The Manipulated Man - ester villar. pg. 40.
> 
> 
> Any man who wishes to be a success with women — and is there one
> who doesn't?! — must acquire a variety of qualifications. Apart from
> intelligence, ambition, industry, and pertinacity, he must know exactly
> how to behave in the presence of women. With this aim in view, women
> have established certain norms which are called good manners. Basically,
> the rule is that any man who has a sense of self-respect must, at all
> times, *treat a woman like a queen*. Similarly, a self-respecting woman
> must, at all times, *give man every opportunity of treating her like a*
> *queen.*​


I NEVER want to be treated like a "queen"...I cannot think of anything more unappealing than a man who is intimidated by me! How could I ever trust or respect someone who is afraid to be their real self with me and kisses my butt all the time?? If a man loves me, he will care for and respect me and VALUE me as his partner and EQUAL, not like I am above him...but beside him.

I'm NOT a baby, I can handle my partner disagreeing with me or challenging me, as long as it's done with respect and a desire to communicate and be honest and real with me. 

Doesn't everyone want an authentic relationship like that??

Again, this is NOT ALL women.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> Doesn't everyone want an authentic relationship like that??


Not me.
I want an 'authentic relationship' where she does what she's told.
...... and my children, I want them to do what they're told as well.
If I pay for everything, I want the people living off me to do what they're told.

On the other hand, if I found a woman that provided everything for me, I'd be prepared to do what I was told.


----------



## manowar

LisaDiane said:


> *I NEVER want to be treated like a "queen".*..I cannot think of anything more unappealing than a man who is intimidated by me! How could I ever trust or respect someone who is afraid to be their real selves with me and kisses my butt all the time?? If a man loves me, *he will care for and respect me and VALUE me as his partner and EQUAL, not like I am above him...but beside him.*
> 
> I'm NOT a baby, I can handle my partner disagreeing with me or challenging me, as long as it's done with respect and a desire to communicate and be honest and real with me.
> 
> Doesn't everyone want an authentic relationship like that??


Nothing wrong with that. everyone is different in degree but not entirely unique. you'd eject this type of guy quickly. You then are drawn to HSE self-confident men with a strong frame. You are going to test for these qualities whether you are aware of them or not. If he shows weakness, he's gone. So you don't fk around and are very pragmatic. This is how HSE (high self-esteem) women operate. What you're not going to get is that Equality partner stuff with you beside him. It's more like He's the Head and your the Neck is what you really want.

Regardless, this is a default position that men have been socially conditioned into by their clergyman, society and the rest of it (the Machine). Why do so many men put up with the high crime of infidelity justifying it with their love of wife? You've seen these cry-babies here. The man is willing to talk it out; admit blame for not giving her attention, etc...

Vilar is also saying that this is how women get men to work for them. Men are enslaved and don't even realize it or prefer this type of life. * Read the book.* You can download it. Its only 94 pages. You don't have to agree with her.

From what i recall you are divorcing or are recently divorced. You are going to encounter the Queen effect depending upon the amount of dating you do. especially in the OLD world. This I guarantee and will even bet you on it. Just out of curiosity -- have you encountered the Queen effect yet in your recent dating life (if you are dating)?

All that equality sounds great on paper. However, in the real world, a man who emphasizes equality is a man who over time will fail to lead and place her on the pedestal which will, in the end, make him submissive and she by her very nature will lose attraction over time. This is how it works. 



LisaDiane said:


> Doesn't everyone want an authentic relationship like that??


 Yes. It's only authentic when the man leads, holds frame, retains masculinity, and regulates the woman's emotions without the woman even realizing it. A man who can do this will have a very satisfying relationship. A man wants the attraction level to be something with the women slightly above himself. If the woman is at a 9 and the man is around 8.6/8.7 that's perfect. A guy doesn't want the woman at say 8 while he's at 9.


----------



## manowar

another thing that's important is the part about* a man's manners*. This is imposed by the sisterhood. A man is expected to behave a certain way around a lady. He behaves and speaks in another way around other males.
when a man treats, speaks, behaves around a lady the way he behaves around a man very often that woman is offended and even insulted when the guy has no clue he insulted her. I have seen this countless times. I have also seen masculine tough guys go directly into puzzy mode around women. Why. Imposed manners/behavior.

So yes manners and an accepted way of male behavior is expected by the woman. Part is the man being especially nice to milady, deferring to milady, supplicating to milady. Only when this expected behavior is given by the man will milady acknowledge the poor devil's existence and even exchange words. You can see this deferential behavior in the typical western when Festus defers to Katie the chick who works in the saloon. These women by default are given "higher being status" or the Queen Effect.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> Only when this expected behavior is given by the man will milady acknowledge the poor devil's existence and even exchange words.


I've found the complete opposite to be true.
When I learned not to chase them, they started chasing me.


----------



## manowar

That could be true but upon initial engagement (after the chase), there is still an accepted manners code that a man must display or she will disengage. A man can remain cold and distant for only so long. Either he engages or broods.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> That could be true but upon initial engagement (after the chase), there is still an accepted manners code that a man must display or she will disengage. A man can remain cold and distant for only so long. Either he engages or broods.


If I haven't banged them soon after they show interest (two hours max), I don't bother meeting them again. Why would I waste any more of my time? I don't want women as friends.
This idea of 'the long chase' is a uniquely sissified western concept.
Most women have decided 'yes or no' within 10 seconds of seeing you.
The longer you take, the more likely the 'yes' will become a 'no'.


----------



## manowar

ElwoodPDowd said:


> f I haven't banged them soon after they show interest (t*wo hours max), I don't bother meeting them again. Why would I waste any more of my time? I don't want women as friends.*
> This idea of 'the long chase' is a uniquely sissified western concept.
> Most women have decided 'yes or no' within 10 seconds of seeing you.
> The longer you take, the more likely the 'yes' will become a 'no'.



Agree. All a given.

Re Manners, I'm referring to the ester vilar quote in the manipulated male. All part of the social conditioning engineered by the sisterhood and propagandized by the media which unplugged men have been trained to comply with._ The man tipping his hat in the western and bowing to milady as if she's a higher being._ A goddess of some kind lol. this manners code sets man down the supplicating path. She's not endorsing the code. She's trying to wake men up. she wrote this in the 1970s so this isn't recent. Read the book. I definitely think you'll find it worth your time. It's very short. Her basic theme is that men are enslaved and like it that way.


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Not me.
> I want an 'authentic relationship' where she does what she's told.
> ...... and my children, I want them to do what they're told as well.
> If I pay for everything, I want the people living off me to do what they're told.
> 
> On the other hand, if I found a woman that provided everything for me, I'd be prepared to do what I was told.


 
Harvey...SSHHHH...


----------



## lifeistooshort

What it means to be treated like a queen is somewhat subjective. If it means treat your woman well most women will appreciate that.

If it means put her on a pedestal and worship her that's not good for anyone. Nobody can live up to the expectations that comes with being on a pedestal and I don't know any women who want that.

It seems to me that it's a tactic of some men who are insecure and see their woman as being above them.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Not me.
> I want an 'authentic relationship' where she does what she's told.
> ...... and my children, I want them to do what they're told as well.
> If I pay for everything, I want the people living off me to do what they're told.
> 
> On the other hand, if I found a woman that provided everything for me, I'd be prepared to do what I was told.


I appreciate your pragmatism and honesty. You want a business arrangement and seem to understand what that means. A lot of men engage in what is essentially a business arrangement but it's not what they want so they get pissed off.

I have no interest in such an arrangement and have no problem finding men who want me, but to each his or her own. I've always said that you can look for whatever you want if you can find someone to agree to it, just as long as you understand what you're getting.


----------



## LisaDiane

manowar said:


> Nothing wrong with that. everyone is different in degree but not entirely unique. you'd eject this type of guy quickly. You then are drawn to HSE self-confident men with a strong frame. You are going to test for these qualities whether you are aware of them or not. If he shows weakness, he's gone. So you don't fk around and are very pragmatic. This is how HSE (high self-esteem) women operate. What you're not going to get is that Equality partner stuff with you beside him. It's more like He's the Head and your the Neck is what you really want.
> 
> Regardless, this is a default position that men have been socially conditioned into by their clergyman, society and the rest of it (the Machine). Why do so many men put up with the high crime of infidelity justifying it with their love of wife? You've seen these cry-babies here. The man is willing to talk it out; admit blame for not giving her attention, etc...
> 
> Vilar is also saying that this is how women get men to work for them. Men are enslaved and don't even realize it or prefer this type of life. * Read the book.* You can download it. Its only 94 pages. You don't have to agree with her.
> 
> From what i recall you are divorcing or are recently divorced. You are going to encounter the Queen effect depending upon the amount of dating you do. especially in the OLD world. This I guarantee and will even bet you on it. Just out of curiosity -- have you encountered the Queen effect yet in your recent dating life (if you are dating)?
> 
> All that equality sounds great on paper. However, in the real world, a man who emphasizes equality is a man who over time will fail to lead and place her on the pedestal which will, in the end, make him submissive and she by her very nature will lose attraction over time. This is how it works.
> 
> 
> Yes. It's only authentic when the man leads, holds frame, retains masculinity, and regulates the woman's emotions without the woman even realizing it. A man who can do this will have a very satisfying relationship. A man wants the attraction level to be something with the women slightly above himself. If the woman is at a 9 and the man is around 8.6/8.7 that's perfect. A guy doesn't want the woman at say 8 while he's at 9.


This is all very interesting...I don't know what I think about it yet, I'm going to have to turn it around in my mind for a little while! Some of these concepts sound new to me, or said in a new way that I've never thought of before.

I am not dating yet, but I will say that I have seen what you call the "Queen effect" when watching men interact with women (and women to men sometimes), and I've never liked it. It's NOT respect, you can feel that - it's done in a fearful way, and it's very fake.
I don't trust PEOPLE like that, men or women.

I like what you said about the head and the neck...because the neck is what moves (controls?) the head!! Lol!

What I meant by "equal" was that he believes I have equal intelligence and deserve equal respect from him, just as he wants from me. I don't mind deferring to him...IF he is a man I can trust to take charge. However, I WILL lose my respect and rescind my deference if he ever reveals himself to be undeserving of my respect (which took my STBX 3 years to do). 

Also, I never want to be on a pedestal, but I certainly want to be special to him and treated with love and care, like I will love and care for him.


----------



## Cletus

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Not me.
> I want an 'authentic relationship' where she does what she's told.
> ...... and my children, I want them to do what they're told as well.
> If I pay for everything, I want the people living off me to do what they're told.
> 
> On the other hand, if I found a woman that provided everything for me, I'd be prepared to do what I was told.


Ok, I don't know you, and I certainly don't dislike you personally, but...

This sentiment here made me throw up a little in my mouth.


----------



## lifeistooshort

LisaDiane said:


> This is all very interesting...I don't know what I think about it yet, I'm going to have to turn it around in my mind for a little while! Some of these concepts sound new to me, or said in a new way that I've never thought of before.
> 
> I am not dating yet, but I will say that I have seen what you call the "Queen effect" when watching men interact with women (and women to men sometimes), and I've never liked it. It's NOT respect, you can feel that - it's done in a fearful way, and it's very fake.
> I don't trust PEOPLE like that, men or women.
> 
> I like what you said about the head and the neck...because the neck is what moves (controls?) the head!! Lol!
> 
> What I meant by "equal" was that he believes I have equal intelligence and deserve equal respect from him, just as he wants from me. I don't mind deferring to him...IF he is a man I can trust to take charge. However, I WILL lose my respect and rescind my deference if he ever reveals himself to be undeserving of my respect (which took my STBX 3 years to do).
> 
> Also, I never want to be on a pedestal, but I certainly want to be special to him and treated with love and care, like I will love and care for him.


It almost has a phony nice guy feel about it....the covert contract douchebags.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> What I meant by "equal" was that he believes I have equal intelligence and deserve equal respect from him, just as he wants from me. I don't mind deferring to him...IF he is a man I can trust to take charge. However, I WILL lose my respect and rescind my deference if he ever reveals himself to be undeserving of my respect (which took my STBX 3 years to do).


What if he's way more intelligent that you?
Or do you refuse to date more intelligent men?


----------



## manowar

lifeistooshort said:


> It seems to me that it's a tactic of some men who are insecure and see their woman as being above them.



Yes. Now we are getting someplace. But its not so much a tactic but rather social conditioning. They don't see their woman above them but rather ALL women. Women are higher beings. Or woman as higher beings. More virtuous, kinder, pure, honest, made from gold, deserving of man's deference. Anyone ever watch a western. How about Gunsmoke (a tv show that aired for 30 years). Festus is overly deferential to Miss Kitty. She's a saloon girl. Yet by her very birthright, she's a higher being. Festus immediately signals his lower being with the taking off the hat, bowing, complying with the female manners code imposed on him and other men by the sisterhood. 

A big elaborate ceremony paying homage to woman.

The dumb husband smart wife trope is another. The bumbling husband where the wife solves the problems. its in commercials too.

Ester Vilar contends that these men have deified woman These men believe it. Its not an act. Her argument, and its a good one, is that men enjoy living under the servitude of woman. Why else would they work so hard for them as the beta provider does.

*BTW ladies *-- if you want to get married again. *Focus on the recently divorced man. *These guys still firmly believe in the old world order, are compliant, more than willing to provide (it's their duty), they have never heard of MGTOW, or any of it, they are strongly entrenched in the Disney/Hallmark Myth, believe that a woman loves a man the same way a man loves a woman.


----------



## lifeistooshort

manowar said:


> Yes. Now we are getting someplace. But its not so much a tactic but rather social conditioning. They don't see their woman above them but rather ALL women. Women are higher beings. Or woman as higher beings. More virtuous, kinder, pure, honest, made from gold, deserving of man's deference. Anyone ever watch a western. How about Gunsmoke (a tv show that aired for 30 years). Festus is overly deferential to Miss Kitty. She's a saloon girl. Yet by her very birthright, she's a higher being. Festus immediately signals his lower being with the taking off the hat, bowing, complying with the female manners code imposed on him and other men by the sisterhood.
> 
> A big elaborate ceremony paying homage to woman.
> 
> The dumb husband smart wife trope is another. The bumbling husband where the wife solves the problems. its in commercials too.
> 
> Ester Vilar contends that these men have deified woman These men believe it. Its not an act. Her argument, and its a good one, is that men enjoy living under the servitude of woman. Why else would they work so hard for them as the beta provider does.
> 
> *BTW ladies *-- if you want to get married again. *Focus on the recently divorced man. *These guys still firmly believe in the old world order, are compliant, more than willing to provide (it's their duty), they have never heard of MGTOW, or any of it, they are strongly entrenched in the Disney/Hallmark Myth, believe that a woman loves a man the same way a man loves a woman.


Ok, I can work with this.

But how is this different from more patriarchal societies where women are also expected to be better then men?

Look at societies where women have no power. They are expected to be pure, kind, honest....the men have nome of these expectations. They are allowed to behave like animals...the difference is that women have no power so the men force these things (to the extent they can). This difference in expectations has been present in most societies throughout history.

Where women have some power men can't force them to be better, so some men try to get around that by simply treating women like they're above them rather then accepting that we're all flawed.

Much better to accept this, try to be your best self, and attract someone with similar values that you're compatible with.

Most women don't expect men to be better then they are....we're never had the power to have that kind of dynamic.

For the record, I detest these commercials with the idiot man who needs his wife or even worse.....his kids...to tell him how to function. I'm offended on behalf of all grown men.


----------



## manowar

lifeistooshort said:


> Look at societies where* women have no power.* They are expected to be pure, kind, honest....the men have nome of these expectations.



These qualities are part of the deification of woman. woman didnt do this. She didn't deceive man into this. Man Deceived himself. Patriarchial Monogamy benefits the (lower) beta man enormously. A woman for just about every guy because a woman needs to find security. Church/Family/Education etc impose harsh rules in this system to maintain the status quo. However, with female nature unleashed -- women only find 25% of men attractive. The lower beta man who deified woman is left out now and is put in reserve. A backup at best to provide later in life. These men have also been conditioned by society to believe myths and falsehoods about female nature. 

BTW - the man who deifies woman gets cheated on a lot. This site proves it.


I don't think Colonial American Society, Ancient Society etc had this Queen BS. Men treated women for what they are. Fellow people. Women still had the upper hand in mating, however. Men were cuckold in ancient society in droves where a man was not certain if the child was his. Women Cuckold guys all the time back then. This was one reason for monogamy.

Another Myth is that women have had no power. Women devised ways of dealing with men such as subcommunication, and manipulation. Men have always highly valued their women and guarded them as Elwood stated. In Patriarchal societies, the victors killed the men and took the women. This is one reason why women can leave men with seeming ease and move on to another guy while the ex is stuck and can't believe how quickly she moved on. 



lifeistooshort said:


> Most women don't expect men to be better then they are....we're never had the power to have that kind of dynamic.



What? women always marry up. A beautiful woman is very wealthy in this society even though she may not have $10.00. . She can come from nothing and marry a top guy with ease.

Let's not forget about the *Serviceable Guy *(all of you ladies are familiar with this dude) who is a subcategory of the Worshiper. I can now see how you women have a hard time finding a quality man. I never quite saw it that way before - what it's like in your shoes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> There are no such societies.
> They guard and watch their women as they know women are not to be trusted.


Disagree. Men can't be trusted either, so the only reason they care whether women can't be trusted is because they expect women to be better then them. Rather than accept that we're all flawed they try to force it. If they didn't expect women to be better there would be no need to "guard" them.

It would be different if the men were paragons of virtue and the women just couldn't be trusted, but that's not the case.


----------



## lifeistooshort

manowar said:


> These qualities are part of the deification of woman. woman didnt do this. She didn't deceive man into this. Man Deceived himself. Patriarchial Monogamy benefits the (lower) beta man enormously. A woman for just about every guy because a woman needs to find security. Church/Family/Education etc impose harsh rules in this system to maintain the status quo. However, with female nature unleashed -- women only find 25% of men attractive. The lower beta man who deified woman is left out now and is put in reserve. A backup at best to provide later in life. These men have also been conditioned by society to believe myths and falsehoods about female nature.
> 
> BTW - the man who deifies woman gets cheated on a lot. This site proves it.
> 
> 
> I don't think Colonial American Society, Ancient Society etc had this Queen BS. Men treated women for what they are. Fellow people. Women still had the upper hand in mating, however. Men were cuckold in ancient society in droves where a man was not certain if the child was his. Women Cuckold guys all the time back then. This was one reason for monogamy.
> 
> Another Myth is that women have had no power. Women devised ways of dealing with men such as subcommunication, and manipulation. Men have always highly valued their women and guarded them as Elwood stated. In Patriarchal societies, the victors killed the men and took the women. This is one reason why women can leave men with seeming ease and move on to another guy while the ex is stuck and can't believe how quickly she moved on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? women always marry up. A beautiful woman is very wealthy in this society even though she may not have $10.00. . She can come from nothing and marry a top guy with ease.
> 
> Let's not forget about the *Serviceable Guy *(all of you ladies are familiar with this dude) who is a subcategory of the Worshiper. I can now see how you women have a hard time finding a quality man. I never quite saw it that way before - what it's like in your shoes.


Women are more likely to marry up when they don't have reasonable options to provide for themselves. When you have to worry about how to feed and house yourself and your children you can't afford to worry about things like how attractive you find a guy or how much you like him.

Its getting better but it wasn't long ago that if a woman went to her family and said a successful man wanted to marry her but she didn't care for him or wasn't attracted to him the family would smack her upside the head. Men could afford to think about things like attraction because they could provide. 

When you have few options for supporting yourself sex becomes a commodity that goes to the highest bidder, and I don't see how that's good for anyone. And in days of old the rich dudes simply bought the desirable women, and the guys with less settled for what they could get.

As we women can support ourselves we can think about things like attraction, and I would think that's good for you guys. While it is true that men who worship women or allow a woman to financially support them will get cheated on more, there is plenty of middle ground. I'm a pretty high earner and all I ask is that you not ask me to support you and you take care of things like an adult. I have a nice, quality guy that I had no problem finding.....he made his interest known when I met him but he doesn't worship me. I absolutely would not respect that.

Going after a woman you want and treating her well is not the same thing as worshipping.

As for the kids....yes, that is unfortunately something men have had to deal with. Its a despicable practice....my kids father was a nasty drunk but they are his. He is free to test them if he chooses.


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> What if he's way more intelligent that you?
> Or do you refuse to date more intelligent men?


I'll let you know if I ever meet a man who is...Lol!!! 
Intelligent PEOPLE intrigue me and are fun to talk to, I would never be intimidated by anyone being "way more" intelligent than I am.

I haven't ever had a chance to "date" anyone at all yet. I've been in a serious relationship that turned into marriage since I graduated high school. But I don't think I would refuse to date anyone unless they were mean or dishonest.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> Disagree. Men can't be trusted either, so the only reason they care whether women can't be trusted is because they expect women to be better then them. Rather than accept that we're all flawed they try to force it. If they didn't expect women to be better there would be no need to "guard" them.
> 
> It would be different if the men were paragons of virtue and the women just couldn't be trusted, but that's not the case.


Trust No One!


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> And in days of old the rich dudes simply bought the desirable women, and the guys with less settled for what they could get.


You think that has changed?
As far as I can see, the only change is the internet allowing the 'desirable women' a wider choice of 'old rich dudes'.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> In Patriarchal societies, the victors killed the men and took the women.


My favourite quote ......
"There is no greater pleasure than lying with the wives and daughters of your recently defeated enemies and riding their horses" Genghis Khan


----------



## ccpowerslave

LisaDiane said:


> I'll let you know if I ever meet a man who is...Lol!!!


🤣

Interesting discussion here. My own search criteria for a wife/girlfriend in my early 20s is I had to be physically attracted to her and she had to be smart. I also wanted either someone going to school or finished and working. My wife was going to school (kinda) and also working and she may have put on a few pounds and aged some but I still think she’s hot.

I think I also wanted someone “traditional” not in a 1950s style housewife sense but one who would support my career and wanted me to do the heavy lifting in terms of household income and such. I had goals that I wanted to accomplish career wise and it wasn’t just a job for me it was part of my identity to do that. With that said I didn’t want her to be helpless or dependent but I wanted to be “the man”.

If I was single now if I’m being honest I would probably go out on a bender banging chicks left and right that I met in everyday life that were DTF but ultimately I don’t think it would be fulfilling.

I was just at an event with a guy who was almost 50 with his pregnant early 30s girlfriend/wife and as soon as she opened her mouth and said “like, um…” I was thinking oh man… hell no! So maybe I should give myself more credit.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> You think that has changed?
> As far as I can see, the only change is the internet allowing the 'desirable women' a wider choice of 'old rich dudes'.


For people looking to have a business arrangement type partnership probably not. For a guy willing to pay there are women who will put up with him. If that's your thing then have at it.

But for those not interested in a business arrangement...those who want a connection and partnership....that is more of a possibility with women being able to support themselves. We can think about whether we actually like you because we don't have to worry about starving. I make more money then my guy so I certainly don't need him to pay my bills. I like him and enjoy being with him.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My favourite quote ......
> "There is no greater pleasure than lying with the wives and daughters of your recently defeated enemies and riding their horses" Genghis Khan


Let's be clear on something. The word "lying" implies a non-violent situation where both parties are in agreement. The correct word is "rape". That was the fate of women and little girls when they their cities/locations were defeated. The ones who were not raped, tortured, and killed were mostly pressed into slavery and use sexually.

While I agree that it's an interesting quote from Genghis Khan, it's disturbing that it's anyone's "favorite quote".

Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac with obvious sociopathic tendencies (or perhaps he was a full out sociopath). He is responsible for the deaths of millions in central Asia alone. He leveled entire cities there and butchered innocent civilians who originally had no hostility towards the Mongols. He did the same thing in China, too. Sadly, the facts of the enormously depraved aspects of his conquests are casually mentioned only in passing by enthusiastic writers. In my view, there is nothing to admire about this very evil and cruel historical leader, and less so to worship him.

It's sad that in human history, we tend to glorify the leaders who were the most sociopathic. I've wondered about this aspect of humanity.


----------



## minimalME

EleGirl said:


> It's sad that in human history, we tend to glorify the leaders who were the most sociopathic. I've wondered about this aspect of humanity.


I've often thought this about people like Frank Lloyd Wright. He abandoned his wife and children and ran away with his mistress, but that's rarely (if ever) mentioned about him.


----------



## EleGirl

manowar said:


> Yes, I agree 100%. And its always been that way. Female nature hasn't changed in a few decades. Female nature is the same today as it was in the ancient world. ester vilar isn't condoning this behavior. She's not endorsing some act of chivalry. She's calling it out for what it is. (something along the lines of simping by men). what she's saying is that women have established these rules of behavior (manners) and men have been manipulated into following them -- consequently treating women like queens. Where Woman is giving Man the honor of treating her like a Queen. So vilar would also agree with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Another excerpt: pg 7, The Manipulated Man.
> 
> Women let men work for them, think for them, and take on their
> responsibilities — in fact, they exploit them. Yet, since men are strong,
> intelligent, and imaginative, while women are weak, unimaginative, and
> (redacted), why isn't it men who exploit women?
> 
> Could it be that strength, intelligence, and imagination are not
> prerequisites for power but merely qualifications for slavery?
> 
> Could it be that the world is not being ruled by experts but by beings
> who are not fit for anything else — by women? And if this is so, how do
> women manage it so that their victims do not feel themselves cheated
> and humiliated, but rather believe themselves to be what they are least
> of all — masters of the universe?
> 
> How do women manage to instill in
> men this sense of pride and superiority that inspires them to ever greater
> achievements?
> 
> Why are women never unmasked?​


Fear of women seems to be an issue with some men.


----------



## uphillbattle

EleGirl said:


> Let's be clear on something. The word "lying" implies a non-violent situation where both parties are in agreement. The correct word is "rape". That was the fate of women and little girls when they their cities/locations were defeated. The ones who were not raped, tortured, and killed were mostly pressed into slavery and use sexually.
> 
> While I agree that it's an interesting quote from Genghis Khan, it's disturbing that it's anyone's "favorite quote".
> 
> Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac with obvious sociopathic tendencies (or perhaps he was a full out sociopath). He is responsible for the deaths of millions in central Asia alone. He leveled entire cities there and butchered innocent civilians who originally had no hostility towards the Mongols. He did the same thing in China, too. Sadly, the facts of the enormously depraved aspects of his conquests are casually mentioned only in passing by enthusiastic writers. In my view, there is nothing to admire about this very evil and cruel historical leader, and how much less so to worship him.
> 
> *It's sad that in human history, we tend to glorify the leaders who were the most sociopathic.* *I've wondered about this aspect of humanity*.


Meh, mostly what is admired was their ability to get **** done. People love a winner. Not much wonder to it.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> Fear of women seems to be an issue with some men.


My fears are more based around fear of losing my home, my children, my assets, my pension, my freedom. A fear that was very real in the UK, but doesn't exist for me at all in Asia.
For men in the west, their greatest danger of harm is from the woman with whom they share their bed.
No need for any evidence, the woman just needs to cry and point her finger, and the man will be forcibly removed from his home in handcuffs, while his children watch.


----------



## Rus47

EleGirl said:


> Let's be clear on something. The word "lying" implies a non-violent situation where both parties are in agreement. The correct word is "rape". That was the fate of women and little girls when they their cities/locations were defeated. The ones who were not raped, tortured, and killed were mostly pressed into slavery and use sexually.
> 
> While I agree that it's an interesting quote from Genghis Khan, it's disturbing that it's anyone's "favorite quote".
> 
> Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac with obvious sociopathic tendencies (or perhaps he was a full out sociopath). He is responsible for the deaths of millions in central Asia alone. He leveled entire cities there and butchered innocent civilians who originally had no hostility towards the Mongols. He did the same thing in China, too. Sadly, the facts of the enormously depraved aspects of his conquests are casually mentioned only in passing by enthusiastic writers. In my view, there is nothing to admire about this very evil and cruel historical leader, and less so to worship him.
> 
> It's sad that in human history, we tend to glorify the leaders who were the most sociopathic. I've wondered about this aspect of humanity.


Nothing has changed. That is still the fate of the conquered. Genghis Khan, is known throughout the world centuries after his death. Those he conquered are unknown. His genes survived, those he conquered did not. Genghis Kan to the Taliban. Murder, rape, and mayhem continue as always. Evil and cruelty are common in the human species. Rwanda, Cambodia... Sad, but true.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My fears are more based around fear of losing my home, my children, my assets, my pension, my freedom. A fear that was very real in the UK, but doesn't exist for me at all in Asia.
> For men in the west, their greatest danger of harm is from the woman with whom they share their bed.
> *No need for any evidence, the woman just needs to cry and point her finger, and the man will be forcibly removed from his home in handcuffs.*


Yup. Happened to a buddy of mine that I grew up with. He kissed his wife goodbye and went to work like normal. When he came home, the police were there and he thought something happened. They were there for him. She said she felt unsafe around him and he only had a few minutes to get his things out of his own house while a cop followed him all around. Of course he got mad about what happened which just made her story seem more credible. He eventually had to move back in with his parents at age 30 while she hit him with child support he couldn't afford and quickly moved a new BF into the house. My buddy lost everything.


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My fears are more based around fear of losing my home, my children, my assets, my pension, my freedom. A fear that was very real in the UK, but doesn't exist for me at all in Asia.
> For men in the west, their greatest danger of harm is from the woman with whom they share their bed.
> No need for any evidence, the woman just needs to cry and point her finger, and the man will be forcibly removed from his home in handcuffs, while his children watch.


The greatest danger of harm for women is MEN.

A man just needs to tighten his single hand around my neck...and if I make an error in judgement about which man I allow myself to be alone with, I don't stand a chance unless HE decides not to hurt me.

And I had to run away in the middle of the night with my 3 tiny children, leaving most of our possessions behind, to prevent that from happening to me while THEY watched.

BOTH genders have their fears and "greatest dangers".


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> A man just needs to tighten his single hand around my neck...and if I make an error in judgement about which man I allow myself to be alone with, I don't stand a chance unless HE decides not to hurt me.


As a woman you should never allow yourself to be alone with a man (apart from your immediate family). Where I live that's considered to be 'consent'.
Common sense really.

Although I've managed to live my life and not hurt any women ever, no matter where I lived.
I don't even beat my wife, to the amazement of my wife and MiL.


----------



## uphillbattle

EleGirl said:


> I'm going to ask you for your take on this as well.
> 
> Do you actually think that most women do things like falsely accuse a spouse of domestic violence? Do you really think that most women are that evil?


Not at all, was commenting on the small pecker brigade without trying to be too insulting.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> Do you actually think that most women do things like falsely accuse a spouse of domestic violence? Do you really think that most women are that evil?


My former wife certainly did, but I've only a sample of 2 wives to use as data so that might not be a statistically valid sample size. No evidence of any kind was ever presented (as there was none), but her unsupported word was enough to get me a weekend in the cells.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> As a woman you should never allow yourself to be alone with a man (apart from your immediate family). Where I live that's considered to be 'consent'.
> Common sense really.
> 
> Although I've managed to live my life and not hurt any women ever, no matter where I lived.
> I don't even beat my wife, to the amazement of my wife and MiL.


Jeez, that is just crazy, the part about not being alone with a man. Just crazy.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownByTheRiver said:


> Jeez, that is just crazy, the part about not being alone with a man. Just crazy.


I can't think of any (non-sexual) reason I'd want to be alone with a woman (my wife wouldn't like it either).
Give me a reason why you'd want to be alone with a man?

Where I live speaking 1 on 1 with a respectable woman is frowned upon.
Even at parties, there's a mens table and a womens table, the only interaction of the sexes is when the women serve the men. Once I got told off by the village elders because my wife spoke to another woman's husband in the park, I was told to control my wife and not let it happen again.


----------



## EleGirl

DownByTheRiver said:


> Jeez, that is just crazy, the part about not being alone with a man. Just crazy.


That is normal in many countries. In the 'old days', this was the norm even in what we now call Western Countries.


----------



## Personal

Enigma32 said:


> Yup. Happened to a buddy of mine that I grew up with. He kissed his wife goodbye and went to work like normal. When he came home, the police were there and he thought something happened. They were there for him. She said she felt unsafe around him and he only had a few minutes to get his things out of his own house while a cop followed him all around. Of course he got mad about what happened which just made her story seem more credible. He eventually had to move back in with his parents at age 30 while she hit him with child support he couldn't afford and quickly moved a new BF into the house. My buddy lost everything.


I can relate to some degree. Following divorce form my ex-wife (after my ending our relationship, following her confession of sexual infidelity), I brought our daughter back to her place after she was at mine.

When my ex-wife out of the blue asked something like "why have you been hitting my daughter?". I thought it was the most ridiculous question since I hadn't ever hit her, so I just said "I haven't touched her". Then following some to and fro of that, she then said something along the lines of, "you aren't getting it, so let me put it this way. If you don't go away, I am going to tell the police you are touching our daughter sexually."Given I was already in debt to a lawyer and couldn't afford more at the time. I didn't know what else I could do, so I said, "you win" and left it at that. Then at the age of 22 I walked away from seeing my daughter, who was 2 years old at the time, I paid child support as expected (and required) till she was 18, and I didn't see her again till she was 18. It is only this year that my first child, doesn't see me as a monster (since that was all she was ever told) and has a better relationship with me.

Roughly 4 years later with her goon (because he liked making threats and towered over my ex wife, who is taller than me) of a then de facto partner (now husband), my ex-wife contacted me out of the blue dangling contact with my daughter. Until they got to the point, where they were wanting me to sign papers so that she could have the goons surname. So on thinking about it I said "no", although since I saw that part of my life a lost cause, I did say I wouldn't oppose her being adopted and that way she could have his surname. Which didn't fit their plan, since it would kill the child support, so they then started making numerous threats against me. Then stopped bothering me, when that got no traction at all.

Charming.

On the other hand, that experience didn't make me think "all women". And it certainly didn't stop me having some great sexual relationships with plenty of other wonderful women, including my now wife.

Just because one woman is a scumbag doesn't mean they all are, and the same applies to men as well.



Numb26 said:


> Sounds like your average woman


That's not my experience. I've subsequently had one other longer term sexual relationship, plus another marriage (25 years together), amongst plenty of other shorter sexual relationships and one night stands. And not one of those women have behaved badly like my first wife. In fact I'm still friends with some of my former sexual partners because they're good people.

Some people suck, some don't, #notallpeople.

Since I have had plenty of great experiences with women and one bad, I understand that the bad does not represent all or average women. That said if most or all of my experiences with women were bad, and I was sensible about it. I would be taking a very hard look at myself to figure out what I am doing wrong, especially since it doesn't always happen to other men.



LisaDiane said:


> The greatest danger of harm for women is MEN.
> 
> A man just needs to tighten his single hand around my neck...and if I make an error in judgement about which man I allow myself to be alone with, I don't stand a chance unless HE decides not to hurt me.


Yep.



> And I had to run away in the middle of the night with my 3 tiny children, leaving most of our possessions behind, to prevent that from happening to me while THEY watched.


I'm glad you got away.



> BOTH genders have their fears and "greatest dangers".


As always some men and women are a threat, and some of them aren't.


----------



## manowar

EleGirl said:


> Fear of women seems to be an issue with some men.


maybe its because 'some men' have fallen into the trap of having their worth judged by women. Villar says this is part of the problem. Some guys have been trained like seals. I know a few. 



DownByTheRiver said:


> the part about not being alone with a man


this is way overblown. women test for this sort of thing early in the relationship. 

Just reading these posts you can see the huge gap between sexes. No wonder there are difficulties. But things - natures - must be this way for a reason. One thing I can say with certainty -- men are no longer playing the stupid card as a default position. The internet has 'wised' guys up. Just look at the comments on some of the RP channels. MGTOW is a response to female behavior (men are saying - not interested) and her superior position under the law. A book 10 years ago titled -- Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage came out. More and more men are no longer under the influence of their clergyman and the Fairy Tale narrative. Big changes are coming. Some fathers are telling their male children to avoid marriage, providing for life, risk of family court, etc...


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I can't think of any (non-sexual) reason I'd want to be alone with a woman (my wife wouldn't like it either).
> Give me a reason why you'd want to be alone with a man?
> 
> Where I live speaking 1 on 1 with a respectable woman is frowned upon.
> Even at parties, there's a mens table and a womens table, the only interaction of the sexes is when the women serve the men. Once I got told off by the village elders because my wife spoke to another woman's husband in the park, I was told to control my wife and not let it happen again.


Geez, I can think of a million reasons why. I enjoy just visiting with people. And of course I have to hire people to help me do things around the house and yard. I like to go out to eat with a male friend of mine and just gossip or just hanging out. To a woman, everything is not sexual. We find value in other things for the most part. I've had many non-sexual male friends in my lifetime. 

Consent is something I give, not something they should just take or assume. If they did, I might have something to say about that with an iron skillet. 

A man with that attitude would land in jail in short order in the United States. No one's allowed totally isolate their wife here either.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> That is normal in many countries. In the 'old days', this was the norm even in what we now call Western Countries.


That century is long past. And not all cultures ever subscribed to that. For example matriarchal Native American cultures. And Men in the United States no doubt got away with a lot over the centuries but they also got a pants full of buckshot if they took advantage of some woman just because she was in their proximity, and that was mostly done by her male members of her family.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> Fear of women seems to be an issue with some men.





manowar said:


> maybe its because 'some men' have fallen into the trap of having their worth judged by women. Villar says this is part of the problem. Some guys have been trained like seals. I know a few.


I think that the issue is that there are some bad people in both sexes. There are men who have done very bad things to their wives/girlfriends just as there are women who have done bad things to their husbands/boyfriends.

It sad that some people have such a hard time learning from a situation and cannot seem to move on and use that lesson to grow in a positive direction. I don't think that taking the MGTOW attitude is healthy or good. And I think it's just wrong to pass that attitude on to young men. Instead they could be mentored to know how to approach a relationship that is strong, healthy, and that provided them with some legal protections.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

manowar said:


> maybe its because 'some men' have fallen into the trap of having their worth judged by women. Villar says this is part of the problem. Some guys have been trained like seals. I know a few.
> 
> 
> 
> this is way overblown. women test for this sort of thing early in the relationship.
> 
> Just reading these posts you can see the huge gap between sexes. No wonder there are difficulties. But things - natures - must be this way for a reason. One thing I can say with certainty -- men are no longer playing the stupid card as a default position. The internet has 'wised' guys up. Just look at the comments on some of the RP channels. MGTOW is a response to female behavior (men are saying - not interested) and her superior position under the law. A book 10 years ago titled -- Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage came out. More and more men are no longer under the influence of their clergyman and the Fairy Tale narrative. Big changes are coming. Some fathers are telling their male children to avoid marriage, providing for life, risk of family court, etc...


A lot of women are opting out as well, but even more are now able to take themselves out of a miserable marriage and walk away since we're in the age of women being able to earn a living.


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> I think that the issue is that there are some bad people in both sexes. There are men who have done very bad things to their wives/girlfriends just as there are women who have done bad things to their husbands/boyfriends.
> 
> It sad that some people have such a hard time learning from a situation and cannot seem to move on and use that lesson to grow in a positive direction. I don't think that taking the MGTOW attitude is healthy or good. And I think it's just wrong to pass that attitude on to young men. Instead they could be mentored to know how to approach a relationship that is strong, healthy, and that provided them with some legal protections.


I think there is value in different perspectives. I don't believe in brainwashing one gender against another like some of the more extremists do on each side, but I do think that it's good to hear about things from all sides before you decide things on your own.


----------



## Cletus

There's a reason the police believe women when they accuse a man of physical abuse.

It's called the morgue. It's playing out in the forest of Montana as we speak.

You want to blame someone for that state of affairs? Blame the predators.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> It sad that some people have such a hard time learning from a situation and cannot seem to move on and use that lesson to grow in a positive direction. I don't think that taking the MGTOW attitude is healthy or good. And I think it's just wrong to pass that attitude on to young men. Instead they could be mentored to know how to approach a relationship that is strong, healthy, and that provided them with some legal protections.


Many of us have learned from 'the situation' and have used it as a lesson to move on and grow in a 'risk free' direction.

My personal learned lessons for men living in the western world is .......
Never marry, or cohabit because it will risk your right to live in your own home.
Never impregnate, as it will risk your future earnings for 20 years, and you don't even have a right to see the kids.
Never be alone with a woman without a full sound and video recording, as it will risk your freedom and employment.

MGTOW is the only way a man can survive in the modern western world.
Without becoming an indentured servant to the women he loves.


----------



## Cletus

ElwoodPDowd said:


> MGTOW is the only way a man can survive in the modern western world.
> Without becoming an indentured servant to the women he loves.


A demonstrably false premise as the overwhelming majority of us here can attest.

Choosing to live your life based on hyperbole doesn't require too much analysis to refute.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Many of us have learned from 'the situation' and have used it as a lesson to move on and grow in a 'risk free' direction.
> 
> My personal learned lessons for men living in the western world is .......
> Never marry, or cohabit because it will risk your right to live in your own home.
> Never impregnate, as it will risk your future earnings for 20 years, and you don't even have a right to see the kids.
> Never be alone with a woman without a full sound and video recording, as it will risk your freedom and employment.
> 
> MGTOW is the only way a man can survive in the modern western world.
> Without becoming an indentured servant to the women he loves.


I would say only a certain type of man would find that the only way to exist, And that would be a man who can't deal with reality.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownByTheRiver said:


> I would say only a certain type of man would find that the only way to exist,


Of course, MGTOW isn't for every man.
If it was we wouldn't be going our own way, we'd be going the same was as everyone else.
As @manowar has stated, most men are trained from birth to be the servants of women, and are totally happy in their servitude, MGTOW isn't for them.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownByTheRiver said:


> I like to go out to eat with a male friend of mine and just gossip or just hanging out.
> And of course I have to hire people to help me do things around the house and yard.


Who pays for the dinner? ...... just asking out of interest.

My wife ended up divorcing me after a six month affair with our (married) gardener.
He said he was frequently offered sex by the housewives employing him, and he just accepted all that was on offer, ran a mile when he found she was divorcing me over it.


----------



## Enigma32

Cletus said:


> There's a reason the police believe women when they accuse a man of physical abuse.
> 
> It's called the morgue. It's playing out in the forest of Montana as we speak.
> *
> You want to blame someone for that state of affairs? Blame the predators.*


That logic is rather dangerous. Would you apply the same reasoning to other groups of people?


----------



## EleGirl

Enigma32 said:


> I think there is value in different perspectives. I don't believe in brainwashing one gender against another like some of the more extremists do on each side, but I do think that it's good to hear about things from all sides before you decide things on your own.


I agree that it's good to hear things from many perspectives. There is plenty that the older generations can pass on to the younger ones to help them protect themselves as well as to form stronger families. We are living in a time of very fast social change with huge population growths, changes in social structures, technological advances that effect how we live our lives. We have to figure out how to navigate all this.


----------



## EleGirl

Enigma32 said:


> That logic is rather dangerous. Would you apply the same reasoning to other groups of people?


 I think that point here is that the in most cases, when a woman is killed it's usually their intimate partner who killed them. 

_"In 2013, fifteen (15) times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers."_​​_"For victims who knew their offenders, 62% were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offenders (Violence Policy Center, 2015). Men can also be victims of intimate partner homicide. In recent years, about 4.9% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner (Cooper & Smith, 2011)."_​_The Scope of the Problem: Intimate Partner Homicide Statistics (vawnet.org)_​


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My former wife certainly did, but I've only a sample of 2 wives to use as data so that might not be a statistically valid sample size. No evidence of any kind was ever presented (as there was none), but her unsupported word was enough to get me a weekend in the cells.


My former husband tried to kill me. I'm only alive today because his cousin knocked on the door. In the moment's distraction when his cousin knocked at our door I was able to run out of the apartment and ran to the house of a family friend.

With your way of thinking, I would hold all men responsible for what he did.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I can't think of any (non-sexual) reason I'd want to be alone with a woman (my wife wouldn't like it either).
> Give me a reason why you'd want to be alone with a man?
> 
> Where I live speaking 1 on 1 with a respectable woman is frowned upon.
> Even at parties, there's a mens table and a womens table, the only interaction of the sexes is when the women serve the men. Once I got told off by the village elders because my wife spoke to another woman's husband in the park, I was told to control my wife and not let it happen again.


So how does your wife feel about you going out with women to 'date' them?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> So how does your wife feel about you going out with women to 'date' them?


She says, having sex with other women is OK, dating them is not OK.
Many of the guys we know are running two households, main wife and minor wife.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> My former husband tried to kill me. I'm only alive today because his cousin knocked on the door. In the moment's distraction of his cousin knocking I was able to run out of the apartment and ran miles to the house of a family friend.
> 
> With your way of thinking, I would hold all men responsible for what he did.


How many husbands have you had?
Lets assume 2, so your experiences would suggest 50% of men are potential murderers.
(Sorry to hear your former husband treated you badly)

My experiences led me to believe 50% of women will cheat and asset strip me.
(I'd have actually preferred to be murdered)
I didn't have enough money to risk a second asset split.
(Robin Williams had 3 goes, and committed suicide rather than half his assets a 3rd time)


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> How many husbands have you had?


More than one obviously.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Many of us have learned from 'the situation' and have used it as a lesson to move on and grow in a 'risk free' direction.
> 
> My personal learned lessons for men living in the western world is .......
> Never marry, or cohabit because it will risk your right to live in your own home.
> Never impregnate, as it will risk your future earnings for 20 years, and you don't even have a right to see the kids.
> Never be alone with a woman without a full sound and video recording, as it will risk your freedom and employment.
> 
> MGTOW is the only way a man can survive in the modern western world.
> Without becoming an indentured servant to the women he loves.


I really feel badly for men who have your mindset. I know so many men (and women) who are happily married and have been for years, even decades. Some have been married more than once, but most people recover from it, learn some important lessons, and move on.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> I really feel badly for men who have your mindset. I know so many men (and women) who are happily married and have been for years, even decades. Some have been married more than once, but most people recover from it, learn some important lessons, and move on.


I was married for 30 years in the west, and coming up to 12 years in the east.
I've been happily married for 4 decades, my first wife was only happily married for 1 decade.

How long have you been happily married?


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I can't think of any reason I'd want to be alone with a woman (my wife wouldn't like it either).
> Give me a reason why you'd want to be alone with a man?


Let's see.

How about at work. I've worked jobs where I was the only female and the rest of the team were men.

I hire men who do work on my property to do things like rewire the electrical panel, install ceiling fans, landscaping, etc. Often it's just me here.

I see doctors, some of whom are men.

At university a guy in my class and I did a research project. It was just him and me very often working on it.

How about a female store clerk when she's the only one working in a store and some guy shops there?

I can think of dozens of reasons a woman would be alone with a man for non-sexual reasons.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Although I've managed to live my life and not hurt any women ever, no matter where I lived.
> *I don't even beat my wife, to the amazement of my wife and MiL*.


This is an interesting statement.
You don't have to beat your wife because she knows that where you live you have the legal right to beat her. I've lived in countries where this was the law. The women talk about this, the fear they have and how they have to stay in line because they can be beat legally. 

The USA used to have laws that allowed a husband to 'correct' (aka beat) his wife. Thanks goodness those laws no longer apply here.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> Let's see.
> How about at work. I've worked jobs where I was the only female and the rest of the team were men.
> A hire men who do work on my property to do thinks like rewire the electrical panel, install ceiling fans, landscaping, etc. Often it's just me here.
> I see doctors, some of whom are men.
> At university I a guy in my class and I did a research project. It was just him and me very often working on it.
> How about a female store clerk when she's the only one working in a store and some guy shops there?
> I can think of dozens of reasons a woman would be alone with a man for non-sexual reasons.


None of those were social contacts 1 on 1 with men, which is what we're discussing.
I've never had a problem differentiating between social and commercial interactions.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you've tried to deflect the topic like this.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> This is an interesting statement.
> You don't have to beat your wife because she knows that where you live you have the legal right to beat her. I've lived in countries where this was the law. The women talk about this, the fear they have and how they have to stay in line because they can be beat legally.


The men she previously lived with all beat her.
I don't beat her because I don't hit other people (or animals for that matter), male, female, or children.
She is free to leave at any time, or ask me to leave, and keep our child or not, up to her.

I would display no anger, there would be no shouting on my part.
Just calm acceptance.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> How many husbands have you had?
> Lets assume 2, so your experiences would suggest 50% of men are potential murderers.
> (Sorry to hear your former husband treated you badly)


Why on earth would I assume that 50% of men are potential murderess? That's ridiculous. I can look up crime statistics. 



ElwoodPDowd said:


> My experiences led me to believe 50% of women will cheat and asset strip me.
> (I'd have actually preferred to be murdered)
> I didn't have enough money to risk a second asset split.
> (Robin Williams had 3 goes, and committed suicide rather than half his assets a 3rd time)


Did your first wife work outside the home? Or were you the only income earner?


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> The men she previously lived with all beat her.
> I don't beat her because I don't hit other people (or animals for that matter), male, female, or children.
> She is free to leave at any time, or ask me to leave, and keep our child or not, up to her.
> 
> I would display no anger, there would be no shouting on my part.
> Just calm acceptance.


My comment was not to suggest that you would beat your wife.

My point is what living in a society that allows for wife abuse does to the mental state of the women. It's sad.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> As a woman you should never allow yourself to be alone with a man (apart from your immediate family). Where I live that's considered to be 'consent'.
> Common sense really.
> 
> Although I've managed to live my life and not hurt any women ever, no matter where I lived.
> I don't even beat my wife, to the amazement of my wife and MiL.





ElwoodPDowd said:


> None of those were social contacts 1 on 1 with men, which is what we're discussing.
> I've never had a problem differentiating between social and commercial interactions.
> Quite frankly, I'm surprised you've tried to deflect the topic like this.


Your statement did not distinguish between commercial and social interactions.

So if we are looking at social interactions only...



ElwoodPDowd said:


> Where I live speaking 1 on 1 with a respectable woman is frowned upon.
> Even at parties, there's a mens table and a womens table, the only interaction of the sexes is when the women serve the men. Once I got told off by the village elders because my wife spoke to another woman's husband in the park, I was told to control my wife and not let it happen again.


So it's ok for a woman to speak and hang out with the men she works with. But a woman cannot talk to men socially? Now that makes no sense at all.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> My comment was not to suggest that you would beat your wife.
> My point is what living in a society that allows for wife abuse does to the mental state of the women. It's sad.


My neighbours (opposite our house) had a knock down fight in the road a couple of years back.
(She'd been banging her boss while hubby was working away from home)
She beat the living daylights out of him, left him lying face down in the street.
My first Asian gf ran over her American husband with her car, breaking many bones in his body.
My second Asian gf admitted to having her Swedish husband murdered (hit and run).
I'm seeing way more husband abuse than wife abuse where I live.
But the men and women here are generally similar sizes, it's not large male Vs small female.

The police see domestic violence as part of relationships, and stay out of it.
Their view is if the man or woman don't want the beatings they can move somewhere else, and will even escort the beaten party to the bus station and buy them a ticket.

Slightly off topic,
On the plus side, there's almost no petty theft or vandalism here.
If I leave my m/c or car keys in the lock, it's still there after an evening out.
If I go shopping, I can leave my purchases dangling from the handlebars, or just thrown in the back of the pickup.
No need to lock the house or close the windows, nobody will steal from me.
On the negative side, I might get stabbed or shot if I'm rude or aggressive towards someone.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> My neighbours (opposite our house) had a knock down fight in the road a couple of years back.
> (She'd been banging her boss while hubby was working away from home)
> She beat the living daylights out of him, left him lying face down in the street.
> My first Asian gf ran over her American husband with her car, breaking many bones in his body.
> My second Asian gf admitted to having her Swedish husband murdered (hit and run).
> I'm seeing way more husband abuse than wife abuse where I live.
> But the men and women here are generally similar sizes, it's not large male Vs small female.


Yikes, that sounds like a hell hole.

Did any of those who murdered get charged & convicted of their crime?



ElwoodPDowd said:


> The police see domestic violence as part of relationships, and stay out of it.
> Their view is if the man or woman don't want the beatings they can move somewhere else, and will even escort the beaten party to the bus station and buy them a ticket.


That works out I suppose if the abused spouse has a place to go to and the money to support themselves.



ElwoodPDowd said:


> Slightly off topic,
> On the plus side, there's almost no petty theft, vandalism or crime here.
> If I leave my m/c or car keys in the lock, it's still there after an evening out.
> If I go shopping, I can leave my purchases dangling from the handlebars, or just thrown in the back of the pickup.
> No need to lock the house or close the windows, nobody will steal from me.


That's good.


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> Yikes, that sounds like a hell hole.
> 
> Did any of those who murdered get charged & convicted of their crime?


That depends on your perspective. Take a guy like @ElwoodPDowd. Got legally screwed over in his divorce. Was your ex wife as attractive as your current one, Elwood? Somehow I doubt it. He moved to a country where a regular guy like him can marry a beautiful girl much younger than he is and not only can she not screw him over in a divorce, but she's actually sticking around. I don't think that is a coincidence, either. When you incentivize divorce, people are going to get one. Maybe it sounds like a horrific place to you, but to Elwood or other regular guys like him, it's not so bad. My fiancee is Filipino and I plan to retire overseas myself. Save up and buy a nice condo over there and live pretty good. I feel like Western cultures and the USA in particular are now on a sharp decline anyway. By the time I am ready for retirement, it might be time to abandon ship. 

When I last checked, conviction rates for murder here in the USA were only around 30%. I doubt that will get much better with our culture hating on police and talking about defunding them.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> Was your ex wife as attractive as your current one, Elwood? Somehow I doubt it. He moved to a country where a regular guy like him can marry a beautiful girl much younger than he is and not only can she not screw him over in a divorce, but she's actually sticking around. I don't think that is a coincidence, either. When you incentivize divorce, people are going to get one. Maybe it sounds like a horrific place to you, but to Elwood or other regular guys like him, it's not so bad.


My former wife was a 5 at best, my current wife was a 9/10 when I met and married her.
I had a series of beautiful gfs in their early 30s, all 8s-10s, before I settled on the one i married. Where I live is a very pleasant gated community with nice park and pretty views from my bedroom balcony. The kids all play happily in the road every evening, many street food markets and shops within 500m. It's nearly always hot and sunny, sometimes it's hot and wet (monsoon now) for an hour or two.
$150/year covers all our local property taxes and housing association fees.









There are dangers for adults, most of which can be avoided by non-aggression and situational awareness. (Don't pick fights, don't shout ever, learn to smile and walk away)


----------



## Rus47

EleGirl said:


> Do you actually think that most women do things like falsely accuse a spouse of domestic violence? Do you really think that most women are that evil?


I will answer (though you didn't ask me) an emphatic and loud NO! to both of your questions. What I read in this thread is about SOME who have been traumatized by the opposite sex and by what passes for a legal system in the west. For sure there are women who do such things ( and worse ), usually instigated by their lover (male or female). 

In the circle of our acquaintances and friends, there is a man whose wife of a decade suddenly decided she preferred women, her lesbian lover and her concocted a plan and *successfully* executed it to destroy him financially and alienate him from his daughter. Within those same circle is a woman whose husband abused her emotionally for years and when it turned physical had to flee in middle of the night with her two little kids. She lives in hiding in another state because the legal system provides her no protection.

I don't see any of this as something either gender has a monopoly on. There are horrible despicable people of both genders. It is a feature of humanity ala Genghis Kan and the Taliban.

Believe this thread was originally about men going their own way. Someone who has been been badly damaged by women can reasonably be expected to avoid repeating the experience. There are women who want nothing to do with men either, there are a few posters on TAM who are obviously very bitter because they have been badly damaged by a man.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Of course, MGTOW isn't for every man.
> If it was we wouldn't be going our own way, we'd be going the same was as everyone else.
> As @manowar has stated, most men are trained from birth to be the servants of women, and are totally happy in their servitude, MGTOW isn't for them.


I don't know where you grew up but that couldn't be farther from the truth where I grew up. One thing I do know is the more specialized your needs are, the harder it will be to have them met.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Who pays for the dinner? ...... just asking out of interest.
> 
> My wife ended up divorcing me after a six month affair with our (married) gardener.
> He said he was frequently offered sex by the housewives employing him, and he just accepted all that was on offer, ran a mile when he found she was divorcing me over it.


I'm sorry for your experience. 

Me and my male friend sometimes go dutch, or we used to take turns but if we don't see each other very often then that becomes impractical. But we're going to go out to eat soon and I'm going to pay for his because he has huge medical bills having lost one of his kidneys a couple of months ago.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> I think that point here is that the in most cases, when a woman is killed it's usually their intimate partner who killed them.
> 
> _"In 2013, fifteen (15) times as many females were murdered by a male they knew than were killed by male strangers."_​​_"For victims who knew their offenders, 62% were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offenders (Violence Policy Center, 2015). Men can also be victims of intimate partner homicide. In recent years, about 4.9% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner (Cooper & Smith, 2011)."_​_The Scope of the Problem: Intimate Partner Homicide Statistics (vawnet.org)_​


Yes, and that is the basis for many of my beliefs. That and the grim statistics that one in every four women will be assaulted in some way by men in her lifetime.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yes, and that is the basis for many of my beliefs. That and the grim statistics that one in every four women will be assaulted in some way by men in her lifetime.


I don't accept this idea of shared responsibility for the behaviour of other men, I don't assault women.
Just the same as I don't feel responsible for slavery, I don't keep slaves, my family were poor (back to the 1700s), they shared no blame for what the wealthy did.

There's a name for people that want to class a group of people depending on their race, nationality, or sex ....... they're called bigots.
Maybe if so many women didn't chase desirable 'bad boys', in preference to the nice guys no women appear to want, they wouldn't get themselves assaulted quite so much?

What, you dated a gang member, drug dealer, night club bouncer, murderer and he hit you.
Who could have possibly predicted that outcome?


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> (Robin Williams had 3 goes, and committed suicide rather than half his assets a 3rd time)


You do know that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's and committed suicide because he didn't want to go the distance?


----------



## Cletus

Blondilocks said:


> You do know that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's and committed suicide because he didn't want to go the distance?


Yes, he does. Starting to see what Elwood is really up to in this forum. As, I suspect, are you.


----------



## Cletus

Enigma32 said:


> That logic is rather dangerous. Would you apply the same reasoning to other groups of people?


When I say police, I'm talking about the cop on the beat who has to make a decision in the moment on whether to separate a man from his household, not a conviction in a court of law. In that sense, it is fully justified.


----------



## Blondilocks

Cletus said:


> Yes, he does. Starting to see what Elwood is really up to in this forum. As, I suspect, are you.


Yes, I just wanted to make sure that he wasn't deliberately slandering a fine performer and beloved father.


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> I really feel badly for men who have your mindset. I know so many men (and women) who are happily married and have been for years, even decades. Some have been married more than once, but most people recover from it, learn some important lessons, and move on.


If he's happy then why feel bad for him.

There is some irony between your that post about happy marriages and your signature which has a book on surviving an affair and the link to the 180


----------



## In Absentia

Al_Bundy said:


> If he's happy then why feel bad for him.


But he is not happy. He is still resentful he married a "5 wife" and got screwed royally by her to the point he had to move country to buy a new wife without any financial risks. If this is happiness for you...


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I don't accept this idea of shared responsibility for the behaviour of other men, I don't assault women.
> Just the same as I don't feel responsible for slavery, I don't keep slaves, my family were poor (back to the 1700s), they shared no blame for what the wealthy did.
> 
> There's a name for people that want to class a group of people depending on their race, nationality, or sex ....... they're called bigots.
> Maybe if so many women didn't chase desirable 'bad boys', in preference to the nice guys no women appear to want, they wouldn't get themselves assaulted quite so much?
> 
> What, you dated a gang member, drug dealer, night club bouncer, murderer and he hit you.
> Who could have possibly predicted that outcome?


Most of the assaults occur before women are even out of their teens. The criminal is the one who does the assault. Nobody's asking for it.

So called self-styled "nice guys" are responsible for a lot of the assaults. Just because a man is desirable or adequate enough to attract women doesn't make him either a bad boy or a bad person, much less a rapist or a woman beater. In fact I found those type men to be nicer than the desperate ones and that they have better boundaries


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> If he's happy then why feel bad for him.


People are complex creatures. He seems to be happy that he found a place to live where he can have his cake and eat it too when it comes to being married. However he seems to be bitter about women in general. 



Al_Bundy said:


> There is some irony between your that post about happy marriages and your signature which has a book on surviving an affair and the link to the 180


There is no irony between the post about happy marriages and the book in my signature. The book is one of the best ones I've ever read on the topic of helping a couple repair their marriage after something that could destroy it. At one time, most of the posts on TAM were in the Coping With Infidelity forum. That book in my signature block has been there since I joined almost a decade ago.


----------



## LisaDiane

ElwoodPDowd said:


> *I don't accept this idea of shared responsibility for the behaviour of other men, I don't assault women.*
> Just the same as I don't feel responsible for slavery, I don't keep slaves, my family were poor (back to the 1700s), they shared no blame for what the wealthy did.
> 
> There's a name for people that want to class a group of people depending on their race, nationality, or sex ....... they're called bigots.
> Maybe if so many women didn't chase desirable 'bad boys', in preference to the nice guys no women appear to want, they wouldn't get themselves assaulted quite so much?
> 
> What, you dated a gang member, drug dealer, night club bouncer, murderer and he hit you.
> Who could have possibly predicted that outcome?


I COMPLETELY AGREE with what I bolded.

BUT....then WHY do men do this to women?? That's the purpose of this entire thread!! 

You are blaming most women (or even "ALL" is said sometimes), for the reprehensible acts of a few! I keep posting here when I catch a post that describes a woman behaving in a way that is horrible, in order to remind everyone that it's NOT all women...but sometimes no one believes me (which is ok, but that's my point)...

Can't you see the hypocrisy of how you feel about yourself, and then how you feel about women?

WHY do you maintain that opinion of other people when you can recognize that YOU shouldn't be held accountable in that way???
I cannot understand it...!!

(I'm asking ALL the men who have posted similarly on this thread and elsewhere, also!)


----------



## DownByTheRiver

I think the summaries of these two personality disorders is germane to the topic of MGTOW movement. 

Examples of Personality Disorders With Distorted Thinking Patterns 

excerpts:
For instance, persons with Paranoid Personality Disorders exhibit suspicious thinking and therefore have difficulty trusting other people. They may misinterpret what other people say or do as intentional attempts to attack them, hurt them, or take advantage of them. In turn, they end up holding grudges and may act in ways that are overly defensive, hostile, or even aggressive. You can imagine this thought pattern will cause a lot of anxiety for the person who is paranoid, and that this type guardedness, defensiveness, and hostility is very unpleasant for the other people around them. Obviously, this type of distrust makes close relationships nearly impossible.

People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder exhibit distorted thinking when they go back and forth between over-idealizing themselves, and then completely devaluing themselves. In addition, they have a tendency to over-estimate the importance or significance of their abilities and talents. Persons with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder frequently have fantasies of having unlimited power, success, or special talents. These over-idealized beliefs about themselves can cause them to behave in ways that are arrogant, ruthless, and entitled. Such behavior frequently causes a lot of conflict with others..... Eventually, the person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is likely to run into a situation in which they realize they have some normal, human limitations. When this occurs, they are likely to find it extraordinarily difficult to cope with this realization. Any inkling of failure is hard for them to tolerate. The sudden realization of ordinary human limitations typically leads them to completely debase themselves, shifting from the over-idealized fantasy of unlimited success and special powers, to a devastating and paralyzing sense of complete worthlessness, shame, and defeat.


----------



## Jamieboy

LisaDiane said:


> I COMPLETELY AGREE with what I bolded.
> 
> BUT....then WHY do men do this to women?? That's the purpose of this entire thread!!
> 
> You are blaming most women (or even "ALL" is said sometimes), for the reprehensible acts of a few! I keep posting here when I catch a post that describes a woman behaving in a way that is horrible, in order to remind everyone that it's NOT all women...but sometimes no one believes me (which is ok, but that's my point)...
> 
> Can't you see the hypocrisy of how you feel about yourself, and then how you feel about women?
> 
> WHY do you maintain that opinion of other people when you can recognize that YOU shouldn't be held accountable in that way???
> I cannot understand it...!!
> 
> (I'm asking ALL the men who have posted similarly on this thread and elsewhere, also!)


i believe that everyone is influenced mostly by their own experience first, obviously this flawed for some things, relationships being the prime example. No one can hope to obtain a high enough sample size to make any truly accurate generalisation. So, we are left with using the experience of others combined with our own to make these generalisations. Unfortunately, we humans have tendency to lean towards confirmation biased and so will actively seek opinions that reinforce our own beliefs. 

it takes a strong character to solely rely on the evidence as it is presented, furthermore, we are such complex creatures, the reasons for one person being a stone cold sociopath can be very different to another.

My own opinion, is there are good men and bad men, good women and bad women. However, damage very often attracts damage and it leads to a lot of unhappiness


----------



## Al_Bundy

LisaDiane said:


> I COMPLETELY AGREE with what I bolded.
> 
> BUT....then WHY do men do this to women?? That's the purpose of this entire thread!!
> 
> You are blaming most women (or even "ALL" is said sometimes), for the reprehensible acts of a few! I keep posting here when I catch a post that describes a woman behaving in a way that is horrible, in order to remind everyone that it's NOT all women...but sometimes no one believes me (which is ok, but that's my point)...
> 
> Can't you see the hypocrisy of how you feel about yourself, and then how you feel about women?
> 
> WHY do you maintain that opinion of other people when you can recognize that YOU shouldn't be held accountable in that way???
> I cannot understand it...!!
> 
> (I'm asking ALL the men who have posted similarly on this thread and elsewhere, also!)


Some things are more about human nature. Humans tend to act as badly as you let them. So I think that's why some people focus their anger towards a legal system that allows or even encourages bad behavior. 

I don't hate Vegas because the house has the games rigged against me. I just enjoy the food, the lights and sights, and leave with my cash.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> So it's ok for a woman to speak and hang out with the men she works with. But a woman cannot talk to men socially? Now that makes no sense at all.


Like it's up to him anyway -- or any man. That's grandiose thinking. To that, I say "Get off me."


----------



## Al_Bundy

DownByTheRiver said:


> I think the summaries of these two personality disorders is germane to the topic of MGTOW movement.
> 
> Examples of Personality Disorders With Distorted Thinking Patterns
> 
> excerpts:
> For instance, persons with Paranoid Personality Disorders exhibit suspicious thinking and therefore have difficulty trusting other people. They may misinterpret what other people say or do as intentional attempts to attack them, hurt them, or take advantage of them. In turn, they end up holding grudges and may act in ways that are overly defensive, hostile, or even aggressive. You can imagine this thought pattern will cause a lot of anxiety for the person who is paranoid, and that this type guardedness, defensiveness, and hostility is very unpleasant for the other people around them. Obviously, this type of distrust makes close relationships nearly impossible.
> 
> People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder exhibit distorted thinking when they go back and forth between over-idealizing themselves, and then completely devaluing themselves. In addition, they have a tendency to over-estimate the importance or significance of their abilities and talents. Persons with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder frequently have fantasies of having unlimited power, success, or special talents. These over-idealized beliefs about themselves can cause them to behave in ways that are arrogant, ruthless, and entitled. Such behavior frequently causes a lot of conflict with others..... Eventually, the person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is likely to run into a situation in which they realize they have some normal, human limitations. When this occurs, they are likely to find it extraordinarily difficult to cope with this realization. Any inkling of failure is hard for them to tolerate. The sudden realization of ordinary human limitations typically leads them to completely debase themselves, shifting from the over-idealized fantasy of unlimited success and special powers, to a devastating and paralyzing sense of complete worthlessness, shame, and defeat.


That would apply to most "movements", wouldn't it? That even applies to most religions.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Al_Bundy said:


> That would apply to most "movements", wouldn't it? That even applies to most religions.


I don't agree all movements or religions, but certainly some.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I don't accept this idea of shared responsibility for the behaviour of other men, I don't assault women.


Based on your posts, you very much operate based on the “idea of shared responsibility for the behaviour” for women.

No woman on this thread is blaming all, or even most, men for the violence some men perpetrate on some women. While there are several men on this thread who seem to believe that all women are evil manipulators and cannot be trusted (or something like that).

There are good and bad people among all men and women. We all need to be careful and cut the bad people out of our lives. But there are plenty of good men and good women out there that we can have in our lives.


ElwoodPDowd said:


> There's a name for people that want to class a group of people depending on their race, nationality, or sex ....... they're called bigots.


Yep, that term also fits for men who paint all, or most women, as evil manipulators and cannot be trusted (or something like that).


ElwoodPDowd said:


> Maybe if so many women didn't chase desirable 'bad boys', in preference to the nice guys no women appear to want, they wouldn't get themselves assaulted quite so much?


The fact is that most women do not chase ‘bad boys’. That’s a myth. Most women date and marry ‘good guys’. I see them all over town and in my neighborhood.


ElwoodPDowd said:


> What, you dated a gang member, drug dealer, night club bouncer, murderer and he hit you.
> Who could have possibly predicted that outcome?


Yea, dating a guy who is clearly all that is a very stupid idea. Sadly, many/most men who abuse and even murder their girlfriends/wives don't fit any of those descriptions.

You are pushing stereo types which are just another form of bigotry.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> I COMPLETELY AGREE with what I bolded.
> 
> BUT....then WHY do men do this to women?? That's the purpose of this entire thread!!
> 
> You are blaming most women (or even "ALL" is said sometimes), for the reprehensible acts of a few! I keep posting here when I catch a post that describes a woman behaving in a way that is horrible, in order to remind everyone that it's NOT all women...but sometimes no one believes me (which is ok, but that's my point)...
> 
> Can't you see the hypocrisy of how you feel about yourself, and then how you feel about women?
> 
> WHY do you maintain that opinion of other people when you can recognize that YOU shouldn't be held accountable in that way???
> I cannot understand it...!!
> 
> (I'm asking ALL the men who have posted similarly on this thread and elsewhere, also!)


I actually lay the blame on the western legal system. 
(I'm sure I've said that before as have several other guys on this thread).
After the first divorce, I don't have enough money left to risk a second asset splitting.
I'm totally happy being married under a different legal system.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> I actually lay the blame on the western legal system.
> (I'm sure I've said that before as have several other guys on this thread).
> After the first divorce, I don't have enough money left to risk a second asset splitting.
> I'm totally happy being married under a different legal system.


 Where did you get your divorce? If in the US, which state? 

How are assets divided up in a divorce were you live now?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

In Absentia said:


> But he is not happy. He is still resentful he married a "5 wife" and got screwed royally by her to the point he had to move country to buy a new wife without any financial risks. If this is happiness for you...


I'm happy with my life for 10 years now, I'm sad about the 30 years I wasted.
I miss my 4 children that I never saw again, I enjoy my step-daughter and son from my current marriage.
I resent the loss of my $1M home by the river, I enjoy my current home by the rice paddy and mountains.

Should I forget the bad in my past?
Or does it help me appreciate the good in my present?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> Where did you get your divorce? If in the US, which state?
> How are assets divided up in a divorce were you live now?


UK, 
Woman with children under 15 gets the house 100% ($1M in my case).
Woman alleging violence gets the kids 100% (4 kids).
Everything else is split 50/50.

Thailand,
You keep what you had before the marriage, you keep any inheritance.
You split what you earned during the marriage.
Whoever takes the children pays for them 100%, generally the other parent doesn't bother seeing them.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> UK,
> Woman with children under 15 gets the house 100% ($1M in my case).
> Woman alleging violence gets the kids 100% (4 kids).
> Everything else is split 50/50.


Interesting..



ElwoodPDowd said:


> Thailand,
> You keep what you had before the marriage, you keep any inheritance.
> You split what you earned during the marriage.
> Whoever takes the children pays for them 100%, generally the other parent doesn't bother seeing them.


I just did some reading on sites for divorce lawyers in Thailand. Here's some of what is said in addition to what you said.

 Since foreigners cannot own land in Thailand, any house owned in the marriage is sole property of the spouse who is a Thai citizen. The non-Thai-Citizen has no claim to the property.
Child custody - it's assume that both parents have 100% custody and will share custody equally.
Child Support - the lower income spouse can get child support.
 Alimony is available. There is no set formula but things like length of marriage, disability, and need are taking into consideration.
Except for the land ownership issue, divorce laws are about the same here in the state I live in. Here a non-citizen can own land and property.

My state is a community property state. 
Asset and debt division is the same at Thailand. 
Assets owned before marriage and inheritance are separate property.
Child custody is preferably 50/50 with child support when one parent has less income. 
Alimony is based on need of the lower earning spouse and things like disability, a wife/husband who was a stay-at-home parent, etc. Most alimony is rehabilitative. After 20 years of marriage alimony can be easier to get if there is need.
Abuse is not considered for property division and support. It is considered for how much time each spouse gets with the child(ren).


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> I just did some reading on sites for divorce lawyers in Thailand. Here's some of what is said in addition to what you said.


What is published for foreigners to read, isn't the reality of the Thai courts.
Thailand gets free money from America, and is happy to publish any law America wants.
It just doesn't enforce any of those laws.

Child support being a good example, almost nobody pays child support.
The Thai courts only have access to the wages of government employees.
Most government employees are 'protected' by the courts.
Everyone else (including me) would just ignore any court order for child support (no enforcement).

Nobody pays traffic fines either,
If you get stopped without a helmet/seatbelt/tax/insurance/road test/DUI/driving licence .... you just hand the policeman $5 and drive off. The only penalty for not paying a driving fine, they won't let you tax your vehicle, so half the vehicles are no longer taxed or insured.

It's a totally different concept to the western world, where laws must be obeyed or else.
You live in a world of absolute government tyranny (except you are free to insult the government).
I live in a world of extreme personal freedom (except I can't speak out against the government).

As for property laws,
I paid the $10,000 deposit on my wife's house, 
I view it as a gift, I love her and I had the money to spare.
I make the $300/month mortgage repayments.
If she wants me to walk away, I would be OK with that, but she'd need to make her own repayments.


----------



## DTO

lifeistooshort said:


> For people looking to have a business arrangement type partnership probably not. For a guy willing to pay there are women who will put up with him. If that's your thing then have at it.
> 
> But for those not interested in a business arrangement...those who want a connection and partnership....that is more of a possibility with women being able to support themselves. We can think about whether we actually like you because we don't have to worry about starving. I make more money then my guy so I certainly don't need him to pay my bills. I like him and enjoy being with him.


And this exactly is why anyone not self sufficient (practically and socially / emotionally) should not date with intent.

Also, the part about ladies putting up with a guy for financial support needs qualification. The lady will put up with him for a while. Eventually she'll get out- either she has an exit plan or the memory of the need fades while the distasteful dude is right there.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DTO said:


> And this exactly is why anyone not self sufficient (practically and socially / emotionally) should not date with intent.
> 
> Also, the part about ladies putting up with a guy for financial support needs qualification. The lady will put up with him for a while. Eventually she'll get out- either she has an exit plan or the memory of the need fades while the distasteful dude is right there.


Agree. She'll take his money, maybe put out and put up with him, but she'll look elsewhere and keep her options open. If she's desirable enough for him to pay for plenty of other men will want her.

The men who knowingly enter into business arrangements know and accept this. The problem comes with the ones who ******** themselves into thinking its more then business ....that somehow they can use shallow criteria but she should be above that and love/want him. That goes back to the woman should be better mentality.


----------



## RebuildingMe

EleGirl said:


> Interesting..
> 
> 
> I just did some reading on sites for divorce lawyers in Thailand. Here's some of what is said in addition to what you said.
> 
> Since foreigners cannot own land in Thailand, any house owned in the marriage is sole property of the spouse who is a Thai citizen. The non-Thai-Citizen has no claim to the property.
> Child custody - it's assume that both parents have 100% custody and will share custody equally.
> Child Support - the lower income spouse can get child support.
> Alimony is available. There is no set formula but things like length of marriage, disability, and need are taking into consideration.
> Except for the land ownership issue, divorce laws are about the same here in the state I live in. Here a non-citizen can own land and property.
> 
> My state is a community property state.
> Asset and debt division is the same at Thailand.
> Assets owned before marriage and inheritance are separate property.
> *Child custody is preferably 50/50 with child support when one parent has less income.*
> Alimony is based on need of the lower earning spouse and things like disability, a wife/husband who was a stay-at-home parent, etc. Most alimony is rehabilitative. After 20 years of marriage alimony can be easier to get if there is need.
> Abuse is not considered for property division and support. It is considered for how much time each spouse gets with the child(ren).


I don't know what state you are in, but that bolded part is simply not how the courts apply custody and child support in real life. Men have to *FIGHT* for 50/50 and, should a father be lucky enough to get 50/50 custody of their children, moms almost always walk away with child support, no matter how much they make. The only thing that is usually fair is the division of assets, as long as you keep a tight paper trail.


----------



## DTO

lifeistooshort said:


> Agree. She'll take his money, maybe put out and put up with him, but she'll look elsewhere and keep her options open. If she's desirable enough for him to pay for plenty of other men will want her.
> 
> The men who knowingly enter into business arrangements know and accept this. The problem comes with the ones who ****** themselves into thinking its more then business ....that somehow they can use shallow criteria but she should be above that and love/want him. That goes back to the woman should be better mentality.


Yes. But there are women who fake love and know full well they are unwilling or incapable of being a good wife to the men they target.

Those are the ones that give men pause.


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> I don't know what state you are in, but that bolded part is simply not how the courts apply custody and child support in real life. Men have to *FIGHT* for 50/50 and, should a father be lucky enough to get 50/50 custody of their children, moms almost always walk away with child support, no matter how much they make. The only thing that is usually fair is the division of assets, as long as you keep a tight paper trail.


I, just as you, can speak for myself only. When i divorced my kids dad, who was a nasty drunk, FL didn't have 50/50 custody. There was only primary custody and open visitation.

Courts do not wish to see kids lives disrupted more then necessary and equal custody is hard if you don't live close together. I know a number of divorced people in my community who live in close proximity so the kids can easily go back and forth while in school. That seems to work well.

In my case, my ex was active Navy so equal custody wasn't possible for him anyway. He did pay child support but I can assure you it came nowhere near what the kids cost. Of course as one who had no idea how much kids actually cost in his mind his CS meant that he shouldn't have to actually feed them when he had them. He actually tried to get me to grocery shop for them when he'd have them. 

Fortunately he's grown up, and also fortunately for him I increased my earning power over 100% so when he stopped paying I could manage.

Child support is a tough issue. I can see how it shouldn't apply in true 50/50 cases assuming the parents literally split everything equally but that often doesn't happen. Kids have expenses beyond living arrangements.

A friend of mine initially agreed to limited CS if her ex, who moved 1 mile away, agreed to equal time and split all bills. In practice that didn't happen; once he got a new gf he saw them less and less, and any time they had an expense (school, activities, clothes, anything) he'd argue that it wasn't necessary and refuse to pay. He just didn't want to pay....gf's are expensive. She ended up taking him back to court to get child support, and I'm sure he'd tell you that it's unfair because he has "50/50".

There is no good answer if one parent is difficult.


----------



## RebuildingMe

lifeistooshort said:


> I, just as you, can speak for myself only. When i divorced my kids dad, who was a nasty drunk, FL didn't have 50/50 custody. There was only primary custody and open visitation.
> 
> Courts do not wish to see kids lives disrupted more then necessary and equal custody is hard if you don't live close together. I know a number of divorced people in my community who live in close proximity so the kids can easily go back and forth while in school. That seems to work well.
> 
> In my case, my ex was active Navy so equal custody wasn't possible for him anyway. He did pay child support but I can assure you it came nowhere near what the kids cost. Of course as one who had no idea how much kids actually cost in his mind his CS meant that he shouldn't have to actually feed them when he had them. He actually tried to get me to grocery shop for them when he'd have them.
> 
> Fortunately he's grown up, and also fortunately for him I increased my earning power over 100% so when he stopped paying I could manage.
> 
> Child support is a tough issue. I can see how it shouldn't apply in true 50/50 cases assuming the parents literally split everything equally but that often doesn't happen. Kids have expenses beyond living arrangements.
> 
> A friend of mine initially agreed to limited CS if her ex, who moved 1 mile away, agreed to equal time and split all bills. In practice that didn't happen; once he got a new gf he saw them less and less, and any time they had an expense (school, activities, clothes, anything) he'd argue that it wasn't necessary and refuse to pay. He just didn't want to pay....gf's are expensive. She ended up taking him back to court to get child support, and I'm sure he'd tell you that it's unfair because he has "50/50".
> 
> There is no good answer if one parent is difficult.


I appreciate sharing your experience. Courts should follow the common sense rule, but they don't. Dad's often are pressured into settling at the risk of excessive legal bills. Many don't even put up a fight, or they do initially and drop it. The problem is the injustice has become the norm, and mom's EXPECT a windfall. This creates more litigation, more fighting and fathers that can only afford to live in basement apartments. How does that arrangement work out for the kids? 

Specifically in NY, even if 50/50 custody is awarded (thankfully, that is becoming more and more the normal), the residential parent gets the child support. There could be a downward modification if the residential parent makes an equal or greater salary, but that would only be decided at trial after tens of thousands of dollars have been spent. It really is a crapshow that is still largely favored towards the mother. I've said it before and I'll say it again, find me a thread on TAM started by a female that says she got screwed over by a judge in her divorce. It happens, trust me. My ex is one of them. However, it's not mainstream, thus why more and more men will not enter into second and third marriages and the reasoning for this thread.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

lifeistooshort said:


> I, just as you, can speak for myself only. When i divorced my kids dad, who was a nasty drunk, FL didn't have 50/50 custody. There was only primary custody and open visitation.
> 
> Courts do not wish to see kids lives disrupted more then necessary and equal custody is hard if you don't live close together. I know a number of divorced people in my community who live in close proximity so the kids can easily go back and forth while in school. That seems to work well.
> 
> In my case, my ex was active Navy so equal custody wasn't possible for him anyway. He did pay child support but I can assure you it came nowhere near what the kids cost. Of course as one who had no idea how much kids actually cost in his mind his CS meant that he shouldn't have to actually feed them when he had them. He actually tried to get me to grocery shop for them when he'd have them.
> 
> Fortunately he's grown up, and also fortunately for him I increased my earning power over 100% so when he stopped paying I could manage.
> 
> Child support is a tough issue. I can see how it shouldn't apply in true 50/50 cases assuming the parents literally split everything equally but that often doesn't happen. Kids have expenses beyond living arrangements.
> 
> A friend of mine initially agreed to limited CS if her ex, who moved 1 mile away, agreed to equal time and split all bills. In practice that didn't happen; once he got a new gf he saw them less and less, and any time they had an expense (school, activities, clothes, anything) he'd argue that it wasn't necessary and refuse to pay. He just didn't want to pay....gf's are expensive. She ended up taking him back to court to get child support, and I'm sure he'd tell you that it's unfair because he has "50/50".
> 
> There is no good answer if one parent is difficult.


50/50 is certainly best for eliminating most money squabbles. But you have to get it all spelled out by the court. Where are a lot of women screw up is because they're naturally very attached to their children, they will often break the 50/50 custody rule if the x ask them to take the children more, and all that does is cause a bunch more conflict and undermine you in court when you try to resolve it. You need to get the court agreement written out nice and neat with no ambiguity and not try to waffle on it and not agree to varying from it.


----------



## Openminded

In my state 50/50 custody has been the norm for awhile although there are always some parents who want less than that. The question usually is over child support. When both parents work and make about the same amount of money, child support isn’t ordered here. When there’s a substantial difference in income, it‘s ordered. What happens when there are SAHPs involved is another story entirely.


----------



## bobsmith

RebuildingMe said:


> I appreciate sharing your experience. Courts should follow the common sense rule, but they don't. Dad's often are pressured into settling at the risk of excessive legal bills. Many don't even put up a fight, or they do initially and drop it. The problem is the injustice has become the norm, and mom's EXPECT a windfall. This creates more litigation, more fighting and fathers that can only afford to live in basement apartments. How does that arrangement work out for the kids?
> 
> Specifically in NY, even if 50/50 custody is awarded (thankfully, that is becoming more and more the normal), the residential parent gets the child support. There could be a downward modification if the residential parent makes an equal or greater salary, but that would only be decided at trial after tens of thousands of dollars have been spent. It really is a crapshow that is still largely favored towards the mother. I've said it before and I'll say it again, find me a thread on TAM started by a female that says she got screwed over by a judge in her divorce. It happens, trust me. My ex is one of them. However, it's not mainstream, thus why more and more men will not enter into second and third marriages and the reasoning for this thread.


I think moms and governments alike are missing the bigger picture and the result is in full bloom on the main stage. A lack of a father! Mom wants that parenting time so she can get some cash. Governments lube all this up nicely. However, there are already piles of studies showing that a kid is HUGELY more likely to commit crime, end up in prison, and/or become a deadbeat on society. Nothing could show off all these brats better than the crazy of 2020. 

Let me provide a personal, yet not ideal example. I walked away from my kids. Not because of the courts, but because mom brainwashed them, and knowing what the system would do for me, which is nothing. I had rules and structure, she did not. Guess where they wanted to be? Fortunately mine will probably turn out fine because I was there for many years as a father figure to shape them and get them on the path. 

My oldest is a marine. As a father, one of my punishments was pushups. Not just any pushups, model pushups. Nose to the floor, lock out, repeat until my eyes get tired. Guess who is now proud as a peacock to be the demonstrator of "the perfect pushup" to troops? 

Compare this with a kid that was same age as my kid, without a dad, and mom that felt he never did wrong. He stole from my home, then cussed at me and threatened me with a knife! That kid nearly lost his life on that day, but I actually feel sorry for the kid. He was not raised right! He needed serious help! He is now an inducted product of the system. 

I am NOT saying a kid is guaranteed to turn out poorly without a father, but just go look up the stats. Governments better figure out quick what fathers actually do.


----------



## DownButNotOut

bobsmith said:


> Governments better figure out quick what fathers actually do.


Fathers keep sons out of jail, and daughters off stripper poles. I thought that was obvious.


----------



## MattMatt

bobsmith said:


> I think moms and governments alike are missing the bigger picture and the result is in full bloom on the main stage. A lack of a father! Mom wants that parenting time so she can get some cash. Governments lube all this up nicely. However, there are already piles of studies showing that a kid is HUGELY more likely to commit crime, end up in prison, and/or become a deadbeat on society. Nothing could show off all these brats better than the crazy of 2020.
> 
> Let me provide a personal, yet not ideal example. I walked away from my kids. Not because of the courts, but because mom brainwashed them, and knowing what the system would do for me, which is nothing. I had rules and structure, she did not. Guess where they wanted to be? Fortunately mine will probably turn out fine because I was there for many years as a father figure to shape them and get them on the path.
> 
> My oldest is a marine. As a father, one of my punishments was pushups. Not just any pushups, model pushups. Nose to the floor, lock out, repeat until my eyes get tired. Guess who is now proud as a peacock to be the demonstrator of "the perfect pushup" to troops?
> 
> Compare this with a kid that was same age as my kid, without a dad, and mom that felt he never did wrong. He stole from my home, then cussed at me and threatened me with a knife! That kid nearly lost his life on that day, but I actually feel sorry for the kid. He was not raised right! He needed serious help! He is now an inducted product of the system.
> 
> I am NOT saying a kid is guaranteed to turn out poorly without a father, but just go look up the stats. Governments better figure out quick what fathers actually do.


Not all mothers, of course. In fact the majority of mothers do a good job.

Generalisations are not helpful.


----------



## uphillbattle

MattMatt said:


> Not all mothers, of course. In fact the majority of mothers do a good job.
> 
> Generalisations are not helpful.


I'm guessing you missed the tone of this thread.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Moms mostly have a hard time not seeing their kids if they've been the primary caretaker. Some women, who have never made a living (half the time because the man wanted them home and for no other reason) may indeed need that check. Also, I know a woman who wouldn't trust her kid to her husband because on the rare occasion he agreed to watch the child while she ran to the store, she'd come home to find him ignoring the kid and not even knowing what room he was in. So there's lots of reasons. 

But it's always best if they do 50/50 unless someone is too incompetent. Otherwise, there's problems down the road for the woman. She needs to have to get out and work because even with support, that only lasts so long, and then where will she be? 50 and hoping to find a guy to support her, which rarely ends well.


----------



## MattMatt

uphillbattle said:


> I'm guessing you missed the tone of this thread.


Just moderating it.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ElwoodPDowd said:


> What is published for foreigners to read, isn't the reality of the Thai courts.
> Thailand gets free money from America, and is happy to publish any law America wants.
> It just doesn't enforce any of those laws.
> 
> Child support being a good example, almost nobody pays child support.
> The Thai courts only have access to the wages of government employees.
> Most government employees are 'protected' by the courts.
> Everyone else (including me) would just ignore any court order for child support (no enforcement).
> 
> Nobody pays traffic fines either,
> If you get stopped without a helmet/seatbelt/tax/insurance/road test/DUI/driving licence .... you just hand the policeman $5 and drive off. The only penalty for not paying a driving fine, they won't let you tax your vehicle, so half the vehicles are no longer taxed or insured.
> 
> It's a totally different concept to the western world, where laws must be obeyed or else.
> You live in a world of absolute government tyranny (except you are free to insult the government).
> I live in a world of extreme personal freedom (except I can't speak out against the government).
> 
> As for property laws,
> I paid the $10,000 deposit on my wife's house,
> I view it as a gift, I love her and I had the money to spare.
> I make the $300/month mortgage repayments.
> If she wants me to walk away, I would be OK with that, but she'd need to make her own repayments.


Ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist.


----------



## manowar

RebuildingMe said:


> Men have to *FIGHT* for 50/50 and, should a father be lucky enough to get 50/50 custody of their children, moms almost always walk away with child support, no matter how much they make.


Children are assumed to belong to the mother by the courts.
Marriage and birth rates are dropping like stones. 
Unintended Consequence. Men won't marry. There is no doubt about it. We are going to get to the point where women rely upon artificial insemination because men have rejected the aspect of providing as their primary role in marriage. Men are just catching on now. Its been a long road for them up to this point.




bobsmith said:


> Governments lube all this up nicely.


Yes well said. It's a welfare system passed onto the man. Its very much in the interest of the State to promote marriage and childbirth. This is why we have the Myth, the high holy woman narrative, and the training of young men to be beta providers. Things are changing though due to the internet and awaking of men to reality and the unleashing of female nature.


----------



## DownButNotOut

MattMatt said:


> Not all mothers, of course. In fact the majority of mothers do a good job.
> 
> Generalisations are not helpful.


But Matt,

Statistics are helpful. Statistically, kids do best when both parents are around. In fact when that isn't the case, statistically, single fathers have a higher probability to produce better outcomes than single mothers do. 

And yet, all it takes is one unsubstantiated accusation to remove any hope or expectation of a 50/50 custody from the man. That happens time and time again, even here on TAM divorce threads started by the man.


----------



## uphillbattle

DownButNotOut said:


> But Matt,
> 
> Statistics are helpful. Statistically, kids do best when both parents are around. In fact when that isn't the case, statistically, single fathers have a higher probability to produce better outcomes than single mothers do.
> 
> And yet, all it takes is one unsubstantiated accusation to remove any hope or expectation of a 50/50 custody from the man. That happens time and time again, even here on TAM divorce threads started by the man.


Yes, lo and behold all seem to some how unsubstantiated. No problems, 100% innocent, always.


----------



## DownButNotOut

uphillbattle said:


> Yes, lo and behold all seem to some how unsubstantiated. No problems, 100% innocent, always.


Did I say that? No. But the fact is, valid or not, all it takes to blow up a man's hope for 50/50 custody is the accusation.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

DownButNotOut said:


> Did I say that? No. But the fact is, valid or not, all it takes to blow up a man's hope for 50/50 custody is the accusation.


Yep, my former wife made all sorts of accusations. no evidence required.
As a result, all I got was 2hrs supervised contact a week, and she'd often schedule other 'essential' activities during that time (dentist, birthday parties) so I couldn't even see them then. All the while telling the kids I was a bad father who didn't want to see them any more.

My lawyer suggested she could keep that up for 5 years with no risk of censure from the courts or legal system (from personal experience with his own son's divorce). To hell with that, after a couple of months I walked away and never saw my 4 kids again. Within 2 years I had a new wife and new children that I can spend every day with.

I know 3 or 4 divorced guys that all tell the same story, former wife blocks access, guy loses hope and walks away. I have the greatest of respect for the divorced guys who surrender their entire lives to fighting for access to their children, but that path wasn't for me, easier to make new children, than to chase the lost dream and endure the never ending conflict with the former wife IMHO.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> But Matt,
> 
> Statistics are helpful. Statistically, kids do best when both parents are around. In fact when that isn't the case, statistically, single fathers have a higher probability to produce better outcomes than single mothers do.
> 
> And yet, all it takes is one unsubstantiated accusation to remove any hope or expectation of a 50/50 custody from the man. That happens time and time again, even here on TAM divorce threads started by the man.


 Can you provide a valid source that says that single fathers produce better outcomes than single mothers?


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> Can you provide a valid source that says that single fathers produce better outcomes than single mothers?


The relative dearth of single custodial fathers to mothers make the research more difficult. Often researchers do not delineate between single-mother and single-father households. Of course any rigorous study is going to be behind an academic paywall.

There's this one:








Single‐Father Families: A Review of the Literature


The number of children residing in single-father families in the United States quadrupled as a proportion of children's living arrangements during the past few decades of the 20th century. Research o...




onlinelibrary.wiley.com





It shows both benefits (academic), and risks (alcohol use) from single custodial fathers.

Not strictly single custodial fathers, but Resident Fathers:





SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals


Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.




journals.sagepub.com





This one is also interesting on the childhood behavior between single father and single mother households:




__





Differences in Children's Behavior toward Custodial Mothers and Custodial Fathers on JSTOR


Anne-Marie Ambert, Differences in Children's Behavior toward Custodial Mothers and Custodial Fathers, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 73-86




www.jstor.org





And of course there is the economic factor. While single fathers tend to earn less than their married counterparts, they do tend to earn more than single mothers and are far more likely to be above the poverty line. There are many studies on the effects of economic standing on educational outcomes. Also note that while most single fathers are divorced, most single mothers are never married.

You will also find many other studies with different control methodologies that show there is little difference in outcomes between single-father and single-mother households. Which begs the question, why does the presumption of custody still lie with the mother?


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> The relative dearth of single custodial fathers to mothers make the research more difficult. Often researchers do not delineate between single-mother and single-father households. Of course any rigorous study is going to be behind an academic paywall.
> 
> There's this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Single‐Father Families: A Review of the Literature
> 
> 
> The number of children residing in single-father families in the United States quadrupled as a proportion of children's living arrangements during the past few decades of the 20th century. Research o...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> onlinelibrary.wiley.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It shows both benefits (academic), and risks (alcohol use) from single custodial fathers.
> 
> Not strictly single custodial fathers, but Resident Fathers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals
> 
> 
> Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> journals.sagepub.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is also interesting on the childhood behavior between single father and single mother households:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Differences in Children's Behavior toward Custodial Mothers and Custodial Fathers on JSTOR
> 
> 
> Anne-Marie Ambert, Differences in Children's Behavior toward Custodial Mothers and Custodial Fathers, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 73-86
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jstor.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course there is the economic factor. While single fathers tend to earn less than their married counterparts, they do tend to earn more than single mothers and are far more likely to be above the poverty line. There are many studies on the effects of economic standing on educational outcomes. Also note that while most single fathers are divorced, most single mothers are never married.
> 
> You will also find many other studies with different control methodologies that show there is little difference in outcomes between single-father and single-mother households. Which begs the question, why does the presumption of custody still lie with the mother?


Single fathers tend to be older and better off financially than single mothers. They also are mostly white men, while single mothers a These two factors alone could explain a difference in outcomes. Single mother tend to be younger, poorer, and not white. These differences could account for differences in outcomes. A young woman who lives in the ghetto most likely has a 'baby daddy' who is also poor and lives in the ghetto with all the disadvantages that go with that environment. We'd have to compare single parents (fathers & mothers) of the same social/economic group to see if there is a difference in outcome.

My take on it is that default approach to custody should be 50/50. Then if problems are identified with on parent, for example drug use or domestic violence, then the time sharing should be adjusted per the evaluation of professional custody evaluators. And any parent who tries to keep the other parent from having time with their child should be harshly sanctioned by the courts. Children need both parents when both parents are good people capable of loving and caring for their children.

Here's something I found that even links to at least one of the resources you linked. It basically says that there is no profound differences found between the outcome of children raised by single mothers or single fathers.

*5. While the research on single fathers is limited, studies show that children in single-father families fare about as well as children in single-mother families on many outcomes, although there are differences*_. In a literature review of research on single-fathers dating from the 1970s through 2015, Roberta Coles concluded that compared to children in single-mother families,_​​_With a few possible exceptions, the children of single fathers do about as well in terms of internalizing behavior and academic performance (sometimes better)… However, the children of single fathers appear to be more likely to participate in externalizing behavior and substance use … As of yet, the few studies of young adults (as opposed to adolescents) do not seem to indicate significant long-term differences, as related to marriage, teen birth, and divorce, between those reared in single-father versus single-mother homes._​
_A study by Child Trends researchers published in 2010 used a sample of nearly 4,000 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to study the characteristics of single-father families and the “effects of fathers’ involvement and parenting on outcomes” like graduation from high school. This study was unique in that instead of grouping cohabiting fathers with lone fathers, it distinguished between them. Among the study’s findings: cohabiting single-father families had fewer family routines, like eating dinner together, and single fathers who were living with a partner “had lower levels of closeness and awareness than did parents in all other family times.” The authors concluded that “offspring who reside with a custodial father and their cohabiting partner may face additional challenges and unique circumstances that cannot be fully explained (mediated) by differences in father involvement and parenting styles.”_​​_Finally, a more recent study published in November in the Journal of Family and Child Studies used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to examine sexual behavior among 15-to-19-year-olds being raised in single-parent families. The authors compared various sexual behaviors (including intercourse, contraceptive use, and attitudes toward pregnancy) among boys and girls living with either single mothers or single fathers. Surprisingly, they found “few differences” on these sex-related outcomes between teens living with single moms or single dads._​​_Single fathers represent a unique and growing share of single-parent families for children. While they differ in important ways from single mothers, Brown emphasizes that “single dads need some of the same supports.” This includes “assistance from the other parent, if that person is in the family picture, to raise their children as effective co-parents, and [when the child’s mother is not in the picture] from family members, friends, and their network (e.g. faith community and direct-service nonprofits) in raising their children.” Because single-father families are more likely to be in poverty than married families, they also benefit from access to government services and aid. Finally, single dads need more community-based and online support groups and resources that are geared toward the needs of fathers, not just single mothers (NFI provides a list of resources for single dads here)._​​_Five Facts About Today’s Single Fathers | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.or_g)​


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> Approx 66% of all single mothers work outside the home. Only about 25% get any child support at all from the father of their child(ren).
> 
> So yea, most single mothers are not 'busy cashing them welfare checks".


To be fair, welfare checks and child support are not the same. 90% of all welfare recipients are single mothers. https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_...g a Career Pipeline Documents/safe_harbor.pdf

In my state, you can either get child support or cash assistance...you pick. A lot of ladies pick cash assistance because while it takes more work, it's more reliable than child support. Your baby daddy can lose his job, the government check always comes.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> Approx 66% of all single mothers work outside the home. Only about 25% get any child support at all from the father of their child(ren).
> So yea, most single mothers are not 'busy cashing them welfare checks".


My former wife got a free $1M house from me (no property taxes for single mom), half my pension and a guaranteed yearly tax free income of $20,000 from the state until the kids were 19 years old because she had 100% custody. No welfare checks, the money was paid direct to her bank account.

She was required to pretend to work 16hrs a week (trading on Ebay counted) in order the get the guaranteed income.

There was a great newspaper story about this called 'Brides of the State' and the Family Man
By Katie Mythen (Inside Cork Thursday 8 July 2004) which explained this more fully. The story was online but Google disappeared it a few years back, it can still be found.


----------



## EleGirl

Enigma32 said:


> To be fair, welfare checks and child support are not the same. 90% of all welfare recipients are single mothers. https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Building a Career Pipeline Documents/safe_harbor.pdf


I did not state, nor imply that welfare and child support are the same.

While most welfare recipients might be single mothers, most single mothers are not welfare recipients. There's a difference. 



Enigma32 said:


> In my state, you can either get child support or cash assistance...you pick. A lot of ladies pick cash assistance because while it takes more work, it's more reliable than child support. Your baby daddy can lose his job, the government check always comes.


It looks like the child support is collected and the state keeps it to reimburse them for the welfare they payout. 

_Child support collected on behalf of the families is used to reimburse the federal and state governments._​_Welfare Recidivism in Maryland: the Importance of Child Support (nawrs.org) _​


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> I did not state, nor imply that welfare and child support are the same.
> 
> While most welfare recipients might be single mothers, most single mothers are not welfare recipients. There's a difference.


Your post made it sound like you were using child support stats to debunk the idea that single moms collect welfare. Just pointing out they aren't really related.




> It looks like the child support is collected and the state keeps it to reimburse them for the welfare they payout.
> 
> _Child support collected on behalf of the families is used to reimburse the federal and state governments._​_Welfare Recidivism in Maryland: the Importance of Child Support (nawrs.org) _​


Yeah. If you get a child support order for $300 a month but the state will pay you $300 a month, a lot of ladies take the state money and not the child support, for the reasons I previously stated. The guy still has to pay, of course. 

While it's true not all single moms are on welfare, they do account for 90% of all welfare. Just imagine if the epidemic of single parenthood were drastically reduced, welfare in this country would all but cease to exist. Just another way the breakdown of the nuclear family in this country has brought us down as a whole.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> My take on it is that default approach to custody should be 50/50. Then if problems are identified with on parent, for example drug use or domestic violence, then the time sharing should be adjusted per the evaluation of professional custody evaluators. And any parent who tries to keep the other parent from having time with their child should be harshly sanctioned by the courts. Children need both parents when both parents are good people capable of loving and caring for their children.


On this we absolutely agree. It's too bad that the family court system doesn't work that way in practice. In practice, a father's parental rights depend far too much of the good will of mother.

And good luck to any unwed single fathers hoping to get more than visitation.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> Your post made it sound like you were using child support stats to debunk the idea that single moms collect welfare. Just pointing out they aren't really related.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. If you get a child support order for $300 a month but the state will pay you $300 a month, a lot of ladies take the state money and not the child support, for the reasons I previously stated. The guy still has to pay, of course.
> 
> While it's true not all single moms are on welfare, they do account for 90% of all welfare. Just imagine if the epidemic of single parenthood were drastically reduced, welfare in this country would all but cease to exist. Just another way the breakdown of the nuclear family in this country has brought us down as a whole.


From a data perspective Ele is correct. Kids are more likely to push one into welfare, and since the default parent is usually mom that means the men who get the kids are usually higher functioning/higher income men with the resources to fight for the kids.

That will bias your data. If you had more men taking their children you'd start to see more single fathers on welfare simply because you'd be pulling from the general population.

And women tend to make less money when they work. There are lots of reasons for that beyond pure gender but it is reality.


----------



## lifeistooshort

RebuildingMe said:


> I appreciate sharing your experience. Courts should follow the common sense rule, but they don't. Dad's often are pressured into settling at the risk of excessive legal bills. Many don't even put up a fight, or they do initially and drop it. The problem is the injustice has become the norm, and mom's EXPECT a windfall. This creates more litigation, more fighting and fathers that can only afford to live in basement apartments. How does that arrangement work out for the kids?
> 
> Specifically in NY, even if 50/50 custody is awarded (thankfully, that is becoming more and more the normal), the residential parent gets the child support. There could be a downward modification if the residential parent makes an equal or greater salary, but that would only be decided at trial after tens of thousands of dollars have been spent. It really is a crapshow that is still largely favored towards the mother. I've said it before and I'll say it again, find me a thread on TAM started by a female that says she got screwed over by a judge in her divorce. It happens, trust me. My ex is one of them. However, it's not mainstream, thus why more and more men will not enter into second and third marriages and the reasoning for this thread.


Downward modification is an interesting concept but I wonder if it's practical.

The courts take the position that the kids are entitled to whatever lifestyle the parents can afford and if one makes more money that means the kids lifestyle should improve rather than one parent paying less. So in effect the kids are entitled to the same percentage of what is now more money.

But I agree that nobody benefits from dad living a basement. This is one reason I didn't go after my kids father when he retired from the military and stopping paying. He doesn't work much and didn't have any money, and I saw no benefit for my kids in him struggling. Since I make close to 6 figures (I didn't in our earlier years) I'm in a position to support them. He should be contributing but it is what it is. In addition, we've managed to salvage a fairly amicable relationship after a pretty nasty divorce 16 years ago and our boys benefit greatly from this. Going after him for what will amount to a few bucks isn't worth the cost.

You should never have a situation where one parent is offering a huge lifestyle increase, where kids are in a nice house with 1 parent and a shack with the other. That introduces unfair bias into the parent child relationship.

Divorce should never be a windfall. I wonder if pre marital contracts should be required? You could lay out the terms while every is still happy, including how everyone will contribute financially. Everyone who is capable should be expected to get a job.


----------



## Rus47

Enigma32 said:


> Your post made it sound like you were using child support stats to debunk the idea that single moms collect welfare. Just pointing out they aren't really related.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah. If you get a child support order for $300 a month but the state will pay you $300 a month, a lot of ladies take the state money and not the child support, for the reasons I previously stated. The guy still has to pay, of course.*
> 
> While it's true not all single moms are on welfare, they do account for 90% of all welfare. *Just imagine if the epidemic of single parenthood were drastically reduced*, welfare in this country would all but cease to exist. Just another way the breakdown of the nuclear family in this country has brought us down as a whole.


If OT, my apologies. Have young relatives (married and unmarried) on both sides of this issue. Where I live, a woman must file on the biological father for child support to receive support from the state. Support granted is deducted from the biological father's paycheck. Often, the biological father either vanishes, or works for cash under the table "off of the books" or refuses to pay, The state can jail them, but that is rather pointless because inmates don't have significant income to pay support.

The elephant in the room is that people having children out of wedlock, while socially acceptable, lays the burden of caring for the children on the general public.

Somewhere recall that maintaining a logical order to life is key to escaping poverty. Education, then marriage, then children is the logical order. I will always recall in our extended family a mother telling her unwed daughter who had just had a baby at a family gathering "living your life backwards isn't going to go well for you. Having a baby, then marrying, then trying to finish your education is a hard way to live."


----------



## Al_Bundy

The govt provides a certain backdrop of safety that previously did not exist when it comes to having kids. While it might have started with good intentions, it is at a point where it subsidizes a culture of poor decision making.


----------



## tech-novelist

Diana7 said:


> All life is a risk surely? I have absolutely no worries at all about finances in our marriage. To me money and possessions aren't my priority in life.


As a woman, you have virtually no risk of being pauperized by child support, which is not true of men at least in some US jurisdictions.


----------



## tech-novelist

LisaDiane said:


> Does anyone think that a Prenuptial Agreement can protect people who want to marry?


A properly done prenup is apparently useful in avoiding some types of injustice in the case of divorce, but provides no protection whatever against child support injustice. The courts are fond of pointing out that the child didn't sign the prenup.

There is no safe way for a man to interact with a woman in the US, especially a fertile woman. Fortunately (in this respect) my wife is beyond the age of childbearing and is also a good person. But if I were a young man, knowing what I know now, I would either avoid women entirely or emigrate to a less misandrist country.


----------



## tech-novelist

Al_Bundy said:


> How is an infant or toddler accustomed or even aware of it's standard of living? Also support should be for needs, nobody needs designer labels although I'm sure some would argue that point.


How can you be so sexist to point out obvious facts? Remember, it's always *for the children*!


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> It's about the children. The law says that child deserves to live at the standard that can be provided if the incomes of both parents are combined. You are focused on the women. Focus on the child.


It's always for the children, even if the money actually is spent by the woman on her own lifestyle.
Otherwise the payer would have the right to see how the money is spent and not have to support an ex's lifestyle.


----------



## tech-novelist

bobsmith said:


> I either made this point very clear earlier or it was one of my posts that the mods deleted because I started getting too "real".....
> Something I have come to bet on with women is their actions rarely match their words. Watch or read anything out there from women about what they want and they will ALWAYS say successful!!!!! ALWAYS!!!! This means guys that have a normal job, making 50-75K are nothing.
> 
> As well, the ONLY marker of "success" is money to women. SURE, they will march right back into this thread and announce that is not true, but in fact, I have NEVER seen hot women drool over a guy that just cured cancer! Never happen. Hell, the majority of the world doesn't even know who Nichola Tesla is!!! They think it is a car!!
> 
> There are only TWO things that actually get women wet, TWO.... Money and looks. The rest is like getting a complimentary air freshener in your new car.....in the NTH (nice to have) file.
> 
> Sure, there are some rare bumblebees around, but they are exceptions only. There is one very attractive woman on youtube that is building a remote off grid home with her husband. Those women are friggin unicorns!


Actually there is a third thing: being an ahole, or at least being able to play one. This is one of the main points of all of the "Game" guides I've read. Of course not all women will jump at the chance to be with such a man, but plenty will.

Notice that you never hear aholes complain that the nice guys get all the chicks.


----------



## tech-novelist

Bluesclues said:


> So if a woman is a 5 and works hard to get healthy and fit and turns into a 7, she really isn’t a 7 because she was once “hefty”? How long after this transformation is she still a 5? Is a probationary period or is that a life sentence?


As a good rule of thumb, you can assume that a woman who loses weight in order to become more attractive to men will blow up like a blimp as soon as she gets the one she is after.

Women who keep their weight under control their entire lives are much better bets in that regard.


----------



## tech-novelist

Blondilocks said:


> Since this thread has turned into a kitchen sink of gripes against women, why don't you bring up the fact that more women are graduating from college than men. I'm sure there is a boatload of built up resentment over that.


I'm amazed that any young man would go to college in the US these days. I know I would advise against it for any young man who would ask me.

Today's colleges are Marxist indoctrination factories.


----------



## tech-novelist

Jamieboy said:


> I have read this whole thread with interest and I have to say it has not convinced me of the merits of MGTOW, most of the evidence is anecdotal for and against. The one thing that I need to ask, is what is the mission of this movement? Are they banding together to lobby against perceived injustice in the US family law system?
> 
> I ask because, unless these movements have a purpose, they tend to lose credibility and attract the fringe elements of society, hell bent on revenge against the world.
> 
> I am genuinely interested in a proper answer, if anyone is game to supply it


There are "men's rights advocates" who are trying to remedy the misandrist nature of our family law system. Most MGTOW's are just trying to stay out of its clutches.


----------



## tech-novelist

Jamieboy said:


> I agree the US seems much worse than here in good old blighty, and I can certainly agree on lawyers being the root of all evil, I only have to look at my sisters divorce and watching her hand over 25% of all the martial assets to lawyers to get the same offer that was made by her initially.
> 
> However in the cases above where the wives chewed up your friends, there must have been some sense of entitlement or revenge at play if they didn't see the logic of working it out sans attorney


My ex-wife tried to take me to the cleaners even though we had no children and she had a lot more money than I did.
I offered her the chance to keep her money and I would keep my smaller amount.
She decided to try to get our case transferred to a crazed feminist judge who always gave the woman 100% of the assets. Fortunately she was unsuccessful.
It cost me $10k and her $15k to get the same offer I made her.


----------



## tech-novelist

Trident said:


> The standard definition of MGTOW seems to differ from your explanation.
> 
> *Men Going Their Own Way*_ (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.
> 
> All over the world, straight men are making the conscious decision not to be involved with women.
> This isn't a decision in any sort of metaphorical sense. These men are literally cutting women out of their lives, completely_


What is your source for that? I don't recognize it as a "standard" definition.
In fact, it sounds like feminist propaganda to me.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

tech-novelist said:


> There are "men's rights advocates" who are trying to remedy the misandrist nature of our family law system. Most MGTOW's are just trying to stay out of its clutches.


Yea, I think many are confusing the two. MGTOW is more a lifestyle like being a vegetarian. They aren't taking membership or looking for funding. They just don't want to be accused of rape or destroyed financially and paternally because of all the horror stories of the court system.


----------



## tech-novelist

RebuildingMe said:


> Absolutely not. Women get lazy in bed the minute they tie the man up. Been there, done that.


Not always, but quite often.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> I don't buy into the idea that women only want 20% of men. Lots of women desire and enjoy sex, so it's really not very difficult for *attractive* men to get plenty of it. All it takes is a smile, some social skills, and a little banter.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## tech-novelist

minimalME said:


> No - I meant what I wrote.
> 
> If you don't want an unpleasant surprise, don't be promiscuous. That's a guaranteed equation. Unlike condoms - or even vasectomies.
> 
> And men and women are equally manipulative in order to get whatever it is they're after.
> 
> Just like a woman may lie to get pregnant, men lie about having a condom on or std status or having a girlfriend/wife or being in love, etc.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I bet there are more men willing to bareback (because that's what suits them) than there are women trying to trick men into marriage.


The example given wasn't of someone being promiscuous, but a case of a monogamous relationship where the woman said she wasn't going to get pregnant but lied.
Other than that, good analysis.


----------



## tech-novelist

Personal said:


> Really!!!???
> 
> Although I don't care for all of that PUA nonsense.
> 
> I've certainly never needed a house and money to have some long term relationships and two marriages.
> 
> Surely you know that, since lots of men manage to get married without having a house and money?
> 
> At the end of the day unless there is something wrong with the man *(like not being attractive enough)*, it's pretty easy to pick up women or have long term relationships with them.


Fixed that for you also.


----------



## tech-novelist

LisaDiane said:


> I wonder...do MGOTW guys value friendships with women too? Or is that out of the realm of it's interest because it's not about a sexual relationship...?


It is possible for a man to be friends with a woman without thoughts of sex getting in the way.
As long as neither one finds the other one sexually attractive.


----------



## tech-novelist

LisaDiane said:


> Ok...without conceding that I agree with you (because I'm not sure yet)...do men want to sleep with the women who they are friends with out of true desire? Or just because she's a female?


Due to tens of thousands of years (at least) of evolution, men want to sleep with women they find attractive.
If they are ethical, they won't act on it when it would be inappropriate.


----------



## tech-novelist

bobsmith said:


> My game is just fine in person. I don't meet women of OLD. Just don't. Every encounter was weird. I will never understand this "coffee bar" thing. I drink coffee but I am a night owl and I meet women at night.
> 
> But I have really jacked with OLD women by asking if they want to go on a jog..... 99% vaporize.
> 
> And I am sure many just paint me as an a&& but i've been athletic my whole life to some degree, and I only hang out with women that can casually jog a mile without dying! That is a HARD damn find in my area!!!! Now in CO, that is totally different! I am considering a move.


CO may be better in that regard but it is apparently devolving into a communist dictatorship from reports I have seen. Just keep that in mind before moving.


----------



## tech-novelist

manowar said:


> I don't know the history but I will concede this for the purpose of this discussion. There certainly were some injustices in the past. But nothing like today where men are blown up in what has become nothing more than a redistribution scheme. Part of the problem is that the men go along with this insane arraignment. Child support payments are inflated. Actual cost is $500.00 Court imposed cost $3,000.00.
> 
> Anyway, we have a huge injustice right here. See Loveisblind's thread. OP was the sole supporter. One of the best beta providers on the planet. Wife withdraws. Enters what may be a bdsm relationship with an elderly man for several years. Her contribution to the marriage is a cheating wife for a large portion of the marriage. Just what OP signed up for I'm sure. Op has no recourse. Is stuck with her. If her gets rid of her he gets destroyed in family court. Loses a big chunk of his assets no questions asked. This is not an unusual story but rather the norm nowadays.
> 
> Guys -- to avoid this -- Dont marry!!! You can't pay alimony *or child support* if you never marry. They can't get you. See John Noble - you tube divorce lawyer. This is pretty much his advice.


Mostly good analysis but unfortunately *this* is completely wrong. Just read some of the horror stories in Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States.


----------



## bobsmith

tech-novelist said:


> As a good rule of thumb, you can assume that a woman who loses weight in order to become more attractive to men will blow up like a blimp as soon as she gets the one she is after.
> 
> Women who keep their weight under control their entire lives are much better bets in that regard.


This guy is throwing truths around like a rag doll! You might actually understand what I wrote. It seems to be a trend in my area that women of OLD either can't be bothered to get in shape or do, or it becomes obvious through investigation that they dropped a TON of weight, then got on that OLD like it was a golden parachute to see what they could score with their new pics. 

There is another thread on fitness and some of us have embraced it as a lifestyle. I am not going deep in body shaming but you can't drop 100lbs, or even 50lbs and not have some lasting effects. For me, this has to do with WAY more than just the body. It is a total mismatch of health standards, and probably health risks in the future. I have realized I identify women by certain health risks that will likely lead to expense and loss in the future. 

In SO many ways, my experience with OLD has been that women (most, not all) put their most fake foot forward with filtered images, creative cropping, makeup applied with a butter knife, and embellished profiles. They are the same that either complain that men walk away mid date, or complain if a man does the SAME thing!


----------



## bobsmith

tech-novelist said:


> Actually there is a third thing: being an ahole, or at least being able to play one. This is one of the main points of all of the "Game" guides I've read. Of course not all women will jump at the chance to be with such a man, but plenty will.
> 
> Notice that you never hear aholes complain that the nice guys get all the chicks.


I think ahole is a less descriptive word. I don't think women are receptive to "F U", but I could nearly write a book about this process, because as being a Sigma, I totally ignore social norms, and I am so non-receptive to women's signals, that it just baffles them!!!! They just LOVE a challenge. I just mentioned in my other thread how a breastaurant server has shot me her number, and I still don't contact her. I promise, it is not arrogance, it is just that I can set my mind to "IDC" and it seems to set theirs to "I must conquer". Lost count how many finally break down and finally say "I am trying to sleep with you".... They bail on their own process and get down to it. Blows them away even more when you tell them "yes, I know"....

So I might go with "aloof". One a few days ago called me a "bad boy".... I have zero idea where that even came from. Women seem to desire what they think they can't have.....so don't make it easy for them! You beg, you lose.


----------



## bobsmith

tech-novelist said:


> It's always for the children, even if the money actually is spent by the woman on her own lifestyle.
> Otherwise the payer would have the right to see how the money is spent and not have to support an ex's lifestyle.


This is something we are advocating in my state. But as we know, much harder to get actual common sense and fairness in government. It makes entirely too much sense to see that "child support" is actually spent on children. We all know, including women, that is not the case. 

If anyone just looks at the stat graphs in the USA, marriage is dropping every year. We have reinforced the ability for women to make a living, women no longer rely on men, yet the system systematically dismantles men and hands it to women "for the kids". Yet fatherless homes are at an all time high, and marriage rates the lowest in 70yrs. 

What exactly again is in this for men? I think it will take strong female advocates to correct the system, because obviously, even on here, any man arguing the point is futile. 

I see a LOT of women today that work the play of 'find that high value (money) man'. Yes, they use 'high value' all the time online. I say this because I have watched and listened to attractive women dismiss what I feel are very good and decent guys. Their girl chat is "oh, he works at xxx? How much do they make?" It makes me want to puke. They vet guys on their pay. These women have no education, no life plan, no goals, other than to find that guy that will improve their life. Then as part of the government system, they expect to be compensated if it doesn't work out! 

So to be frank, "high value man (worked hard for what he has) meets low value woman (couldn't be bothered to improve)" I guess in some respects I have to share some blame on the guy here, but the system PLUS the woman's entitlement ensures he will always lose. It is a stacked deck.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> This is an interesting statement.
> You don't have to beat your wife because she knows that where you live you have the legal right to beat her. I've lived in countries where this was the law. The women talk about this, the fear they have and how they have to stay in line because they can be beat legally.
> 
> The USA used to have laws that allowed a husband to 'correct' (aka beat) his wife. Thanks goodness those laws no longer apply here.


Turnabout is fair play:

"You don't have to use the family law to abuse your husband, because he knows that where you live, you have the legal right to abuse him in court. In most states in the US, this is the law. The men talk about this, the fear they have and how they have to stay in line because they can be abused legally."

Now do you see the reason for MGTOW?


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> My comment was not to suggest that you would beat your wife.
> 
> My point is what living in a society that allows for wife abuse does to the mental state of the women. It's sad.


Turnabout:

My point is what living in a society that allows for men to be abused in family court does to the mental state of the men. It's sad.


----------



## tech-novelist

DownByTheRiver said:


> Yes, and that is the basis for many of my beliefs. That and the grim statistics that one in every four women will be assaulted in some way by men in her lifetime.


And a lot of men have been assaulted by domestic partners as well:








23 Important Male Victims of Domestic Violence Statistics


When the subject of domestic violence is discussed, most people will assume that it is who has become the victim. Men can also become the victims of domestic violence. It is important to remember that




brandongaille.com


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Downward modification is an interesting concept but I wonder if it's practical.
> 
> The courts take the position that the kids are entitled to whatever lifestyle the parents can afford and if one makes more money that means the kids lifestyle should improve rather than one parent paying less. So in effect the kids are entitled to the same percentage of what is now more money.
> 
> But I agree that nobody benefits from dad living a basement. This is one reason I didn't go after my kids father when he retired from the military and stopping paying. He doesn't work much and didn't have any money, and I saw no benefit for my kids in him struggling. Since I make close to 6 figures (I didn't in our earlier years) I'm in a position to support them. He should be contributing but it is what it is. In addition, we've managed to salvage a fairly amicable relationship after a pretty nasty divorce 16 years ago and our boys benefit greatly from this. Going after him for what will amount to a few bucks isn't worth the cost.
> 
> You should never have a situation where one parent is offering a huge lifestyle increase, where kids are in a nice house with 1 parent and a shack with the other. That introduces unfair bias into the parent child relationship.
> 
> Divorce should never be a windfall. I wonder if pre marital contracts should be required? You could lay out the terms while every is still happy, including how everyone will contribute financially. Everyone who is capable should be expected to get a job.


I'll be happy to sign onto that plan.
But it will never happen as long as the divorce lawyers have a say. And they are very generous with lawmakers.


----------



## tech-novelist

bobsmith said:


> This guy is throwing truths around like a rag doll! You might actually understand what I wrote. It seems to be a trend in my area that women of OLD either can't be bothered to get in shape or do, or it becomes obvious through investigation that they dropped a TON of weight, then got on that OLD like it was a golden parachute to see what they could score with their new pics.
> 
> There is another thread on fitness and some of us have embraced it as a lifestyle. I am not going deep in body shaming but you can't drop 100lbs, or even 50lbs and not have some lasting effects. For me, this has to do with WAY more than just the body. It is a total mismatch of health standards, and probably health risks in the future. I have realized I identify women by certain health risks that will likely lead to expense and loss in the future.
> 
> In SO many ways, my experience with OLD has been that women (most, not all) put their most fake foot forward with filtered images, creative cropping, makeup applied with a butter knife, and embellished profiles. They are the same that either complain that men walk away mid date, or complain if a man does the SAME thing!


I'm pretty sure I understand where you are coming from, and agree with you on the basic points. Of course there will always be different takes on details.

Maybe I'm unusual as a red pill guy because I often did fairly well with women when I was younger. But I never understood why sometimes I just struck out over and over.

It wasn't even my hostile divorce that woke me up. Actually it was when I was happily remarried and wanted to know if there were things I needed to know to stay that way.

I started with Athol Kay's Married Man Sex Life, and learned a lot there, then went into research mode until I knew everything I thought I needed to know about women. I finally learned why sometimes I drew women like a rock star and sometimes couldn't get the time of day.

This is largely theoretical for me now because I'm still happily married to my second wife but I have to keep on my toes not to become unattractive by being too passive. Just because a woman is wearing your ring doesn't mean you can slack off from being active and worthy of respect.


----------



## tech-novelist

bobsmith said:


> I think ahole is a less descriptive word. I don't think women are receptive to "F U", but I could nearly write a book about this process, because as being a Sigma, I totally ignore social norms, and I am so non-receptive to women's signals, that it just baffles them!!!! They just LOVE a challenge. I just mentioned in my other thread how a breastaurant server has shot me her number, and I still don't contact her. I promise, it is not arrogance, it is just that I can set my mind to "IDC" and it seems to set theirs to "I must conquer". Lost count how many finally break down and finally say "I am trying to sleep with you".... They bail on their own process and get down to it. Blows them away even more when you tell them "yes, I know"....
> 
> So I might go with "aloof". One a few days ago called me a "bad boy".... I have zero idea where that even came from. Women seem to desire what they think they can't have.....so don't make it easy for them! You beg, you lose.


"Aloof" has some of the same attraction, and is better if you can do it because it attracts healthier women than "ahole".
As for why you are a bad boy, that's because you are a Sigma and don't play the usual games.
That was my secret when I was young. Well, that and the fingerstyle Martin guitar playing.


----------



## bobsmith

tech-novelist said:


> Well, that and the fingerstyle Martin guitar playing.


LMAO..... I'm Taylor guy.... We just call it an Ace in the hand....


----------



## LisaDiane

I just want to say again, that not ALL women are the way you men are complaining they are...but I hear very little acknowledgement of that fact. I'm NOT offended that any of you are angry about the situation men are in legally...but just how sweepingly and unfairly you are expressing it.

I just want you guys to know that the things that many of you are saying really make me feel bad as a person. And I guess it's my own fault for even reading this thread, but there are men posting here who, in their other posts that I've read on other threads, I have felt great respect and friendliness towards, who I didn't expect to write (and think) such hateful things about "most" or "your average" women (so, ME).

So I feel disappointed and more than a little hurt by that. 

How would you men like it if I wrote post after post saying you would all be physically abusive to women under the right circumstances and didn't care about women for any other reason except for getting off, you had no emotional depth at all, and were all a bunch of liars who would take advantage of any woman who was stupid enough to love and trust you...??

Because that's what these posts sound like about women.

And neither I, nor almost ALL of the women on this site, are ONE BIT like what you are describing. 

Just like most or all of you men are nothing like my two hurtful partners.

And I respect all of you far too much to ever categorically judge and blame all of you based on my experiences with men. And I'm disappointed that you guys aren't able to be generous (or HUMAN) enough to do the same.

I don't expect that my feelings or opinions about this should matter or change anyone's mind, and that's not why I'm posting to you guys about this (again)...and I suppose I don't really belong on this thread anyway. 

And I'm not trying to minimize the feelings of anyone who has been treated poorly...I really DO think that's all terrible. In fact, I haven't spoken to my sister in years because of what she tried to do to her husband in their divorce. I fought her tooth and nail with it, because it was disgusting and hateful to me.

But so are some of the things I've read on here. And it stings.


----------



## lifeistooshort

tech-novelist said:


> I'll be happy to sign onto that plan.
> But it will never happen as long as the divorce lawyers have a say. And they are very generous with lawmakers.


Eh, neither one of my 2 divorce lawyers encouraged me to be a jerk. The first one with my kids dad wanted to make sure the kids were taken care of, but we offered him a very nice deal that his lawyer told him he'd never get in court so he signed. He left the marriage was a lot more then he brought in....I was a smart investor.

Second lawyer just took care of paperwork....we didn't have kids so he took his and I took mine. End of story.

I'm sure some lawyer are jerks but many are egged on by vengeful spouses, which can include both wives and husbands.


----------



## Enigma32

@LisaDiane I can't speak for all men here but I will say this much. Personally, I don't think all women are money grubbers or just out to massacre some poor sap in a child support/divorce scenario. Far from it. From my perspective, it's not a matter of all ladies being crappy, it's the fact that society and our legal system support and reward destructive behaviors. 

Take domestic violence for example. I do think that is a valid concern for you ladies. Men are generally bigger, stronger, and more aggressive, so a woman's physical safety can be compromised if she gets hooked up with the wrong guy. I agree that is a thing that happens. Now, imagine a world where a man can beat the crap out of his wife or GF and then get rewarded for it by the courts. "Oh, you put your wife in the hospital? We will make sure your wife pays you 20% of her income now. Good job!" That is essentially what we have going on in family courts when women decide to leave their husband/baby daddy for some other guy she met at work. She can destroy her own family, use the courts to take a man's children away, and then the government steps in and gives her money as a reward. Our society literally pays ladies to tear apart their own families and relegate the man to just being a wallet for them. 

Personally, I don't blame ladies. We all just play the cards we are dealt.


----------



## bobsmith

Oh, let me try to condense this. I am sure most women on here are reasonable. Probably because they hang out on a marriage site and get to see the gamut of drama. With an analogy, I try to portray what has seemingly happened to many men here. You are raised as a child that puppies are sweet, innocent, loving, and deserve your loving affection. So you proceed through life with this understanding.....right until you have your very own puppy and that puppy proceeds to either outright maul you, or give you little bites each day until you finally change your position on puppies. Are all puppies bad? No, but those experiences set a different tone. 

In country music, they always sing about these sweet loving women, cherish them, honor them, give them everything. It can be quite a shock to the system when you realize this social image is NOT accurate for all. 

I noticed that Miranda Lambert's husband Blake left her. She was hurt. I was amazed that the world got behind her, supported her, blamed Blake, etc, etc. But when this sort of thing happens to a man, they STILL blame the man, and there is little to no support. In some ways, this thread is a vent of men's frustrations! Because when you get on here with an issue, everyone just jumps on the "therapy" wagon. So I need to pay someone $100+/hr to listen.....got it. 

Almost every man in this thread has either been bit by the system, the modern woman, or both. I am told because I never married and probably never will, I can't understand this or my opinion is lesser. As I have stated, a woman is not born knowing how to manipulate men and the system. That is learned! Where they learn it would be interesting. 

The double standard is this. 
Woman leaves a man because he got fat = he didn't maintain himself, he no longer deserves her. 
Man leaves woman because she got fat = man is shallow and doesn't deserve her. 

The modern woman has been put on such a high pedestal and men are taught that being good/decent is NOT enough! 
What is a modern woman? They now have equal rights as men, educate through the moon, ability to do anything a man can do, yet they still want to maintain the pedestal that was created decades ago.


----------



## Numb26

bobsmith said:


> Oh, let me try to condense this. I am sure most women on here are reasonable. Probably because they hang out on a marriage site and get to see the gamut of drama. With an analogy, I try to portray what has seemingly happened to many men here. You are raised as a child that puppies are sweet, innocent, loving, and deserve your loving affection. So you proceed through life with this understanding.....right until you have your very own puppy and that puppy proceeds to either outright maul you, or give you little bites each day until you finally change your position on puppies. Are all puppies bad? No, but those experiences set a different tone.
> 
> In country music, they always sing about these sweet loving women, cherish them, honor them, give them everything. It can be quite a shock to the system when you realize this social image is NOT accurate for all.
> 
> I noticed that Miranda Lambert's husband Blake left her. She was hurt. I was amazed that the world got behind her, supported her, blamed Blake, etc, etc. But when this sort of thing happens to a man, they STILL blame the man, and there is little to no support. In some ways, this thread is a vent of men's frustrations! Because when you get on here with an issue, everyone just jumps on the "therapy" wagon. So I need to pay someone $100+/hr to listen.....got it.
> 
> Almost every man in this thread has either been bit by the system, the modern woman, or both. I am told because I never married and probably never will, I can't understand this or my opinion is lesser. As I have stated, a woman is not born knowing how to manipulate men and the system. That is learned! Where they learn it would be interesting.
> 
> The double standard is this.
> Woman leaves a man because he got fat = he didn't maintain himself, he no longer deserves her.
> Man leaves woman because she got fat = man is shallow and doesn't deserve her.
> 
> The modern woman has been put on such a high pedestal and men are taught that being good/decent is NOT enough!
> What is a modern woman? They now have equal rights as men, educate through the moon, ability to do anything a man can do, yet they still want to maintain the pedestal that was created decades ago.


Preach!!!


----------



## Trident

tech-novelist said:


> What is your source for that? I don't recognize it as a "standard" definition.
> In fact, it sounds like feminist propaganda to me.


I did an internet search it was one of the first things that came up.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

LisaDiane said:


> Just like most or all of you men are nothing like my two hurtful partners.


Sounds like you're as bad at picking men as we are at picking women.
My point being, we men can't tell the difference between a woman that will abuse us financially and a woman that won't, just as you can't tell the difference between a man that will abuse you physically and a man that won't.
So under the current legal system better not to choose a partner at all.


----------



## lifeistooshort

bobsmith said:


> Oh, let me try to condense this. I am sure most women on here are reasonable. Probably because they hang out on a marriage site and get to see the gamut of drama. With an analogy, I try to portray what has seemingly happened to many men here. You are raised as a child that puppies are sweet, innocent, loving, and deserve your loving affection. So you proceed through life with this understanding.....right until you have your very own puppy and that puppy proceeds to either outright maul you, or give you little bites each day until you finally change your position on puppies. Are all puppies bad? No, but those experiences set a different tone.
> 
> In country music, they always sing about these sweet loving women, cherish them, honor them, give them everything. It can be quite a shock to the system when you realize this social image is NOT accurate for all.
> 
> I noticed that Miranda Lambert's husband Blake left her. She was hurt. I was amazed that the world got behind her, supported her, blamed Blake, etc, etc. But when this sort of thing happens to a man, they STILL blame the man, and there is little to no support. In some ways, this thread is a vent of men's frustrations! Because when you get on here with an issue, everyone just jumps on the "therapy" wagon. So I need to pay someone $100+/hr to listen.....got it.
> 
> Almost every man in this thread has either been bit by the system, the modern woman, or both. I am told because I never married and probably never will, I can't understand this or my opinion is lesser. As I have stated, a woman is not born knowing how to manipulate men and the system. That is learned! Where they learn it would be interesting.
> 
> The double standard is this.
> Woman leaves a man because he got fat = he didn't maintain himself, he no longer deserves her.
> Man leaves woman because she got fat = man is shallow and doesn't deserve her.
> 
> The modern woman has been put on such a high pedestal and men are taught that being good/decent is NOT enough!
> What is a modern woman? They now have equal rights as men, educate through the moon, ability to do anything a man can do, yet they still want to maintain the pedestal that was created decades ago.


Umm, ok.

When it was revealed that Jada Pinkett cheated on Will Smith everyone woman I know thought she was a piece of crap.

Nobody would've batted sn eye if he'd dumped her.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> Eh, neither one of my 2 divorce lawyers encouraged me to be a jerk. The first one with my kids dad wanted to make sure the kids were taken care of, but we offered him a very nice deal that his lawyer told him he'd never get in court so he signed. He left the marriage was a lot more then he brought in....I was a smart investor.
> 
> Second lawyer just took care of paperwork....we didn't have kids so he took his and I took mine. End of story.
> 
> I'm sure some lawyer are jerks but many are egged on by vengeful spouses, which can include both wives and husbands.


I didn't mean individual divorce lawyers, who I'm sure can be perfectly good people.
I mean the "child-support-divorce industrial complex".


----------



## tech-novelist

LisaDiane said:


> I just want to say again, that not ALL women are the way you men are complaining they are...but I hear very little acknowledgement of that fact. I'm NOT offended that any of you are angry about the situation men are in legally...but just how sweepingly and unfairly you are expressing it.
> 
> I just want you guys to know that the things that many of you are saying really make me feel bad as a person. And I guess it's my own fault for even reading this thread, but there are men posting here who, in their other posts that I've read on other threads, I have felt great respect and friendliness towards, who I didn't expect to write (and think) such hateful things about "most" or "your average" women (so, ME).
> 
> So I feel disappointed and more than a little hurt by that.
> 
> How would you men like it if I wrote post after post saying you would all be physically abusive to women under the right circumstances and didn't care about women for any other reason except for getting off, you had no emotional depth at all, and were all a bunch of liars who would take advantage of any woman who was stupid enough to love and trust you...??
> ...


That's not analogous. To be analogous, the situation would have to be that if a man were physically abusive to a woman, society would take the man's side and say she had it coming to her, and if she tried to do anything about it she would be abused further.

That's what it's like to be a man who gets caught up in the gears of the divorce-child-support industrial complex.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> Umm, ok.
> 
> When it was revealed that Jada Pinkett cheated on Will Smith everyone woman I know thought she was a piece of crap.
> 
> Nobody would've batted sn eye if he'd dumped her.


Yeah because ladies all love Will Smith. If some girl cheats on the Fresh Prince, of course all the women gonna get upset. Jada hasn't exactly done anything to earn their love. That's not really the issue. The issue is when regular people get through this stuff. If one woman in a circle of friends is banging a young guy on the side and decides to leave her husband, do you think her friends and family are gonna think she is a POS all of a sudden? Nope. They will go down the litany of cliche, feel-good crap we always hear. "You can do better!" "You deserve to be happy!" Almost every woman I've ever met has her own little cheer squad that will encourage her to screw her guy over and make her feel like the better person while she does it. Oh, they might tell the truth about her when she isn't around, but they'll still support her and tell her to have her hot girl summer while she hits up the courts for child support payments. I've seen it.


----------



## EleGirl

Enigma32 said:


> Yeah because ladies all love Will Smith. If some girl cheats on the Fresh Prince, of course all the women gonna get upset. Jada hasn't exactly done anything to earn their love. That's not really the issue. The issue is when regular people get through this stuff. If one woman in a circle of friends is banging a young guy on the side and decides to leave her husband, do you think her friends and family are gonna think she is a POS all of a sudden? Nope. They will go down the litany of cliche, feel-good crap we always hear. "You can do better!" "You deserve to be happy!" Almost every woman I've ever met has her own little cheer squad that will encourage her to screw her guy over and make her feel like the better person while she does it. Oh, they might tell the truth about her when she isn't around, but they'll still support her and tell her to have her hot girl summer while she hits up the courts for child support payments. I've seen it.


That's pretty much how some men are too. They often support their friends regardless of how they behave.

Then there are those of us, male and female, who would not be ok with a close friend of ours cheating, dumping a good spouse, etc.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> That's pretty much how some men are too. They often support their friends regardless of how they behave.


All my friends were divorce raped before I met them.
One of my pals made the mistake of 'goodbye sex' and drinks the day after his divorce.
She deliberately got pregnant, another 19 years child support, he couldn't believe she did it.
She never let him see the child either.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> All my friends were divorce raped before I met them.
> One of my pals made the mistake of 'goodbye sex' and drinks the day after his divorce.
> She deliberately got pregnant, another 19 years child support, he couldn't believe she did it.
> She never let him see the child either.


I don't suppose he had any responsibility at all for voluntarily ****ing his ex wife?

Surely you're not implying that he's simply a victim of her "deliberately getting pregnant" and that he has no control over his own penis?


----------



## Blondilocks

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't suppose he had any responsibility at all for voluntarily ****ing his ex wife?
> 
> Surely you're not implying that he's simply a victim of her "deliberately getting pregnant" and that *he has no control over his own penis?*


This is the nuts and bolts of this entire thread.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't suppose he had any responsibility at all for voluntarily ****ing his ex wife?
> 
> Surely you're not implying that he's simply a victim of her "deliberately getting pregnant" and that he has no control over his own penis?


Alternatively,
Are you suggesting she had no control over her own womb?


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Alternatively,
> Are you suggesting she had no control over her own womb?


No, and that was an attempt at deflection. She made her choice and got the outcome she wanted.

He made his choice but is now somehow a victim. Nobody would paint her as a victim here.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> No, and that was an attempt at deflection. She made her choice and got the outcome she wanted.
> He made his choice but is now somehow a victim. Nobody would paint her as a victim here.


He was absolutely a victim.
To deliberately have his child and not let him ever see it despite forcing him to pay was incredibly evil.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> He was absolutely a victim.
> To deliberately have his child and not let him ever see it despite forcing him to pay was incredibly evil.


And why did he not have the option of not having sex with her? Does he not know where babies come from?

I would never do that to a guy, but I also tell my sons that when they pull it out babies and diseases can happen.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> I would never do that to a guy, but I also tell my sons that when they pull it out babies and diseases can happen.


That's true, he only had to pay 9 years in the end as he died from AIDs two years back.
Great guy, but a bit unlucky.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ElwoodPDowd said:


> That's true, he only had to pay 9 years in the end as he died from AIDs two years back.
> Great guy, but a bit unlucky.


I am sorry to hear that.

Did he get it from her or did he know where he got it?


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> That's true, he only had to pay 9 years in the end as he died from AIDs two years back.
> Great guy, but a bit unlucky.


If she would not allow him access to the child, he could have gone to court and forced the issue.

The ex of one of my brothers tried to hide their child from him. My niece was about 6 at the time. He got an attorney and sued for 100% custody. He only expected 50% but went all out on the initial case filing. The judge awarded him 50% and his ex learned that he would not tolerate her playing nasty games with their child.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Yes. He could retain a lawyer and fight in the courts ... provided he had the resources to do so without risking bankruptcy.


----------



## tech-novelist

EleGirl said:


> If she would not allow him to the child, he could have gone to court and forced the issue.
> 
> The ex of one of my brother's tried to hide their child from him. My niece was about 6 at the time. He got an attorney and sued for 100% custody. He only expected 50% but with all out on the initial case filing. The judge awarded him 50% and his ex learned that he would not tolerate her playing nasty games with their child.


Sometimes that will work. Other times all it does is make things worse.
It depends to a great extent on the particular judge, the laws in the jurisdiction involved, and how those laws are actually applied.


----------



## EleGirl

tech-novelist said:


> Sometimes that will work. Other times all it does is make things worse.
> It depends to a great extent on the particular judge, the laws in the jurisdiction involved, and how those laws are actually applied.


It can also depend on the circumstances.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> If she would not allow him to the child, he could have gone to court and forced the issue.
> 
> The ex of one of my brother's tried to hide their child from him. My niece was about 6 at the time. He got an attorney and sued for 100% custody. He only expected 50% but with all out on the initial case filing. The judge awarded him 50% and his ex learned that he would not tolerate her playing nasty games with their child.


Never worked for me,
I'd get a court order to visit mine (did it twice in 6 months at a cost of $1,500 each) and she'd just get the welfare officer to overrule the court ruling. She just told welfare I was going to kill them. No evidence required, nobody ever spoke to the kids. My lawyer said she could keep the game going for 5 years with no risk to herself. I guess UK and USA are different. I just weighed up the costs, time and benefits and decided to have more kids with another woman and forget the previous four. As I said before this is a very common game in the UK, lots of divorced women play it.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> I don't suppose he had any responsibility at all for voluntarily ****ing his ex wife?
> 
> Surely you're not implying that he's simply a victim of her "deliberately getting pregnant" and that he has no control over his own penis?


It seems as if you now are starting to understand the point of MGTOW. That poor, dead bastard had sex with his ex wife one last time and that was all it took for her to collect a paycheck from him for the rest of his life. So, you're right, men do have control over their lives, and MGTOW is for the guys who choose not to get involved with ladies who can force them into poverty just because he screwed her once. You're over here saying he should have known better so I guess you agree with MGTOW.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> It seems as if you now are starting to understand the point of MGTOW. That poor, dead bastard had sex with his ex wife one last time and that was all it took for her to collect a paycheck from him for the rest of his life. So, you're right, men do have control over their lives, and MGTOW is for the guys who choose not to get involved with ladies who can force them into poverty just because he screwed her once. You're over here saying he should have known better so I guess you agree with MGTOW.


Why wouldn't I? I don't care what anyone else does....I think everyone should go their own way and find what works for them. We'd all be a lot happier if we did our own thing and if someone comes into our lives we can decide if we're interested. I have a nice guy, and since all I need is one I don't care what other men choose to do. If you want to do your own thing knock yourself out. In fact, the pursuit of relationships rather than doing your thing while keeping your mind open often causes people to ignore red flags and make bad decisions.

We should all be responsible for our own actions. I'd say the same thing to a woman who came here and whined that she'd had drunk unprotected sex with her ex, got pregnant, and he paid his CS but was otherwise uninvolved. I've seen this happen....she knew where babies came from.

Think before you act.

My only points here were that a lot of men with this mentality don't seem to take responsibility for their own bad decisions, and that the victim attitude I see causes self fulfilling prophesies. "I'm going to find a woman to **** when the urge strikes me" isn't going to get you a quality woman, then that will be used as further proof that women aren't worth it. You will miss out on good ones this way.

But I have no issue with MGTOW.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> It can also depend on the circumstances.


Yeah. Like an old buddy of mine. He couldn't get more than visitation for his kids even though his ex-wife had a documented history of drug abuse and violence. Why? Unsympathetic judges, and rich ex's parents who could afford to outspend him on legal battles. All he wanted was for his kids to not live in a drug house. Instead he watched his ex-wife snort his child support checks right up her nose. And no, he didn't know about her drugs ... until the divorce. Like many addicts, she hid it well until she couldn't anymore.

We can trade anecdotes until judgement day. The problem is that the child custody/support system not only allows great injustices but actively resists correcting them when brought to light.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> We should all be responsible for our own actions. I'd say the same thing to a woman who came here and whined that she'd had drunk unprotected sex with her ex, got pregnant, and he paid his CS but was otherwise uninvolved. I've seen this happen....she knew where babies came from.


What if he got her knocked up and walked away without paying any child support. Left her to deal with the financial burden. Is she a victim then or should she have just known better?


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> Yeah. Like an old buddy of mine. He couldn't get more than visitation for his kids even though his ex-wife had a documented history of drug abuse and violence. Why? Unsympathetic judges, and rich ex's parents who could afford to outspend him on legal battles. All he wanted was for his kids to not live in a drug house. Instead he watched his ex-wife snort his child support checks right up her nose. And no, he didn't know about her drugs ... until the divorce. Like many addicts, she hid it well until she couldn't anymore.
> 
> We can trade anecdotes until judgement day. The problem is that the child custody/support system not only allows great injustices but actively resists correcting them when brought to light.


Money talks, unfortunately. My ex sister in law was married to a guy from a very wealthy family in Chicago and they knew the judges. They used money and influence to keep her from their 3 kids for years.

They started to rebuild relationship when the kids were adult's but she never really reconciled with the oldest boy.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> My only points here were that a lot of men with this mentality don't seem to take responsibility for their own bad decisions, and that the victim attitude I see causes self fulfilling prophesies. "I'm going to find a woman to **** when the urge strikes me" isn't going to get you a quality woman, then that will be used as further proof that women aren't worth it. You will miss out on good ones this way.


The problem though, is how can you tell the good one? The true test is how she treats you in divorce, and by then it's just a little bit late. The family court digs into you then.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> What if he got her knocked up and walked away without paying any child support. Left her to deal with the financial burden. Is she a victim then or should she have just known better?


That is a baiting statement. Everyone has an obligation to support their kids financially, and the reason I included that was because if I hadn't the next argument would've been that she could pursue CS legally. She can't force him to be involved.

So yes, she should consider who she has unprotected sex with. That doesn't absolve him of his financial obligation.

Edit: FYI my sister has 3 kids by 2 unemployed scumbags. She knew they were scumbags and got pregnant anyway.

They still have obligations, which they ignore, but she absolutely should have known better.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> The problem though, is how can you tell the good one? The true test is how she treats you in divorce, and by then it's just a little bit late. The family court digs into you then.


Unfortunately divorce brings out a lot of bad behavior. Plenty of men turn into scumbags during divorce proceedings. It's difficult if you are stand up and your ex is a scumbag.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Enigma32 said:


> What if he got her knocked up and walked away without paying any child support. Left her to deal with the financial burden. Is she a victim then or should she have just known better?


You know, even then she has the choice to place the baby for adoption. Or even surrender the baby to the state with no repercussions. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Unfortunately divorce brings out a lot of bad behavior. Plenty of men turn into scumbags during divorce proceedings. It's difficult if you are stand up and your ex is a scumbag.


No argument there. However on the balance of probabilities, family courts tend to be far harsher on scumbag men than scumbag women. 

All of this is why I think young men, especially, need to default to MGTOW and weigh any long term involvement very seriously.


----------



## Enigma32

DownButNotOut said:


> You know, even then she has the choice to place the baby for adoption. Or even surrender the baby to the state with no repercussions. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws.


Yes. Because in the USA, men do not have equal rights when it comes to this sort of thing, not even close. A woman can take a day after pill, get an abortion, give up the kid for adoption, anything. A guy though, if he sticks his baby maker in her, he's on the hook for life and just should accept his responsibility.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Enigma32 said:


> Yes. Because in the USA, men do not have equal rights when it comes to this sort of thing, not even close. A woman can take a day after pill, get an abortion, give up the kid for adoption, anything. A guy though, if he sticks his baby maker in her, he's on the hook for life and just should accept his responsibility.


Where I live the courts considers it to be 'her body, her choice'.
If she isn't married, the guy has no legal rights or responsibility towards and child.


----------



## manowar

LisaDiane said:


> I just want to say again, that not ALL women are the way you men are complaining they are...but I hear very little acknowledgement of that fact. I'm NOT offended that any of you are angry about the situation men are in legally...but just how sweepingly and unfairly you are expressing it.
> 
> I just want you guys to know that the things that many of you are saying* really make me feel bad as a person*. And I guess it's my own fault for even reading this thread, but there are men posting here who, in their other posts that I've read on other threads, I have felt great respect and friendliness towards, *who I didn't expect to write (and think) such hateful *things about "most" or "your average" women (so, ME).
> 
> *So I feel disappointed and more than a little hurt by that.*


Here's the disconnect that women always have when they hear this kind of stuff. Let me explain what's really going on here. MGTOW allows guys for the first time in history to compare notes and experiences. Us guys know instinctively what a male poster is getting at because we experienced something like it ourselves. What they are talking about is the female experience -- essentially what it is like dealing w/ them.

This is something you simply can't understand. You are a woman. You have never dealt w/ woman in a predating/dating/relationship/marriage context. In fact, it's impossible for you to know by the very fact of your womanhood. So all of your presuppositions are apriori beliefs but really have no grounding in experience. Your thinking is the way you 'think' most women are not how they are in reality. I see this sort of reaction a lot from women. I suppose its natural. What Im getting at is that only guys can know this stuff. Yes there are a few angels out there. Perhaps you are one. Its a very small minority especially in the west which have undergone massive shifts and changes due to prosperity that has influenced this shift in female behavior. It might sound fked up but its the way it is. 

To gain a better understanding - try this. Set up a male profile OLD. Get very into your undercover role as a man. Send out messages to women and start engaging them. Chat with them. Obviously, you cant meet them or have a relationship unless you decide to swing over that way (which I would endorse to get the full expereince; to really know first hand). Do this for at least one year and only then will you start to get it. Only then will you understand what these posts are about. 

BTW one girl tried this. She was bi and felt the way you do. She was blown away by her findings. I saw her on youtube some time ago. She basically said it was unlike anything she had ever expected. In fact, she went exclusive with men afterwards.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> Yes there are a few angels out there. Perhaps you are one. Its a very small minority especially in the west which have undergone massive shifts and changes due to prosperity that has influenced this shift in female behavior. It might sound fked up but its the way it is.


Even if 75% of western women were 'angels', I wouldn't risk my assets, home and freedom again.
But suspect the 'angels' would in reality only be 1% or 2%.
Even Lucifer was an angel at one time!

If the laws went against women, I'd probably grab everything I could as well.
Although in Oman (where one of my pals lives) where only men can initiate a divorce, and the woman leaves with nothing, there is no divorce because the men don't do it..


----------



## uphillbattle

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Although in Oman (where one of my pals lives) where only men can initiate a divorce, and the woman leaves with nothing, there is no divorce because the men don't do it..


Yes, people don't generally free their slaves.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> If the laws went against women, I'd probably grab everything I could as well.
> Although in Oman (where one of my pals lives) where only men can initiate a divorce, and the woman leaves with nothing, there is no divorce because the men don't do it..


Wrong. In Oman both men and women can initiate divorce. They follow Sharia law under which men can divorce for any reason at all, they just need to state that they want a divorce. Women can initiate divorce under certain limited circumstances, such as abandonment or a husband's failure to meet his financial obligations, and must file legal proceedings to make the divorce final. Otherwise, women may invoke their legal right to _khula_, the Islamic practice of unilateral divorce initiated by women if they return their _mahr_ (dowry). 

Rates of marriage in Oman are falling in recent years and rates of divorce are increasing.

_"Statistics from the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs show that Omani women initiate more than half of the divorces in a country where tradition and cultural values are fast changing. Omani women initiated an average of 58 per cent of all divorces in the country in the last five years."_​_More Omani women than men are initiating divorce (thenationalnews.com) _​​You are also wrong that 'men don't do that'. Men cheat, lie, abandon, etc, etc at least as much as women do if not more.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> You know, even then she has the choice to place the baby for adoption. Or even surrender the baby to the state with no repercussions. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have "safe haven" or "safe surrender" laws.


The birth father of the child can petition the court to get custody of a child that is put up for adoption or that is surrendered.

My ex and I adopted a baby 32 years ago. Before the adoption could be finalized the law required that the birth father relinquish his paternal rights. The birth father would not acknowledge his son even though he was contacted. We had to publish an announcement in the local news paper for something like 60 days notifying him of the adoption and of his right to contest it. By law, after that time the court terminated the birth father's rights.

Birth Father Rights in Adoption | Adoption Network | Adoption Network


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> You are also wrong that 'men don't do that'. Men cheat, lie, abandon, etc, etc at least as much as women do if not more.


Yes, I'm sure your internet searches are more accurate than the experiences of people living in these countries.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> The birth father of the child can petition the court to get custody of a child that is put up for adoption or that is surrendered.
> 
> My ex and I adopted a baby 32 years ago. Before the adoption could be finalized the law required that the birth father relinquish his paternal rights. The birth father would not acknowledge his son even though he was contacted. We had to publish an announcement in the local news paper for something like 60 days notifying him of the adoption and of his right to contest it. By law, after that time the court terminated the birth father's rights.
> 
> Birth Father Rights in Adoption | Adoption Network | Adoption Network


Here you find another situation where the law as written and the law as applied do not necessarily agree. An adoptive family is far more likely to face disappointment due to the mother changing her mind than to any father succeeding in a paternity case. From your perspective as adoptive parents, you see the father's claim as a barrier to finalizing the adoption process. Many fathers in that situation are either fine with the adoption, or are unreachable as was your case. So you/the agency/your lawyer goes through the checklist and the adoption works as you expect. That is how the system works, as a checklist to allow the termination of the biological father's rights and the facilitation of placing the child with a new family. 

But ... for a father who would like to keep and raise his child the process is very much different and very stacked against him. His paternal rights are not guaranteed, and in fact can be considered waived for any number of reasons. For a father to have a case at establishing paternity rights, he cannot rely solely on biology. As the Supreme Court case Lehr v Robertson established, biology is insufficient to establish paternal rights. A biological father must also be able to show active involvement either in the child's life after birth, or in the mother's pregnancy. Insufficient effort, as viewed by the court, on the father's part is enough to rule against him. "Effort" in this case is viewed by the court almost exclusively as financial support. This is even true in cases where the pregnancy was hidden from the biological father, or he cannot even locate or contact the mother to provide that financial support. When he does finally find out, a petition to the court is very likely to fail on the grounds that even though the child is biologically his he did not sufficiently establish paternity at birth and failed to financially support the child he either did not know about or could not find. And of course, even if he can pass that hurdle a biological father has to satisfy the court that he would be a good father, that he has the financial resources and the extended family support network. Often he will lose his case because he does not have sufficient support from other women in his life (sisters, mother, grandmother, etc) in the court's eyes.

And of course all of the above assumes the biological father was able to establish clear paternity early enough to be part of the process. A mother is under no obligation to name the father at birth. No state requires that. In fact, a mother can freely have a false name entered on the birth certificate if she so chooses making it far easier to shut the biological father out of any adoption decision.

So while in theory a father can stop a mother's decision to place their child with an adoptive family, in practice if the mother makes this choice it will probably stand regardless of the father's wishes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> No argument there. However on the balance of probabilities, family courts tend to be far harsher on scumbag men than scumbag women.
> 
> All of this is why I think young men, especially, need to default to MGTOW and weigh any long term involvement very seriously.


Yes, that's probably true. The kicker is that there's only so much you can do with a scumbag guy....the courts might he harsh but such a guy likely ignores a lot (ie doesn't pay or doesn't see much of the kids by his choice). Then it becomes a question of enforcement and I think that's where a lot of women struggle.

If you're a stand up guy the court matters....not so much if you're a scumbag.


----------



## Rus47

Enigma32 said:


> Yes. Because in the USA, men do not have equal rights when it comes to this sort of thing, not even close. A woman can take a day after pill, get an abortion, give up the kid for adoption, anything. A guy though, *if he sticks his baby maker in her, he's on the hook for life* and just should accept his responsibility.


For MGTOW, wouldn't vasectomy solve the issue of being on hook for CS for baby of a future conquest? Presume if a man has no intention of ever being married (again) siring babies isn't wanted either.


----------



## Rus47

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, that's probably true. The kicker is that there's only so much you can do with a scumbag guy....the courts might he harsh but such a guy likely ignores a lot (ie doesn't pay or doesn't see much of the kids by his choice). Then it becomes a question of enforcement and I think that's where a lot of women struggle.
> 
> If you're a stand up guy the court matters....not so much if you're a scumbag.


We had a divorced friend years ago with three kids, whose XH just ignored the court orders for child support. He cared nothing about his kids. She had him jailed several times, told us he didn't mind being in jail so it had no effect. She had no leverage. In those days, the state didn't enforce collection by attaching wages. But, even now when the state does attach wages, the scumbags will work for cash or move out of state, disappear.


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Although in Oman (where one of my pals lives) where only men can initiate a divorce, and the woman leaves with nothing, there is no divorce because the men don't do it..


Is Google not available in Thailand?


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> Yes, I'm sure your internet searches are more accurate than the experiences of people living in these countries.


Personally, I would trust the information from a government agency over the information from one person - one person who may have their own agenda.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, that's probably true. The kicker is that there's only so much you can do with a scumbag guy....the courts might he harsh but such a guy likely ignores a lot (ie doesn't pay or doesn't see much of the kids by his choice). Then it becomes a question of enforcement and I think that's where a lot of women struggle.
> 
> If you're a stand up guy the court matters....not so much if you're a scumbag.


I'm sure the same can be said about scumbag women and the system. Ignoring parental alienation orders and such.

I'm not so much concerned about what the system does to scumbags. It's those stand up guys I'm concerned about. The one's who are trying to do the right thing but face an unjust system that abuses them precisely because they are stand up guys and will follow what they're ordered to do, no matter how unjust that order is.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Rus47 said:


> For MGTOW, wouldn't vasectomy solve the issue of being on hook for CS for baby of a future conquest? Presume if a man has no intention of ever being married (again) siring babies isn't wanted either.


For an older man, it is a good option.

But for young men 18-25? Would you recommend vasectomies to them? They are who MGTOW is trying to reach.


----------



## Rus47

DownButNotOut said:


> For an older man, it is a good option.
> 
> But for young men 18-25? Would you recommend vasectomies to them? They are who MGTOW is trying to reach.


Well, I guess would think if a 18-25 wants is to "go his own way", why would he be wanting to ever father a child? If the only reason he is wanting women is to have fun, he can have all fun he can handle with zero risk of becoming a baby daddy. And, he can even advertise to women he meets that they have no risk of pregnancy with him. Maybe I am misunderstanding the whole MGTOW concept, but thought most of the men "going their own way" had already been burned badly, already had fathered kids, and wanted to avoid being victimized again.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> I'm sure the same can be said about scumbag women and the system. Ignoring parental alienation orders and such.
> 
> I'm not so much concerned about what the system does to scumbags. It's those stand up guys I'm concerned about. The one's who are trying to do the right thing but face an unjust system that abuses them precisely because they are stand up guys and will follow what they're ordered to do, no matter how unjust that order is.


We all have our crosses and should all be concerned about stand up people getting screwed.

Now all we need is a way to match stand up people with other stand up people and let the scumbags screw each other over.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Rus47 said:


> For MGTOW, wouldn't vasectomy solve the issue of being on hook for CS for baby of a future conquest? Presume if a man has no intention of ever being married (again) siring babies isn't wanted either.


Can't agree with that, I'd like to impregnate every woman i do it with, wife or ONS.
I don't ever use 'protection'.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Blondilocks said:


> Personally, I would trust the information from a government agency over the information from one person - one person who may have their own agenda.


But @EleGirl doesn't quote government agencies, she quotes translations of foreign websites.
(I'm assuming she doesn't read Arabic or Thai script)
And as many posters on here keep saying even USA law as written isn't enacted by the courts in a fair and even handed manner.

Not to mention Google has an agenda and manipulates all searches made through it.
Which is why China blocks Microsoft, Facebook and Google.
And Thailand is considering following China's lead.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> Now all we need is a way to match stand up people with other stand up people and let the scumbags screw each other over.


I believe the MGTOW movement is trying to do just that, by advising men not to marry or cohabit in the west. If you don't marry or live with her, she has much less opportunity to screw you over.


----------



## Rus47

ElwoodPDowd said:


> But @EleGirl doesn't quote government agencies, she quotes translations of foreign websites.
> (I'm assuming she doesn't read Arabic or Thai script)
> *And as many posters on here keep saying even USA law as written isn't enacted by the courts in a fair and even handed manner.*
> 
> Not to mention Google has an agenda and manipulates all searches made through it.
> Which is why China blocks Microsoft, Facebook and Google.
> And Thailand is considering following China's lead.


The law is whatever a judge decides to interpret it to be after the attorneys are done arguing the case.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> I'm sure the same can be said about scumbag women and the system. Ignoring parental alienation orders and such.
> 
> I'm not so much concerned about what the system does to scumbags. It's those stand up guys I'm concerned about. The one's who are trying to do the right thing but face an unjust system that abuses them precisely because they are stand up guys and will follow what they're ordered to do, no matter how unjust that order is.





ElwoodPDowd said:


> I believe the MGTOW movement is trying to do just that, by advising men not to marry or cohabit in the west. If you don't marry or live with her, she has much less opportunity to screw you over.


Well since it's impractical to suggest that every guy in the west either move to the east or buy a mail order it's not going to work on a large scale...at least not for the guys who want a family.

For the men who don't they are free to do as they please...just remember where babies come from.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Rus47 said:


> We had a divorced friend years ago with three kids, whose XH just ignored the court orders for child support. He cared nothing about his kids. She had him jailed several times, told us he didn't mind being in jail so it had no effect. She had no leverage. In those days, the state didn't enforce collection by attaching wages. But, even now when the state does attach wages, the scumbags will work for cash or move out of state, disappear.


Some people hate their ex more then they love their kids.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Rus47 said:


> Well, I guess would think if a 18-25 wants is to "go his own way", why would he be wanting to ever father a child? If the only reason he is wanting women is to have fun, he can have all fun he can handle with zero risk of becoming a baby daddy. And, he can even advertise to women he meets that they have no risk of pregnancy with him. Maybe I am misunderstanding the whole MGTOW concept, but thought most of the men "going their own way" had already been burned badly, already had fathered kids, and wanted to avoid being victimized again.


Those older men who have been burned hold themselves up as warnings to the younger generation. MGTOW would serve the younger men well, at least until they have the maturity and wisdom to understand what society will attempt to extract from them in a LTR. But I could never condone permanent sterilization to such young men. What you think you want at 20 is far different than at 35.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> For the men who don't they are free to do as they please...just remember where babies come from.


We're back to this again? How's this for an answer?

Where do babies come from? From the choices made by women.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> We're back to this again? How's this for an answer?
> 
> Where do babies come from? From the choices made by women.


Men don't control their own penises? Women force poor helpless guys to drop their pants?

The point is that if you wish to go your own way then take responsibility for your own choices.

Or are you suggesting these guys should go their own way but also bang women when they feel like it and it's her job to make sure there are no kids as a result?


----------



## ccpowerslave

lifeistooshort said:


> For the men who don't they are free to do as they please...just remember where babies come from.


My mom was deathly afraid of one of her boys getting a girl pregnant. From a young age she was telling us we’d will be on the hook for that kid! She was maybe an early MGTOW advocate. This was around maybe 6th grade when she started which was smart because the next year we had a few girls drop out of school once they became obviously pregnant.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ccpowerslave said:


> My mom was deathly afraid of one of her boys getting a girl pregnant. From a young age she was telling us we’d will be on the hook for that kid! She was maybe an early MGTOW advocate. This was around maybe 6th grade when she started which was smart because the next year we had a few girls drop out of school once they became obviously pregnant.


I've told my boys the same thing. I've also advised that they not agree to supporting a sahm lest they end up supporting her forever.

Maybe hard for some guys to understand but us women who have sons do not wish to see them get screwed in court. We know it happens....we also know our boys need to make good decisions.


----------



## ccpowerslave

lifeistooshort said:


> I've also advised that they not agree to supporting a sahm lest they end up supporting her forever.


She never offered this advice although she didn’t like staying at home with us and was back to work as soon as we were all old enough for day care.

I think it’s good advice. With that said, I’d now be happy if my wife quit her job and lived a life of leisure for a while.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Men don't control their own penises? Women force poor helpless guys to drop their pants?
> 
> The point is that if you wish to go your own way then take responsibility for your own choices.
> 
> Or are you suggesting these guys should go their own way but also bang women when they feel like it and it's her job to make sure there are no kids as a result?


I knew you'd go there. Men have no say in the birth of a child.

Men can choose to have sex with a woman. Men can choose to use a condom.

Women can choose to have sex with a man. She can make that consent contingent on a condom. She can avail herself of multiple forms of birth control on her own. If she does not, she can go to the pharmacy the next morning and choose to take a plan B. In the event a pregnancy results she also chooses whether to carry that pregnancy to term. After that she can choose to raise that child or relinquish her parental role.

A man's agency ends at condom use.

As to your first point, a man's consent is not required. In fact up until very recently the FBI's definition was gendered such that there was no crime committed when a woman forces penetrative sex on a man. In any event, the case law is clear - men are still fully responsible for the result of sex they did not consent to. The Kansas case Hermesmann v. Seyer is a precedent setting example. In that case a boy of 13 was sexually assaulted by his 17 year old babysitter. She successfully sued Seyer for child support. In the Kansas Supreme Court decision upholding the case, this was included in the reasoning:


> The court stated that the state's interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> But @EleGirl doesn't quote government agencies, she quotes translations of foreign websites.


And you don't provide links to any government agencies to support your false claim that women cannot initiate divorce in Oman. Funny that.

In addition to the rights that women have in Oman to initiate divorce that I listed in an earlier post, "A husband may delegate his unilateral right to divorce to his wife (isma) through a stipulation in the marriage contract,47 thus permitting her to pronounce talāq upon erself (talāq-i-tafwid). "​Microsoft Word - Oman - Overview Table - Final - 31 May 2017.docx (musawah.org)​
Members of my family who are Muslims from the Middle East have this provision in their marriage contracts. It's pretty much standard practice for marriage for anyone who is not in the lowest educational and economic strata and whose family gives a rat’s arse about them.



ElwoodPDowd said:


> (I'm assuming she doesn't read Arabic or Thai script).


I can read Arabic though I'm rusty in it now. I lived years in countries in Africa and the Middle East in which Arabic was one of the common languages. One of the branches on my family is Muslim from that part of the world. Another branch is Byzantine Christian/Catholic from those areas.



ElwoodPDowd said:


> And as many posters on here keep saying even USA law as written isn't enacted by the courts in a fair and even handed manner.


True. But what you claimed about the law was incorrect. Per law in Oman, as in many Islamic countries, some divorces are handled by Imam; some are handled by the courts. This depends on the circumstances of the divorce and on the marriage contract the couple has.


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> I've told my boys the same thing. I've also advised that they not agree to supporting a sahm lest they end up supporting her forever.


 This is what I advised my sons. I advised my step-daughter to get her education and a career before she got pregnant and/or married some guy. I've had these conversations with their friends and even some of my nephews and nieces.



lifeistooshort said:


> Maybe hard for some guys to understand but us women who have sons do not wish to see them get screwed in court. We know it happens....we also know our boys need to make good decisions.


Women have men we love.. not just our husbands. We have uncles, brothers, nephews, grandsons, friends, etc. Most of us don't want them screwed over in a divorce. We also don't want the women in our lives screwed over. We have laws that are fair and that give people, both the husband and wife, a fair shake in divorce.

Men on this thread go on and on about how every man is screwed over in divorce. It's flat out not true. Some are screwed over. But sometimes women are screwed over as well. I've seen the laws and their implementation become more and more fair over the years. As laws are applied equally regardless of sex/gender it's getting better.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> Those older men who have been burned hold themselves up as warnings to the younger generation. MGTOW would serve the younger men well, at least until they have the maturity and wisdom to understand what society will attempt to extract from them in a LTR.


It's good to educate young men about relationships and marriage/family law. I think both boys/men and girls/women should be far more educated in these topics before they marry. Sadly a lot of people don't even consider the laws until a marriage falls apart. 

What bothers me is what looks a lot like hate towards women as a whole on this thread and on manosphere sites. Just on this thread alone there have been awful things said accusing all women of being liars, manipulators, and on and on. If that's what MSTOW is teaching boys and young men then it's not good.

It's like the more radical forms of feminism. The basics of feminism is equality under the law and in society. But radical feminism is just ugly. We've all seen the hateful things put out there by the radical wing of feminism. 

Anything that teaches hate and gross mistrust of a half of humanity is bad.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ccpowerslave said:


> My mom was deathly afraid of one of her boys getting a girl pregnant. From a young age she was telling us we’d will be on the hook for that kid! She was maybe an early MGTOW advocate. This was around maybe 6th grade when she started which was smart because the next year we had a few girls drop out of school once they became obviously pregnant.


All parents I ever knew, going way back were deathly afraid of it and for their daughters as well. Before birth control and condoms, all you had was warnings! And that didn't stop men from either forcing sex on you or telling you (which a lot of naive people still believe) that all he has to do is pull out or that you can't get pregnant from only doing it once.


----------



## ccpowerslave

DownByTheRiver said:


> All parents I ever knew, going way back were deathly afraid of it and for their daughters as well. Before birth control and condoms, all you had was warnings! And that didn't stop men from either forcing sex on you or telling you (which a lot of naive people still believe) that all he has to do is pull out or that you can't get pregnant from only doing it once.


I still remember in 7th grade this kid I knew was messing around with condoms in his locker. I asked him what he was going to do with those, and he’s like “sex dude” and I laughed. No way!

My wife is afraid of accidentally getting pregnant now. I looked into getting a vasectomy and I happen to know a guy who had one and his balls got infected and he has long term pain in his nuts from it. So even though the chance is low I have enough pain in my life now I don’t need chronic pain in my balls.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ccpowerslave said:


> I still remember in 7th grade this kid I knew was messing around with condoms in his locker. I asked him what he was going to do with those, and he’s like “sex dude” and I laughed. No way!
> 
> My wife is afraid of accidentally getting pregnant now. I looked into getting a vasectomy and I happen to know a guy who had one and his balls got infected and he has long term pain in his nuts from it. So even though the chance is low I have enough pain in my life now I don’t need chronic pain in my balls.


I don't know, you might like it. You like a lot of very hot food! Kidding. It's rare that there's complications. She could get on the pill. They have all types now.


----------



## ccpowerslave

DownByTheRiver said:


> I don't know, you might like it. You like a lot of very hot food! Kidding. It's rare that there's complications. She could get on the pill. They have all types now.


Oh yeah she has been on the pill (different ones) since about a month after we were exclusive. As we are older now she is more concerned with becoming pregnant accidentally. So I was like hmm maybe I can just get the surgery. I told a friend I was thinking about doing it and he was like “what about <mutual friend> it messed up his balls” so I checked it out and sure enough he was one of the unlucky.


----------



## Rus47

EleGirl said:


> It's good to educate young men about relationships and marriage/family law. *I think both boys/men and girls/women should be far more educated in these topics before they marry.* Sadly a lot of people don't even consider the laws until a marriage falls apart.
> 
> What bothers me is what looks a lot like hate towards women as a whole on this thread and on manosphere sites. Just on this thread alone there have been awful things said accusing all women of being liars, manipulators, and on and on. If that's what MSTOW is teaching boys and young men then it's not good.
> 
> It's like the more radical forms of feminism. The basics of feminism is equality under the law and in society. But radical feminism is just ugly. We've all seen the hateful things put out there by the radical wing of feminism.
> 
> Anything that teaches hate and gross mistrust of a half of humanity is bad.


Will just say for myself, and all of my offspring that "education" had about zero influence when the urge to merge arrived with puberty. My parents gave me and my sister the "talk", which I repeated to my kids, which they have repeated to their kids. No evidence that it influenced behavior at all. 

I doubt that many young men are paying much attention to any of the MGTOW, RP, BP, Incel, etc. In fact, this site is the first place had ever even heard of any of this stuff. My male descendants are busy chasing skirts as fast as they can, and the ones who are marrying age keep getting married. One is on number four. He still loves women despite three divorces, gets on well with all of his ex wives. During family gatherings, all of his exes are there along with him and current wife, all of them yaking with one another lol.

As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!


----------



## Rus47

ccpowerslave said:


> I still remember in 7th grade this kid I knew was messing around with condoms in his locker. I asked him what he was going to do with those, and he’s like “sex dude” and I laughed. No way!
> 
> My wife is afraid of accidentally getting pregnant now. I looked into getting a vasectomy and I happen to know a guy who had one and his balls got infected and he has long term pain in his nuts from it. So even though the chance is low I have enough pain in my life now I don’t need chronic pain in my balls.


If you are done siring kids, I highly recommend the vasecttomy! Had mine after our fourth kid, that was decades ago, outpatient procedure in the doctors office, local lidocane, snip snip, snip snip, two stitches done. Even then it was no big deal. Was a little sore overnight, went to work the next morning. Have to wait two weeks to get checked that all sperm have been flushed out. Then you can play without concern. I have NEVER known anyone with after effects, sounds like the guy you knew had a crummy doctor doing the job. BTW, if a man decides to have kids down the road, it can be reversed fairly easily,


----------



## EleGirl

Rus47 said:


> Will just say for myself, and all of my offspring that "education" had about zero influence when the urge to merge arrived with puberty. My parents gave me and my sister the "talk", which I repeated to my kids, which they have repeated to their kids. No evidence that it influenced behavior at all.
> 
> I doubt that many young men are paying much attention to any of the MGTOW, RP, BP, Incel, etc. In fact, this site is the first place had ever even heard of any of this stuff. My male descendants are busy chasing skirts as fast as they can, and the ones who are marrying age keep getting married. One is on number four. He still loves women despite three divorces, gets on well with all of his ex wives. During family gatherings, all of his exes are there along with him and current wife, all of them yaking with one another lol.
> 
> As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!


You are right about that.. "As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!"

This site is the first place I hear about all the manosphere stuff as well. Every so often a thread like this one is started. I hear more about it now in the news media and on social media now. There have been a few very disturbing mass murder incidents over the last few years where guys who were very much into incel, etc, were so angry at women that they went on a murder sprees.


----------



## Rus47

EleGirl said:


> You are right about that.. "As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!"
> 
> This site is the first place I hear about all the manosphere stuff as well. Every so often a thread like this one is started. I hear more about it now in the news media and on social media now. There have been a few very disturbing mass murder incidents over the last few years where guys who were very much into incel, etc, were so angry at women that they went on a murder sprees.


Well, we have a lot of nutcases loose looking for an excuse to commit mayhem. I don't recall any news of those you mention, but surely they were minority of a minority of a minority. And, the media LOVES to report mayhem over and over and over.


----------



## ccpowerslave

Rus47 said:


> If you are done siring kids…


I was born done. My wife and I expected to have kids because “you’re supposed to” but then as we were getting older we’re like wait… says who? Instead we have matching Rolex’s and an endowment for other people’s kids.

Maybe I need to “nut up” and sign up for the surgery.


----------



## Rus47

ccpowerslave said:


> I was born done. My wife and I expected to have kids because “you’re supposed to” but then as we were getting older we’re like wait… says who? Instead we have matching Rolex’s and an endowment for other people’s kids.
> 
> Maybe I need to “nut up” and sign up for the surgery.


One of the best thing I ever did for our love life. 100% sure BC, no pills, no periphenelia lol.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> You are right about that.. "As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!"
> 
> This site is the first place I hear about all the manosphere stuff as well. Every so often a thread like this one is started. I hear more about it now in the news media and on social media now. There have been a few very disturbing mass murder incidents over the last few years where guys who were very much into incel, etc, were so angry at women that they went on a murder sprees.


Early profilers recognized incel, or as they termed it, inadequate males, as one of the main types who does serial crime, rape and murder. Of course, there's inadequate personality (which is what they were mostly referring to), but there's also a big percentage who are also inadequate sexually, which confuses the term, though those may also fall into other disorder categories. If you read early John Douglas (FBI profiling pioneer), he talks a lot about it, and if you examine what they know about many of the modern perpetrators, you can clearly see that in many of them. They are not healthy.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Just don't conflate or confuse MGTOW with incel. They are not remotely the same thing.

This is actually a problem with "manosphere" discussions. All of the terms eventually get brought in, often to delegitimize what is being said.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ccpowerslave said:


> I was born done. My wife and I expected to have kids because “you’re supposed to” but then as we were getting older we’re like wait… says who? Instead we have matching Rolex’s and an endowment for other people’s kids.
> 
> Maybe I need to “nut up” and sign up for the surgery.


FWIW my kids father had the surgery and I was in the room when they did it.

It was nothing... he used a bag of frozen peas for a day and then was fine.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

lifeistooshort said:


> Or are you suggesting these guys should go their own way but also bang women when they feel like it and it's her job to make sure there are no kids as a result?


Her body, her choice.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> You are right about that.. "As the world population growth shows, men like women ( and visa versa ) A LOT!"


No population growth in any of the western countries, which indicates to me that white men and women don't like each other much at all. We Brit men conquered half the world while out looking for women we liked.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> There have been a few very disturbing mass murder incidents over the last few years where guys who were very much into incel, etc, were so angry at women that they went on a murder sprees.


This movement is called "True forced Loneliness" (aka TFL), for men that want women but can't get one. Yep, these guys can be angry and violent.

MGTOW is for men avoiding women under western law. Passive and non confrontational.

Then there's "Pickup artists" (aka PUA) for men that want women without paying. They'll do whatever it takes to trick a woman in bed.

The three quite different groups have different aims and don't mix that well with each other.
Then you've got "Male Supremacists" that seem to wander between the three groups without quite fitting in anywhere.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

lifeistooshort said:


> FWIW my kids father had the surgery and I was in the room when they did it.
> 
> It was nothing... he used a bag of frozen peas for a day and then was fine.


CCP would add a sausage to the bag of peas I'm sure, just on principle.


----------



## ccpowerslave

DownByTheRiver said:


> CCP would add a sausage to the bag of peas I'm sure, just on principle.


It’s true I would never ice my balls with a purely vegetarian menu.


----------



## manowar

DownButNotOut said:


> The one's who are trying to do the right thing but face an unjust system that abuses them precisely because they are stand up guys and will follow what they're ordered to do, no matter how unjust that order is.


This is such a great point. Because the machine realizes there are more guys willing to comply with the State's self-imposed private welfare system transferred to the ex-husband. The men who don't comply are collateral damage to that system. There will never be a 100% compliance rate.




Rus47 said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding the whole MGTOW concept, but thought most of the men "going their own way" had already been burned badly, already had fathered kids, and wanted to avoid being victimized again.


You don't get it. MGTOW is a reaction to female nature. They are tired of women running the dating show with entitled selfish female behavior. You are a baby boomer who is married to his childhood sweetheart from what I gathered. A one-woman Ozzy and Harriet guy. that's cool but you haven't 'experienced' the reality of this. It's been going on a long time certainly back to the 1980s/90s which I can attest to first hand.

Nothing much has changed except for social media which is not all bad. Yes social media hurts men in the 20-39 range because it gives women a huge amount of options. But the internet also gave men the Red Pill and MGTOW which for the first time provided much-needed understanding to true women's behavior, motivations, and female nature. Guys finally understand what the fk is going on rather than the propaganda they received from that good old clergyman..

I didn't have to deal with social media in my 20s and 30s which was beneficial to me. But I didn't have access to RP or MGTOW either which would have filled me in on the real deal. 



Rus47 said:


> I doubt that many young men are paying much attention to any of the MGTOW, RP, BP, Incel, etc. In fact, this site is the first place had ever even heard of any of this stuff.


Wrong again. Go check out some of the red pill / MGTOW content -- read the comments. These young guys are grateful realizing that they were playing the stupid nice guy. baby boomers have a hard time grasping it since the social conditioning has been so strong or they are flat out unwilling to admit it. 



Rus47 said:


> My male descendants are busy chasing skirts as fast as they can, and the ones who are marrying age keep getting married. One is on number four. He still loves women despite three divorces, gets on well with all of his ex wives. During family gatherings, all of his exes are there along with him and current wife, all of them yaking with one another lol.


this is old-world thinking. The world changed. Everyone hasn't caught up yet. 



ElwoodPDowd said:


> Then there's "Pickup artists" (aka PUA) for men that want women without paying. They'll do whatever it takes to trick a woman in bed.


The huge mistake w/ PUA is that they place women in the position of the goddess -- the prize. Their whole shtick are basic psychological tools without understanding the psychology behind it. They'd be better off studying female psychology. Pick-up also depends a lot on a guy's looks. Short fat guys can do all the pickup training they want and all they're doing is tricking themselves.

MGTOW's greatest achievement is that it strikes at the heart of female motivation and cuts off attention. It's a very intelligent move.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> No population growth in any of the western countries, which indicates to me that white men and women don't like each other much at all.


Lol, now that's funny. I know a lot of people who are dating, marrying, having children, etc. Looks like there's a lot of love'n going on.

My take on it is that we have birth control now so women don't have the average of 8 pregnancies in a lifetime as women did in the past. Also, we have much better health care now. 25% of women in the western countries no longer die from pregnancy and child birth.

People in Western countries realize that the world population has grown by leaps and bounds and it's a problem. Plus, we know that it's better for a couple to have only those children they can take care of.

Also, we have learned that it's better not to marry girls off at 12/13/14 and have them get pregnant before they are really able to care for themselves, much less their babies.

Unfortunately, people in 3rd world countries have not figured this out yet and are producing more children than they can take care of. In the past I saw entire villages dying of starvation because they could not feed the themselves. Often times the adults just let their young children die of starvation because they know that if they can stay alive they can have more children, so the children are expendable.

Over population in 3rd world countries is so pronounced that Western countries have a problem with illegal immigrants/migrants flooding our borders.



ElwoodPDowd said:


> We Brit men conquered half the world while out looking for women we liked.


It was Brit men long before you who conquered to world. You had nothing to do with that. LOL


----------



## manowar

EleGirl said:


> we have birth control now so women don't have the average of 8 pregnancies in a lifetime as women did in the past.


birth control's been around since 1960 and almost no one listens to their clergyman concerning child planning. 7or8 kids were great for the clergy. More followers. As usual, the clergy wasn't paying. they were just dictating the rules. fathers didn't want to support 8 kids in the modern world. who can blame them.


----------



## DTO

Rus47 said:


> If you are done siring kids, I highly recommend the vasecttomy! Had mine after our fourth kid, that was decades ago, outpatient procedure in the doctors office, local lidocane, snip snip, snip snip, two stitches done. Even then it was no big deal. Was a little sore overnight, went to work the next morning. Have to wait two weeks to get checked that all sperm have been flushed out. Then you can play without concern. I have NEVER known anyone with after effects, sounds like the guy you knew had a crummy doctor doing the job. BTW, if a man decides to have kids down the road, it can be reversed fairly easily,


It's not about having a crummy doctor. It's a matter of whether the man's body adjusts to absorb the sperm and fluids that were intended to keep flowing downstream. My surgeon did 2-3 a week and I had problems.

Look up congestive epididymitis. I was hurting for six months; a surgeon I consulted after the procedure said it generally goes away but can take up to two years to do so.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> People in Western countries realize that the world population has grown by leaps and bounds and it's a problem. Plus, we know that it's better for a couple to have only those children they can take care of.


It's an odd form of racial suicide.
White folk used to be 40% of the world population, now we're down to 15% in less than 100 years.
I used to worry about my genetic heritage being gone from the world, but I've jumped ship and exclusively breed with non-whites so I've solved my personal worries on that front. My descendants will be Asian.

"we know it's better" ....... better for whom?
It's certainly not better for the white race, and probably not better for our current technological civilisation.
But it may be better for followers of Islam and the people of China/India.
But then white liberals have always advocated the evils of technology, and when the world reverts to everyone living in mud huts with no medical help, dirty drinking water, and widespread hunger they'll get what they wanted without their descendants being there to see it.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> Lol, now that's funny. I know a lot of people who are dating, marrying, having children, etc. Looks like there's a lot of love'n going on.
> 
> My take on it is that we have birth control now so women don't have the average of 8 pregnancies in a lifetime as women did in the past. Also, we have much better health care now. 25% of women in the western countries no longer die from pregnancy and child birth.
> 
> People in Western countries realize that the world population has grown by leaps and bounds and it's a problem. Plus, we know that it's better for a couple to have only those children they can take care of.
> 
> Also, we have learned that it's better not to marry girls off at 12/13/14 and have them get pregnant before they are really able to care for themselves, much less their babies.
> 
> Unfortunately, people in 3rd world countries have not figured this out yet and are producing more children than they can take care of. In the past I saw entire villages dying of starvation because they could not feed the themselves. Often times the adults just let their young children die of starvation because they know that if they can stay alive they can have more children, so the children are expendable.
> 
> Over population in 3rd world countries is so pronounced that Western countries have a problem with illegal immigrants/migrants flooding our borders.
> 
> 
> It was Brit men long before you who conquered to world. You had nothing to do with that. LOL


Ele, I hope you didn't mean it that way, but this reads as serious Western cultural elitism. The same kind of "we know better than the savages" as in colonial expansion.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

manowar said:


> birth control's been around since 1960 and almost no one listens to their clergyman concerning child planning. 7or8 kids were great for the clergy. More followers. As usual, the clergy wasn't paying. they were just dictating the rules. fathers didn't want to support 8 kids in the modern world. who can blame them.


I'd have no problems with 8 kids.
I'm a bit disappointed that I only managed 5 (as far as I know).


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> It was Brit men long before you who conquered to world. You had nothing to do with that. LOL
> 
> we have birth control ........we have much better health care......we have learned that it's better not to marry girls off at 12/13/14 ...... we know that it's better for a couple to have only those children they can take care of ........
> 
> Unfortunately, people in 3rd world countries have not figured this out yet ......


So I can share responsibility for Black slavery, White privilege, and violence towards women .........
But I can't share responsibility for Britain conquering half the world.

And at the same time YOU can claim a share of the kudos for western Health care, birth control and changing the age of marriage along with wanting to tell the primitive 3rd world natives how they should live their lives. (I actually believe 'the primitive natives' have it right, and the 'western people' are living a false and destructive way of life)

That seems a little unfair to me.


----------



## manowar

Real good childhood friend and his sister I was friends w/ came from 8 kid family. His dad was real nice to me but always seemed pressured. Back in the final stages of the Irish catholic priests (1970s) and their rant against contraception. Now I realize how difficult it was to support a family that large. He died pretty young too. I dont think he made 60. From what I heard he was pretty much used up by life.


----------



## Enigma32

ElwoodPDowd said:


> It's an odd form of racial suicide.
> White folk used to be 40% of the world population, now we're down to 15% in less than 100 years.
> I used to worry about my genetic heritage being gone from the world, but I've jumped ship and exclusively breed with non-whites so I've solved my personal worries on that front. My descendants will be Asian.


Yup. We are gonna be gone soon. In all majority Caucasian countries like USA, Canada, and parts of Europe, there is this huge push for diversity and multiculturalism. Meanwhile, places like China and Japan are keeping their countries Chinese and Japanese. You reap what you sow.


----------



## EleGirl

DownButNotOut said:


> Ele, I hope you didn't mean it that way, but this reads as serious Western cultural elitism. The same kind of "we know better than the savages" as in colonial expansion.


No I don't mean it that way. I certainly don't think people are 'savages'.

I mean it in that I'm worried about the way the world that we are passing on to the next generations. There are now over 4 times as many people on earth as there were in 1900. A huge percentage of people worldwide live in extreme poverty and hardly have enough food to live on. Add to that the ills of child forced labor (aka slavery), and slavery/near-slavery in many countries. Then add global climate change to that.

If population growth continues as it is, I don't see how this can be sustained.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

EleGirl said:


> A huge percentage of people worldwide live in extreme poverty and hardly have enough food to live on
> If population growth continues as it is, I don't see how this can be sustained.


This is, and has always been entirely normal.
The normal correction to overpopulation is by the excess people dying through war/starvation/disease.
When you give aid to foreign countries it just exacerbates the problem, which is why the west shouldn't do it.


----------



## EleGirl

ElwoodPDowd said:


> This is, and has always been entirely normal.
> The normal correction to overpopulation is by the excess people dying through war/starvation/disease.
> When you give aid to foreign countries it just exacerbates the problem, which is why the west shouldn't do it.


This is turning into a huge thread jack. 

But one last comment... so your solution is to let them starve to death or die from curable diseases.


----------



## Enigma32

EleGirl said:


> This is turning into a huge thread jack.
> 
> But one last comment... so your solution is to let them starve to death or die from curable diseases.


You could start a thread on that. I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.


----------



## Rus47

We are far from Ozzie n Harriot. A lot of major challenges and our family far from perfect.


----------



## Blondilocks

ElwoodPDowd said:


> No population growth in any of the western countries, which indicates to me that white men and women don't like each other much at all. We Brit men conquered half the world while out looking for women we liked.


Your post #947 citing the article 'Brides of the State' to explain what happened with your ex makes it seem as though you are Irish.


----------



## Deejo

Interesting, so this went from 'Men Going Their Own Way' to 'Replacement Theory'? That hand grenade with the pin pulled - subject belongs in politics, definitely not here.

Frankly, I find the MGTOW movement (is it really a movement?) interesting. In the same way that I found the whole PUA, red-pill thing interesting a decade ago. I thought it was all bovine excrement ... until I actually read about it, and then started implementing a number of the tenets in my life, and interactions with women, and to my shock and horror, and eventual acceptance; they worked.

Being back on the dating circuit now, and just always being interested in human nature, it's still all pretty intriguing.


----------



## bobsmith

Deejo said:


> Interesting, so this went from 'Men Going Their Own Way' to 'Replacement Theory'? That hand grenade with the pin pulled - subject belongs in politics, definitely not here.
> 
> Frankly, I find the MGTOW movement (is it really a movement?) interesting. In the same way that I found the whole PUA, red-pill thing interesting a decade ago. I thought it was all bovine excrement ... until I actually read about it, and then started implementing a number of the tenets in my life, and interactions with women, and to my shock and horror, and eventual acceptance; they worked.
> 
> Being back on the dating circuit now, and just always being interested in human nature, it's still all pretty intriguing.


I started this thread not expecting nearly 1100 responses on the subject. My intent was to see if people either adhered to this MGTOW thing, or knew someone that did, and to what degree. From what I could tell, there really is no defining protocol to be "in the club". But I think it is doing some good to bring awareness of both the governmental injustice against men today, and learn of about female nature, which has certainly evolved in the last couple decades. 

In videos that I have seen, all I keep hearing about is 'alpha or beta'....apparently you have to be one of the two. But I just don't agree with trying to make people into someone they are not. It is no less fake than women in spanks and makeup applied with a butter knife. But that really has more to do with dating than I guess the core of MGTOW, which is a level of avoidance. 

I cannot say I really know anyone but myself that goes out of their way to avoid a relationship, but I know of many men, after getting burned up in a marriage, are now in some sort of relationship but have zero interest in the big M ever again. I can't say I would outright tell younger guys to avoid marriage, but I would certainly warn them of the realities of the modern system. Most women have zero interest in correcting any of this because it is working well for them! 

But one thing I have certainly noticed both with myself, and other men that have been burned, is it will change you. Maybe not all men, but as with myself and the men I know, there is no longer that fun laugh and personality. The awareness of it all makes men pay close attention and realize you are engaging in a business transaction, and nothing more. Words mean very little. Even women here have told me that when they say "I love you", they mean in that moment. That means the next day, maybe not. That makes for a crappy way for a man to live....

The other main reality I got was attractive women with options will likely monkey branch. It is so easy for them to spot a Chad and swing right over when the time is right for them, while living in the comfort of their existing relationship. Do men do this? You bet! But in most cases, men have to weigh how much money they will 'lose', as to a woman will lose nothing, and usually gain. She is basically rewarded for her behavior. Until there is real consequence for this, it will continue. 

One couple I know too well. The man is my best friend, and ex is and has remained a good friend. They were a high school couple. Both very attractive. She decided to cheat, likely out of boredom as a stay at home. He tried to accept it, then decided he wanted out. Both are now in other relationships but both are now different. She was rewarded with a couple cars, a house, child support, etc. He had to start over. She, to this day, tries to get back to him though. 

I know of enough of these stories that when I hear of a man leaning on this MGTOW thing, then hear a woman bash him for the behavior like he is pouting, it mostly pi&&es me off. Men apparently are supposed to just be 'cool' with losing everything, and sign up to do it again? Women frankly don't care what your past is, and how you got burned. They want a ring and the 401K. You know, that "successful" part they were attracted to.


----------



## Deejo

My 2 cents is, that it is going to look different depending upon the lens through which it is viewed, or implemented. I remember watching a MGTOW video a few years ago. And if the content for that video were to be seen as the context for MGTOW, then the takeaway most definitely was that the 'movement' consisted of weak, whiny, men that had had their hearts smashed, and half their stuff taken by the wives who had divorced them, and consequently they were not going to search for emotional fulfillment, or forming their own self-identity 

I watched a video where a red-pill guy wanted to make the distinction that red pill ISN'T MGTOW.

It all gets silly, really fast.

Here is what I do know, recognize, understand and just continue to be intrigued by; the relationship and sexual dynamics in western culture, particularly the US, are having an identity crisis, and without question, many young men, have no concept of how to effectively enter, engage in, navigate, and succeed in the sphere of relationships, or should you choose, the sexual marketplace. 

Young women are encouraged to celebrate their autonomy, personal power, and sexual freedom. They are told 'they can have it all' and are bombarded with that message, particularly in the media, both social and commercial. None of those are bad things ... until they are. And ultimately for those that cling to that notion, the bad things catch up.

Everyone thinks they are entitled to 'more'. More youth, beauty, money, admirers, muscle, hair, power, Instagram followers ... whatever. It has created a culture of "I deserve better". And it's all a delusion.

When it comes down to it, I would have no problem describing myself as a 'Man Going His Own Way'. I'm the first to admit, my life is great. I feel fortunate and blessed. I appreciate what I have and don't feel like I'm entitled to what I don't. I love my kids. I have a successful and respectful relationship with their mother. I don't need a woman to complete me. But ... I absolutely like women. Should one cross my path that I'm particularly fond of and compatible with; fantastic. I'd be very interested and invested in enriching both of our lives through shared experience. But I don't feel compelled to shoe-horn a partner into my life. If she fits and wants to be part of it, great. If she wants or worse, expects me to make substantial changes to my life and how I conduct it in order to be with her? That simply isn't going to happen.

There is a phrase I hear often now. "You do you."
Yeah ... that right there pretty much sums up my feelings about MGTOW. The trick of pulling it off successfully, is one must know intimately, and be at ease with, what 'doing you' consists of. And that, appears to be the rub for many.


----------



## Enigma32

Deejo said:


> Interesting, so this went from 'Men Going Their Own Way' to 'Replacement Theory'? That hand grenade with the pin pulled - subject belongs in politics, definitely not here.
> 
> Frankly, I find the MGTOW movement (is it really a movement?) interesting. *In the same way that I found the whole PUA, red-pill thing interesting a decade ago. I thought it was all bovine excrement ... until I actually read about it, and then started implementing a number of the tenets in my life, and interactions with women, and to my shock and horror, and eventual acceptance; they worked.*
> 
> Being back on the dating circuit now, and just always being interested in human nature, it's still all pretty intriguing.


I had some dating struggles back in the day when I was around 20 years old. It just seemed logical to me at the time that if you wanted a date, you should be nice to women, so that is what I did. That idea was a flop. Eventually, I started reading dating tips for men online (early PUA and red pill before it was called red pill) and tried implementing that. It made no sense to me at the time, but as you say, the stuff works 100%.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

Deejo said:


> When it comes down to it, I would have no problem describing myself as a 'Man Going His Own Way'. I'm the first to admit, my life is great. I feel fortunate and blessed. I appreciate what I have and don't feel like I'm entitled to what I don't. I love my kids. I have a successful and respectful relationship with their mother. I don't need a woman to complete me. But ... I absolutely like women. Should one cross my path that I'm particularly fond of and compatible with; fantastic. I'd be very interested and invested in enriching both of our lives through shared experience. But I don't feel compelled to shoe-horn a partner into my life. If she fits and wants to be part of it, great. If she wants or worse, expects me to make substantial changes to my life and how I conduct it in order to be with her? That simply isn't going to happen.
> 
> There is a phrase I hear often now. "You do you."
> Yeah ... that right there pretty much sums up my feelings about MGTOW. The trick of pulling it off successfully, is one must know intimately, and be at ease with, what 'doing you' consists of. And that, appears to be the rub for many.


That's how I feel about this stuff too. I haven't read red pill stuff, and only vaguely know about incels, and I think the material they both espouse is kind of all tangled up.

But I'm over here doing my own thing, not needing a partner. If I stumble across someone with potential, I'll give a relationship a try, but if I have any doubts, I'm not pursuing it any further.

Where I mostly differ, is that I see the problem being with the legal system, not with women. The system needs true equality. Human beings of whatever gender need to be able to be self-supporting, and to only have as many children as they are able to reasonably rear. And during divorce, people need to go their separate ways with as reasonable financial equalization as possible. If there are children, parents should get equal access to them, and financial responsibility for them as per their income. It needs to be understood that this is the system right from marriage, so people know and understand it when they tie the knot. Nothing to fight over in most cases.

And here's some food for thought. It was men who created the legal divorce system in the first place, wasn't it?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd

Hopeful Cynic said:


> And here's some food for thought. It was men who created the legal divorce system in the first place, wasn't it?


But the legal system was only changed for the worse after women were given the vote.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Hopeful Cynic said:


> That's how I feel about this stuff too. I haven't read red pill stuff, and only vaguely know about incels, and I think the material they both espouse is kind of all tangled up.
> 
> But I'm over here doing my own thing, not needing a partner. If I stumble across someone with potential, I'll give a relationship a try, but if I have any doubts, I'm not pursuing it any further.
> 
> Where I mostly differ, is that I see the problem being with the legal system, not with women. The system needs true equality. Human beings of whatever gender need to be able to be self-supporting, and to only have as many children as they are able to reasonably rear. And during divorce, people need to go their separate ways with as reasonable financial equalization as possible. If there are children, parents should get equal access to them, and financial responsibility for them as per their income. It needs to be understood that this is the system right from marriage, so people know and understand it when they tie the knot. Nothing to fight over in most cases.
> 
> And here's some food for thought. It was men who created the legal divorce system in the first place, wasn't it?


I agree with you....everyone should be self supporting and nobody should be taken to the cleaners. I also said in an earlier post that we should all do our own thing and if we run into someone we like that likes us we can think about it.

That's what I did. I like to ride my bike and I met someone at the cycling group. As it turned out we have other things in common as well as chemistry, and that was almost 3 years ago and we're still great.

And the legal system absolutely was created by men. I think it's important to understand that as well as why if we're going to change it.

The men of today suffer because their grandfathers and great grandfathers wanted to control women by keeping them in the home. Women couldn't own anything....Men controlled everything so if your hb beat you up, too bad. If he took off too bad. If he screwed hookers too bad. Women were relegated to dependent status...you can control people with no options. The concept of the modern housewife was created to keep women home when the industrial revolution made it so that running the home was no longer a full time job.

The problem is that this only works if she can't leave. Once divorce became possible men were screwed in court because women couldn't support themselves, so someone had to be on the hook and the state doesn't want women on welfare. And it's wasn't only women that left....dependent women had to be protected if hubby took off with a younger model (look up Terry Hecker's story).

So to fix this we have to get away from the idea that men are providers and women are dependents and move toward a partnership. This is why I've advised my sons not to support a sahm. Unfortunately social change is slow and the pendulum often swings.

Here's an irony....for all the crap about men getting screwed, both of my exes were intimidated by my intelligence and earning power. They both really wanted someone who made then feel superior, yet because of my earning power neither one got screwed in the divorce.


----------



## bobsmith

Hopeful Cynic said:


> And here's some food for thought. It was men who created the legal divorce system in the first place, wasn't it?


I think some here might need to take a deep dive into the real legal system. Something called corruption, bribery, and most modernly, lobbying. Law makers do not sit around thinking of grand ideas for new laws. They are proposed to them. The modern way is MONEY. There is a pretty recent Dateline interview with an extremely corrupt government official that did yrs in the pen for this. 

So sure, you can say "men made the laws" but you would be wrong. They signed them into law. Most up there have no moral compass beyond their own bank account. I love it when people think millions of signatures will get something done. It WON'T! If that were the case, we could get term limits and pay limits on congress. "Word of the people", right? 

Really the entire system, not just divorce/CS is geared towards any way possible to relieve people of the cash they have, and it is about to get a whole lot worse. People don't like the word 'tax', so things have gotten creative.

Here ya go. This is worth a watch! Funny how the criminals denounce their ways ONLY once caught....


----------



## manowar

Deejo said:


> Frankly, I find the MGTOW movement (is it really a movement?) interesting. In the same way that I found the whole PUA, red-pill thing interesting a decade ago. I thought it was all bovine excrement ...* until I actually read about it*, and then started implementing a number of the tenets in my life, and interactions with women, and to my shock and horror, and eventual acceptance; they worked.



Same here brother. this is basically the unplugging stage where men realize they've been fooled by the machine and their clergymen. 

Its not a movement but a reaction to the dating/relationship environment of at least the past 40 years that's been one-sided. The majority of women treat the majority of men like crap. Why. Because they can and have been conditioned that it's ok. Many aren't even polite anymore. "We're girls. We can do that." I once confronted a girl and said why are you doing this sht; why do you pull this crap. Answer: "I'm a girl." I kid you not. I dumped her shortly afterward.

The heart of it is women like the new rules when it benefits them but also the traditional 1950s playbook when it benefits them and they're ready to settle down and want a traditional guy. Heads woman wins tails man loses. Men have countered with indifference and declining marriage rates.


----------



## manowar

lifeistooshort said:


> And the legal system absolutely was created by men


True. Along with civilization and every invention mankind benefits from.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> And the legal system absolutely was created by men. I think it's important to understand that as well as why if we're going to change it.


This is why I often chuckle at "the patriarchy" arguments. Maybe men enacted laws, but these men were driven by the instincts of all men -- the protection and provisioning of women. In society it is the men who are expendable, and the women who are to be protected. Our laws reflect that basic instinct.



> The men of today suffer because their grandfathers and great grandfathers wanted to control women by keeping them in the home. Women couldn't own anything....Men controlled everything so if your hb beat you up, too bad. If he took off too bad. If he screwed hookers too bad. Women were relegated to dependent status...you can control people with no options. The concept of the modern housewife was created to keep women home when the industrial revolution made it so that running the home was no longer a full time job.


This is ridiculous on its face, and is a gross misrepresentation of history. Divorce for cause has been around for hundreds of years. Adultery, abandonment, impotence, and cruel or inhuman treatment have all been considered cause for divorce. Even in the ecclesiastical courts of England, before divorce was allowed, legal separations could be sought and granted. In such cases, the man was still legally bound to financially support his separated wife -- the origins of modern day alimony. True in the 18th century property ownership for women was mostly prohibited. Then again, any financial indiscretion by a man's wife was considered the man's responsibility and he would be held accountable for them. It was men who were sent to debtor's prisons, not their wives. But by the 19th century the idea of women's property ownership had been firmly established. By then women could own sole proprietorship of a business, could solely inherit wealth and property, and could independently file lawsuits.



> The problem is that this only works if she can't leave. Once divorce became possible men were screwed in court because women couldn't support themselves, so someone had to be on the hook and the state doesn't want women on welfare. And it's wasn't only women that left....dependent women had to be protected if hubby took off with a younger model (look up Terry Hecker's story).


I believe you mean "no fault" divorce here. And yes, with "no fault" divorce it is the men who are screwed. Marriage is the only contract in existence where the termination of that contract still binds one party to obligations within that contract, potentially in perpetuity. In fact, no fault divorce is a primary reason to consider MGTOW as a prudent course of action. 



> So to fix this we have to get away from the idea that men are providers and women are dependents and move toward a partnership. This is why I've advised my sons not to support a sahm. Unfortunately social change is slow and the pendulum often swings.


Social Constructionism. My take is that this idea that family structures are a product of societal norms ignores millions of years of evolution. Men are hard wired to be providers. It's literally in our DNA. The fact that women are very vulnerable especially during and immediately following pregnancy naturally places them in a dependent state for at least part of their adult, married, lives. It also ignores financial considerations of two income families. If the party who would stay home doesn't earn enough to cover the costs of childcare with a meaningful amount left over it is better for that person to stay home with the kids.


----------



## lifeistooshort

manowar said:


> True. Along with civilization and every invention mankind benefits from.


Umm, that's false. Women have created or helped create a lot of things that men got credit for. Or they created and marketed under male sounding pseudonyms because women don't get credit for a lot of things.

Everyone knows that women post code on computer forums under male names because it gets a lot more attention that way. I bet @EleGirl , as a software engineer, can attest to this.

But it doesn't matter because we've always been partners, as it should be.

Even if true though it's irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is that a bunch of guys are complaining about laws set up by men before them but have somehow become evil women's fault.

As I said, if you wish to change things it's helpful to know where it comes from.


----------



## Enigma32

DownButNotOut said:


> I believe you mean "no fault" divorce here. And yes, with "no fault" divorce it is the men who are screwed. Marriage is the only contract in existence where the termination of that contract still binds one party to obligations within that contract, potentially in perpetuity. In fact, no fault divorce is a primary reason to consider MGTOW as a prudent course of action.


This is one of my biggest issues. A guy can be a good husband, a great father, do everything right, but his wife can still just say she wants out and then screw him over in the family courts. The way I see it, if one party decides they want to leave, then they take nothing with them. You breached the contract so buh bye. Now, if some douche cheats on his wife over and over, then I don't feel so bad for him if she takes the house and even custody of the kids. Again, breach of contract. 

I didn't even get screwed over in my divorce but it was an eye opener to me on how things really work. My ex wife and I were fine...or so I thought. Then one day she wanted out and tried (but failed) to screw me over legally. She had just found a BF online and she thought he was better for her so she bailed. If she and I had kids together or more of our finances entwined I would have gotten the shaft for real. I was lucky, but my eyes were opened as to what COULD happen if I were not so lucky.


----------



## RebuildingMe

Off topic


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> I had some dating struggles back in the day when I was around 20 years old. It just seemed logical to me at the time that if you wanted a date, you should be nice to women, so that is what I did. That idea was a flop. Eventually, I started reading dating tips for men online (early PUA and red pill before it was called red pill) and tried implementing that. It made no sense to me at the time, but as you say, the stuff works 100%.


Same here. I knew something was "up" because what I was seeing didn't match what I was being told. I think most guys have those moments but many choose to ignore them. They think they're doing everything "right", they look around and it appears everyone else is doing the same thing so they carry on.


----------



## Cletus

manowar said:


> True. Along with civilization and every invention mankind benefits from.


So there is no way anyone literate enough to operate a computer actually believes this to be true. 

No. ****ing. Way.


----------



## In Absentia

The legal system concerning divorce is very similar in the whole of the Western World. It's there to protect women, which historically have always been the weakest link. I guess all the legislators in the Western World got it wrong?


----------



## DownButNotOut

In Absentia said:


> The legal system concerning divorce is very similar in the whole of the Western World. It's there to protect women, which historically have always been the weakest link. I guess all the legislators in the Western World got it wrong?


Think of it more as it hasn't caught up with modern dating norms, no fault divorce, and other artifacts of second wave feminism.


----------



## Deejo

Sharing more wisdom that I have discerned in my tenure here. This site has overwhelmingly, always skewed towards males finding their way here and posting about their relationship or marital issues, and particularly, being far more vocal and vitriolic about those issues than the ladies. And quite obviously, there is no shortage of men who struggle to find answers to why the women in their lives treat them so poorly, or think so little of them. They don't understand, and CLEARLY, they have no idea what they should do about it. So, in my opinion, nobody should be surprised by the whole 'man-up', red pill, PUA, or MGTOW stuff. There are going to be those men looking for solutions as to how they conduct a relationship with women, whether it be devoted and committed, or love them and leave them, or come to their own realization that it is far too much work for far too little reward. 

I'd argue that it doesn't much matter what any of those paths look like, as long is whomever is walking them takes ownership of their choice.


----------



## ConanHub

Cletus said:


> So there is no way anyone literate enough to operate a computer actually believes this to be true.
> 
> No. ****ing. Way.


Data actually refutes this.


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> Data actually refutes this.


Refutes what, exactly?


----------



## Personal

ConanHub said:


> Data actually refutes this.


Have you ever used an electric refrigerator, circular saw, windshield wipers, car heaters amongst a parade of other things that women have invented.


----------



## Personal

I've always gone my own way, since I didn't come with an instruction manual and I like to white-knuckle my life.


----------



## Numb26

Personal said:


> Have you ever used an electric refrigerator, circular saw, windshield wipers, car heaters amongst a parade of other things that women have invented.


Electric refrigerator = Fred W. Wolf
Circular Saw = Art Emmons
Windshield Wipers = Mary Anderson
Car Heaters = Margaret Wilcox

So we are at 50%. Seems equal to me. 🤔


----------



## In Absentia

DownButNotOut said:


> Think of it more as it hasn't caught up with modern dating norms, no fault divorce, and other artifacts of second wave feminism.


Has the world really changed regarding the way women are treated in society generally?


----------



## Personal

Numb26 said:


> Electric refrigerator = Fred W. Wolf
> Circular Saw = Art Emmons


Art Emmons invented the portable hand held circular saw, Tabitha Babbitt's circular saw was not handheld and predated Emmon's efforts by over a century.

And thanks for the correction on the electric refrigerator.


----------



## Cletus

Personal said:


> I've always gone my own way, since I didn't come with an instruction manual and I like to white-knuckle my life.


No real man reads the user manual anyway. It's like asking for directions - not in our nature.


----------



## Numb26

Personal said:


> Art Emmons invented the portable hand held circular saw, Tabitha Babbitt's circular saw was not handheld and predated Emmon's efforts by over a century.
> 
> And thanks for the correction on the electric refrigerator.


My favorite female inventor is actress Hedy Lamar


----------



## Personal

Cletus said:


> No real man reads the user manual anyway. It's like asking for directions - not in our nature.


I can't live up to the illusory idea of being a "real man", on the other hand does it count that according to Ancestry DNA I'm 51% Scottish?


----------



## Numb26

Personal said:


> I can't live up to the illusory idea of being a "real man", on the other hand does it count that according to Ancestry DNA I'm 51% Scottish?


Apparently not 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## lifeistooshort

Cletus said:


> No real man reads the user manual anyway. It's like asking for directions - not in our nature.


My boys would agree.

They'd also say that men don't make 2 trips tp carry bags in from the car.


----------



## Numb26

lifeistooshort said:


> My boys would agree.
> 
> They'd also say that men don't make 2 trips tp carry bags in from the car.


The direction thing I agree with but bag carrying? I have been trying to break my kids of the habit of trying to carry everything at once. LOL


----------



## DownButNotOut

In Absentia said:


> Has the world really changed regarding the way women are treated in society generally?


I'm gonna have to go with 'What Is Yes!' for 1000 Alex


----------



## Cletus

lifeistooshort said:


> My boys would agree.
> 
> They'd also say that men don't make 2 trips tp carry bags in from the car.


Correct. No matter how many items we drop on the one and only trip.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> No real man reads the user manual anyway. It's like asking for directions - not in our nature.


Yep no directions. Unless it's a Chilton! Always check your Chilton


----------



## Cletus

DownButNotOut said:


> Yep no directions. Unless it's a Chilton! Always check your Chilton


Rookie mistake. You buy the complete service manual from the dealer.


----------



## bobsmith

Cletus said:


> Rookie mistake. You buy the complete service manual from the dealer.


Any pro knows that is not how it is done today. You pay a subscription for OE level access to individual systems. Of course this opens the book to all sorts of rookie issues. Pretty much like following your GPS right off a cliff. Oh how I loves me some electrical problems.


----------



## ConanHub

Personal said:


> Have you ever used an electric refrigerator, circular saw, windshield wipers, car heaters amongst a parade of other things that women have invented.


I don't have any problem acknowledging women but the actual data does not back statements that women could survive without men. Men could survive without women to their natural end.

I don't even have the patience to discuss what is totally academic at this point.

Median intelligence and innovation are clearly genderless.

Extremes are clearly recorded as male.


----------



## ConanHub

Personal said:


> Have you ever used an electric refrigerator, circular saw, windshield wipers, car heaters amongst a parade of other things that women have invented.


I just did a search about refrigeration and didn't see a woman involved.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> Rookie mistake. You buy the complete service manual from the dealer.


For a 50 year old Mach 1? Chilton is good enough.


----------



## EleGirl

ConanHub said:


> I just did a search about refrigeration and didn't see a woman involved.


Florence Parpart - Patented the Modern Refrigerator Florence Parpart - Patented the Modern Refrigerator (womenssuite.com)


----------



## In Absentia

DownButNotOut said:


> I'm gonna have to go with 'What Is Yes!' for 1000 Alex


you lost me there, sorry! 🙂


----------



## OnTheFly

Personal said:


> Have you ever used an electric refrigerator, circular saw, windshield wipers, car heaters amongst a parade of other things that women have invented.


And with the gender pay gap we could get the ladies to invent even more stuff for cheaper!!

Win-Win.

Seriously though, that's an impressive list of items, but don't hold back on the rest of the good stuff...what else they invent?


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> So there is no way anyone literate enough to operate a computer actually believes this to be true.
> 
> No. ****ing. Way.
> 
> 
> ConanHub said:
> 
> 
> 
> Data actually refutes this.
Click to expand...

Here's a very short list of the vast number of women who have developed and, in some instances, patented innovative products that revolutionize the world we live in. 

The Computer Algorithm (Ada Lovelace, 1842)

The Ice Cream Maker (Nancy Johnson, 1843)

The Modern Paper Bag (Margaret Knight, 1871)

The Life Raft (Maria Beasely, 1882)

The Dishwasher (Josephine Cochrane, 1887)

The Fire Escape (Anna Connelly, 1887)

Ironing Board (Sarah Boone, 1892)

The Car Heater (Margaret A. Wilcox, 1893)

The Medical Syringe (Letitia Geer, 1899)

Monopoly (Elizabeth Magie Phillips, 1904)

Modern Refrigerator (Florence Parpart, 1914)

Gas Central Heating (Alice H. Parker, 1919)
Earliest models of an intracellular micropipette electrode (Ida Hyde Hyde, _1921)_

‘Invisible’, Or Non-Reflective, Glass Coating (Katharine Blodgett, _1935) _used in making camera lenses, microscopes and eyeglasses.

Wireless Transmission Technology (Hedy Lamarr, 1942)

Computer Software (Grace Murray Hopper, 1944)

Residential Solar Heating (Dr. Maria Telkes, 1947)

Scotchgard (Patsy O’Connell Sherman, 1952. She and colleague Samuel Smith were awarded the patent in 1971, one of 13 the pair hold together.)
life-saving drugs_ (_Gertrude Belle Elion, 1957) Along with George Herbert Hitchings, she invented the first immunosuppressive drug, Azathioprine which was initially used for chemotherapy patients, and eventually for organ transplants. She was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Kevlar (Stephanie Kwolek, 1965)

Closed‐Circuit Television Security (CCTV) (Marie Van Brittan Brown, 1969)

First computerized word processor (Evelyn Berezin, 1971)

Toilet Tissue Holder (Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner, 1982)

‘Blissymbol Printer’ _(_Rachel Zimmerman, 1984) device that allowed people with speech disabilities to communicate non-verbally – using symbols on a touchpad translated to written language. Her invention has received several awards for her achievements.

Cancer Medical Technologies, Stem cell research & development (Ann Tsukamoto, 1991)

Atomic-resolution environmental transmission electron microscope (ETEM) (Pratibha Gai, 2009)

Water Purification System (Photocatalytic Composite Material (Deepika Kurup, 2012)

Coronavirus Vaccine Developed Oxford/Astra Zeneca (Sarah Gilbert & Catherine Green, 2020)
----------------------------------------
Telecommunications Technology (Shirley Jackson)
The coffee filter (Amalie Auguste Melitta Bentz)
The fork (Princess Theodora Anna Doukaina, 11th century)
Circular Saw (Sarah Tabitha Babbitt
Foot Pedal Trash Can (Lillian Gilbreth

International Women's Day 2021: A century of outstanding innovation by inspirational women - Mathys & Squire LLP (mathys-squire.com)

Microsoft Word - Document1 (uiowa.edu)


----------



## OnTheFly

Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what year 100mph was reached for a car. I was off by a decade....it was 1905. Not sure if any women were involved except for the ones the guys in the garage were trying to impress.


----------



## Al_Bundy

EleGirl said:


> Here's a very short list of * the vast number of women who have developed and, in some instances, patented innovative products that revolutionize the world we live in. *
> 
> The Computer Algorithm (Ada Lovelace, 1842)
> 
> The Ice Cream Maker (Nancy Johnson, 1843)
> 
> The Modern Paper Bag (Margaret Knight, 1871)
> 
> The Life Raft (Maria Beasely, 1882)
> 
> The Dishwasher (Josephine Cochrane, 1887)
> 
> The Fire Escape (Anna Connelly, 1887)
> 
> Ironing Board (Sarah Boone, 1892)
> 
> The Car Heater (Margaret A. Wilcox, 1893)
> 
> The Medical Syringe (Letitia Geer, 1899)
> 
> Monopoly (Elizabeth Magie Phillips, 1904)
> 
> Modern Refrigerator (Florence Parpart, 1914)
> 
> Gas Central Heating (Alice H. Parker, 1919)
> Earliest models of an intracellular micropipette electrode (Ida Hyde Hyde, _1921)_
> 
> ‘Invisible’, Or Non-Reflective, Glass Coating (Katharine Blodgett, _1935) _used in making camera lenses, microscopes and eyeglasses.
> 
> Wireless Transmission Technology (Hedy Lamarr, 1942)
> 
> Computer Software (Grace Murray Hopper, 1944)
> 
> Residential Solar Heating (Dr. Maria Telkes, 1947)
> 
> Scotchgard (Patsy O’Connell Sherman, 1952. She and colleague Samuel Smith were awarded the patent in 1971, one of 13 the pair hold together.)
> life-saving drugs_ (_Gertrude Belle Elion, 1957) Along with George Herbert Hitchings, she invented the first immunosuppressive drug, Azathioprine which was initially used for chemotherapy patients, and eventually for organ transplants. She was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
> 
> Kevlar (Stephanie Kwolek, 1965)
> 
> Closed‐Circuit Television Security (CCTV) (Marie Van Brittan Brown, 1969)
> 
> First computerized word processor (Evelyn Berezin, 1971)
> 
> Toilet Tissue Holder (Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner, 1982)
> 
> ‘Blissymbol Printer’ _(_Rachel Zimmerman, 1984) device that allowed people with speech disabilities to communicate non-verbally – using symbols on a touchpad translated to written language. Her invention has received several awards for her achievements.
> 
> Cancer Medical Technologies, Stem cell research & development (Ann Tsukamoto, 1991)
> 
> Atomic-resolution environmental transmission electron microscope (ETEM) (Pratibha Gai, 2009)
> 
> Water Purification System (Photocatalytic Composite Material (Deepika Kurup, 2012)
> 
> Coronavirus Vaccine Developed Oxford/Astra Zeneca (Sarah Gilbert & Catherine Green, 2020)
> ----------------------------------------
> Telecommunications Technology (Shirley Jackson)
> The coffee filter (Amalie Auguste Melitta Bentz)
> The fork (Princess Theodora Anna Doukaina, 11th century)
> Circular Saw (Sarah Tabitha Babbitt
> Foot Pedal Trash Can (Lillian Gilbreth
> 
> International Women's Day 2021: A century of outstanding innovation by inspirational women - Mathys & Squire LLP (mathys-squire.com)
> 
> Microsoft Word - Document1 (uiowa.edu)


So then clearly no need for alimony for such a resourceful bunch. Abolish it immediately. In fact, get govt completely out of the marriage business, it's supposed to between the couple and god anyways right?


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> So then clearly no need for alimony for such a resourceful bunch. Abolish it immediately. In fact, get govt completely out of the marriage business, it's supposed to between the couple and god anyways right?


The state will always have a vested interest in ensuring that children don't go completely uncared for. Between having Dad pay the bills and having the taxpayer, I think I know which side you land on. For that purpose, I support child support. The person who stayed at home to raise the children, father or mother, might need a leg up getting back into the workforce. For that purpose, I support alimony.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

In Absentia said:


> The legal system concerning divorce is very similar in the whole of the Western World. It's there to protect women, which historically have always been the weakest link. I guess all the legislators in the Western World got it wrong?


Women have periods of relative helplessness because of giving birth and child rearing. I guess if there were no men, then there'd be no pregnancies and babies, and women would survive, but the species wouldn't.


----------



## Numb26

OnTheFly said:


> Just out of curiosity, I checked to see what year 100mph was reached for a car. I was off by a decade....it was 1905. Not sure if any women were involved except for the ones the guys in the garage were trying to impress.


They were all in the kitchen making sammies!


----------



## Al_Bundy

Cletus said:


> The state will always have a vested interest in ensuring that children don't go completely uncared for. Between having Dad pay the bills and having the taxpayer, I think I know which side you land on.


Child support and division of assets are different issues. I say either the dad pays or the mom pays. Not the taxpayer (the rest of us)


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> Child support and division of assets are different issues. I say either the dad pays or the mom pays. Not the taxpayer (the rest of us)


I amended my reply to include alimony, when appropriate.


----------



## Cletus

DownByTheRiver said:


> Women have periods of relative helplessness because of giving birth and child rearing. I guess if there were no men, then there'd be no pregnancies and babies, and women would survive, but the species wouldn't.


Apparently, not without a man, as I was surprised to learn today.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Cletus said:


> I amended my reply to include alimony, when appropriate.


The idea of maintaining a lifestyle should be completely thrown out. That's pure entitlement. Plus if you are so used to living a particular lifestyle then you should have been paying attention as far as how to maintain that lifestyle and be able to do it yourself.

Need a year to get on your feet fine, but as others have mentioned it should not be a windfall for either party.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Al_Bundy said:


> So then clearly no need for alimony for such a resourceful bunch. Abolish it immediately. In fact, get govt completely out of the marriage business, it's supposed to between the couple and god anyways right?


Most places don't have alimony and when they do, it can be men or women. Alimony should be applicable when one person has had to stay home and not work because of the other partner and has, therefore, not been able to develop skills outside of homemaking and child rearing. My state hasn't had it for decades, but there can be exceptions made by the court for certain circumstances. Like I know one in which the divorce happened. They couple had one small child. The man's grandmother was very helpful in babysitting. However, after the divorce, the wife didn't move out. I know the man was dating and having a life during this time. I don't know why he let her stay. He ran his own small business, so maybe that's why he let her or wanted her to stay and remain primary caretaker. Three years later, she went back to the attorney and court and he ended up having to still pay her the original settlement that should have been contingent on her moving out, plus some. It was baffling. But the law goes by contracts and I'm only assuming that original contract for settlement of divorce was flawed and so the judge held to it. 

So she probably made out like a bandit, but on the other hand, he was a raging mess at that time (I've heard him go off more than once and it's bad and he had to take anger management). So there were some other factors I certainly wasn't privy to, but in the end, he owed her a lot of money he probably should not have, but then he let her stay there, too, so.......while he dated other women. He ended up with joint 50/50 custody, but I'm not sure if that was the original deal or if that got renegotiated to end the child support carnage.


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> The idea of maintaining a lifestyle should be completely thrown out. That's pure entitlement. Plus if you are so used to living a particular lifestyle then you should have been paying attention as far as how to maintain that lifestyle and be able to do it yourself.
> 
> Need a year to get on your feet fine, but as others have mentioned it should not be a windfall for either party.


You can pay one of two ways. 

You can pay for child care while your children are young and demand that your spouse stay current and employable. That's going to run you low 5 figures a year for at least 6 years. Call it 100k in round dollars.
You can gamble that you will never divorce and remove your spouse - man or woman - from the rat race, which may make then completely unemployable. You then may have to pay for their retraining or career change. 

Enter MGTOW. Which is fine - but once you decide to marry and have children, you are implicitly entering into this obligation. If an adult is functionally impoverished in the support of your offspring, you should bear some responsibility for fixing it.


----------



## Al_Bundy

DownByTheRiver said:


> Most places don't have alimony and when they do, it can be men or women. Alimony should be applicable when one person has had to stay home and not work because of the other partner and has, therefore, not been able to develop skills outside of homemaking and child rearing. My state hasn't had it for decades, but there can be exceptions made by the court for certain circumstances. Like I know one in which the divorce happened. They couple had one small child. The man's grandmother was very helpful in babysitting. However, after the divorce, the wife didn't move out. I know the man was dating and having a life during this time. I don't know why he let her stay. He ran his own small business, so maybe that's why he let her or wanted her to stay and remain primary caretaker. Three years later, she went back to the attorney and court and he ended up having to still pay her the original settlement that should have been contingent on her moving out, plus some. It was baffling. But the law goes by contracts and I'm only assuming that original contract for settlement of divorce was flawed and so the judge held to it.
> 
> So she probably made out like a bandit, but on the other hand, he was a raging mess at that time (I've heard him go off more than once and it's bad and he had to take anger management). So there were some other factors I certainly wasn't privy to, but in the end, he owed her a lot of money he probably should not have, but then he let her stay there, too, so.......while he dated other women. He ended up with joint 50/50 custody, but I'm not sure if that was the original deal or if that got renegotiated to end the child support carnage.


The "raising the kids" thing is always brought up but you mentioned something interesting. 

"Not been able to develop skills outside of homemaking and child rearing"

How often do you think in today's world that someone doesn't truly have the opportunity to develop marketable skills? Especially when the children are school age and not home schooled.


----------



## ConanHub

EleGirl said:


> Here's a very short list of the vast number of women who have developed and, in some instances, patented innovative products that revolutionize the world we live in.
> 
> The Computer Algorithm (Ada Lovelace, 1842)
> 
> The Ice Cream Maker (Nancy Johnson, 1843)
> 
> The Modern Paper Bag (Margaret Knight, 1871)
> 
> The Life Raft (Maria Beasely, 1882)
> 
> The Dishwasher (Josephine Cochrane, 1887)
> 
> The Fire Escape (Anna Connelly, 1887)
> 
> Ironing Board (Sarah Boone, 1892)
> 
> The Car Heater (Margaret A. Wilcox, 1893)
> 
> The Medical Syringe (Letitia Geer, 1899)
> 
> Monopoly (Elizabeth Magie Phillips, 1904)
> 
> Modern Refrigerator (Florence Parpart, 1914)
> 
> Gas Central Heating (Alice H. Parker, 1919)
> Earliest models of an intracellular micropipette electrode (Ida Hyde Hyde, _1921)_
> 
> ‘Invisible’, Or Non-Reflective, Glass Coating (Katharine Blodgett, _1935) _used in making camera lenses, microscopes and eyeglasses.
> 
> Wireless Transmission Technology (Hedy Lamarr, 1942)
> 
> Computer Software (Grace Murray Hopper, 1944)
> 
> Residential Solar Heating (Dr. Maria Telkes, 1947)
> 
> Scotchgard (Patsy O’Connell Sherman, 1952. She and colleague Samuel Smith were awarded the patent in 1971, one of 13 the pair hold together.)
> life-saving drugs_ (_Gertrude Belle Elion, 1957) Along with George Herbert Hitchings, she invented the first immunosuppressive drug, Azathioprine which was initially used for chemotherapy patients, and eventually for organ transplants. She was awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
> 
> Kevlar (Stephanie Kwolek, 1965)
> 
> Closed‐Circuit Television Security (CCTV) (Marie Van Brittan Brown, 1969)
> 
> First computerized word processor (Evelyn Berezin, 1971)
> 
> Toilet Tissue Holder (Mary Beatrice Davidson Kenner, 1982)
> 
> ‘Blissymbol Printer’ _(_Rachel Zimmerman, 1984) device that allowed people with speech disabilities to communicate non-verbally – using symbols on a touchpad translated to written language. Her invention has received several awards for her achievements.
> 
> Cancer Medical Technologies, Stem cell research & development (Ann Tsukamoto, 1991)
> 
> Atomic-resolution environmental transmission electron microscope (ETEM) (Pratibha Gai, 2009)
> 
> Water Purification System (Photocatalytic Composite Material (Deepika Kurup, 2012)
> 
> Coronavirus Vaccine Developed Oxford/Astra Zeneca (Sarah Gilbert & Catherine Green, 2020)
> ----------------------------------------
> Telecommunications Technology (Shirley Jackson)
> The coffee filter (Amalie Auguste Melitta Bentz)
> The fork (Princess Theodora Anna Doukaina, 11th century)
> Circular Saw (Sarah Tabitha Babbitt
> Foot Pedal Trash Can (Lillian Gilbreth
> 
> International Women's Day 2021: A century of outstanding innovation by inspirational women - Mathys & Squire LLP (mathys-squire.com)
> 
> Microsoft Word - Document1 (uiowa.edu)


Don't expend too much energy here. You actually don't have an argument with me.

I've never ignored women and I love women and how they think.

This is not close to any argument I was making.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> Don't expend too much energy here. You actually don't have an argument with me.
> 
> I've never ignored women and I love women and how they think.
> 
> This is not close to any argument I was making.


You knew better! 🤣🤣🤣🤣


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> You knew better! 🤣🤣🤣🤣


Sigh. Records and data. Not a real argument to be had.

That's not why I'm here anyway.

I'm actually tired of politically correct bull ****.

There doesn't seem to be much common sense or rational discussion on certain topics anymore anyway.

I've never put down women as inferior or less than men, only different.

The real data shows women solidly in the middle of the extremes when it comes to intelligence and innovation specifically for specialization.

Simply put, men are both radically smarter and more idiotic than women in general. Men represent the extremes on both ends.

Men also, generally, take far more risks.

Women tend to care more about people and men tend to care more about things.

This has real world results. It is absolutely proven and academic at this point and not worth discussion, especially when I have to f'ing type.😡


----------



## DownButNotOut

In Absentia said:


> you lost me there, sorry! 🙂


A Jeopardy! reference.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> Sigh. Records and data. Not a real argument to be had.
> 
> That's not why I'm here anyway.
> 
> I'm actually tired of politically correct bull ****.
> 
> There doesn't seem to be much common sense or rational discussion on certain topics anymore anyway.
> 
> I've never put down women as inferior or less than men, only different.
> 
> The real data shows women solidly in the middle of the extremes when it comes to intelligence and innovation specifically for specialization.
> 
> Simply put, men are both radically smarter and more idiotic than women in general. Men represent the extremes on both ends.
> 
> Men also, generally, take far more risks.
> 
> Women tend to care more about people and men tend to care more about things.
> 
> This has real world results. It is absolutely proven and academic at this point and not worth discussion, especially when I have to f'ing type.😡


I just grab some popcorn and watch the sh*tshow that is this thread


----------



## Cletus

ConanHub said:


> This has real world results. It is absolutely proven and academic at this point and not worth discussion, especially when I have to f'ing type.😡


I would be interested in seeing data that shows women have a measurable wider standard deviation on intelligence tests. I have not heard that before.

Wikipedia says this:

"Some research indicates that male advantages on some cognitive tests are minimized when controlling for socioeconomic factors.[1][4] It has also been hypothesized that there is slightly higher variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, leading to males being over-represented at the top and bottom extremes of the distribution, though the evidence for this hypothesis is inconclusive.[6]"

So the idea is not unheard of, but also apparently not settled science.

Maybe you can get a woman to type it out? I hear they're pretty fast with a keyboard.


----------



## EleGirl

Al_Bundy said:


> So then clearly no need for alimony for such a resourceful bunch. Abolish it immediately. In fact, get govt completely out of the marriage business, it's supposed to between the couple and god anyways right?


LOL... there are still women who are SAHM's and thus do not have jobs/careers. 

Now marry one of the many women today who have the education and careers that enable them to support themselves, then there is no worry about alimony. 

In recent years, only 10% of divorces have alimony awarded. Of those, most alimony awards expire in 3 years and the average alimony payment is $300 monthly.

I encourage all girls and women to get whatever training or education they need to get a good job/career and always be in a position to support themselves. 70% of all married women have jobs outside the home. 50% of married women make as much or more than their husbands. 

Clearly, the vast majority of divorced women don't ever get a penny of alimony. That means that the vast majority of divorce men never pay a penny of alimony. So all the *****ing on this thread claiming that most women are just gold diggers who get alimony is just nonsense.


----------



## Numb26

"munches on his popcorn"


----------



## EleGirl

Cletus said:


> I would be interested in seeing data that shows women have a measurable wider standard deviation on intelligence tests. I have not heard that before.
> 
> Wikipedia says this:
> 
> "Some research indicates that male advantages on some cognitive tests are minimized when controlling for socioeconomic factors.[1][4] It has also been hypothesized that there is slightly higher variability in male scores in certain areas compared to female scores, leading to males being over-represented at the top and bottom extremes of the distribution, though the evidence for this hypothesis is inconclusive.[6]"
> 
> So the idea is not unheard of, but also apparently not settled science.
> 
> Maybe you can get a woman to type it out? I hear they're pretty fast with a keyboard.


Here's more.. it's interesting...The point, as you indicate, is that there are differences between men and women. But in the end neither is better than the others. It's good that different people have different strengths. We can all work together to using each person's strengths for the benefit of society.

_Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education._​_By Halpern, Diane F._​_American Psychologist, Vol 52(10), Oct 1997, 1091-1102_​_*Abstract*_
_Sex differences in intelligence is among the most politically volatile topics in contemporary psychology. Although no single finding has unanimous support, conclusions from multiple studies suggest that females, on average, score higher on tasks that require rapid access to and use of phonological and semantic information in long-term memory, production and comprehension of complex prose, fine motor skills, and perceptual speed. Males, on average, score higher on tasks that require transformations in visual–spatial working memory, motor skills involved in aiming, spatiotemporal responding, and fluid reasoning, especially in abstract mathematical and scientific domains. Males, however, are also overrepresented in the low-ability end of several distributions, including mental retardation, attention disorders, dyslexia, stuttering, and delayed speech. A psychobiosocial model that is based on the inextricable links between the biological bases of intelligence and environmental events is proposed as an alternative to nature–nurture dichotomies. Societal implications and applications to teaching and learning are suggested. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)_​_APA PsycNet_​


----------



## Numb26

"grabs more popcorn"


----------



## ConanHub

P.S. any one who doesn't understand how much men sacrifice and spend to keep this civilization going, who think women can do everything men can and that women could replace men in any arena and keep us going, put your money where your mouth is.

I'm a fifty year old man. I've worked blue collar jobs most of my life and I'm smart enough to dabble with white collar. I choose what makes me happy.

I travel often and have the ability to do so throughout the year. Anyone who needs a demonstration can get ten athletic women of any age, who can fight, to get in the ring with me.

I will pay for the ring time. I don't care about weight class and you can even get roided women.

I'm around 190 to 200 on any given day.

They can fight me with boxing, wrestling or UFC/MMA rules.

I will take one after the other and I will walk through them like a machine harvesting wheat.

I will pay each woman who beats me $1000.00 and expect everyone betting against me to pay me$1000.00 for each woman I beat.

If you truly are delusional enough to believe that men didn't build civilization and continue to sustain it, put your money where your mouth is or shut up.

Women are amazing and I love them but they don't work coal mines or die developing nuclear power at the level men do.

Women absolutely contribute to our civilization but they aren't the one's blowing up while flying glorified bombs into space, the space shuttle incident being the exception.

It isn't teams of women building your house or skyscrapers.

Women are the outliers when it comes to infrastructure and keeping things going.

I have no argument about their minds because, honestly, they are less radical than us in general and that's a good thing for all of us.

Anyway, I claim what the data shows and anyone want to take my bet will be honored. I will probably be 51 by the time it comes about but I'm good for it.

Don't waste your time posting in response. I'm done on this thread.

Message me and we will set it up. 

P.S. I found out about Florence. Very cool lady.

She didn't invent the concepts of refrigeration and electricity but she was sure as hell capable of combining the two to make one of my favorite items!

Thank you Florence!!!❤


----------



## ConanHub

Numb26 said:


> I just grab some popcorn and watch the sh*tshow that is this thread


I just don't give a ****.

Watch some Jordan Peterson. He has the data.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Cletus said:


> The state will always have a vested interest in ensuring that children don't go completely uncared for. Between having Dad pay the bills and having the taxpayer, I think I know which side you land on. For that purpose, I support child support. The person who stayed at home to raise the children, father or mother, might need a leg up getting back into the workforce. For that purpose, I support alimony.


Because of the State's interest both child support and alimony levels are set at punitive levels, not merely just levels. That was one of the first things my (female) lawyer impressed on me in my divorce.

In fact, the State's interest in having a father financially responsible for a child results in some grossly unjust outcomes. Destitute fathers unable to get a support adjustment. Men paying for children of their wife's OM. Men paying for children of live-in girlfriends. Boys paying for their molester's child( I mentioned the landmark Kansas case above-thread). And all while involved unwed biological fathers face extremely high hurdles in custody fights. I'm all for ensuring children are protected and provided for. But any system that results in the injustice our current one does needs to be reexamined. I still say that if "interest of the child" is paramount they should be placed with the parent most capable of providing for them unless they are unable/unwilling to. 

Alimony is a completely different beast. The original intent of alimony was not to let the plaintiff get on his/her feet. It was intended to support that party in the manner for which they had been accustomed. States are moving away from that in shorter-term marriages. Longer term marriages still face potential lifetime alimony awards. 

Divorce already divides the marital estate into equal portions, and rightly so. Each ex-spouse has those resources to draw upon to build their futures. 

First, I don't believe alimony should be considered for a filer of no-fault divorce. Perhaps for the other party as a deterrent. At fault divorce should move to an award of damages in lieu of the current alimony system, and should require a full evidentiary due process prior to award.


----------



## ccpowerslave

ConanHub said:


> I have no argument about their minds because, honestly, they are less radical than us in general and that's a good thing for all of us.


My mumzie worked on weapons guidance in an underground safe for a decade and has code running in a lot of our coolest stuff we shoot off at people as well as HUD targeting systems in warplanes and helicopters. She thought it would be a decent career for me to become a bioweapons scientist. She’s a nutbag!

That said if the wind blows too hard she’ll go flying down the street.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> P.S. any one who doesn't understand how much men sacrifice and spend to keep this civilization going, who think women can do everything men can and that women could replace men in any arena and keep us going, put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> I'm a fifty year old man. I've worked blue collar jobs most of my life and I'm smart enough to dabble with white collar. I choose what makes me happy.
> 
> I travel often and have the ability to do so throughout the year. Anyone who needs a demonstration can get ten athletic women of any age, who can fight, to get in the ring with me.
> 
> I will pay for the ring time. I don't care about weight class and you can even get roided women.
> 
> I'm around 190 to 200 on any given day.
> 
> They can fight me with boxing, wrestling or UFC/MMA rules.
> 
> I will take one after the other and I will walk through them like a machine harvesting wheat.
> 
> I will pay each woman who beats me $1000.00 and expect everyone betting against me to pay me$1000.00 for each woman I beat.
> 
> If you truly are delusional enough to believe that men didn't build civilization and continue to sustain it, put your money where your mouth is or shut up.
> 
> Women are amazing and I love them but they don't work coal mines or die developing nuclear power at the level men do.
> 
> Women absolutely contribute to our civilization but they aren't the one's blowing up while flying glorified bombs into space, the space shuttle incident being the exception.
> 
> It isn't teams of women building your house or skyscrapers.
> 
> Women are the outliers when it comes to infrastructure and keeping things going.
> 
> I have no argument about their minds because, honestly, they are less radical than us in general and that's a good thing for all of us.
> 
> Anyway, I claim what the data shows and anyone want to take my bet will be honored. I will probably be 51 by the time it comes about but I'm good for it.
> 
> Don't waste your time posting in response. I'm done on this thread.
> 
> Message me and we will set it up.
> 
> P.S. I found out about Florence. Very cool lady.
> 
> She didn't invent the concepts of refrigeration and electricity but she was sure as hell capable of combining the two to make one of my favorite items!
> 
> Thank you Florence!!!❤


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Al_Bundy said:


> The "raising the kids" thing is always brought up but you mentioned something interesting.
> 
> "Not been able to develop skills outside of homemaking and child rearing"
> 
> How often do you think in today's world that someone doesn't truly have the opportunity to develop marketable skills? Especially when the children are school age and not home schooled.


When the husband coerces the woman into staying home and fights her about taking a job. This happened with my best friend and it's happened to a lot of women. The man wants a "traditional" role and doesn't want to fk with housework and kidwork, and so he pounds the table trying to keep the wife in that role so he doesn't have to do anything else but bring home the paycheck. Some women are okay with that, but most these days are not. Like you said, though, it is hard to get out there when you have younger children. It's either someone stays home or someone makes enough money for expensive childcare (some people use their parents, of course). The people next door to me both work at home, make lots of money, and hire nannies to come even when they're at home so that they can get some work done because the kids are still young. That costs more than I make to hire a nanny like that, though.

My best friend's husband just threw a fit about her going to work. She went ahead and did home course work during that time, and she defied him and went to work, but he told her she didn't make enough money to justify it. He didn't lift a finger in those early years except the paycheck. She did everything to the home, not just housework and kids, painting, outdoor work, everything that got done except plumbing . Eventually she just defied him and kept working -- and then he stopped treating her as bad as he did when he had his thumb on her. He never pulled his weight around the house or with kids, but he started being nicer to her because she now had the financial means and confidence to leave him and he knew it. Before, when she wasn't working, he used that to control her. Like she would ask him six weeks before an event she wanted to go to, such as a birthday or gig, so he had plenty of time to prepare for taking care of the kids that night -- and he never would tell her yes, he'd do it (no, he didn't want to go because he's a recluse who hides in his room). He'd just clam up until the day came and more often than not, be unavailable. He was horrible. But once he knew she had ways and means, he treated her better. 

Unfortunately, he is now under suspicion of having done something serious, so my friend just had to move her and the underage kid out. He's never been right in the head. 

The other time it happens is when people get pregnant too young, drop out, and just keep having babies. 

With the example I gave first with the woman who didn't move out, she likely had college behind her and some early job experience, but you can't just stagnate for 10 years not working and expect many employers to want to hire you.


----------



## OnTheFly

EleGirl said:


> So all the *****ing on this thread claiming that most women are just gold diggers who get alimony is just nonsense.


I guess they'll just have to scrape by with half his wealth and pension.


----------



## Numb26

OnTheFly said:


> I guess they'll just have to scrap by with half his wealth and pension.


----------



## EleGirl

OnTheFly said:


> I guess they'll just have to scrape by with half his wealth and pension.


What exactly does that mean? Most divorced women don't get 'half his wealth and pension" since most earn their own. When a couple divorces, the each get 50% of the other's wealth and pension. And when a couple is married, all earned income during the marriage is community property.


----------



## OnTheFly

EleGirl said:


> What exactly does that mean? Most divorced women don't get 'half his wealth and pension" since most earn their own. When a couple divorces, the each get 50% of the other's wealth and pension. And when a couple is married,* all earned income during the marriage is community property.*


All earned income is ''considered'' community property.

Big difference, and kinda really important.


----------



## Livvie

OnTheFly said:


> I guess they'll just have to scrape by with half his wealth and pension.


Then don't marry and stay married for decades to a woman who earns less than you, or earns nothing at all. It's really not rocket science. 

If you both earn approximately the same amount of money for the duration of the marriage, each will be getting their own wealth and pension, no one will be getting "yours", poor thing. ..

If a person CHOOSES to be in a relationship in which they are the only or majority earner, there are consequences for that choice.

Men don't care about her lack of financial contribution. They just care about if she is hot or other benefits they want.

Until a divorce, then they complain about splitting "their" assets.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Livvie said:


> Then don't marry and stay married for decades to a woman who earns less than you, or earns nothing at all. It's really not rocket science.
> 
> If you both earn approximately the same amount of money for the duration of the marriage, each will be getting their own wealth and pension, no one will be getting "yours", poor thing. ..
> 
> If a person CHOOSES to be in a relationship in which they are the only or majority earner, there are consequences for that choice.
> 
> Men don't care about her lack of financial contribution. They just care about if she is hot or other benefits they want.
> 
> Until a divorce, then they complain about splitting "their" assets.


Pretty sure this argument can be turned around. Then don't marry and stay married without earning your own way. It's really not rocket science. If a person CHOOSES to be in a relationship in which they rely solely on the earnings of another, there are consequences for that choice. Especially if they then choose to end that relationship.

Remember, I'm coming from a place where I lost my entire family inheritance, and still kept all of the marital debt (her $60k credit cards). But ... I've been very clear that the marital estate is a combined one, and each should take their share. 

When men, and women I presume, make that earner/SAH parent choice the idea of divorce doesn't occur. Those choices are usually made immediately after the birth of a child. Priorities shift, and the idea that "till death do us part" is even in question isn't a factor in those decisions. Their new family, the welfare of mom/child, and the financial implications of returning to work needing childcare are the primary considerations. There are quite a few benefits to a stay at home parent situation. The drawbacks are primarily in the even one partner desires divorce during the stay at home period.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic

ConanHub said:


> P.S. any one who doesn't understand how much men sacrifice and spend to keep this civilization going, who think women can do everything men can and that women could replace men in any arena and keep us going, put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> I'm a fifty year old man. I've worked blue collar jobs most of my life and I'm smart enough to dabble with white collar. I choose what makes me happy.
> 
> I travel often and have the ability to do so throughout the year. Anyone who needs a demonstration can get ten athletic women of any age, who can fight, to get in the ring with me.
> 
> I will pay for the ring time. I don't care about weight class and you can even get roided women.
> 
> I'm around 190 to 200 on any given day.
> 
> They can fight me with boxing, wrestling or UFC/MMA rules.
> 
> I will take one after the other and I will walk through them like a machine harvesting wheat.
> 
> I will pay each woman who beats me $1000.00 and expect everyone betting against me to pay me$1000.00 for each woman I beat.
> 
> If you truly are delusional enough to believe that men didn't build civilization and continue to sustain it, put your money where your mouth is or shut up.


I believe that if men weren't around, women probably would step up and do all the currently male-dominated jobs just fine. Maybe not exactly the same way, but it would get done. I don't see that their inability to beat you in an MMA fight has any bearing on their ability to mine coal or fly jets or whatever else it was that was mentioned.

Just as you can't look at a list of things women invented and say that makes them equal to male inventors, you can't look at a list of inventions and say that men invented most things, so women are inferior. Women weren't educated or given remotely the same opportunities to invent things that men were throughout history.

The law definitely needs to be more gender-neutral though. As does society.


----------



## uphillbattle

Hopeful Cynic said:


> I believe that if men weren't around, women probably would step up and do all the currently male-dominated jobs just fine. Maybe not exactly the same way, but it would get done. I don't see that their inability to beat you in an MMA fight has any bearing on their ability to mine coal or fly jets or whatever else it was that was mentioned.
> 
> Just as you can't look at a list of things women invented and say that makes them equal to male inventors, you can't look at a list of inventions and say that men invented most things, so women are inferior. Women weren't educated or given remotely the same opportunities to invent things that men were throughout history.
> 
> The law definitely needs to be more gender-neutral though. As does society.


It doesn't matter. Some people will always view them as less than and act as if that's not their motivation. Some people are just wired that way. Nothing you say would ever change their mind.


----------



## Livvie

DownButNotOut said:


> Pretty sure this argument can be turned around. Then don't marry and stay married without earning your own way. It's really not rocket science. If a person CHOOSES to be in a relationship in which they rely solely on the earnings of another, there are consequences for that choice. Especially if they then choose to end that relationship.
> 
> Remember, I'm coming from a place where I lost my entire family inheritance, and still kept all of the marital debt (her $60k credit cards). But ... I've been very clear that the marital estate is a combined one, and each should take their share.
> 
> When men, and women I presume, make that earner/SAH parent choice the idea of divorce doesn't occur. Those choices are usually made immediately after the birth of a child. Priorities shift, and the idea that "till death do us part" is even in question isn't a factor in those decisions. Their new family, the welfare of mom/child, and the financial implications of returning to work needing childcare are the primary considerations. There are quite a few benefits to a stay at home parent situation. The drawbacks are primarily in the even one partner desires divorce during the stay at home period.


This doesn't track.

SAH people, or low earners, aren't complaining about splitting assets in the event of a divorce. 

The earners are, though. 

So your reply makes no sense.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Livvie said:


> This doesn't track.
> 
> SAH people, or low earners, aren't complaining about splitting assets in the event of a divorce.
> 
> The earners are, though.
> 
> So your reply makes no sense.


They aren't complaining because they directly benefit from the system as implemented.

The whole argument I most commonly read is that the high earner owes the low earner beyond a straight splitting of existing assets. I.E. the high earner owes the low earner alimony for x duration (in my case until social security) simply for the fact that the low earner was a low earner. And your argument essentially boils down to the high earner shouldn't be surprised because they chose this.

But didn't the low earner enter that situation knowingly? Didn't they also choose to stay in that situation knowingly? So why should they expect to benefit from the termination of the marriage contract by having their high earning ex spouse subsidize their lifestyle?

You see the flip side of your argument as not relevant. But it is only because the EV of the low earner is in their favor while the EV of the high earner is strictly negative.

I will grant you, though, that a lot of the grousing you are probably referring to comes from a misunderstanding of the nature of a marriage contract, and the high earner's belief that earnings within that contract shouldn't be shared.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

EleGirl said:


> LOL... there are still women who are SAHM's and thus do not have jobs/careers.
> 
> Now marry one of the many women today who have the education and careers that enable them to support themselves, then there is no worry about alimony.
> 
> In recent years, only 10% of divorces have alimony awarded. Of those, most alimony awards expire in 3 years and the average alimony payment is $300 monthly.
> 
> I encourage all girls and women to get whatever training or education they need to get a good job/career and always be in a position to support themselves. 70% of all married women have jobs outside the home. 50% of married women make as much or more than their husbands.
> 
> Clearly, the vast majority of divorced women don't ever get a penny of alimony. That means that the vast majority of divorce men never pay a penny of alimony. So all the *****ing on this thread claiming that most women are just gold diggers who get alimony is just nonsense.


Thank you. I've said it before and I'll say it again. A lot of that is conspiracy theorists spouting that crap.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

uphillbattle said:


> It doesn't matter. Some people will always view them as less than and act as if that's not their motivation. Some people are just wired that way. Nothing you say would ever change their mind.


What I'm learning on this forum is that those people want them to be deemed second-class citizens because they want them under their control and completely at their mercy for sex. On another forum where there were a bunch of incels, despite the fact of how direly inadequate they were and unable to run anything, they wanted women to be more powerless than them for sex purposes. One of the things I used to shake my head at was these incels would decide that a woman was shy instead of just recognizing that she wasn't at all interested in him, because that's their fantasy, that they can find a woman weaker than they are.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

I think it depends on the person what kind of aptitude and abilities they have. I certainly haven't colored within the lines of being a woman most of my life.

I grew up on an acreage and by age 10 I knew how to dig and set post holes and repair fences. I knew how to build a corral out of tree branches or build a pen for animals out of wood and chicken wire or whatever.

Besides my main professions, I worked one summer caretaking a 65-acre horse ranch, just me and another woman. After I moved to Dallas, as a second job, I rode motorcycle escort.

I partitioned off a room for my cat when I moved into this house, using a concrete drill to set the studs, and built a three-tiered table for all her stuff. I own a scoping miter saw and a lot of other tools.

Before God made hybrid vehicles, I knew a little something about cars. I remember one year on my birthday my firebird broke down on the other side of town. I checked it out, walked until I found a auto supply store, and bought a hose and clamp and replaced it. In high school I used to know how to unstick the gears of the transmission by getting underneath my javelin after parking it on the side of a hill.

By the time I was in my mid teens, I was allowed to take the ski boat out by myself, and I knew how to load it on a trailer.

But I don't clean fish, so don't get any funny ideas.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> View attachment 78819


Yeah, and the men who choose them look like a John.... Just dumber.


----------



## manowar

Enigma32 said:


> I had some dating struggles back in the day when I was around* 20 years old*. It just seemed logical to me at the time that if you wanted a date, you should be nice to women, so that is what I did. That idea was a flop. Eventually, I started reading dating tips for men online (early PUA and red pill before it was called red pill) and tried implementing that. It made no sense to me at the time, but as you say, the stuff works 100%.


You speak for 97% of the male population. The other 3% are either Chads or naturals. Naturals by their nature don't give a fk and as such the ladies were attracted to them. How can a 20-year-old mind possibly compete with the powers of persuasion (clergy and media)? Marriage is big business for the clergy.


----------



## Enigma32

manowar said:


> You speak for 97% of the male population. The other 3% are either Chads or naturals. Naturals by their nature don't give a fk and as such the ladies were attracted to them. How can a 20-year-old mind possibly compete with the powers of persuasion (clergy and media)? Marriage is big business for the clergy.


My problem was that I did not understand women or what it is they were really looking for. Some other guys out there were either born with it or they knew what to do to get women...I didn't. Logically, it still doesn't make much sense to me why women like what they like but at least I understand what they like. Every guy needs to be able to learn and adapt.


----------



## Deejo

Y'all have Hulu? You need to start watching "Y The Last Man", based on a graphic novel I read cripes ... twelve years ago. All animals with a Y chromosome are wiped out by a virus. Except for one dude ... who is absolutely NOT the guy you want as man's last hope. Oh, and a Capuchin monkey.


----------



## In Absentia

DownButNotOut said:


> A Jeopardy! reference.


I see... I had to check. I was 1 in 1964... and in Europe, so not much chance of understanding the reference...


----------



## DownButNotOut

DownByTheRiver said:


> What I'm learning on this forum is that those people want them to be deemed second-class citizens because they want them under their control and completely at their mercy for sex. On another forum where there were a bunch of incels, despite the fact of how direly inadequate they were and unable to run anything, they wanted women to be more powerless than them for sex purposes. One of the things I used to shake my head at was these incels would decide that a woman was shy instead of just recognizing that she wasn't at all interested in him, because that's their fantasy, that they can find a woman weaker than they are.


You're free to draw your own conclusions. I think you've missed a few steps here though if that is where you're landing.


----------



## Al_Bundy

DownByTheRiver said:


> When the husband coerces the woman into staying home and fights her about taking a job. This happened with my best friend and it's happened to a lot of women. The man wants a "traditional" role and doesn't want to fk with housework and kidwork, and so he pounds the table trying to keep the wife in that role so he doesn't have to do anything else but bring home the paycheck. Some women are okay with that, but most these days are not. Like you said, though, it is hard to get out there when you have younger children. It's either someone stays home or someone makes enough money for expensive childcare (some people use their parents, of course). The people next door to me both work at home, make lots of money, and hire nannies to come even when they're at home so that they can get some work done because the kids are still young. That costs more than I make to hire a nanny like that, though.
> 
> My best friend's husband just threw a fit about her going to work. She went ahead and did home course work during that time, and she defied him and went to work, but he told her she didn't make enough money to justify it. He didn't lift a finger in those early years except the paycheck. She did everything to the home, not just housework and kids, painting, outdoor work, everything that got done except plumbing . Eventually she just defied him and kept working -- and then he stopped treating her as bad as he did when he had his thumb on her. He never pulled his weight around the house or with kids, but he started being nicer to her because she now had the financial means and confidence to leave him and he knew it. Before, when she wasn't working, he used that to control her. Like she would ask him six weeks before an event she wanted to go to, such as a birthday or gig, so he had plenty of time to prepare for taking care of the kids that night -- and he never would tell her yes, he'd do it (no, he didn't want to go because he's a recluse who hides in his room). He'd just clam up until the day came and more often than not, be unavailable. He was horrible. But once he knew she had ways and means, he treated her better.
> 
> Unfortunately, he is now under suspicion of having done something serious, so my friend just had to move her and the underage kid out. He's never been right in the head.
> 
> The other time it happens is when people get pregnant too young, drop out, and just keep having babies.
> 
> With the example I gave first with the woman who didn't move out, she likely had college behind her and some early job experience, but you can't just stagnate for 10 years not working and expect many employers to want to hire you.


I can see this being an issue last century and there will always be individual examples. However in today's world of technology there is no reason to let yourself stagnate for 10yrs. You don't even need others to employ you, it's never been easier to start your own business. The problem with all of that is it's dressed in overalls and looks like work.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Al_Bundy said:


> I can see this being an issue last century and there will always be individual examples. However in today's world of technology there is no reason to let yourself stagnate for 10yrs. You don't even need others to employ you, it's never been easier to start your own business. The problem with all of that is it's dressed in overalls and looks like work.


My kids father was like this. He absolutely didn't want me to work.

He was also a nasty, abusive drunk.

I ignored him, then divorced him and built my career which is now worth 6 figures.

I think stay at homes are out of their minds, but to each his or her own.


----------



## Deejo

Men are the gatekeepers to relationships and marriage. 

Women are the gatekeepers to sex.

I hear those talking points often in the manosphere.

It is a readily available, and indisputable fact that women initiate 70% of all divorces. Break that statistic down to college educated women, and the stat jumps to 90%.

Dynamics simply are what they are. If you are a college educated woman that has chosen career over early marriage and child rearing, when they do throw their hat into the matrimonial ring they are looking for a man whom to partner and rear children with, that makes at least as much, and preferably a lot more. Thus the refrain from mid to late 30 thirty something women, wondering where all the good men are. 

And should a career focused woman find a man who loves her and supports her dreams of corporate success, the 'celebration' of the house husband or stay at home dad died out pretty quick. Are they out there? Sure. Does such a model propel the sexual dynamics of matrimony into hitherto unknown serenity, bliss, and happiness? Uh ... no. I know of several instances personally. All women lost attraction and respect for their men over time. Same outcomes, just different variables.

On the up-side, the divorce rate has been declining. But ... so to have marriage rates.

Speaking as a now twice divorced guy? And equally as a guy who wanted that outcome in neither of his marriages? I can easily state that both the financial and opportunity costs for me personally run into the high, hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I absolutely support marriage. Particularly as a vehicle for raising children. The research there is also undeniable.

But ... from a gambling proposition? Much like going to a casino, a wise man had best be mentally aware that hitting the jackpot in marriage, has about the same odds as hitting the jackpot in slots. It's likely you are going to go home poorer, rather than richer for the experience.

And much like the casinos, marriage can always count on the fact that despite the odds, people are going to line up to play.


----------



## bobsmith

@Deejo nailed it! I was going to say I am stilling looking for that woman that will go to work for me, while I stay at home. I have only seen them on TV and I think those 'transactions' die quickly. 

If you want to meet a SAHM, I can take you to an entire community of catholic women who's goal is to stay home and bus their 10 kids to school. They all get together during the day and do each other's nails and hair. 

My bro has a SAHM, but I can say at least she has a degree AND home schools their kids and takes it very serious! And in today's crazy world of masks and needles, that has turned out to be a golden ticket! 

One thing that men don't seem to understand with the typical SAHM, that is like a long term loan with a balloon payment at the end.


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> It is a readily available, and indisputable fact that women initiate 70% of all divorces. Break that statistic down to college educated women, and the stat jumps to 90%.


Marriages in which the woman is at least 25 with a college degree and the man is at least 30 years old have a divorce rate of no more than 25%. So, while in that group, when a marriage do break up, it's usually the woman who files for divorce, the couple is far less likely to divorce.

The highest divorce rate is amount younger, low income couples, where the woman does not have a college degree. The divorce rate in this group is over 50%.

The funny thing about statistics is that by leaving out part of the stats, one can tell the story they want to tell. When we look at the enter body of statistical data, it's far safer for a man who i worried about divorce to marry a woman with a college degree who is over 25 years old.


----------



## farsidejunky

Deejo said:


> It is a readily available, and indisputable fact that...


Cliff? Cliff Clavin?





Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

Deejo said:


> And much like the casinos, marriage can always count on the fact that despite the odds, people are going to line up to play.


If we're going to continue the casino analogy, if you want your marriage to have the best odds of success, do these two things (as a man):

1. Get a college education
2. Marry a woman with a college education.

"While more-educated women have the highest chances for a long-term marriage, college-educated men also stand out. Roughly two-thirds (65%) of men with a bachelor’s degree could expect that, if they marry, their first marriage will last 20 years or longer, compared with 50% of men with a high school diploma or less. In addition, men with a higher level of education are more likely to get married in the first place when compared with less-educated men."









The link between a college education and a lasting marriage


College-educated women have an almost eight-in-ten chance of still being married after two decades.




www.pewresearch.org





Edit - sure, I understand correlation != causation and that it is probably just as likely that someone motivated to go to and complete college is better marriage material, not that getting a sheepskin conveys any special marriage super powers. But if you want a good predictor, there you have it. Oh, and don't live together before you marry. It knocks 10 points of your longevity chances.


----------



## bobsmith

EleGirl said:


> The highest divorce rate is amount younger, low income couples, where the woman does not have a college degree. The divorce rate in this group is over 50%.


I am probably more locally oriented than looking at national stats, but I'd love to know what % of these women that divorce monkey branch right into another deal? I'd guess VERY high. Almost all the women that I know that divorced, went right to the next without missing a beat. 

Personally, I think the only motivation women have in older age to stay is their SMV drops significantly with age. Many of the women my age would be happy just to find any warm body that is willing to marry them. They post all about it on SM daily. They are the ones saying "where are all the good men?" "Uh, you divorced them to move up the money ladder, remember?"

Within my circle, I can only think of one among dozens of divorces that was initiated by the man. In that case, she cheated. I will never blame either party for divorce in the case of cheating. However, usually the one that cheats is the one that files because they get that "greener grass" syndrome. 

As someone that comes from parents that both worked and married for decades, and raised catholic, it was quite a reality shock to realize marriage means so little to most. I only knew what I was taught and raised around.


----------



## EleGirl

Another point about women with college degrees and divorce is that many divorces are not for frivolous reasons. Often time (not always, but often) it's the person who is wronged who files for divorce. And often times that's the woman. 

Now apparently some of you think that all divorces filed by women are frivolous because you think all women are liars, manipulators, gold diggers, and on and on. For those of you with this mindset, just contemplate for a few minutes that maybe, just maybe, not all women are evil creatures out to hurt men and all men are not saints.

Here's a list of some of the women I know who have degrees and filed for divorce.

1) She, degree, MS Language & Education. Worked as an IRS auditor. She filed for divorce after she found out about several affairs he had and move many of their assets to accounts that could not be identified. They had been married over 18 years. One 17 year old son. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony.

2) She, BS in fine arts & worked for the federal government. Married for 8 years. In an argument, he pulled a gun on her and their 2 children and threatened to kill them. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony. He never paid child support as he disappeared.

3) She BS is education & worked as a school teacher. Married 15 years. She found out that he had been cheating. 3 children from her previous marriage. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony. 

4) She MS is engineering & worked as an engineer. She found out that he was cheating with several women. He also moved assets to his mother's name that she earned while she put him through college. Married for 14 years. *She filed for divorce. *No alimony. She did get child support since he was working by then and earning much more than she did.

5) She, MS in CS and worked in that field. She found out that he had multiple affairs. Married 16 years. Then he was laid off from his job. After that would not look for a job. Played computer games all day. would not help around the house or help with the 3 children (1 hers, 2 his). *She filed for divorce.* No alimony. 

6) She, BS in computer science and worked in that field. Married 9 years. They have 3 children, the youngest was 6 months old at the time. He moved out to live with another woman. *She filed for divorced. *No alimony. Child support was awarded but he paid it only one month. He ran off with the other woman, married her, had children with her. He had almost nothing to do with the children with my friend as the children were growing up.

7) She, MS in engineering. She & her husband were both managers at NASA. Married 20 years. He had 2 affairs. *She filed for divorce. *No alimony. 

8) She, BS in Political Science and worked for CIA. Married 20 years. Her husband had several affairs. *She finally filed for divorce.* No alimony.

9) She, BS in accounting and worked as an accountant. Married 10 years. They had 3 children, youngest was 1 yr old. He was a man alcoholic and cheated. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony. Child support was awarded but he never paid and never helped to raise the children.

10) She, BS in accounting. Married 15 years. They had an engineering business together. He cheated and was able to move all their assets out of reach. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony.

11) She, BS in History and worked for a clothing manufacturer. Married 16 years. No children. He was violent and cheated. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony.

12) She, BS in Management and worked in a law firm. Married 21 years. One child. He was violent, cheated, controlling, and hid assets. *She filed for divorce.* No alimony. There as child support which he paid sometimes.


----------



## Al_Bundy

With a casino I can walk out the door anytime I want and they don't stop me at the door to empty my pockets. So a casino is still safer than marriage.


----------



## Al_Bundy

We can do individual examples all day, reddit is full of them. I've yet to see an ROI and risk assessment touting the benefits of marriage.


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> We can do individual examples all day, reddit is full of them. I've yet to see an ROI and risk assessment touting the benefits of marriage.


You got one for the other way 'round? I'd like to see that.


----------



## Deejo

EleGirl said:


> Marriages in which the woman is at least 25 with a college degree and the man is at least 30 years old have a divorce rate of no more than 25%. So, while in that group, when a marriage do break up, it's usually the woman who files for divorce, the couple is far less likely to divorce.
> 
> The highest divorce rate is amount younger, low income couples, where the woman does not have a college degree. The divorce rate in this group is over 50%.
> 
> The funny thing about statistics is that by leaving out part of the stats, one can tell the story they want to tell. When we look at the enter body of statistical data, it's far safer for a man who i worried about divorce to marry a woman with a college degree who is over 25 years old.


Wish I could say that statistic helped me, Ele. Sadly it didn't. First time around anyway. Second, I'm not asking for a mulligan. I knew the deck was stacked against me, and made the choice anyway.

Certainly not my intention to obfuscate statistics. At the end of the day, I 100% support marriage, and I remain invested in looking for methodologies and practices geared to assuring it's long term success for both participants.

But, at 56 I don't suspect I will be undertaking that venture again. But who knows. I'm obviously not as smart as I think I am.


----------



## lifeistooshort

So don't get married them. Who forces anyone to get married anymore?

That 70% statistic has never sat well with me because it doesn't paint a full picture of what's going on. By that argument a guy can be as big if a piece of **** as he wants but as long as it's not him who files he's a victim. Who benefits from such a narrative?

The unwillingness of certain men to take any responsibility at all for their own decisions is unfortunate, because it ultimately strips you of your power and leaves you at the mercy of those evil women.

Of course we can't forsee everything, so even people who do their due diligence can be screwed. Such is life.

I get that most of you guys here have had bad experiences, and for that I am sorry. I know that some of you can't comprehend this but a lot of PEOPLE have bad experiences....once again, such is life. I've counseled my sons to take control of the things they can....seems like a simple thing but a lot of people like the victim chair. There's no accountability in it.

Frankly some of the attitudes I see here would make you poor husband material anyway so it's probably better if you don't get married again. I said this in an earlier post but for all the talk of evil womenz taking advantage it's been my experience that a lot of guys really don't wamt someone more accomplished. Both of my exes were intimidated by me...this wasn't clear to me early on but looking back both did a lot of things to tear me down so they could make themselves feel better.

My current bf is a smart guy who seems to like my brains and doesn't seem bothered that I make more...I hope that is accurate and doesn't change.


----------



## EleGirl

bobsmith said:


> I am probably more locally oriented than looking at national stats, but I'd love to know what % of these women that divorce monkey branch right into another deal? I'd guess VERY high. Almost all the women that I know that divorced, went right to the next without missing a beat.


There is clearly a difference between social groups. In my social and work group, almost no one goes "right to the next without missing a beat".

Of the women I know who divorced, none of them cheated and none of them 'monkey branch right into another deal'.

Very few people, men or women, go right into a relationship after divorce.... meaning that they are already in an affair and continue that affair. Something like only 3% of affairs ever turn into a long-term relationship.

Per the U.S. Census Bureau, more men remarry within 5 years after divorce than women do. But, it would make sense that the numbers are close since man and women marry each other.









Remarriage in the United States (census.gov)



bobsmith said:


> Personally, I think the only motivation women have in older age to stay is their SMV drops significantly with age. Many of the women my age would be happy just to find any warm body that is willing to marry them. They post all about it on SM daily. They are the ones saying "where are all the good men?" "Uh, you divorced them to move up the money ladder, remember?"


Again, this is the difference is social groups. None of the women I know are on social media posting "where are all the good men?" I guess I just hang out with people who mostly life by what @Deejo calls 'going your own way'. My friends and colleagues are either married or doing their own thing. If the single ones happen to meet someone they click with they will date and even marry if it gets that far. But no one is out there hunting really. We've all had some discussions about online dating, for example, and what a cesspool it is.



bobsmith said:


> Within my circle, I can only think of one among dozens of divorces that was initiated by the man. In that case, she cheated. I will never blame either party for divorce in the case of cheating. However, usually the one that cheats is the one that files because they get that "greener grass" syndrome.


My experience is that it's usually the one betrayed spouse who files. When men cheat, they are usually just looking for a piece on the side. They don't want a divorce. So it's the woman, the BS, who files. There's a lot of literature out there about this. Now, I have read that women who cheat are often in what's called an exit affair. They are on their way out of the marriage and the affairs helps them get out. But those affairs usually end shortly after the divorce.



bobsmith said:


> As someone that comes from parents that both worked and married for decades, and raised catholic, it was quite a reality shock to realize marriage means so little to most. I only knew what I was taught and raised around.


I was raised in the same situation. Growing up, the only person I knew who was divorced was on aunt whose husband ended up in a mental hospital after he tried to killer and their daughter. And she never dated again. Instead she lived with my grandparents and raised her daughter... she also worked full time as a manager in a NY garment factory.

It seems that the people we choose to include in our lives makes a very big difference in our outlook on this issue. And probably on most issues.


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> Wish I could say that statistic helped me, Ele. Sadly it didn't. First time around anyway. Second, I'm not asking for a mulligan. I knew the deck was stacked against me, and made the choice anyway.
> 
> Certainly not my intention to obfuscate statistics. At the end of the day, I 100% support marriage, and I remain invested in looking for methodologies and practices geared to assuring it's long term success for both participants.
> 
> But, at 56 I don't suspect I will be undertaking that venture again. But who knows. I'm obviously not as smart as I think I am.


I know you are only coming from a good place. You have always been a standup guy around here.

I can understand that your age plays heavily on where you are in your life right now. I really like that post of yours about what "going your own way" means to you. It's pretty much the same for me. It's a very healthy approach post divorce. And for people who have never married, it's a good approach for them too. If some one comes along who clicks with you, great. If it never happens, great.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Cletus said:


> You got one for the other way 'round? I'd like to see that.


That's not how it works. The one with the assets is the one who needs the ROI, not the other way around. 

The risk is clearly defined, however the rewards are vague at best.


----------



## Numb26

"peeks head in room"
Yeap, sh*tshow still going on!


----------



## Deejo

EleGirl said:


> Another point about women with college degrees and divorce is that many divorces are not for frivolous reasons. Often time (not always, but often) it's the person who is wronged who files for divorce. And often times that's the woman.
> 
> Now apparently some of you think that all divorces filed by women are frivolous because you think all women are liars, manipulators, gold diggers, and on and on. For those of you with this mindset, just contemplate for a few minutes that maybe, just maybe, not all women are evil creatures out to hurt men and all men are not saints.


To my mind, this is a slippery slope as well. Obviously, I've dated plenty of women that have made clear to me the reason they are no longer married. And yep, they are absolutely valid. But this also veers into the murky waters of the "It's always the man's fault ..." trope. Ask ex-wife #2 who was to blame for all FOUR of her divorces? And she is absolutely going to spin a story about how each man failed her. It's a delusion. A sad, unfortunate one.

The game of relationships, love and marriage has definitely grown murkier over the last few decades, rather than clearer. I believe if you were to ask most people do they understand and implement what 'works' for long term success, they would say yes. Except I really don't believe that's true. People think they know how to conduct themselves in a relationship via social osmosis rather than actually being open to treating it like any other vital skill which requires, practice, self-examination, and adapting. It isn't easy.


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> That's not how it works. The one with the assets is the one who needs the ROI, not the other way around.


Unless we're talking about people who are marrying after having accumulated significant wealth, I thought most states count your pre-marital assets as yours and not subject to a divorce decree.

If we are talking about a disparity in wealth accumulation after the marriage, then the very notion of yours/mine is completely flawed.

So what ROI are we talking about here? It's well known that two people can live on about the same amount of money as 1.6 individuals. Paying for sex or dating to get sex is not going to come cheap. Children are going to cost you plenty regardless of whether you stay married or not.

Short of seeing one of these ROI statements, I'm not biting. Staying single, I guess you get to keep all of your money for yourself, and statistically die younger, probably alone, quite possibly lonely, so I guess that's a win? I'm not saying marriage is for everyone, or that any particular person should marry. Why does MGTOW seem to think that they've found the Ultimate Truth in Marriage that all men should apply?


----------



## Al_Bundy

Cletus said:


> Unless we're talking about people who are marrying after having accumulated significant wealth, I thought most states count your pre-marital assets as yours and not subject to a divorce decree.
> 
> If we are talking about a disparity in wealth accumulation after the marriage, then the very notion of yours/mine is completely flawed.
> 
> So what ROI are we talking about here? It's well known that two people can live on about the same amount of money as 1.6 individuals. Paying for sex or dating to get sex is not going to come cheap. Children are going to cost you plenty regardless of whether you stay married or not.
> 
> So short of seeing one of these ROI statements, I'm not biting.


Sharing during a relationship is fine, once it ends so should the sharing.

I get it that if you need someone to help pay the rent the two can live cheaper than one thing is probably a factor. So yes, if you're poor there might be a financial benefit.

The statement is simple. Is it worth risking half my net worth again for a piece of paper? The answer is no.


----------



## uphillbattle

Deejo said:


> To my mind, this is a slippery slope as well. Obviously, I've dated plenty of women that have made clear to me the reason they are no longer married. And yep, they are absolutely valid. But this also veers into the murky waters of the* "It's always the man's fault ..." trope.* Ask ex-wife #2 who was to blame for all FOUR of her divorces? And she is absolutely going to spin a story about how each man failed her. It's a delusion. A sad, unfortunate one.
> 
> The game of relationships, love and marriage has definitely grown murkier over the last few decades, rather than clearer. I believe if you were to ask most people do they understand and implement what 'works' for long term success, they would say yes. Except I really don't believe that's true. People think they know how to conduct themselves in a relationship via social osmosis rather than actually being open to treating it like any other vital skill which requires, practice, self-examination, and adapting. It isn't easy.


She addressed this in the same post you partially quoted.


EleGirl said:


> Now, I have read that women who cheat are often in what's called an exit affair. They are on their way out of the marriage and the affairs helps them get out. But those affairs usually end shortly after the divorce.


All of the stats on this subject are going to be murkey as hell. While there are always similarities in situations you have millions of individual stories.


----------



## Cletus

Al_Bundy said:


> The statement is simple. Is it worth risking half my net worth again for a piece of paper? The answer is no.


It's this insistence that income earned during a marriage remains "mine alone" that I am objecting to. It's not your net worth, it's the net worth of the contract.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Deejo said:


> To my mind, this is a slippery slope as well. Obviously, I've dated plenty of women that have made clear to me the reason they are no longer married. And yep, they are absolutely valid. But this also veers into the murky waters of the "It's always the man's fault ..." trope. Ask ex-wife #2 who was to blame for all FOUR of her divorces? And she is absolutely going to spin a story about how each man failed her. It's a delusion. A sad, unfortunate one.
> 
> The game of relationships, love and marriage has definitely grown murkier over the last few decades, rather than clearer. I believe if you were to ask most people do they understand and implement what 'works' for long term success, they would say yes. Except I really don't believe that's true. People think they know how to conduct themselves in a relationship via social osmosis rather than actually being open to treating it like any other vital skill which requires, practice, self-examination, and adapting. It isn't easy.


One thing that's quite important to me is that a potential partner understand and be able to communicate their own role in the failure of their marriage(s), or at very least what their ex's complaints were. I think everyone, male and female, should require this because to your point if nothing is ever your fault the problem likely is you.

People who can't inteospect are poor parter material.

I had a good runner friend like this.. guy had been divorced 3 times and nothing was his fault. He "got tired of their ****". The reality was that he chose wives based on how hot they were and little else. He was/is a very good looking guy.

He's now on wife #4 and they are still happy after 12 years. Right after they got married he told me that he didn't marry her because she was "smoking hot"...because objectively while she is attractive she's not smoking hot. But she is an attorney (he's a programmer) who had more to offer then hotness so apparently he did eventually figure it out.

While neither one of my marriages worked for me,, I could also tell you what their complaints about me were. Whether said complaints are valid is of course subjective, but I was the one who wanted out. Neither one paid nor alimony and both left the marriage in better shape financially then they entered it.


----------



## Numb26

lifeistooshort said:


> One thing that's quite important to me is that a potential partner understand and be able to communicate their own role in the failure of their marriage(s), or at very least what their ex's complaints were. I think everyone, male and female, should require this because to your point if nothing is ever your fault the problem likely is you.


I wasn't going to say anything but I have too.....

So what was my role in the failure of my marriage?

That the EX was a liar? That she was a cheater? That she is a drug user? That she is a felon? So since NONE of these were my fault then I was the problem?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Numb26 said:


> I wasn't going to say anything but I have too.....
> 
> So what was my role in the failure of my marriage?
> 
> That the EX was a liar? That she was a cheater? That she is a drug user? That she is a felon? So since NONE of these were my fault then I was the problem?


This kind of defensiveness serves nobody. So because you were married to a liar nobody should inteospect? Introspection wouldn't benefit you?

It could be something like ignoring red flags, which most of us have done. My ex was a conflict avoidant liar who kept an ex gf around our entire relationship, which clearly isn't my fault, but I ignored many red that he lacked integrity.

But sometimes we due our due diligence and get screwed anyway. If you're satisfied that you've introspected and there's absolutely nothing you could've done differently then carry on. Introspection ultimately benefits the one who does it.


----------



## Deejo

lifeistooshort said:


> One thing that's quite important to me is that a potential partner understand and be able to communicate their own role in the failure of their marriage(s), or at very least what their ex's complaints were. I think everyone, male and female, should require this because to your point if nothing is ever your fault the problem likely is you.
> 
> People who can't inteospect are poor parter material.
> 
> I had a good runner friend like this.. guy had been divorced 3 times and nothing was his fault. He "got tired of their ****". The reality was that he chose wives based on how hot they were and little else. He was/is a very good looking guy.
> 
> He's now on wife #4 and they are still happy after 12 years. Right after they got married he told me that he didn't marry her because she was "smoking hot"...because objectively while she is attractive she's not smoking hot. But she is an attorney (he's a programmer) who had more to offer then hotness so apparently he did eventually figure it out.
> 
> While neither one of my marriages worked for me,, I could also tell you what their complaints about me were. Whether said complaints are valid is of course subjective, but I was the one who wanted out. Neither one paid nor alimony and both left the marriage in better shape financially then they entered it.


@lifeistooshort I think particularly you and I have talked about this in the past. I am very comfortable saying that generally, the most responsible and got-it-all-together person in the relationship pays the highest price, or has the most to lose in divorce. And without a doubt, that can often be the woman.


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> To my mind, this is a slippery slope as well. Obviously, I've dated plenty of women that have made clear to me the reason they are no longer married. And yep, they are absolutely valid. But this also veers into the murky waters of the "It's always the man's fault ..." trope. Ask ex-wife #2 who was to blame for all FOUR of her divorces? And she is absolutely going to spin a story about how each man failed her. It's a delusion. A sad, unfortunate one.


With that list of divorces that I listed, I knew directly what was going on in those marriages, so in those cases I know that the guy was the one who did the wrong that finally lead to divorce.

Of course, almost everyone who is divorced blames it on their spouse. Ask my ex... even though I put him through medical school and he repaid me by a string of affairs, he went around telling everyone that I just divorced him out of the blue for no reason at all. He also claims that I ripped him off in the divorce although he got to keep all the assets he hid. There are no alimony, no repayment of the cost of his medical school, nothing. But yea, he's victim.



Deejo said:


> The game of relationships, love and marriage has definitely grown murkier over the last few decades, rather than clearer. I believe if you were to ask most people do they understand and implement what 'works' for long term success, they would say yes. Except I really don't believe that's true. People think they know how to conduct themselves in a relationship via social osmosis rather than actually being open to treating it like any other vital skill which requires, practice, self-examination, and adapting. It isn't easy.


In the past, society put a lot of pressure on people to not divorce regardless of what the marital problems were. Today it's the opposite. Society seems to encourage divorce over the every little thing. 

Our society would benefit from people being taught early in life on how to conduct themselves in a relationship.


----------



## Deejo

Numb26 said:


> I wasn't going to say anything but I have too.....
> 
> So what was my role in the failure of my marriage?
> 
> That the EX was a liar? That she was a cheater? That she is a drug user? That she is a felon? So since NONE of these were my fault then I was the problem?


Don't know your story Numb, but it sounds to me like one of those scenarios that I often discuss with folks. The fact that toxic, Narcissistic, and bat-sh*t crazy people for reasons I don't understand are often HIGHLY attractive to others. All of the negative is there in their history, but they make it easy to overlook, or obfuscate it entirely by couching it as someone elses fault.


----------



## Numb26

Deejo said:


> Don't know your story Numb, but it sounds to me like one of those scenarios that I often discuss with folks. The fact that toxic, Narcissistic, and bat-sh*t crazy people for reasons I don't understand are often HIGHLY attractive to others. All of the negative is there in their history, but they make it easy to overlook, or obfuscate it entirely by couching it as someone elses fault.


She was a chameleon, a cat burglar level sneak and an excellent liar. I don't think she raised nor did I miss any redflags till she got caught. Even looking back I don't think I missed any until she made mistakes.


----------



## Deejo

Numb26 said:


> She was a chameleon, a cat burglar level sneak and an excellent liar. I don't think she raised nor did I miss any redflags till she got caught. Even looking back I don't think I missed any until she made mistakes.


Sounds exactly like the kind of person I'm referring to. Woman I just dated briefly; her husband actively cheated on her and actually arranged that the AP and wife would hang out together on the regular. The AP didn't know he was cheating on her too. Classic toxic Narcissist. Everybody that met this guy loved him by her account. He would make a point of calling his ex wife over to his house to pick up something for the kids or whatever ... and make sure that he was actively banging someone else when she showed up. Can't make this sh*t up.

I guess the reason I don't understand how these people operate, and possess an army of adoring orbiters, is that they and their crap very starkly stand out to me.


----------



## Al_Bundy

lifeistooshort said:


> One thing that's quite important to me is that a potential partner understand and be able to communicate their own role in the failure of their marriage(s), or at very least what their ex's complaints were. I think everyone, male and female, should require this because to your point if nothing is ever your fault the problem likely is you.
> 
> People who can't inteospect are poor parter material.
> 
> I had a good runner friend like this.. guy had been divorced 3 times and nothing was his fault. He "got tired of their ****". The reality was that he chose wives based on how hot they were and little else. He was/is a very good looking guy.
> 
> He's now on wife #4 and they are still happy after 12 years. Right after they got married he told me that he didn't marry her because she was "smoking hot"...because objectively while she is attractive she's not smoking hot. But she is an attorney (he's a programmer) who had more to offer then hotness so apparently he did eventually figure it out.
> 
> While neither one of my marriages worked for me,, I could also tell you what their complaints about me were. Whether said complaints are valid is of course subjective, but I was the one who wanted out. Neither one paid nor alimony and both left the marriage in better shape financially then they entered it.


Any insight to why you haven't gotten with someone on your same financial level? That's not a barb at you. I've noticed as my income has risen over the years, the overall attractiveness of my financial peers has fallen off a cliff. Yes there are attractive ones out there but it's like trying to find Carmen San Diego


----------



## Numb26

Deejo said:


> Sounds exactly like the kind of person I'm referring to. Woman I just dated briefly; her husband actively cheated on her and actually arranged that the AP and wife would hang out together on the regular. The AP didn't know he was cheating on her too. Classic toxic Narcissist. Everybody that met this guy loved him by her account. He would make a point of calling his ex wife over to his house to pick up something for the kids or whatever ... and make sure that he was actively banging someone else when she showed up. Can't make this sh*t up.
> 
> I guess the reason I don't understand how these people operate, and possess an army of adoring orbiters, is that they and their crap very starkly stand out to me.


Only good things to come out of it is I got the kids, only had to split the house and she is stuck where she is till her parole is up. LOL


----------



## lifeistooshort

Al_Bundy said:


> Any insight to why you haven't gotten with someone on your same financial level? That's not a barb at you. I've noticed as my income has risen over the years, the overall attractiveness of my financial peers has fallen off a cliff. Yes there are attractive ones out there but it's like trying to find Carmen San Diego


Well one thought is that if you look at a distribution of income there just aren't that many men in my desired age range that make that kind of money who would also be interested in me. I look pretty good because I'm an endurance athlete and I'm told I'm aging well, but I am 47. 

And the money isn't a high priority for me. An athletic lifestyle is much more important....I'd much rather have a guy of moderate means who can join me in my very time consuming athletic endeavors. We all know that once you start with a long list of must haves...ie I must have an athletic guy in my desired age bracket who also earns as much as me and is loyal....your pool of possibilities will shrink considerably.

I tend to meet most of the men I do in athletic circles so that's where the focus is. The guy I have now is also degreed and has a professional job, it's just a lower paying field. But he manages money well and doesn't look for me to subsidize him and even takes me out 🙂

And he's also shown himself to be honest and loyal, at least so far as well as athletic and health minded. What more could I ask for?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

lifeistooshort said:


> My kids father was like this. He absolutely didn't want me to work.
> 
> He was also a nasty, abusive drunk.
> 
> I ignored him, then divorced him and built my career which is now worth 6 figures.
> 
> I think stay at homes are out of their minds, but to each his or her own.


A lot of guys who don't want their wives to do anything except stay home, it's because they're insecure and overly jealous, too. But mostly, it's they don't want to do domestic things. I mean, like you, I'd ask why anyone would put up with it if they didn't want to, but some are afraid to rock the boat for whatever reason, and some of that is financial usually, afraid if they fight and break up, he'll take the kid, take the money, etc. And as a 69 year old woman, in the old days, I can tell you that was a legitimate fear. The man had all the money and women were naive about it in those days. Not much excuse for that now, but if a woman never has worked, she will be pretty insecure about leaving and afraid what might happen. 

Also, the man may get violent if she tries to leave, a certain number of them. These guys putting tracking devices are stalking. Stalking is against the law in all 50 states. Putting a tracker on someone's phone or invading their privacy on their cell phone without their permission is illegal. Not only will it be set aside in court, but you can also sue someone who invades your privacy that way.

Ladies, always buy your own cellphone and have your own contract!! Even Dr. Phil will tell you that. 

Women should never put themselves in a position of powerlessness. Have babies after you've got skills and some work experience and don't stay out of the workplace long. Especially if your marriage or partnership isn't going smoothly, yes, it IS worth spending your whole paycheck on childcare to keep a career going in case you decide you must leave the relationship. I hate to see women get stuck, and they do, all the time. 

Right now, one of my friends had to suddenly move out of her home, which is paid for, leave her husband there, and has to pay for an apartment for herself and one of the kids, who is in mental health crisis, while he has no expenses. Until she decides to divorce, it likely won't change. She's working full-time. He's not been working for months, because he says he quit, although I think they let him go for not getting a vaccine, as his job was in hospitals. She's totally riding the fence about whether to leave or not, but it mostly will depend on the child in crisis, who doesn't want to be around him. I hope she leaves and sells the house so she can get back in the black financially. I'd feint dead away if he offered to do anything to help.


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> Well one thought is that if you look at a distribution of income there just aren't that many men in my desired age range that make that kind of money who would also be interested in me. I look pretty good because I'm an endurance athlete and I'm told I'm aging well, but I am 47.
> 
> And the money isn't a high priority for me. An athletic lifestyle is much more important....I'd much rather have a guy of moderate means who can join me in my very time consuming athletic endeavors. We all know that once you start with a long list of must haves...ie I must have an athletic guy in my desired age bracket who also earns as much as me and is loyal....your pool of possibilities will shrink considerably.
> 
> I tend to meet most of the men I do in athletic circles so that's where the focus is. The guy I have now is also degreed and has a professional job, it's just a lower paying field. But he manages money well and doesn't look for me to subsidize him and even takes me out 🙂
> 
> And he's also shown himself to be honest and loyal, at least so far as well as athletic and health minded. What more could I ask for?


hmmm, this sounds most like the MGTOW narrative to me. What is your "desired age range"? Women only want to date up. Does that fit here? Sounds like it. You are literally complaining because he makes less than you! IE, it's all about the MONEY! You said yourself he fits your ideals for health, so......?

It really sounds like you are settling, and sitting on 'something' while looking for something better.......? No? Does he know that?


----------



## Always Learning

Cletus said:


> If we're going to continue the casino analogy, if you want your marriage to have the best odds of success, do these two things (as a man):
> 
> 1. Get a college education
> 2. Marry a woman with a college education.
> 
> "While more-educated women have the highest chances for a long-term marriage, college-educated men also stand out. Roughly two-thirds (65%) of men with a bachelor’s degree could expect that, if they marry, their first marriage will last 20 years or longer, compared with 50% of men with a high school diploma or less. In addition, men with a higher level of education are more likely to get married in the first place when compared with less-educated men."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The link between a college education and a lasting marriage
> 
> 
> College-educated women have an almost eight-in-ten chance of still being married after two decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pewresearch.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit - sure, I understand correlation != causation and that it is probably just as likely that someone motivated to go to and complete college is better marriage material, not that getting a sheepskin conveys any special marriage super powers. But if you want a good predictor, there you have it. Oh, and don't live together before you marry. It knocks 10 points of your longevity chances.


So I guess all the plumbers and electricians that are making six figure incomes are out of luck in your marriage pool?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

bobsmith said:


> @Deejo nailed it! I was going to say I am stilling looking for that woman that will go to work for me, while I stay at home. I have only seen them on TV and I think those 'transactions' die quickly.
> 
> If you want to meet a SAHM, I can take you to an entire community of catholic women who's goal is to stay home and bus their 10 kids to school. They all get together during the day and do each other's nails and hair.
> 
> My bro has a SAHM, but I can say at least she has a degree AND home schools their kids and takes it very serious! And in today's crazy world of masks and needles, that has turned out to be a golden ticket!
> 
> One thing that men don't seem to understand with the typical SAHM, that is like a long term loan with a balloon payment at the end.


My ex-neighbor was a SAHD, and he did great at it, with four kids. She is an osteopath, but was in school and interning, for part of it. He was really great at it. Not that they ever had a neat house, mind you. It looked like a nursery. But he did it all and kept the yard and also built a fence and a chicken coup and had chickens. His kids were mostly great too. The little one was a coward whiner girl, but the others were really nice kids. Well, done, SAHD! I guess he still is doing it. I see her once in awhile for medical reasons. He was helping with the books some last time, but moved to a farm, so now he's also having to see to crops because if he doesn't produce, he will have to pay a ton back in taxes.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Deejo said:


> @lifeistooshort I think particularly you and I have talked about this in the past. I am very comfortable saying that generally, the most responsible and got-it-all-together person in the relationship pays the highest price, or has the most to lose in divorce. And without a doubt, that can often be the woman.


We absolutely have. And I don't want to convey the message that men don't get screwed because they certainly can and do.

I do not wish to see my sons screwed in court.

We all need to make sure we do our due diligence and then accept that sometimes you get screwed anyway.

Or go your own way....I have no issue with that.

But I suspect a lot of people get so wrapped up in the often justified anger they feel that they don't look in the mirror.

Let me share a story that I haven't shared here to illustrate that I understand some of what men face. My mom's father was a child molester who targeted her, myself, and my two sisters. My dad didn't know this until I was a little older, but he did know she had an unhealthy relationship with her family when we were young and that she was plotting to move us across the country with her family. He absolutely did not want to go and contemplated divorcing her, but he was afraid of what would happen to us.

He told me that back then, late 70's/early 80's, fathers almost never got custody. So he figured that if he was around he could have some influence. He moved away from his home and as a Jew from Brooklyn never really fit in with the SW crowd. Eventually it came out that my mom's father was a pedophile so the state told him if he ever came back they'd lock him up, so at least we didn't have to see him again.

My parents were at each other's throats until I was 18 and they divorced. Our family is all kinds of messed up, but itis far less messed up because he was there.

But you know what? He told me that he saw all kinds of red flags even before we were born and didn't act on them so here we are.


bobsmith said:


> hmmm, this sounds most like the MGTOW narrative to me. What is your "desired age range"? Women only want to date up. Does that fit here? Sounds like it. You are literally complaining because he makes less than you! IE, it's all about the MONEY! You said yourself he fits your ideals for health, so......?
> 
> It really sounds like you are settling, and sitting on 'something' while looking for something better.......? No? Does he know that?


Wow you're projecting and making a lot of assumptions, probably based on your low opinion of women so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

My desired age range is my age to about 10 years older. I'm 47 and he's 56. Is that what you call "dating up"?

Absolutely NOWHERE did I complain about him making less....you literally made that up to suit your narrative. I was asked why I haven't dated a higher earner and I said money wasn't a priority for me. The comment about there not being that many high earners was meant to explain why I likely haven't run into one (because I don't know the salaries of every guy I meet).

And after I laid out my priorities and all the reasons I'm happy with him you still somehow managed to twist it into me settling.

Geez....I am quite happy with him and have no desire to look elsewhere.

You really don't like women.


----------



## uphillbattle

bobsmith said:


> hmmm, this sounds most like the MGTOW narrative to me. What is your "desired age range"? *Women only want to date up*. Does that fit here? Sounds like it. You are literally complaining because he makes less than you! IE, it's all about the MONEY! You said yourself he fits your ideals for health, so......?
> 
> It really sounds like you are settling, and sitting on 'something' while looking for something better.......? No? Does he know that?


Interesting both of my wives are way better looking than me. They are hot, I am on the low end of average. I have been a steady worker who makes middle class money but nothing special. If they ONLY date up how does this happen?


----------



## Numb26

uphillbattle said:


> Interesting both of my wives are way better looking than me. They are hot, I am on the low end of average. I have been a steady worker who makes middle class money but nothing special. If they ONLY date up how does this happen?


Looks are subjective


----------



## uphillbattle

Numb26 said:


> Looks are subjective


Both have told me at one point that I am not the "type" they usually go for. I know, kind of brutal but I take it in stride. I know firmly who I am and what my strengths/weakness are. Both of them love my sense of humor and say I am the most comfortable in my skin of anyone they have ever met.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Numb26 said:


> Looks are subjective


They are, but I have found that most couples are within range of each other. You might see an 8 with a 6 but 8's going for 3's....not so much.

When you start to see anger is when said 3 thinks they're entitled to an 8 and they can't get it. That goes both ways gender wise.


----------



## lifeistooshort

uphillbattle said:


> Both have told me at one point that I am not the "type" they usually go for. I know, kind of brutal but I take it in stride. I know firmly who I am and what my strengths/weakness are. Both of them love my sense of humor and say I am the most comfortable in my skin of anyone they have ever met.


Maybe you're better looking then you think?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

uphillbattle said:


> Interesting both of my wives are way better looking than me. They are hot, I am on the low end of average. I have been a steady worker who makes middle class money but nothing special. If they ONLY date up how does this happen?


My theory is that it's the guys who believe that are the same guys who go for the golddiggers, so they think everyone else does too and that it's normal and common.


----------



## Numb26

lifeistooshort said:


> They are, but I have found that most couples are within range of each other. You might see an 8 with a 6 but 8's going for 3's....not so much.
> 
> When you start to see anger is when said 3 thinks they're entitled to an 8 and they can't get it. That goes both ways gender wise.


I don't need a 10. Just give me two 5's and I'll call it a night


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> Wow you're projecting and making a lot of assumptions, probably based on your low opinion of women so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
> 
> My desired age range is my age to about 10 years older. I'm 47 and he's 56. Is that what you call "dating up"?
> 
> Absolutely NOWHERE did I complain about him making less....you literally made that up to suit your narrative. I was asked why I haven't dated a higher earner and I said money wasn't a priority for me. The comment about there not being that many high earners was meant to explain why I likely haven't run into one (because I don't know the salaries of every guy I meet).
> 
> And after I laid out my priorities and all the reasons I'm happy with him you still somehow managed to twist it into me settling.
> 
> Geez....I am quite happy with him and have no desire to look elsewhere.
> 
> You really don't like women.


My apology if I read that differently. I will freely admit I tend to read more into undertones of women's communication than I ever have. It might not be healthy, but it keeps me safe.


----------



## uphillbattle

lifeistooshort said:


> Maybe you're better looking then you think?


I would doubt it but I'm ok with it. I have someone who is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.


----------



## Cletus

Always Learning said:


> So I guess all the plumbers and electricians that are making six figure incomes are out of luck in your marriage pool?


I have not made any statements about income. I don't think income is the key component here. I married a school teacher, so I have historically made 4x-5x her annual salary. But she is college educated. All I can tell you is what the numbers say about marital stability - college educated folks are better at it. 

It sounds like you think this is an elitist opinion. I would say it's empirical. Maybe high earning blue collar workers also fit into the group with better longevity in marriage. I don't have that data, and like I said, I do not think it is the actual education that is the real underlying cause. 

I'll let you know if an electrician or plumber is in my marriage pool when I see one with a hairless butt crack that doesn't hint at external genitalia.


----------



## bobsmith

uphillbattle said:


> Both have told me at one point that I am not the "type" they usually go for. I know, kind of brutal but I take it in stride. I know firmly who I am and what my strengths/weakness are. Both of them love my sense of humor and say I am the most comfortable in my skin of anyone they have ever met.


Oh, I got that line from BOTH my exes, and guess how they ended up? With their "type" to the letter. I no longer discount it. Someone tells me anything even close to that, I am out the door or through a window. I won't even mince words about it. About the time I heard this from my 2nd, I should have countered back with, "I usually prefer D cups, but yours are OK".....

But I hope your mileage is better than mine!


----------



## uphillbattle

bobsmith said:


> Oh, I got that line from BOTH my exes, and guess how they ended up? With their "type" to the letter. I no longer discount it. Someone tells me anything even close to that, I am out the door or through a window. I won't even mince words about it. About the time I heard this from my 2nd, I should have countered back with, "I usually prefer D cups, but yours are OK".....
> 
> But I hope your mileage is better than mine!


I am still with one of them. I divorced the first and have been with the second for 15 years. Neither told me up front. Couldn't possibly care what their normal type is, my wife gives off every indicator that she is happy with me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

uphillbattle said:


> I would doubt it but I'm ok with it. I have someone who is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.


Your last sentence just put a smile in my face.

Thank you 🙂


----------



## uphillbattle

lifeistooshort said:


> Your last sentence just put a smile in my face.
> 
> Thank you 🙂


Why the smile? Of course she is intelligent, she married me


----------



## lifeistooshort

Numb26 said:


> I don't need a 10. Just give me two 5's and I'll call it a night


That seems reasonable.


----------



## lifeistooshort

uphillbattle said:


> Why the smile? Of course she is intelligent, she married me


Don't misunderstood....it made me smile that you appreciate that quality.

That's reason enough to marry you!


----------



## Al_Bundy

Cletus said:


> I have not made any statements about income. I don't think income is the key component here. I married a school teacher, so I have historically made 4x-5x her annual salary. But she is college educated. All I can tell you is what the numbers say about marital stability - college educated folks are better at it.
> 
> It sounds like you think this is an elitist opinion. I would say it's empirical. Maybe high earning blue collar workers also fit into the group with better longevity in marriage. I don't have that data, and like I said, I do not think it is the actual education that is the real underlying cause.
> 
> I'll let you know if an electrician or plumber is in my marriage pool when I see one with a hairless butt crack that doesn't hint at external genitalia.


Trivia maybe, but not elitist. On top of that the difference was only 15%. So while 65% is better odds than 50% it's still like bragging about being the prettiest waitress at Denny's. Even if you're the best, it doesn't mean you're good. Imagine an airline saying they get passengers to their destination 65% of the time.


----------



## DownButNotOut

EleGirl said:


> Marriages in which the woman is at least 25 with a college degree and the man is at least 30 years old have a divorce rate of no more than 25%. So, while in that group, when a marriage do break up, it's usually the woman who files for divorce, the couple is far less likely to divorce.
> 
> The highest divorce rate is amount younger, low income couples, where the woman does not have a college degree. The divorce rate in this group is over 50%.
> 
> The funny thing about statistics is that by leaving out part of the stats, one can tell the story they want to tell. When we look at the enter body of statistical data, it's far safer for a man who i worried about divorce to marry a woman with a college degree who is over 25 years old.


However, according to NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) when the woman in a couple earns more than the man, they are 15% less likely to describe their marriage as "very happy", 39% more likely to report marital trouble, and 46% more likely to report separating. 

From the same organization, women report increased stress when their share of family income begins to rise above 40%. Men do not report a similar result.

Those aren't good numbers if your goal is a lifetime happy marriage.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> However, according to NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) when the woman in a couple earns more than the man, they are 15% less likely to describe their marriage as "very happy", 39% more likely to report marital trouble, and 46% more likely to report separating.
> 
> From the same organization, women report increased stress when their share of family income begins to rise above 40%. Men do not report a similar result.
> 
> Those aren't good numbers if your goal is a lifetime happy marriage.


I wonder if this is correlated with the couple not making enough between them to live comfortably? Money stress is a big driver of divorce and women in general tend to choose lower paying fields, so if you have a woman in a low paying field and the man earns even less you could have money issues.

Also, data suggests that men still don't pull their weight at home, so if you're earning more then your hb and you still have to do most of the household tasks there's going to be resentment. At least if your guy makes more money then picking up the chores is more palatable. A friend of mine left her hb in part because she had a more demanding job, worked longer hours, and she'd come home to him laying on the couch waiting for her to make dinner and clean up.

Of course this is improving as more men do their share at home so that's good.

It's never bothered me that I made more then both my ex and current bf. All I ever asked was that they be self sufficient and not ask me to to subsidize them (I don't ask anymoreto subsidize me). One of my best friends is a highly paid medical professional and her hb teaches middle school math so clearly she makes a lot more. She's fine with that and like me just asked that he be gainfully employed, which unfortunately he has had trouble with. But he's a good guy, they've been together 22 years, and he does a lot to contribute to the home. If she needs anything he's there.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder if this is correlated with the couple not making enough between them to live comfortably? Money stress is a big driver of divorce and women in general tend to choose lower paying fields, so if you have a woman in a low paying field and the man earns even less you could have money issues.
> 
> Also, data suggests that men still don't pull their weight at home, so if you're earning more then your hb and you still have to do most of the household tasks there's going to be resentment. At least if your guy makes more money then picking up the chores is more palatable. A friend of mine left her hb in part because she had a more demanding job, worked longer hours, and she'd come home to him laying on the couch waiting for her to make dinner and clean up.
> 
> Of course this is improving as more men do their share at home so that's good.
> 
> It's never bothered me that I made more then both my ex and current bf. All I ever asked was that they be self sufficient and not ask me to to subsidize them (I don't ask anymoreto subsidize me). One of my best friends is a highly paid medical professional and her hb teaches middle school math so clearly she makes a lot more. She's fine with that and like me just asked that he be gainfully employed, which unfortunately he has had trouble with. But he's a good guy, they've been together 22 years, and he does a lot to contribute to the home. If she needs anything he's there.


No, the study controlled for income brackets. Also race, age, and education level. The findings were after accounting for that.

I think it shows the difference between men and women in their attitudes toward being the primary provider of a household. In general, men take great pride and sense of self from their ability to provide for their family. They take pleasure and comfort in knowing that their labor is supporting their wife and children, and are happy to do so indefinitely. While women are perfectly capable of it, they don't seem to get the same sense of pride or happiness in doing so. If I read it right, you yourself mention it. You're not bothered by earning more, but you are bothered by supporting you husband/bf. That's not how a man normally thinks - he's happy to support his wife, and his stress rises and sense of self worth falls when he is unable to.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

lifeistooshort said:


> I wonder if this is correlated with the couple not making enough between them to live comfortably? Money stress is a big driver of divorce and women in general tend to choose lower paying fields, so if you have a woman in a low paying field and the man earns even less you could have money issues.
> 
> Also, data suggests that men still don't pull their weight at home, so if you're earning more then your hb and you still have to do most of the household tasks there's going to be resentment. At least if your guy makes more money then picking up the chores is more palatable. A friend of mine left her hb in part because she had a more demanding job, worked longer hours, and she'd come home to him laying on the couch waiting for her to make dinner and clean up.
> 
> Of course this is improving as more men do their share at home so that's good.
> 
> It's never bothered me that I made more then both my ex and current bf. All I ever asked was that they be self sufficient and not ask me to to subsidize them (I don't ask anymoreto subsidize me). One of my best friends is a highly paid medical professional and her hb teaches middle school math so clearly she makes a lot more. She's fine with that and like me just asked that he be gainfully employed, which unfortunately he has had trouble with. But he's a good guy, they've been together 22 years, and he does a lot to contribute to the home. If she needs anything he's there.


Exactly. And most young couples I ever knew were all on the low end of the earning spectrum. Like one women I know had a steady low-paying retail job, but her husband had an even lower-paying fry cook job, compounded by the fact he wouldn't help pay her auto insurance but she had to take him to work all the time. He would say he didn't want a car, but then he'd expect her to taxi him everywhere and not share expenses. The thing that irked her the most is he had NO desire to move up into a better paying job. He was content to be a fry cook forever. When it was time to pay taxes, he didn't see why he should have to chip in since she made slightly more money than him. I mean, it was unbelievable. They tried counseling to try to get him to share housework, to no avail, and it ended in divorce. I mean, he was a classic slacker, and success was against his philosophy. She couldn't see having a kid with him, so....


----------



## Enigma32

All this talk about money has me thinking ladies care more about their money than even we men do. Family courts will go through some changes soon enough since women are starting to earn more than men. If more high earning ladies start having to pay crazy amounts of child support or alimony, there will be another women's march. If I had all the money that @lifeistooshort has, I definitely wouldn't mind if my wife stayed home and didn't hold down a job. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and if I made plenty of money, I wouldn't need my wife to also make money. Her talents would likely be more useful elsewhere. Unless she could also earn a crazy amount of money.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> All this talk about money has me thinking ladies care more about their money than even we men do. Family courts will go through some changes soon enough since women are starting to earn more than men. If more high earning ladies start having to pay crazy amounts of child support or alimony, there will be another women's march. If I had all the money that @lifeistooshort has, I definitely wouldn't mind if my wife stayed home and didn't hold down a job. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and if I made plenty of money, I wouldn't need my wife to also make money. Her talents would likely be more useful elsewhere. Unless she could also earn a crazy amount of money.


There are different feelings about this. Not all men want a stay at home...my ex didn't. And many of the same men who are fine supporting a stay at home then howl when they have to pay cs and alimony. 

That's not directed at you as I don't know your attitude.

But I do think @DownButNotOut is on to something with the comment about what men and women take pride in. I don't take pride in supporting another adult....i do take pride in support my kids and I take pride in other things I do to try to be a good partner.

I also don't measure how valued I am by how much a guy spends on me. It is nice to be taken out sometimes, which my bf does, but it's not like I don't spend money on him. He just had his bday and I did spend money on him.

So maybe my attitude towards money in general is different. I agree that marriages are partnerships, but for me a partnership means we both contribute financially. I'm not a good match for a guy who wants a more traditional arrangement. It's probably due to my FOO but I digress.

And it's worth noting that neither of my exes had to pay alimony and I'm sure they're both happy about that.


----------



## DownButNotOut

DownByTheRiver said:


> Exactly. And most young couples I ever knew were all on the low end of the earning spectrum. Like one women I know had a steady low-paying retail job, but her husband had an even lower-paying fry cook job, compounded by the fact he wouldn't help pay her auto insurance but she had to take him to work all the time. He would say he didn't want a car, but then he'd expect her to taxi him everywhere and not share expenses. The thing that irked her the most is he had NO desire to move up into a better paying job. He was content to be a fry cook forever. When it was time to pay taxes, he didn't see why he should have to chip in since she made slightly more money than him. I mean, it was unbelievable. They tried counseling to try to get him to share housework, to no avail, and it ended in divorce. I mean, he was a classic slacker, and success was against his philosophy. She couldn't see having a kid with him, so....


Sounds like a poster child for what I'm saying. She was unwilling to support him. The friction comes because she doesn't view it as her job to support her husband. Reverse their positions, and the average man would have never thought to ask for help paying the car insurance. "No desire to move up into a better paying job", "classic slacker", "couldn't see having a kid with him" all translates into he was not willing/able to step into he primary provider role and she wasn't willing to keep that role indefinitely.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> There are different feelings about this. Not all men want a stay at home...my ex didn't. And many of the same men who are fine supporting a stay at home then howl when they have to pay cs and alimony.


A man doesn't mind supporting his wife/family. He doesn't want to support her when she decides to leave. That is the problem. If she decides she wants to leave, then she shouldn't be able to walk away with an income. Marriage is basically a contract between 2 people. If one person breaks contract and wants out, they shouldn't be able to continue to get the benefits of the contract. I wouldn't expect my ex wife to come over and cook me dinner or give me a BJ.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> There are different feelings about this. Not all men want a stay at home...my ex didn't. And many of the same men who are fine supporting a stay at home then howl when they have to pay cs and alimony.
> 
> That's not directed at you as I don't know your attitude.
> 
> But I do think @DownButNotOut is on to something with the comment about what men and women take pride in. I don't take pride in supporting another adult....i do take pride in support my kids and I take pride in other things I do to try to be a good partner.
> 
> I also don't measure how valued I am by how much a guy spends on me. It is nice to be taken out sometimes, which my bf does, but it's not like I don't spend money on him. He just had his bday and I did spend money on him.
> 
> So maybe my attitude towards money in general is different. I agree that marriages are partnerships, but for me a partnership means we both contribute financially. I'm not a good match for a guy who wants a more traditional arrangement. It's probably due to my FOO but I digress.
> 
> And it's worth noting that neither of my exes had to pay alimony and I'm sure they're both happy about that.


Those same men howl at alimony because while they are happy being the sole provider of the family unit, the ex by definition is no longer part of the family unit. It's one thing to provide and protect the woman who loves you, it is another to do the same for the woman who left you. Child support is similar but more nuanced. If it was accounted for in a way that showed it was spent for the child's needs I doubt they would howl as much as when they see their ex spend it on things for herself.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> A man doesn't mind supporting his wife/family. He doesn't want to support her when she decides to leave. That is the problem. If she decides she wants to leave, then she shouldn't be able to walk away with an income. Marriage is basically a contract between 2 people. If one person breaks contract and wants out, they shouldn't be able to continue to get the benefits of the contract. I wouldn't expect my ex wife to come over and cook me dinner or give me a BJ.


Completely understandable and I agree.

It just gets complicated because while she's staying home she isn't developing her ability to support herself, and the state doesn't want people on welfare.

So how to bridge the gap?

It also gets muddy because if she dumps a good husband then of course it's clear. But what if she stayed at home and he paid bills but really didn't treat her well? She's still screwed because she wanted out? This is part of the reason I think people should pay their way......then nobody has to support anyone when the marriage ends.

Maybe a contract should be set up when a couple agrees to a stay at home arrangement?


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> Those same men howl at alimony because while they are happy being the sole provider of the family unit, the ex by definition is no longer part of the family unit. It's one thing to provide and protect the woman who loves you, it is another to do the same for the woman who left you. Child support is similar but more nuanced. If it was accounted for in a way that showed it was spent for the child's needs I doubt they would howl as much as when they see their ex spend it on things for herself.


See my response below.

I'd add that the dependent relationship can also result in a situation where you have a wife that doesn't really love her hb, does want him, but can't afford to leave....especially without alimony.

How many times have we seen that here?

That awful for everyone.

My friend supported a hb who refused to work for 20 years and often felt like he stuck around because he didn't have anywhere to go.

He finally jumped ship when be thought he found a sugar mama. Sugar mana then dumped him and he spent 2 years harassing my friend to take him back...even threatened her bf's life. He finally found another sugar mama and remarried.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> Completely understandable and I agree.
> 
> It just gets complicated because while she's staying home she isn't developing her ability to support herself, and the state doesn't want people on welfare.
> 
> So how to bridge the gap?
> 
> It also gets muddy because if she dumps a good husband then of course it's clear. But what if she stayed at home and he paid bills but really didn't treat her well? She's still screwed because she wanted out? This is part of the reason I think people should pay their way......then nobody has to support anyone when the marriage ends.
> 
> Maybe a contract should be set up when a couple agrees to a stay at home arrangement?


I agree that it gets murky. I just see a story like what @RebuildingMe posted, where his ex wife was able to drag him into court and forced him to pay over $130k just to defend himself, and I don't think that should be a thing, period. I remember I met a girl on OLD a long time ago who bragged about how she got the house and alimony in her divorce because her ex owned a business and had money. She used it as a disclaimer because she never wanted to get married again. I think where she lived that meant she lost her income. Or like my buddy I grew up with, where his wife called the police and had him kicked out of his house and he left with nothing but a handful of clothes and his work truck. He spent the next 16 years in living destitute because everything he earned went to her while she got the marital home, the kids, their van, and suspiciously had a new live in BF. 

You seem like a decent woman who wouldn't go out of your way to screw someone over. That's good! Unfortunately, everyone isn't like you. Some people will take advantage. The law shouldn't be written in such a way that it can be used as a weapon to basically destroy men, and it shouldn't be a career for someone to have babies and get divorced.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> See my response below.
> 
> I'd add that the dependent relationship can also result in a situation where you have a wife that doesn't really love her hb, does want him, but can't afford to leave....especially without alimony.
> 
> How many times have we seen that here?
> 
> That awful for everyone.
> 
> My friend supported a hb who refused to work for 20 years and often felt like he stuck around because he didn't have anywhere to go.
> 
> He finally jumped ship when be thought he found a sugar mama. Sugar mana then dumped him and he spent 2 years harassing my friend to take him back...even threatened her bf's life. He finally found another sugar mama and remarried.


How may times? Probably about as many times as a man expresses the "cheaper to keep her" sentiment. He can also be just as trapped by an inability to afford splitting of assets, and projected support. 

I also think something missing here is that, especially today, this isn't a binary discussion. It isn't a choice between full career and SAHM. Part time work can be used for maintaining skills, and allow the woman to find a work/life balance that simultaneously strengthens the family and future-proofs her own life. There is a whole range between power career and stay-at-home that couples can strike a good balance. What that study I started this mini-point with indicates is that there seems to be a point where beyond it the future of the marriage begins to look bleak. That seems to be right around the 60-40 income level. Above that, she begins to question his ability to hold up his end of provider and the pressure of taking on so much of that provider role begins to take its toll. Simultaneously, he begins to question his role as provider as his portion of family income narrows. Often he responds with self-destructive coping mechanisms. I want to stress this isn't some ego thing, or some insecurity. It is legitimately questioning his own self worth within the marriage at an instinctual level.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> I agree that it gets murky. I just see a story like what @RebuildingMe posted, where his ex wife was able to drag him into court and forced him to pay over $130k just to defend himself, and I don't think that should be a thing, period. I remember I met a girl on OLD a long time ago who bragged about how she got the house and alimony in her divorce because her ex owned a business and had money. She used it as a disclaimer because she never wanted to get married again. I think where she lived that meant she lost her income. Or like my buddy I grew up with, where his wife called the police and had him kicked out of his house and he left with nothing but a handful of clothes and his work truck. He spent the next 16 years in living destitute because everything he earned went to her while she got the marital home, the kids, their van, and suspiciously had a new live in BF.
> 
> You seem like a decent woman who wouldn't go out of your way to screw someone over. That's good! Unfortunately, everyone isn't like you. Some people will take advantage. The law shouldn't be written in such a way that it can be used as a weapon to basically destroy men, and it shouldn't be a career for someone to have babies and get divorced.


Thank you....given that both of my exes were intimidated by me I wish more men appreciated that. My current bf seems to appreciate me 🤞

Yeah, some women are unfortunately pieces 'o **** and @RebuildingMe 's ex is one of them. We women have each other's numbers and can often spot them. Men are blind to things we can see since we're women.

I know someone who was a serial cheater, divorced her dentist husband, got alimony even though she could work, and was still pissed off that he started dating instead of waiting for her to decide if she wanted to come back. All the women in my circle think she's trash. 

I think everyone should run like hell from a person who ripped off their ex.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> How may times? Probably about as many times as a man expresses the "cheaper to keep her" sentiment. He can also be just as trapped by an inability to afford splitting of assets, and projected support.
> 
> I also think something missing here is that, especially today, this isn't a binary discussion. It isn't a choice between full career and SAHM. Part time work can be used for maintaining skills, and allow the woman to find a work/life balance that simultaneously strengthens the family and future-proofs her own life. There is a whole range between power career and stay-at-home that couples can strike a good balance. What that study I started this mini-point with indicates is that there seems to be a point where beyond it the future of the marriage begins to look bleak. That seems to be right around the 60-40 income level. Above that, she begins to question his ability to hold up his end of provider and the pressure of taking on so much of that provider role begins to take its toll. Simultaneously, he begins to question his role as provider as his portion of family income narrows. Often he responds with self-destructive coping mechanisms. I want to stress this isn't some ego thing, or some insecurity. It is legitimately questioning his own self worth within the marriage at an instinctual level.


Sure...most people want to feel like they make meaningful contributions to the marriage. But just for the sake of discussion.....from a high earning woman's perspective if this is true that lower earning men can't deal with it then that puts us in a difficult position.

If we hold out for a high earning guy, assuming we can find one, we're vilified as only wanting to "date up".

If we don't care that he makes less, which I don't, then we have to try to find a guy whose ego can handle it.

Besides...I don't know many high earning guys but if I think about the executives in my company most of them have stay at home wives. They ain't married to high earning women. 

So what are we to do?

I prefer to socialize in my athletic circles and meet people that way, and that's how I met my bf. He seems fine with my income so I would think there are others like that.


----------



## Enigma32

@lifeistooshort I can't speak for all men but I am fine with a woman that earns more, I don't care. I did however, notice that when I dated ladies who earned more, THEY cared. My ex wife made all of $1500 a year more than I did and she made sure to remind me of it. Often.


----------



## bobsmith

One of the realities I learned from this site and real life is His money is her money, and her money is her money! But see how we are all circulating countless posts about MONEY? Time and history has proved it can turn a man as a 5 into a 9.5 with just a couple more zeros in the bank. 

It is strange to me that if the woman is the high earner, it doesn't seem like this whole "split the assets" thing applies anymore! If she is the high earner and she buys you a car, that most certainly is NOT your car! In the divorce, you will be quickly reminded of every detailed thing she paid for and expects back. 

I could say women 'cost a lot', and they really DO, but I guess some guys have problems throwing cash too. But I can tell you I literally save THOUSANDS per month by not having to wine/dine women. I ran the numbers one time and I was burning $2500/mo on my ex in the midwest (mentioned for cost of living) for diner, concerts, stupid Bday gifts for people I don't even know, pissing away money in the church basket, fixing her car, her house, etc. What I learned is that still was not enough. She wanted and got more. She got someone to give her access to the full account. 

I literally eat clean and fresh, steak, salmon, good stuff. $300/mo.... I do NOT eat out, ever! I refuse to pay for overpriced fattening food and then have to pay the server to bring me a plate, that the restaurant should be paying for. 

I guess all I am saying is when I hear a woman say "it's nice to go out sometimes", that usually means OFTEN and you are a chump if you don't go to an expensive joint. Sure, the women here will denounce that, but we know it is true. 

But, I mean, I guess I can say I had one true experience with a doctor that seemed to exploit the odds with 8 figs in the bank, and she flew to wine/dine ME..... I'll admit, I felt emasculated, but I learned all about fine food I never got into before.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

DownButNotOut said:


> Sounds like a poster child for what I'm saying. She was unwilling to support him. The friction comes because she doesn't view it as her job to support her husband. Reverse their positions, and the average man would have never thought to ask for help paying the car insurance. "No desire to move up into a better paying job", "classic slacker", "couldn't see having a kid with him" all translates into he was not willing/able to step into he primary provider role and she wasn't willing to keep that role indefinitely.


She wasn't able to support him. Between the two of them they didn't have enough income to support themselves. He spent his paycheck on pot. He didn't have a car. She was supporting him by getting him to work for free. She's on her second husband right now who she's been married to for a long time and he hasn't been working for several months after, he says, quitting his job, but he was making more than her and decent money. She's making decent money now.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Enigma32 said:


> @lifeistooshort I can't speak for all men but I am fine with a woman that earns more, I don't care. I did however, notice that when I dated ladies who earned more, THEY cared. My ex wife made all of $1500 a year more than I did and she made sure to remind me of it. Often.


That's ridiculous....I don't understand why she would do that.

But I think some people are just competitive, and need to feel superior, which is really unhealthy for a relationship.

My ex hb was very jealous of me. He liked having a much younger wife who was also in good shape and made money (FYI, he never paid when we went out....I always paid), but he was also insecure and wasn't dealing well with getting older. He took that out on me.

We were both competitive runners. I win my age group all the time and can still win an overall award if it's a smaller race. Ex could sometimes beat me if I wasn't feeling well or just didn't have a good race.

He never missed an opportunity to let me know when that happened. And it wasn't good natured.....he'd do it in a sarcastic, mocking tone and then if course play dumb (because that's what he did). He needed to make himself feel superior and maybe your ex was the same.


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Sure...most people want to feel like they make meaningful contributions to the marriage. But just for the sake of discussion.....from a high earning woman's perspective if this is true that lower earning men can't deal with it then that puts us in a difficult position.
> 
> If we hold out for a high earning guy, assuming we can find one, we're vilified as only wanting to "date up".
> 
> If we don't care that he makes less, which I don't, then we have to try to find a guy whose ego can handle it.
> 
> Besides...I don't know many high earning guys but if I think about the executives in my company most of them have stay at home wives. They ain't married to high earning women.
> 
> So what are we to do?
> 
> I prefer to socialize in my athletic circles and meet people that way, and that's how I met my bf. He seems fine with my income so I would think there are others like that.


That's a dirty little secret that the main feminist narrative won't mention. The more money you make the more doors close for you relationship wise. It's fine to be a high earner. It's also fine to be a stay at home mother or anything in between. Each of those choices come with ramifications though.

I don't think 'dating up' is something to vilify. It just is. Men wanting to be a primary provider isn't some fragile ego thing, or something to vilify. It also just is.

You've said several times that you don't care if a man makes less, but you've qualified that with 'as long as he doesn't need my money'(paraphrase). That, I think, is the main difference in general in how men and women approach relationships and money. A man won't say that. A man doesn't care if his wife makes less because what he cares about is that he can provide for her. If he can provide for her then her money doesn't even really matter at all to him. So those executives where you work are perfectly happy with a stay at home wife.

And you're right, they ain't married to high earning women. Why? I'm speaking in generalities here, but to become high earning a person has to adopt certain traits and behaviors. The directness, assertiveness, willingness to engage in conflict all work very well for climbing that corporate ladder. But they aren't traits that those men necessarily want at home.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> That's a dirty little secret that the main feminist narrative won't mention. The more money you make the more doors close for you relationship wise. It's fine to be a high earner. It's also fine to be a stay at home mother or anything in between. Each of those choices come with ramifications though.
> 
> I don't think 'dating up' is something to vilify. It just is. Men wanting to be a primary provider isn't some fragile ego thing, or something to vilify. It also just is.
> 
> You've said several times that you don't care if a man makes less, but you've qualified that with 'as long as he doesn't need my money'(paraphrase). That, I think, is the main difference in general in how men and women approach relationships and money. A man won't say that. A man doesn't care if his wife makes less because what he cares about is that he can provide for her. If he can provide for her then her money doesn't even really matter at all to him. So those executives where you work are perfectly happy with a stay at home wife.
> 
> And you're right, they ain't married to high earning women. Why? I'm speaking in generalities here, but to become high earning a person has to adopt certain traits and behaviors. The directness, assertiveness, willingness to engage in conflict all work very well for climbing that corporate ladder. But they aren't traits that those men necessarily want at home.


Sure they're happy...until alimony is in play.

And I was a sahm in my kids early years and frankly my ex treated me like an employee who had to report to him and get his approval for everything I did. No thanks.

It seems to me that certain men have this philosophy of being superior financially but then when the arrangement falls apart and he takes a financial hit he's on websites complaining about women not being worth it. As you said, there are consequences for your choices.

So what do you want? A woman who's smart, but not smarter then you? Works but makes less then you? Doesn't work but cam still immediately support herself if the marriage fails? I'm sure there's a laundry list of other things like sex/fitness/not too assertive/whatever else, yet you have guys complaining that the effort just isn't worth it.

Not directing this at you....I'm still in generalities mode.

As for me, I've shockingly never had trouble meeting men. They come to me...I've just made some bad choices thanks to FOO issues, but I've had a good bit of counseling for that. Most of my female coworkers are married so clearly plenty of men are good with their paycheck. 

I just happen to have unique, high demand skills which companies pay for. I suspect if you ask my bf of almost 3 years he'd tell you that while I do have my own opinions I'm generally pretty laid back. He isn't the type to let himself be steamrolled.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I also find it interesting that the couple of women who have shared their own experiences here are dismissed as individual data points, but the mens experiences are somehow indicative of broader trends.


----------



## ccpowerslave

@lifeistooshort have you ever dated someone who is dumber than you?

I think if the gap is small enough it’s not a problem but for me if I am dealing with someone (anyone) and I’m trying to express a concept that requires a certain amount of logic capability or even something more abstract like a complicated analogy or something like an algebraic factoring and they can’t follow, that’s it.

So I was selecting for intelligence.


----------



## Numb26

ccpowerslave said:


> @lifeistooshort have you ever dated someone who is dumber than you?
> 
> I think if the gap is small enough it’s not a problem but for me if I am dealing with someone (anyone) and I’m trying to express a concept that requires a certain amount of logic capability or even something more abstract like a complicated analogy or something like an algebraic factoring and they can’t follow, that’s it.
> 
> So I was selecting for intelligence.


Nothing drains the life out of you then bring with a partner who is so dumb they think dictation is some sort of S&M trip


----------



## Livvie

Men don't care how much she earns, they just care if she's hot. Oh and no that don't care if she never works, they are happy to support her for decades.

But suddenly!!! money matters in the event of a divorce, they rant about having to give up half of "their" wealth. 

After they ignored financial matters/accepted a zero contributing dependent of a wife, because hot.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ccpowerslave said:


> @lifeistooshort have you ever dated someone who is dumber than you?
> 
> I think if the gap is small enough it’s not a problem but for me if I am dealing with someone (anyone) and I’m trying to express a concept that requires a certain amount of logic capability or even something more abstract like a complicated analogy or something like an algebraic factoring and they can’t follow, that’s it.
> 
> So I was selecting for intelligence.


I dislike the term "dumb" because it implies a low IQ. My kids father definitely has a lower IQ then me and he'd tell you that, but he wasn't dumb. He had other talents, one of which is everything a car needs right down to rebuilding engines so I still ask him for car advice.

The IQ thing was never an issue for me....I appreciated other things about him. It was however an issue for him.

At this point on my life though I like intelligence in a man for the reasons you stated. My bf is quite intelligent, though having studied physics I'm pretty sure my math skills are stronger, but he is an intellectual type who's really into philosophy and finance. He follows the market a lot more then me and we talk about that.

We both really like astronomy, and even though my math skills are better he has no problem discussing physics concepts with me. I really like that.


----------



## 2&out

That was refreshing lifeistooshort. Seems I've read here so many times how high intelligence is SO critically important by and to both men and women. It isn't to me. I am well educated but I don't (and am sure some others) consider myself especially intelligent. And it isn't something I specifically look for or evaluate in others either. Being dumb and happy and/or good looking and fun isn't an especially bad way to live - at least I don't think so. LOL


----------



## ccpowerslave

lifeistooshort said:


> We both really like astronomy, and even though my math skills are better he has no problem discussing physics concepts with me. I really like that.


I’m with you there. Concepts good, being able to compute the relativistic effects on Mercury’s orbit perhaps unnecessary.

BTW by dumb I meant you can feel where their capability drops away in a discussion and it’s too early.

People who can work on cars, or medical doctors, remind me of expert systems in my lisp book.


----------



## lifeistooshort

My ex hb was no dummy....he had a masters degree, although it was in a liberal arts field...LOL.

No disrespect to my liberal arts degree having friends... it's just a good natured joke. My science friends understand......

But he was so surface and phony that he refused to talk about anything beyond sports and the weather. I remember one time I brought up a news story I'd seen and he cut me off and started talking about sports scores. It was so ridiculously rude it's comical now that I'm rid of him. 

So what good waa his intelligence if he refused to talk about anything? My kids father and I were a poor match for other reasons but while he was probably a bit less intelligent then hb #2 he could actually carry on a conversation. So in that sense he was a much better deal.


----------



## Blondilocks

ccpowerslave said:


> I’m with you there. Concepts good, being able to compute the relativistic effects on Mercury’s orbit perhaps unnecessary.
> 
> BTW by dumb I meant you can feel where their capability drops away in a discussion and it’s too early.
> 
> *People who can work on cars, or medical doctors, remind me of expert systems in my lisp book.*


I am in complete awe of @MJJEAN because that girl can tear a car engine apart and put it back together. (_she makes me look bad)_


----------



## bobsmith

I have really formed the opinion that couples need to have relative intelligence to each other for long term success. I think resentment will otherwise roll in. I think it is pretty common to see intelligent men with lesser IQ women. To the extent she would call a repairman because the lint filter on the dryer is plugged. I fail to see how you can have a meaningful conversation with that gap! 

I will admit, I didn't know my intelligence until later. I felt intimidated by my ex in high school, and still probably the best match I ever found. I am very mechanical and we took an odd test for mechanical skills. I scored a 98% on that test only to find out the only higher scores were my own brother and my ex, who scored 100%. Today, I would see that a awesome. I am no longer intimidated by sharp minds. 

It was just a total mismatch with my first ex, who struggled with simple things like mix ratios for hair products. I could never have a meaningful convo, and it always frustrated me that I had to handle everything. I had to deal with doctor visits for kids, and communication with the schools. 

Low and behold, I have yet another relationship with a cosmo. Though she was significantly smarter, some things were a miss. She was on a short road trip and called that a TPMS went off for low tire. "what do I do?" Literally everything I taught her went out the window. I put a manual gauge in her vehicle just for this. Told her to slow down and stop at a safe place and inspect immediately. She had a guy at a truck stop "look" and said it was fine. This is NASA 101!! When a sensor value is out of range, you must determine if the sensor is giving accurate data or not, but generally trust until verified. 

She picked up a kid (precious cargo), then proceeded to have a blowout and nearly died. It just frustrated me because everything I taught her about tires, pressures, speed, etc, was not retained for her safety. She trusted an idiot at a truck stop over what I told her to do. I think why it is so ingrained is it somehow was my fault, even though I drove to her with a redundant spare, swapped the tire, and followed her home. Probably because I got her another tire gauge for Christmas and she threw it at me.....lol

When you call mission control for instruction, it's a good idea to follow along.


----------



## Al_Bundy

My only issue has been with women who can't stop talking about how smart they are. If you're that smart, you shouldn't have to tell anyone, it should be obvious.


----------



## Numb26

Al_Bundy said:


> My only issue has been with women who can't stop talking about how smart they are. If you're that smart, you shouldn't have to tell anyone, it should be obvious.


That is a red flag


----------



## DownButNotOut

lifeistooshort said:


> Sure they're happy...until alimony is in play.
> 
> And I was a sahm in my kids early years and frankly my ex treated me like an employee who had to report to him and get his approval for everything I did. No thanks.
> 
> It seems to me that certain men have this philosophy of being superior financially but then when the arrangement falls apart and he takes a financial hit he's on websites complaining about women not being worth it. As you said, there are consequences for your choices.
> 
> So what do you want? A woman who's smart, but not smarter then you? Works but makes less then you? Doesn't work but cam still immediately support herself if the marriage fails? I'm sure there's a laundry list of other things like sex/fitness/not too assertive/whatever else, yet you have guys complaining that the effort just isn't worth it.
> 
> Not directing this at you....I'm still in generalities mode.


I'm not going to rehash what I've said about the alimony thing. We beat that horse.

What do men want? Men really are very simple. Someone who complements his life. Attractive, feminine, who will be a good wife and a good mother to his children. 

Now I'll speak my personal view on what I think that means. People have used the Captain/First Officer, and the Pilot/Co-pilot analogy. I prefer to use ballroom dancing. Watch a couple do a top notch samba, or Viennese waltz. The couple move around the floor with very close, intricate footwork. The lines and flow are both powerful and sensual. To get to such a skilled experience there are rules. Yes the man must lead the dance. But the woman is not some passive creature being dragged around the floor. Hers is an active and predictive following. In the end, the two of them flow seamlessly from one step to the next by reading the queues they both give. He trusts that when he initiates a step sequence, that she will read him and follow. This allows him to confidently direct the flow of dance. She trusts that his signals will match his steps, that he won't miss a grip, lift or dip. And together, they can work magic. If his leadership wavers, they drift off aimlessly and lose that magic. If she resists his lead, or tries to lead herself, the dance breaks down completely. What do I personally look for? Someone who will make a good dance partner.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Al_Bundy said:


> My only issue has been with women who can't stop talking about how smart they are. If you're that smart, you shouldn't have to tell anyone, it should be obvious.


Agreed.

Kind of like my ex constantly telling people what a nice guy he is.

Hint....he's not a nice guy.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> I'm not going to rehash what I've said about the alimony thing. We beat that horse.
> 
> What do men want? Men really are very simple. Someone who complements his life. Attractive, feminine, who will be a good wife and a good mother to his children.
> 
> Now I'll speak my personal view on what I think that means. People have used the Captain/First Officer, and the Pilot/Co-pilot analogy. I prefer to use ballroom dancing. Watch a couple do a top notch samba, or Viennese waltz. The couple move around the floor with very close, intricate footwork. The lines and flow are both powerful and sensual. To get to such a skilled experience there are rules. Yes the man must lead the dance. But the woman is not some passive creature being dragged around the floor. Hers is an active and predictive following. In the end, the two of them flow seamlessly from one step to the next by reading the queues they both give. He trusts that when he initiates a step sequence, that she will read him and follow. This allows him to confidently direct the flow of dance. She trusts that his signals will match his steps, that he won't miss a grip, lift or dip. And together, they can work magic. If his leadership wavers, they drift off aimlessly and lose that magic. If she resists his lead, or tries to lead herself, the dance breaks down completely. What do I personally look for? *Someone who will make a good dance* *partner.*


Let's leave it at that.


----------



## tech-novelist

uphillbattle said:


> Interesting *both of my wives are way better looking than me*. They are hot, I am on the low end of average. I have been a steady worker who makes middle class money but nothing special. If they ONLY date up how does this happen?


So you are a Mormon?


----------



## Deejo

DownButNotOut said:


> . She trusts that his signals will match his steps, that he won't miss a grip, lift or dip. And together, they can work magic. If his leadership wavers, they drift off aimlessly and lose that magic. If she resists his lead, or tries to lead herself, the dance breaks down completely. What do I personally look for? Someone who will make a good dance partner.


Nicely done. You just summed up MGTOW.

Men who could no longer give a sh!t if they dance again. Because no man is going hit those marks ALL the time. It is impractical, and utterly unrealistic to presume otherwise. For many, being that leader can be exhausting and overly stressful. Sometimes his partner will miss the mark, or ignore it and do her own thing ... yet blame him anyway. To these guys, the 'dance' is a set-up and a lie.

Me? I absolutely still want to dance ... my dance. The shuffle dance. Join me. Don't. Whatever. My reverse spongebob kicks a$$.


----------



## uphillbattle

tech-novelist said:


> So you are a Mormon?


I have an ex and a current.
About 10 posts past this you will see it.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Enigma32 said:


> All this talk about money has me thinking ladies care more about their money than even we men do. Family courts will go through some changes soon enough since women are starting to earn more than men. If more high earning ladies start having to pay crazy amounts of child support or alimony, there will be another women's march. If I had all the money that @lifeistooshort has, I definitely wouldn't mind if my wife stayed home and didn't hold down a job. Marriage is supposed to be a partnership, and if I made plenty of money, I wouldn't need my wife to also make money. Her talents would likely be more useful elsewhere. Unless she could also earn a crazy amount of money.


Most places don't have alimony or if they have any payout it is just temporary until someone can get settled. But they are already and have been for quite some time having women pay if women were the earner. The norm now in most places in the US is to share custody and each takes care of the expenses except for the big stuff like college and medical while they have the child in their custody. But there are cases where someone has been totally dependent and contributed to the marriage and other valuable ways such as child rearing or home maintenance or in some cases working for the family business.


----------



## Enigma32

Livvie said:


> Men don't care how much she earns, they just care if she's hot. Oh and no that don't care if she never works, they are happy to support her for decades.
> 
> *But suddenly!!! money matters in the event of a divorce, they rant about having to give up half of "their" wealth.*
> 
> After they ignored financial matters/accepted a zero contributing dependent of a wife, because hot.


It's pretty simple to me. Yes, men will often happily support their wife when they are married. No, we no longer want to support her when we are no longer married. We don't think the courts should force men to pay for our ex wives. I've personally seen men basically become slaves to their ex wives after a divorce just because she decided she wanted out.


----------



## Numb26

Enigma32 said:


> It's pretty simple to me. Yes, men will often happily support their wife when they are married. No, we no longer want to support her when we are no longer married. We don't think the courts should force men to pay for our ex wives. I've personally seen men basically become slaves to their ex wives after a divorce just because she decided she wanted out.


There is a simple fix for this problem. The person filing for divorce does not receive any alimony.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Enigma32 said:


> It's pretty simple to me. Yes, men will often happily support their wife when they are married. No, we no longer want to support her when we are no longer married. We don't think the courts should force men to pay for our ex wives. I've personally seen men basically become slaves to their ex wives after a divorce just because she decided she wanted out.


Agreed. It's easy throw rocks and say that the guy just picked her because she's hot. The zero contributing thing is just a head fake. It's about what one partner makes vs the other. It doesn't matter if she makes 70k, if your income dwarfs hers then chances are you will pay in some form or fashion even it's like the gentleman who didn't pay the wife but ended up paying the lawyers out the yang.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Numb26 said:


> There is a simple fix for this problem. The person filing for divorce does not receive any alimony.


That would in no way encourage one to start treating their spouse like complete **** in order to get them to file.........

That's the problem with introducing punitive measures. Your assumption is that the paying spouse is otherwise a good spouse and the other one wants out for no good reason. But once you introduce a way to gain advantage less then stand up people will abuse it.

Start making abusive men pay more and see how many women start claiming they were abused.

A stay at home dad with a wife who cheats on him or just generally talks to him like a 5 year old gets nothing if he files because he's the one who wanted out.

That's why we have no fault divorce...people will sling all kinds of accusations to gain advantage.


----------



## damo7

lifeistooshort said:


> My ex hb was no dummy....he had a masters degree, although it was in a liberal arts field...LOL.
> 
> No disrespect to my liberal arts degree having friends... it's just a good natured joke. My science friends understand......
> 
> But he was so surface and phony that he refused to talk about anything beyond sports and the weather. I remember one time I brought up a news story I'd seen and he cut me off and started talking about sports scores. It was so ridiculously rude it's comical now that I'm rid of him.
> 
> So what good waa his intelligence if he refused to talk about anything? My kids father and I were a poor match for other reasons but while he was probably a bit less intelligent then hb #2 he could actually carry on a conversation. So in that sense he was a much better deal.


People can have degrees and still be socially ignorant. Personality disordered types can be very intelligent in some ways and very stupid in others. Intelligence isn't ever across the board.


----------



## bobsmith

damo7 said:


> People can have degrees and still be socially ignorant. Personality disordered types can be very intelligent in some ways and very stupid in others. Intelligence isn't ever across the board.


I find that most people use education and intelligence interchangeably. Usually someone will say something like, "He is really smart, he has a masters from xxx, or a phd from xxx".... It has been proven time and time again that average people can read a book and take a test. Even at high academic levels, all you need is cash and desire. 

What you can't buy or learn is real intellect or a personality, IMO.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I've been thinking about this argument about women being more likely to complain about supporters a guy financially, and while I do think there's truth to it I also think we need to consider that the dynamics will change at different points in your life.

When you're raising a family together a man's role as a provider makes more sense. Of course not everyone has this model....I went back to work when my kids were little, but I can see why a father would take the attitude that he's fine supporting the family. In general I agree that women don't wish to support the family (sahd) financially. They may go along with it but don't want it.

But most of us here are older. Indeed, most of you guys are here because you've done the family thing and are unhappy with how it ended. 

But when you aren't talking about raising kids together why would anyone financially support anyone? Yeah I don't want to support a man at this point but why would any of you guys want to support a woman at this point? I know a guy in his 50's who had a nice gf, also in her 50's and she was pushing to get married. He told me that he felt like she wanted to get married and quit her job as she complained about it frequently. He's not wealthy but he is comfortable.

All their kids (none together) are grown...why would he want to support a woman in her 50's? She can work like everyone else.

They broke up....I thought he was being a hardass about the getting married part until he shared the her wanting to quit her job thing..then I understood.

At a certain point in your life you just want some security and don't want to deal with financial basket cases.


----------



## Rus47

lifeistooshort said:


> I've been thinking about this argument about women being more likely to complain about supporters a guy financially, and while I do think there's truth to it I also think we need to consider that the dynamics will change at different points in your life.
> 
> When you're raising a family together a man's role as a provider makes more sense. Of course not everyone has this model....I went back to work when my kids were little, but I can see why a father would take the attitude that he's fine supporting the family. In general I agree that women don't wish to support the family (sahd) financially. They may go along with it but don't want it.
> 
> But most of us here are older. Indeed, most of you guys are here because you've done the family thing and are unhappy with how it ended.
> 
> But when you aren't talking about raising kids together why would anyone financially support anyone? Yeah I don't want to support a man at this point but why would any of you guys want to support a woman at this point? I know a guy in his 50's who had a nice gf, also in her 50's and she was pushing to get married. He told me that he felt like she wanted to get married and quit her job as she complained about it frequently. He's not wealthy but he is comfortable.
> 
> All their kids (none together) are grown...why would he want to support a woman in her 50's? She can work like everyone else.
> 
> They broke up....I thought he was being a hardass about the getting married part until he shared the her wanting to quit her job thing..then I understood.
> 
> At a certain point in your life you just want some security and don't want to deal with financial basket cases.


Have never been in situation you describe, but it seems to me that an adult above a certain age ought to support themselves. A middle aged or older man who marries a woman who plans to quit her job is making a huge mistake IMHO. Nor should a woman marry a man who plans to quit his job. Either case is just enabling a freeloader.

My wife quit her job when we married, but we were 20, planned starting a family immediately, and decided that we both wanted her to be a SAHM. She was fully licensed and capable of supporting herself and child if something had happened to me.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Rus47 said:


> Have never been in situation you describe, but it seems to me that an adult above a certain age ought to support themselves. A middle aged or older man who marries a woman who plans to quit her job is making a huge mistake IMHO. Nor should a woman marry a man who plans to quit his job. Either case is just enabling a freeloader.
> 
> My wife quit her job when we married, but we were 20, planned starting a family immediately, and decided that we both wanted her to be a SAHM. She was fully licensed and capable of supporting herself and child if something had happened to me.


That's important...that she was able to support herself. And of course couples can make whatever arrangements they want..especially with kids.

And even when you get older the dynamic is different if you're still with the partner with which you raised a family. You could say that while your wife stayed at home she still contributed to your job by assuming home/kid responsibilities so you could focus on work. If you are together when the family is grown you're both still benefitting.

The issue comes when the couple breaks up and the stay at home eithrr can't or won't support themselves...stay at home is a lifestyle that sone don't want to give up. Then you have alimony and an ex who is pissed off about having to pay.

If you meet someone later in life they contributed nothing to your current position so they can pay their own way. How much one wishes to share is up tp them. My bf and I support ourselves but we still spend money on each order (and I cook for him....I'm quite a good cook 🙂)....it's just that neither one of us looks for the other to pay their bills.


----------



## bobsmith

lifeistooshort said:


> But when you aren't talking about raising kids together why would anyone financially support anyone?


Because women want to be supported!! I know many professional women that make a good living. They spend on themselves and their kids. How many men have bought a car for their wife? Now how many wives have bought a car for their man? 

It does not matter how wealthy a woman is, she expects her man to spend on her. Dates, drinks, concerts, etc, etc, etc. But, women will contribute "investment" roles where they can get their money back like a mortgage. 

But you bring a good point regarding the SAHM, at least for me. With my last ex, I realized there was quite a mismatch of her education, motivation, intelligence vs her goals of family and home. It was only later that I realize how much she was really making by herself vs her reality which was living on her child support payments. But she wanted that new car, new house, acreage, concerts, birthday parties every other day, etc. And she resented that I withheld on lots of that. 

The simple math is the high up the SMV ladder a woman is, the more money it will take. Good looks might get her attention, but attractive women in western society are taught to expect MORE because of their looks.


----------



## leftfield

Numb26 said:


> There is a simple fix for this problem. The person filing for divorce does not receive any alimony.


The fix for this is to make no alimony the default. If one spouse can make a good arguement that they need support for training to get into the job market, then minimal alimony to help them get schooling and training. Alimony should never last over two years.


----------



## bobsmith

I highly suspect most reasonable men could/would agree with a certain level of 'assistance' in certain situations. But laws were put in place that make zero sense. In some cases alimony time is paid based on how many yrs of marriage! If a couple agrees to a SAHM mom situation, I could see her needing a little help getting out of the blocks, BUT what usually happens is many yrs of payments with zero reason or motivation to get OFF alimony! Consider it no different than government assistance that the USA is seeing play out right now! Why buy a cow when the milk is free? 

Any such payments should strictly be cut off when re remarries! In many cases, they leave for another man, which gives very high incentive to do so. 

There are lots of scenarios that should be analyzed but I get more and more pissed when I think about it because I waste my time on the free, when the decision makers who are paid VERY well do nothing. 

If a woman is not motivated to obtain education before or during marriage, why should someone else be required to pay for it after marriage? Women might argue that the man wanted her to be a sahm, but is she not allowed to make her own decisions? I don't know too many sahm that actively complain about the arrangement.


----------



## Enigma32

lifeistooshort said:


> *But when you aren't talking about raising kids together why would anyone financially support anyone? * Yeah I don't want to support a man at this point but why would any of you guys want to support a woman at this point? I know a guy in his 50's who had a nice gf, also in her 50's and she was pushing to get married. He told me that he felt like she wanted to get married and quit her job as she complained about it frequently. He's not wealthy but he is comfortable.
> 
> All their kids (none together) are grown...why would he want to support a woman in her 50's? She can work like everyone else.
> 
> They broke up....I thought he was being a hardass about the getting married part until he shared the her wanting to quit her job thing..then I understood.
> 
> At a certain point in your life you just want some security and don't want to deal with financial basket cases.


Because money is not the only contribution one can make to a partnership.


----------



## Numb26

This thread seems to be dying down. Why don't I throw some gasoline on it?

As if there is any other type of women?









Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women


Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed. And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thous…




nypost.com


----------



## bobsmith

HAHAHA..... Hell, have sex with em? I try to have a relationship with em! I haven't had a relationship with a stable woman in over 20yrs.


----------



## Cletus

bobsmith said:


> HAHAHA..... Hell, have sex with em? I try to have a relationship with em! I haven't had a relationship with a stable woman in over 20yrs.


I wonder what the common denominator could be?


----------



## Enigma32

bobsmith said:


> HAHAHA..... Hell, have sex with em? I try to have a relationship with em! I haven't had a relationship with a stable woman in over 20yrs.


I wouldn't recommend a relationship with one. I pretty much consider anyone on any psych meds to be a dealbreaker.


----------



## bobsmith

Enigma32 said:


> I wouldn't recommend a relationship with one. I pretty much consider anyone on any psych meds to be a dealbreaker.


Like, you know I was sort of kidding, right? Not that some of my exes couldn't use some meds. I never did cross the bridge and hang out at the doors of the shelter for a new wifey...... But I do find the ones with loose screws a little more entertaining.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Numb26 said:


> This thread seems to be dying down. Why don't I throw some gasoline on it?
> 
> As if there is any other type of women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed. And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thous…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


Ok, I'll bite.

"Spock, the women on your planet are logical. That is the only planet in the universe for which that can be said".

-James T Kirk


----------



## uphillbattle

Numb26 said:


> This thread seems to be dying down. Why don't I throw some gasoline on it?
> 
> As if there is any other type of women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed. And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thous…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


One of the hallmarks of someone with borderline personality disorder is great sex. Why do you think people put up with the insanity for so long?


----------



## Personal

bobsmith said:


> Because women want to be supported!!  I know many professional women that make a good living. They spend on themselves and their kids. How many men have bought a car for their wife? Now how many wives have bought a car for their man?


Considering what you write, it must be a revelation to you that women are not actually the Borg. Yet the reality is they are not, and they do not actually behave as if they all have a uniform hive mind.



> It does not matter how wealthy a woman is, she expects her man to spend on her. Dates, drinks, concerts, etc, etc, etc. But, women will contribute "investment" roles where they can get their money back like a mortgage.


It's funny you claim that, since that certainly hasn't been my experience.

I remember way back, when this young woman from an extremely wealthy family asked me to be her boyfriend. Who when I turned her down, she further begged me to change my mind, offering to keep me with a parade of expensive gifts, holidays and other comforts. Yet since I didn't find her attractive sexually I had no hesitation in turning her down, as I have done to plenty of other women.

I had one women who asked me out on a date, who picked me up in her car, took me to dinner, then a movie, then back to her place for sex and she paid for everything.

In fact I've had plenty of women ask me out on dates, or they picked me up at parties, pubs and clubs. It was also very common for most of those women to pay for those dates, or get me drinks that they paid for etc. To the point that of the women I have been with, I didn't ask most of them out in the first place at all. Likewise even with the women that I asked out in the first place, after the first date, they would happily share the costs as well.

I've even had some women take me away on nice holidays with them that they paid for as well.

When my pretty wife asked me out on our first date, I didn't spend any money on that date at all. While for our second date we both shared the cost. Thence afterwards sometimes I would pay, sometimes she would pay and sometimes we would both share the cost. While our dating has mostly featured eating out, visiting art galleries and museums, going to music concerts, seeing live bands in pubs, going to different theatres to watch stage plays and going away for weekends to different cities or beach spots.

Also when my wife asked me out, she was earning more than I, in a higher role at work when she asked me out, while she was in a sexual relationship with an older and taller guy, who earned plenty more than me. yet she certainly wasn't the only woman I have been with, who dumped other guys to pick me or instead simply cheated on them to be with me.

While today my wife is very successful in her career to the point she earns about 5x times what I make, and she buys me nice things, takes me out often. Plus through 25 years she has continued to share with me a tremendously rich, frequent and varied sex life.



> The simple math is the high up the SMV ladder a woman is, the more money it will take. Good looks might get her attention, but attractive women in western society are taught to expect MORE because of their looks.


I've known plenty of "the beautiful people" and that includes some gorgeous stars of stage and film, plus other celebrities as well. I've also been in sexual relationships with some of "the beautiful people", @DownByTheRiver isn't the only person on TAM who has hung out with, been friends of, or partied with rockstars and other famous people. And in all of my time, money didn't get me into pretty women's pants, what did was having a nice smile, a sense of humour, an attractive personality, and plenty of confidence.


----------



## Mr The Other

Personal said:


> Considering what you write, it must be a revelation to you that women are not actually the Borg. Yet the reality is they are not, and they do not actually behave as if they all have a uniform hive mind.
> 
> It's funny you claim that, since that certainly hasn't been my experience.
> 
> I remember way back, when this young woman from an extremely wealthy family asked me to be her boyfriend. Who when I turned her down, she further begged me to change my mind, offering to keep me with a parade of expensive gifts, holidays and other comforts. Yet since I didn't find her attractive sexually I had no hesitation in turning her down, as I have done to plenty of other women.
> 
> I had one women who asked me out on a date, who picked me up in her car, took me to dinner, then a movie, then back to her place for sex and she paid for everything.
> 
> In fact I've had plenty of women ask me out on dates, or they picked me up at parties, pubs and clubs. It was also very common for most of those women to pay for those dates, or get me drinks that they paid for etc. To the point that of the women I have been with, I didn't ask most of them out in the first place at all. Likewise even with the women that I asked out in the first place, after the first date, they would happily share the costs as well.
> 
> I've even had some women take me away on nice holidays with them that they paid for as well.
> 
> When my pretty wife asked me out on our first date, I didn't spend any money on that date at all. While for our second date we both shared the cost. Thence afterwards sometimes I would pay, sometimes she would pay and sometimes we would both share the cost. While our dating has mostly featured eating out, visiting art galleries and museums, going to music concerts, seeing live bands in pubs, going to different theatres to watch stage plays and going away for weekends to different cities or beach spots.
> 
> Also when my wife asked me out, she was earning more than I, in a higher role at work when she asked me out, while she was in a sexual relationship with an older and taller guy, who earned plenty more than me. yet she certainly wasn't the only woman I have been with, who dumped other guys to pick me or instead simply cheated on them to be with me.
> 
> While today my wife is very successful in her career to the point she earns about 5x times what I make, and she buys me nice things, takes me out often. Plus through 25 years she has continued to share with me a tremendously rich, frequent and varied sex life.
> 
> I've known plenty of "the beautiful people" and that includes some gorgeous stars of stage and film, plus other celebrities as well. I've also been in sexual relationships with some of "the beautiful people", @DownByTheRiver isn't the only person on TAM who has hung out with, been friends of, or partied with rockstars and other famous people. And in all of my time, money didn't get me into pretty women's pants, what did was having a nice smile, a sense of humour, an attractive personality, and plenty of confidence.


I agree, but there is a kernal of truth. 
And, while you put your view point well. Many of the people most keen to offer to offer advice can come across as naive.
Typically, you can avoid spending money on dates very easily, particularly if you are evidently wealthy. If you are not evidently wealthy and have not put your hand in you r pocket after a few dates, it will be a major red flag. 
Your experience financially is an unusual role reversal. I have been out with wealthier women, and they often resent it.

Women as a whole are under the social pressure (as a gross generalisation) that men have not felt since they were teenagers. Going out with a man is scarier than going out with a women, online dating offers the fear a man has against the picture being far younger and slimmer than the reality vs being raped and attached. 
This social pressure will include having the right partner.
There is also the moral pressure of deserving. A woman standing you up is annoying, to many women such a thing happening to them is a judgement (huge generalisation again) and as humiliating as if you were a teenager. 

It might be nonsense that a man's status has a major effect on his partner, but that is the case. We see this when a man losing his job or becoming ill is seen almost as a betrayal and increases chances of divorce if it befalls the man. You refer to a smile and charm. When arriving in a new area, I would use those to get to women. Initially, I would use them on men. I would often travel, go to a bar, adn become friends with a group of guys. Soon enough, that a group of guys considered me a find would mean that I would be considered vetted for the women. Had I attracted the women first, I would likely have been considered a creep. If you are able to go up to a group of guys and hve them consider you the exciting, classy new man, that is great. Not many men can do that. 

The main thing a woman can have is sense of what people need in that moment. A woman who has lots of momey, but feels the lack of something deep down will certainly be looking for any man that can provide it. But, again, few men will be on the end of that. That awareness of what is on someone's mind is something people rarely gather with someone new and particularly not of the opposite sex. 

I do not wish to be critical here, your contribution is very open and valuable. I can point to some comparable examples, but they were enough that I was known for it. I fear it comes across as dismissive, as it is hard to offer a bridge to your experiences. Indeed, it might make the rejection he suffers more personal.


----------



## tech-novelist

Numb26 said:


> This thread seems to be dying down. Why don't I throw some gasoline on it?
> 
> As if there is any other type of women?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women
> 
> 
> Men have better sex with women who are emotionally unstable, a study has revealed. And women prefer men who are less agreeable but pay attention to detail, according to the German survey of a thous…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


My wife is generally emotionally stable, although of course she has her moments. But then she's a rare INTJ female.


----------



## Enigma32

Personal said:


> Considering what you write, it must be a revelation to you that women are not actually the Borg. Yet the reality is they are not, and they do not actually behave as if they all have a uniform hive mind.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny you claim that, since that certainly hasn't been my experience.
> 
> I remember way back, when this young woman from an extremely wealthy family asked me to be her boyfriend. Who when I turned her down, she further begged me to change my mind, offering to keep me with a parade of expensive gifts, holidays and other comforts. Yet since I didn't find her attractive sexually I had no hesitation in turning her down, as I have done to plenty of other women.
> 
> I had one women who asked me out on a date, who picked me up in her car, took me to dinner, then a movie, then back to her place for sex and she paid for everything.
> 
> In fact I've had plenty of women ask me out on dates, or they picked me up at parties, pubs and clubs. It was also very common for most of those women to pay for those dates, or get me drinks that they paid for etc. To the point that of the women I have been with, I didn't ask most of them out in the first place at all. Likewise even with the women that I asked out in the first place, after the first date, they would happily share the costs as well.
> 
> I've even had some women take me away on nice holidays with them that they paid for as well.
> 
> When my pretty wife asked me out on our first date, I didn't spend any money on that date at all. While for our second date we both shared the cost. Thence afterwards sometimes I would pay, sometimes she would pay and sometimes we would both share the cost. While our dating has mostly featured eating out, visiting art galleries and museums, going to music concerts, seeing live bands in pubs, going to different theatres to watch stage plays and going away for weekends to different cities or beach spots.
> 
> Also when my wife asked me out, she was earning more than I, in a higher role at work when she asked me out, while she was in a sexual relationship with an older and taller guy, who earned plenty more than me. yet she certainly wasn't the only woman I have been with, who dumped other guys to pick me or instead simply cheated on them to be with me.
> 
> While today my wife is very successful in her career to the point she earns about 5x times what I make, and she buys me nice things, takes me out often. Plus through 25 years she has continued to share with me a tremendously rich, frequent and varied sex life.
> 
> *I've known plenty of "the beautiful people" and that includes some gorgeous stars of stage and film, plus other celebrities as well. I've also been in sexual relationships with some of "the beautiful people", *@DownByTheRiver isn't the only person on TAM who has hung out with, been friends of, or partied with rockstars and other famous people. *And in all of my time, money didn't get me into pretty women's pants, what did was having a nice smile, a sense of humour, an attractive personality, and plenty of confidence.*


If you really think that a regular guy can go hook up with a celebrity based on the advice you gave here, then you are delusional. If you're the guy out there banging celebrities then you have no idea what a regular guy goes through to get a date. If you what say is true, and hot women are happy to pay to spend time with you, then your experiences are an anomaly and you just can't relate. I'm not gonna smile at Wonder Woman, make some funny jokes with confidence and have her pay for us to take a trip around the world together.


----------



## Personal

Enigma32 said:


> If you really think that a regular guy can go hook up with a celebrity based on the advice you gave here, then you are delusional. If you're the guy out there banging celebrities then you have no idea what a regular guy goes through to get a date. If you what say is true, and hot women are happy to pay to spend time with you, then your experiences are an anomaly and you just can't relate.


What advice? I was just relating some of my considerable experience, to challenge the erroneous idea that women as a collective behave as claimed in this discussion. Some behave that way and some don't, except for the most delusional that ought not be a revelation.

That said of course a regular guy can potentially hook up with a celebrity, if he finds himself in their social circles and he is attractive and has social skills, to presume otherwise is just silly.

Plus I also know a few famous people both men and women, who are married to ordinary non-famous people. This shouldn't be a surprise either.



> I'm not gonna smile and Wonder Woman, make some funny jokes with confidence and have her pay for us to take a trip around the world together.


Are you deliberately being obtuse?

How on earth do you think men get into women's pants in the first place, except by showing a smile, sharing some banter and being confident in oneself? I don't know about you, yet in my experience that behaviour can sometimes lead to an ongoing sexual relationship, with a woman who will pay for a holiday, in the same way that some woman will pay for dates.


----------



## manowar

Personal said:


> In fact I've had plenty of women ask me out on dates, or they picked me up at parties, pubs and clubs. It was also very common for most of those women to pay for those dates, or get me drinks that they paid for etc. To the point that of the women I have been with, I didn't ask most of them out in the first place at all. Likewise even with the women that I asked out in the first place, after the first date, they would happily share the costs as well.


T


Personal said:


> What advice? I was just relating some of my considerable experience, to challenge the *erroneous idea* that women as a collective behave as claimed in this discussion. Some behave that way and some don't, except for the most delusional that ought not be a revelation.


 this is anecdotal. Your experiences are a statistical outlier compared to the average man. You are denying essences and natures -- as in human nature. the existence of Essences, natures, and universals is a position held by the likes of Plato/Aristotle/Aquinas/the Catholic Church. Your position is that each one of is is a separate collection of atoms and completely unique and independant. You would be in agreement with someone like Jean pual Sartre who is an existentialist. Your experiences are not completely unique, however. Women behave in the way you explained when their emotions are rattled and fixated on a particular object. In this case you as a love interest. They will indeed pay for everything and the gifts keep coming. I too have experienced these phenomena. The vast majority of men haven't come close and wouldn't know how to handle it. In fact, they'd tell the women to stop buying him gifts. 

Perhaps you are an extraordinarily handsome man. Movie star/model looks. Or you have a way of making them "feel". Good Feelings. the emphasis is on feel.


----------



## Mr The Other

Personal said:


> What advice? I was just relating some of my considerable experience, to challenge the erroneous idea that women as a collective behave as claimed in this discussion. Some behave that way and some don't, except for the most delusional that ought not be a revelation.
> 
> That said of course a regular guy can potentially hook up with a celebrity, if he finds himself in their social circles and he is attractive and has social skills, to presume otherwise is just silly.
> 
> Plus I also know a few famous people both men and women, who are married to ordinary non-famous people. This shouldn't be a surprise either.
> 
> Are you deliberately being obtuse?
> 
> How on earth do you think men get into women's pants in the first place, except by showing a smile, sharing some banter and being confident in oneself? I don't know about you, yet in my experience that behaviour can sometimes lead to an ongoing sexual relationship, with a woman who will pay for a holiday, in the same way that some woman will pay for dates.


I have also been very lucky.
I have gone out with a few women at the same time and not hidden it from them in the past. Meanwhile, there were more men who could not attract a woman they liked at all. I was good looking, exciting accent, wealthy (all high status things) and confident.
If there is wisdom in what you say, it is that there is more to be gained from finding a niche. 
The reason that ego-centric deluded men of bloated self importance find women easily is not that they are attractive to most women, but that the minority of women who like that outnumber the number of men like that. 
Older men often think young women like older men, but in reality it is that the number of good looking, socially able, available and successful older men are an even smaller minority that the number of young women who go for that. 
But, an average guy with average tastes will struggle more than we did.
There are certainly women who will want to be the main provider and will gel wonderfully with a man who will be the counterpart. I have come across them and it was tempting (  ), but they are outnumbered by men who would want to be that counterpart.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

bobsmith said:


> For anyone not in the know, that means "men going their own way". Probably some other terms used. This seems to be promoted on youtube, and it is interesting to me just because that is what I have done. I am curious if you guys 'actually' know someone doing this? As I follow some of this stuff, the comments would indicate a bunch of betas feeding into this while still begging for phone numbers.
> 
> I can 100% appreciate the reasons behind this stuff such as how men as father figures is now totally disregarded in the legal system, and they are just financial resources. However, I suspect many are not MGTOW by choice. I have yet to even meet another one!
> 
> I will admit though, the ones online all seem the same.....they have been terribly burned and no longer willing even test the water.
> 
> I think the most entertaining part of this for me is all this "training" I see. How to date, how to talk to a girl, how to approach, what to say, how to hold your arms, your feet, your etc, etc, the list just keeps going! The best is how to learn to be an "alpha male".......Complete with the Brad starter kit! News flash, some people cannot be changed.


While this looks liketroll-bait I'll do the decency of an answer.

YMMV. Yep, I am and know plenty of MGTOW - and yes I even have a current female girlfriend. 
Sounds like you confusing the MGTOW with the red-pill/red-rage crowd. And yes a lot of guys still desperate simp-ing for approval from their "mums" or seeking a place in life - and many wallow in misogyny because they're "keyboard warrior" types (even IRL) who think poor on more hate and hyperbole makes them sound cooler - yeah, basicallyit's the only emotional thrill they get so they sit in their bathtubs and pour on more and more.

But MGTOW is just that. As a Guy, putting yourself first, likely for the first time in your life. This is not about getting your nut off and wannabe staunching off. It is simply to have pride in yourself, realising you're lonely and hurting, but like a drug addict, recognising modern culture and civilisation (and its values and expectations) are toxic. Toxic like any Class A drug, and that dealers and peddlers, and manufacturers aren't there to build a better community or better life, and they sure as heck aren't there to give a damn about you personally. They are there to use you and extract as much as possible from you.

So you have to Walk Away.

Usually 180 to the whole deal. 

From the skimmy photoshopped girls - and the photoshopped guys that if you look like this girls will throw themselves at you.

From the media and shows that promote empowerment of everyone else but hatred towards men, that consider men to be toxic and damaged for liking masculine things. Who will pile hate on you, just to use emotional pressure and punishment to get you to conform and set your sights solely on getting them what they want.

This also means turning your back on a lot of laws, legal matters, and even some modernised bro codestuff. Back to proper loyalty, but not dropping real personal responsibility (ie understanding consequences and taking precautions, no blaming others nor expecting johnny state to protect you.) so making sure someone you are about to trust 100% has your back, and giving 100% when they do. Not taking on other respondibilities or assumptions because someone told you you should, or that you thought it was the proper thing to do.

egMy gf going into surgery soon. I'm not expected to contribute, and likely I won't. Nor do I turn up or call when I'm told. Nor do I panic about her moving on or finding some simp to sucker. But if I say I will do something, then that is my new law, and it is up to me to prep to ensure it's delivered.If that means I'm cellphone gaming 30mins around the corner since vechile didnt get a flat and lights were green, then so be it. but then if **** does happen, I'm now looking after myself, so I don't wear that we're late,or she missed her flight - because I'm walking my own space and I -know- I did take the reasonable precautions. The universes sh.t is no longer on my back.

Sure I'll give my number or as has happened couple of times, take ones given to me; or if I like what I see I'll ask. But for my purposes, not for chasing emotion or for giving her a baby daddy to get income from. If we see each other then we will or we'll walk away, because my own self space and pain is worth me looking after, and I'm actually happy in my own interests - and no longer taking on guilt for enjoying my hobbies, or even ripping holes in trolls or woke wonkers who try to peddle their hate. Because I'm going my own way.

If there's a relationship, I'll not marry and will not sell that to her, nor will I co-habitate or any of that couple stuff - because I know in the modern worldthat if I do that I'm just settingmyself up to be asset stripped by her or the lawyers; and if we do the house, ranch, big holiday - what does she bring apart from vag to the deal? How much am I expected to bring to the deal? ring, pay for the shindig, pay for trip, accomdation, meals, entertainment, and keep her happy the whole time as her personal entertainment and unpaid psychologist ?
I can trip with friends and get that, without the bill, or the flensing afterwards.

I can have whatever car or hobby I want without having to worry about kids - sure I could go for kids, and then I'd be full on Dad as I see it - but the system is so set up against men that that's a real gamble.And MGTOW is such a huge danger to the female focussed world that cultural hate and attacks are an issue, especially in the colurts who demand you go their way, and give everything to her (and them). But we're not playing their game any more. Not following their media, not constantly absorbing their avertising, not constantly going to their cultural and social reinforcement events. And they really don't like that.

But neither is it the Playboy or womaniser who is still playing the game and notching the bedpost and leaving their conquests pinning after them (or chasing them with paternity suits). Or that 1% Chad User, who just f's the f-toys looking to snare him, who is a key focus in their cultural game.

It's a strange game they play and sometimes the only way to win is not to play.


----------



## Trident

spot said:


> I even have a current female girlfriend.


It would naturally follow that your girlfriend is of the female variety.


----------



## Numb26

Trident said:


> It would naturally follow that your girlfriend is of the female variety.


 In his defense, it is hard to tell this days


----------



## Trident

Well, that's probably true but he'd probably have that one figured out long before he agreed to go exclusive.


----------



## Goobertron

When I started looking at MGTOW content I found it interesting that throughout history in different countries there's been a "Bachelors Tax". This is to stop MGTOW (men going there own way). One person with the income to support a whole family just using it for his own financial security and personal interests. Compare that to married men who earn everything and give it to the family and after divorce have lost most of it.

So what is old is new again. They should bring back "Bachelor's Clubs" and titty bars and let men be men in safe "masculine friendly" environments because it ain't safe for us to express an opinion on pretty much anything in society. It's like even having a sense of humour can get a guy judged by this world ruled by karens who won't tolerate criticism from mere men.


----------



## Personal

Goobertron said:


> They should bring back "Bachelor's Clubs" and titty bars


I don't know where in Australia you live, yet where I live such places haven't gone away.


----------



## karmagoround

The Buddha probably want the first, but he is the most famous. To beat suffering, he left his wife and his family to go live in a cave.


----------



## Enigma32

Goobertron said:


> When I started looking at MGTOW content I found it interesting that throughout history in different countries there's been a "Bachelors Tax". This is to stop MGTOW (men going there own way). One person with the income to support a whole family just using it for his own financial security and personal interests. Compare that to married men who earn everything and give it to the family and after divorce have lost most of it.
> 
> So what is old is new again. They should bring back "Bachelor's Clubs" and *titty bars and let men be men in safe "masculine friendly" environments* because* it ain't safe for us to express an opinion on pretty much anything in society*. It's like even having a sense of humour can get a guy judged by this world ruled by karens who won't tolerate criticism from mere men.


Titty bars are not for men. They are just for women to make money off suckers. We still have them here at least and I've known a few hookers/strippers. They're mostly just leeches trying to take your money. They have no respect for you.

I think you are being a bit hyperbolic when you say we aren't safe to express opinions. This MGTOW thread has been going here for a while now and I think the worst that happened to anyone here for expressing his opinions is that he got banned from the site. Seems pretty safe to me.


----------



## Goobertron

Enigma32 said:


> Titty bars are not for men. They are just for women to make money off suckers. We still have them here at least and I've known a few hookers/strippers. They're mostly just leeches trying to take your money. They have no respect for you.
> 
> I think you are being a bit hyperbolic when you say we aren't safe to express opinions. This MGTOW thread has been going here for a while now and I think the worst that happened to anyone here for expressing his opinions is that he got banned from the site. Seems pretty safe to me.


I was just having a bit of a joke about titty bars and the perception of what men actually want in life, I should have been more clear. I'm not saying its not safe for me to express an opinion on this thread on this website about MGTOW. Someone still got banned though.

However on Youtube manosphere content creators are regularly shut down and demonetised for expressing their views.


----------



## Goobertron

Anyway just saying its not always safe to talk about it openly as it can upset people


----------



## minimalME

Goobertron said:


> However on Youtube manosphere content creators are regularly shut down and demonetised for expressing their views.


I was actually quite disappointed when they booted Roosh.


----------



## ConanHub

Goobertron said:


> I was just having a bit of a joke about titty bars and the perception of what men actually want in life, I should have been more clear. I'm not saying its not safe for me to express an opinion on this thread on this website about MGTOW. Someone still got banned though.
> 
> However on Youtube manosphere content creators are regularly shut down and demonetised for expressing their views.


YouTube is becoming increasingly fascist.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> YouTube is becoming increasingly fascist.


All Social media has


----------



## joannacroc

ElwoodPDowd said:


> What if he's way more intelligent that you?
> Or do you refuse to date more intelligent men?


Intelligence is certainly a wonderful asset but sometimes a person had an overinflated sense of self to the point where it becomes arrogance. Kindness, self-awareness and appreciation for others are also important. If you are extremely intelligent but use it as a way to hold yourself to be superior to others, that is a slippery slope. Real intelligence doesn't boast and strut.


----------



## joannacroc

bobsmith said:


> I find that most people use education and intelligence interchangeably. Usually someone will say something like, "He is really smart, he has a masters from xxx, or a phd from xxx".... It has been proven time and time again that average people can read a book and take a test. Even at high academic levels, all you need is cash and desire.
> 
> What you can't buy or learn is real intellect or a personality, IMO.


I think that's probably true. Education isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence. My grandmother was extremely intelligent and had to quit school at 14 to help support her family. Schooling certainly doesn't create intelligence out of thin air, but it severely limited her life choices to have stopped formal education at such a young age. If for no other reason than having opportunities, education is extremely important.


----------



## oldshirt

Enigma32 said:


> Titty bars are not for men. They are just for women to make money off suckers. We still have them here at least and I've known a few hookers/strippers. They're mostly just leeches trying to take your money. They have no respect for you.


I am in total agreement you above. 

Just last week I was having dinner with my son (17) and my daughter (19) and the topic of strippers and Only Fans etc came up. 

I told my daughter that if I found out she was working at a titty bar, I would sit down and talk with her about her financial plan and what her long terms goals and objectives were and how she was budgeting the money etc and that I would make sure she was clean and sober and not doing this to support a drinking problem or all the money going up her nose etc and I would make damn sure that the money was going into her pocket and financial accounts and not to some pimp. 

If it all made financial sense and she had a workable plan in place, I may not like it and I may try to steer her towards something else, but that ultimately if she was making a sane and sober adult decision and had a solid financial plan and goal in place, there wouldn't be much I could do about it. 

Now with my son on other hand, I told him if I ever caught wind of him dropping his hard earned money into some strippers g-string, I would bi+ch slap him right there infront of his buddies and drag him out by his ear tipping over whatever chairs and tables were between him and the door and I would chew his arse and send him to room without supper even if he were 30 years old. ...... especially if here were 30 years old as a 30 year old man should know better. 

There are a lot pathetic drones in the world that can't get a date and so they sit down front in Sniffer's Row drowning in their beer and paying some chick that has zero respect for them to gyrate around in front of him and climb in his lap and rub around on him.


----------



## oldshirt

Enigma32 said:


> They're mostly just leeches trying to take your money. They have no respect for you.


Actually the ones making the money are the bar owners. 

They are the leeches that are praying on the loser guys that can't get dates, but they are also praying on the meth addicted chicks and taking a big portion of the stripper's money as well. A lot of them are basically pimps and a good number of them are bona fide pimps. 

I really have nothing against women making an honest dime by providing a service a guy is willing to pay for. 

My issue is the predators preying on the weak and desperate in making them THINK they are getting something that they actually are not. 

The dweebs on Sniffer's Row think they are getting some female attention and acceptance - but they are not.

The chicks on stage think they are getting a lot of easy money for no work - but they are not.


----------



## lifeistooshort

It warms my heart to know that some of you guys see strippers and strip clubs for exactly what they are. I too have known a couple of strippers and also a woman who runs an internet pay to watch porn site and they have the lowest opinion of men of any women I know.


----------



## ConanHub

lifeistooshort said:


> It warms my heart to know that some of you guys see strippers and strip clubs for exactly what they are. I too have known a couple of strippers and also a woman who runs an internet pay to watch porn site and they have the lowest opinion of men of any women I know.


Women who sell themselves mostly meet men willing to buy. I have negative respect for men who buy sex, be it stripping, webcams or straight forward prostitution.


----------



## Rus47

Where I live, all of the strip clubs etc are associated with organized crime. Drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, IMHO the women are being victimized by criminal enterprises. Anyone patronizing such are contributing to a criminal enterprise


----------



## oldshirt

Rus47 said:


> Where I live, all of the strip clubs etc are associated with organized crime. Drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, IMHO the women are being victimized by criminal enterprises. Anyone patronizing such are contributing to a criminal enterprise


I get a bit defensive any time someone uses the word victimization. If they were whacked over the head coming out of the grocery store, thrown into a van and bound and gagged forced to climb the stripper pole at gunpoint, then I would agree they were victimised. 

But how many of them got into drugs and either need to give blow jobs or pimp themselves out to their supplier or need a lot of fast cash every day to put up their nose or into their arm?

How many of them simply want to be handed cash without having to get an education/job training and don't want to get up in the morning and put in an honest day's work? 

Now as far as I am concerned, pimps and traffickers and drug dealers etc should be packed into box cars, hauled off to parts unknown and marched into the "showers" on an industrial scale. The world would be a better place without them. 

But let's keep in mind that the vast vast majority of these women are there of their own actions and behaviors and were not snatched off the street. 

And yes, if these simps and drones would spend their time and monies on learning some social skills, interacting with women on a personal level and putting some effort into their appearance and fitness etc, they could be out on dates with real women and perhaps even having actual sex instead of drowning in their beer hoping some druggie chick on stage takes her shirt off during the next set. 

If guys could fix themselves up and develop themselves as men enough to get dates and girlfriends, that industry would go out of business in a couple weeks.


----------



## oldshirt

lifeistooshort said:


> I too have known a couple of strippers and also a woman who runs an internet pay to watch porn site and they have the lowest opinion of men of any women I know.


I don't know if men don't get this or if they are just so detached from the world that they just don't care. 

I my college days i had some beta simp buddies that just like the guys on "The Big Bang Theory" but as smart and knowledgeable as they were about physics and computer engineering and advanced calculus, they were truly clueless about women and human sexual interaction. 

They literally went to the strippers several nights a week including weeknights, spending money they didn't have and they really thought these gals liked them and wanted to be with them. 

Even at 19 years old, YOUNGSHIRT would try to smack them across the face with a 2x4 and tell them that these chicks saw them as pathetic and desperate dweebs and nerds that couldn't get a date with a real chick and that they were just pimping them for money that was either going up their nose or were handing over to their pimp. 

They just didn't get it. 

A couple of those guys managed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and eventually became competent adult males and married decent women and have lived fairly respectable lives. 

But a number of the others are still crawling up out of the flames and ashes of one trainwreck only to crawl right on the tracks for the next trainwreck that comes along. This is despite being engineers and despite advanced degrees hanging on the wall and despite having very good incomes and professional accolades.


----------



## oldshirt

ConanHub said:


> Women who sell themselves mostly meet men willing to buy. I have negative respect for men who buy sex, be it stripping, webcams or straight forward prostitution.


Everyone sells themselves in one fashion or another. 

My respect depends more on what options a man has and what his objective is and what he is willing to negotiate for as opposed to whether money is changing hands or not. 

I personally think prostitution should be legalised and regulated like any other service, but that's for another discussion. 

I have zero respect for a guy that can't get a date because he's not willing to do the work to develop social skills, get himself looking presentable and have the giblets to express what he wants and so he sits up front on Sniffer's Row shelling out his hard money so some druggie chick looks at him and smiles. 

I have zero respect for a guy that lives in his mom's basement playing video games and spanking to porn all day, but doesn't want to get out and get a job. 

And I have zero respect men that are so desperate for any female attention that they allow themselves to be manipulated, mistreated, cheated on, and used as an ATM and errand for nothing in return. 

But I do admire the art of The Deal and of negotiation. 

I admire the man who embraces his own desires and objectives. Who understands and accepts female nature. And who can sit and look a woman in the eye and explain what he wants even if it is a 3way with her and her sister or some 21 year old fitness model to walk on him barefoot or a 300lb bearded woman to tickle his arse with a feather. 

And if he is willing to sit and have an open discussion with her and discuss what she wants in return and they are able to come to that consensual agreement - - I am totally cool with that. I think that is how it should be from everything from picking up a hooker on street corner to marrying the man/woman of your dreams and riding off into the sunset with your house with the white picket fence and 2.2 children. 

Everyone is a Sugar Baby and a Sugar Daddy. It's all just a matter of what one wants for sugar.


----------



## karmagoround

ConanHub said:


> YouTube is becoming increasingly fascist.


Forcibly silencing the opposition, which is us, the free people of the world.


----------



## Lila

oldshirt said:


> I am in total agreement you above.
> 
> Just last week I was having dinner with my son (17) and my daughter (19) and the topic of strippers and Only Fans etc came up.
> 
> I told my daughter that if I found out she was working at a titty bar, I would sit down and talk with her about her financial plan and what her long terms goals and objectives were and how she was budgeting the money etc and that I would make sure she was clean and sober and not doing this to support a drinking problem or all the money going up her nose etc and I would make damn sure that the money was going into her pocket and financial accounts and not to some pimp.
> 
> If it all made financial sense and she had a workable plan in place, I may not like it and I may try to steer her towards something else, but that ultimately if she was making a sane and sober adult decision and had a solid financial plan and goal in place, there wouldn't be much I could do about it.
> 
> Now with my son on other hand, I told him if I ever caught wind of him dropping his hard earned money into some strippers g-string, I would bi+ch slap him right there infront of his buddies and drag him out by his ear tipping over whatever chairs and tables were between him and the door and I would chew his arse and send him to room without supper even if he were 30 years old. ...... especially if here were 30 years old as a 30 year old man should know better.
> 
> There are a lot pathetic drones in the world that can't get a date and so they sit down front in Sniffer's Row drowning in their beer and paying some chick that has zero respect for them to gyrate around in front of him and climb in his lap and rub around on him.


My sibling has a friend in her late 20s who is a paralegal making good money but she lives in a city with a very high cost of living. She's sick of renting and has set her sights on buying a house. She's a beautiful woman with a thick figure. She'd heard about the money to be had in Just Fans and thought "I'm not getting any younger and it's not like guys are tearing down doors to date her" so she started her own Just Fans page. She took a risk, invested $12k in production and created six 4-minute professional videos. These are sexy, teaser videos - she doesn't show nipples or vag (she wears a g-string and covers her breasts with her arms/hands). It's all sexy costumes in exotic locations where she shows sexy smiles with a hint of come **** me looks. Her business plan assumed $8k a video. She made 67k her FIRST month.

I think it's crazy that people would spend $20 per 4 minute video but maybe I'm just old.


----------



## ConanHub

]


oldshirt said:


> Everyone sells themselves in one fashion or another.


Save your breath. I understand you can't tell the difference between a housekeeper, cook, accountant, doctor or secretary and a prostitute or stripper. I get you believe it's all the same.

That precludes us ever having a discussion about it.

I commented on women selling their ass and men who buy. I wasn't looking to hear everything you don't or do respect.

Women in the industry do not develop healthy relationships or views of men because they primarily deal with pathetic excuses, pretending to be men.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> My sibling has a friend in her late 20s who is a paralegal making good money but she lives in a city with a very high cost of living. She's sick of renting and has set her sights on buying a house. She's a beautiful woman with a thick figure. She'd heard about the money to be had in Just Fans and thought "I'm not getting any younger and it's not like guys are tearing down doors to date her" so she started her own Just Fans page. She took a risk, invested $12k in production and created six 4-minute professional videos. These are sexy, teaser videos - she doesn't show nipples or vag (she wears a g-string and covers her breasts with her arms/hands). It's all sexy costumes in exotic locations where she shows sexy smiles with a hint of come **** me looks. Her business plan assumed $8k a video. She made 67k her FIRST month.
> 
> I think it's crazy that people would spend $20 per 4 minute video but maybe I'm just old.


If you're going to sell your ass, marketing helps. She is on a dark path that often leads to darker things. The money is addicting.


----------



## oldshirt

ConanHub said:


> ]
> 
> 
> Women in the industry do not develop healthy relationships or views of men because they primarily deal with pathetic excuses, pretending to be men.


I completely agree with you on this. 

The irony here is these losers come to these women with their cash in hand wanting some female attention and validation etc but what they are actually doing is handing over money to women who hate, disrespect and disparage them the most.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> If you're going to sell your ass, marketing helps. She is on a dark path that often leads to darker things. The money is addicting.


Well she's pretty much killed her career as a paralegal. Anyone who hires her now is going to hire her for one reason. But it is astounding.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> If you're going to sell your ass, marketing helps. She is on a dark path that often leads to darker things. The money is addicting.


That's just it though, she did zero marketing. All she did was invest in a professionally produced product.

I can't say whether she will go down a darker path. All I can tell you is there are a lot of people paying for sexy, yet non-explicit videos. Not at all what I expected tbh. 

At the end of the day, everybody makes decisions to help them meet their goals. In her defense, she wants to find a man who shares mutual love and respect with her to build a family but she's lost hope on that happening. Her plan has expanded to having and raising a baby (or babies) on her own. As she says, she's not getting any younger.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

oldshirt said:


> I completely agree with you on this.
> 
> The irony here is these losers come to these women with their cash in hand wanting some female attention and validation etc but what they are actually doing is handing over money to women who hate, disrespect and disparage them the most.


Yep. And most of them have been groomed and taught to say what men want to hear. They all have the sad story and that is a prerequisite because they have to have a good reason for doing what they're doing in order to get the sympathy from a lot of the men. They have to build trust that they will never say anything so that they can get the man to cheat on his wife. "No one will ever know." And then I need to give them validation and they do this by telling them that they deserve better than their wife or girlfriend and how sexy they are, and it's all lies lies lies. And some men pay good money to hear what they want to hear.


----------



## Lila

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well she's pretty much killed her career as a paralegal. Anyone who hires her now is going to hire her for one reason. But it is astounding.


Where she lives, it's not going to hinder her career. Let's just say, it's a sexually charged area.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Lila said:


> Where she lives, it's not going to hinder her career. Let's just say, it's a sexually charged area.


Good!


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Lila said:


> Where she lives, it's not going to hinder her career. Let's just say, it's a sexually charged area.


I have a pretty good idea where you're talking about.


----------



## oldshirt

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well she's pretty much killed her career as a paralegal. Anyone who hires her now is going to hire her for one reason. But it is astounding.


In the past that may have been true. It's hard to say what the impact will be now. 

I live in a very conservative and down to earth area (there are actual Amish and Mennonite communities within an hour's drive) and a couple years ago there was a news story on the 6 oclock local news about an actual practicing lawyer in this area that would pack up and fly down to Nevada for one week every month or two to work in a legal brothel. 

She made more money in that week than she did the rest of the month as a lawyer. She and her husband were both interviewed by the local new affiliate and at least at that time, her law firm was ok with it. 

Now anyone can hire or not hire anyone for whatever reason they see fit, they just might not say the actual reason publicly. 

But in today's legal climate, if her employer were to fire her for what she was legally doing on the internet, she would probably end up owning that law firm. 

30 years ago, yes, she would have committed professional suicide by doing any kind of porn. Today however I would bet good money that there are law firms out there making millions and millions representing people in the adult content industry and likely some law firms specializing in people that have lost their jobs or been denied employment on the basis of doing adult but otherwise legal content on the internet. 

I can see some old, conservative, stodgy old law firms turning her away. But I'm willing to bet that there will be others that actually seek her out for her knowledge and insights in that industry.


----------



## Enigma32

oldshirt said:


> Actually the ones making the money are the bar owners.
> 
> They are the leeches that are praying on the loser guys that can't get dates, but they are also praying on the meth addicted chicks and taking a big portion of the stripper's money as well. A lot of them are basically pimps and a good number of them are bona fide pimps.
> 
> I really having nothing against women making an honest dime by providing a service a guy is willing to pay for.
> 
> My issue is the predators preying on the weak and desperate in making them THINK they are getting something that they actually are not.
> 
> The dweebs on Sniffer's Row think they are getting some female attention and acceptance - but they are not.
> 
> The chicks on stage think they are getting a lot of easy money for no work - but they are not.


Yeah, I have some experience in this area you could say. And while the bar owners are often sleazeballs, the way these girls feel about the guys in there is often not good. The one club my friend worked at in LA, the bar was just a front for the drug business being handled in the back. The owner there didn't much care what the girls did since he was dealing coke to your favorite celebrities. Maybe the bar owners prey on the dancers, but trust me, those dancers are preying on the men there too. Crap rolls downhill as the saying goes. Once money exchanges hands, you are no longer a man, you're just a customer. That's why, when I advise men how to get with a stripper, I suggest he do so without becoming a customer. That's a whole new conversation though. 

Besides, much of the money strippers make comes from what they make outside the clubs from losers who pay them for extra services.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> That's just it though, she did zero marketing. All she did was invest in a professionally produced product.
> 
> I can't say whether she will go down a darker path. All I can tell you is there are a lot of people paying for sexy, yet non-explicit videos. Not at all what I expected tbh.
> 
> At the end of the day, everybody makes decisions to help them meet their goals. In her defense, she wants to find a man who shares mutual love and respect with her to build a family but she's lost hope on that happening. Her plan has expanded to having and raising a baby (or babies) on her own. As she says, she's not getting any younger.


The marketing I'm referring to is the investment for teasers and high quality videos.

For lack of eloquence I don't feel this subject deserves, a woman shaking her ass in a club for money is not marketing it or getting nearly as wide a distribution as online ass shakers.

I hope if she does ever have children, she has somehow buried this part of her life so it never touches them.

There are children getting their lives destroyed right now because good old mom decided to sell herself online.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> The marketing I'm referring to is the investment for teasers and high quality videos.


There's some misunderstanding here. There are no teasers. The videos are not sexually explicit. They are what i would call teasing videos similar to what a burlesque dancer did back in the early 20th century with the feathers. That's why I was shocked that she could make that much money doing essentially a PG-13 video. 



> For lack of eloquence I don't feel this subject deserves, a woman shaking her ass in a club for money is not marketing it or getting nearly as wide a distribution as online ass shakers.
> 
> I hope if she does ever have children, she has somehow buried this part of her life so it never touches them.
> 
> There are children getting their lives destroyed right now because good old mom decided to sell herself online.


@ConanHub this is a different time from what you and I grew up in. The views on a lot of things are much different today than they were in the past. I'll leave it at that. All that aside, I don't think she or her future kids have much to worry about with these videos or the fact that she's making money from them.


----------



## lifeistooshort

All this talk of strippers and videos reminds me of when I was in college and played in a jazz band. One of the guys was known to frequent a lot of strip clubs and he once told me that I had a great body for it but it would never work because I wasn't slutty enough.

Maybe that had to do with the kind of places he patronized.....

I always figured he was complimenting me....I still chuckle at the memory.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> There's some misunderstanding here. There are no teasers. The videos are not sexually explicit. They are what i would call teasing videos similar to what a burlesque dancer did back in the early 20th century with the feathers. That's why I was shocked that she could make that much money doing essentially a PG-13 video.
> 
> 
> 
> @ConanHub this is a different time from what you and I grew up in. The views on a lot of things are much different today than they were in the past. I'll leave it at that. All that aside, I don't think she or her future kids have much to worry about with these videos or the fact that she's making money from them.


The evidence I've seen shows otherwise about the kids.

Thanks for the clarification. The burlesque show with feathers actually has me smiling and I'm with you on having a hard time believing so many want to pay to watch that online.😆


----------



## DownButNotOut

ConanHub said:


> The marketing I'm referring to is the investment for teasers and high quality videos.
> 
> For lack of eloquence I don't feel this subject deserves, a woman shaking her ass in a club for money is not marketing it or getting nearly as wide a distribution as online ass shakers.
> 
> I hope if she does ever have children, she has somehow buried this part of her life so it never touches them.
> 
> There are children getting their lives destroyed right now because good old mom decided to sell herself online.


Wrong thread, but that's a good reason men should care about a woman's sexual past. Little secrets in the past like stripper poles, or lonely fans can come back to make a very difficult present at the PTO meetings. 

It's also another feather in the mgtow hat.


----------



## lifeistooshort

DownButNotOut said:


> Wrong thread, but that's a good reason men should care about a woman's sexual past. Little secrets in the past like stripper poles, or lonely fans can come back to make a very difficult present at the PTO meetings.
> 
> It's also another feather in the mgtow hat.


I can only speak for myself but on the flip side I have no interest in a guy who has frequented strip clubs or paid for women.

That makes a guy low value in my book.


----------



## ConanHub

DownButNotOut said:


> Wrong thread, but that's a good reason men should care about a woman's sexual past. Little secrets in the past like stripper poles, or lonely fans can come back to make a very difficult present at the PTO meetings.
> 
> It's also another feather in the mgtow hat.


Well..... I call a spade a spade and whoring is wh0ring even at low levels like stripping or burlesque. LoL!😆

However, I am one of those men who is not overly concerned about a woman's past as long as it is securely in the past, she doesn't promote it and will never visit it again if it came to promiscuity, prostitution, starring in porn, etc.

People do make decisions to change for the better and actually bust their butts working to be better people.

I can take a woman where she is at.

I changed a lot from my youth and I wouldn't be hurting now if I was looking for a mate because my past has been securely put away for a very long time.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ConanHub said:


> Well..... I call a spade a spade and whoring is wh0ring even at low levels like stripping or burlesque. LoL!😆
> 
> However, I am one of those men who is not overly concerned about a woman's past as long as it is securely in the past, she doesn't promote it and will never visit it again if it came to promiscuity, prostitution, starring in porn, etc.
> 
> People do make decisions to change for the better and actually bust their butts working to be better people.
> 
> I can take a woman where she is at.
> 
> I changed a lot from my youth and I wouldn't be hurting now if I was looking for a mate because my past has been securely put away for a very long time.


That is a good point. I could probably look past things a guy had done when he was very young if I believed it was behind him.

My comment was directed at men who paid for women well into functional adulthood.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> The evidence I've seen shows otherwise about the kids.
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. The burlesque show with feathers actually has me smiling and I'm with you on having a hard time believing so many want to pay to watch that online.😆


They must not know what it is they're going to see until they already paid for it!


----------



## ConanHub

lifeistooshort said:


> That is a good point. I could probably look past things a guy had done when he was very young if I believed it was behind him.
> 
> My comment was directed at men who paid for women well into functional adulthood.


I understood. You were giving a valid counterpoint.

I've never paid anything for female attention or otherwise but my past wasn't exactly a point in my favor to be chosen by quality women. 

It takes a lot of work to change and pull yourself out of the gutter though so anyone that has done it is probably a good bet. Many are never able to overcome.

I can kind of understand the sentiment behind MGTOW but I don't endorse it.

I believe there are solid women out there and many women who will become solid upon interacting with men who actually act like men and don't put up with nonsense but don't run away either.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> They must not know what it is they're going to see until they already paid for it!


I know feather fans aren't actually being used but @Lila 's description gave me the giggles and I can't stop!😆


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> I know feather fans aren't actually being used but @Lila 's description gave me the giggles and I can't stop!😆


I know. I've been watching a lot of retro tv lately like Mannix and the like, so I reckon those kids could just turn on retro tv and get an eyeful. Of course, they never stopped doing that in Vegas.


----------



## DownButNotOut

ConanHub said:


> Well..... I call a spade a spade and whoring is wh0ring even at low levels like stripping or burlesque. LoL!😆
> 
> However, I am one of those men who is not overly concerned about a woman's past as long as it is securely in the past, she doesn't promote it and will never visit it again if it came to promiscuity, prostitution, starring in porn, etc.
> 
> People do make decisions to change for the better and actually bust their butts working to be better people.
> 
> I can take a woman where she is at.
> 
> I changed a lot from my youth and I wouldn't be hurting now if I was looking for a mate because my past has been securely put away for a very long time.


The internet is forever. Whether she has stopped or not, "My dad saw your mom on lonely fans"(or pick your platform) is not a conversation I'd want to have with a 3rd grader.

You have to consider life phases though. What I'm saying is more for a 30-something who wants to start a family of his own, not a 50+ with grown kids.


----------



## ConanHub

DownButNotOut said:


> The internet is forever. Whether she has stopped or not, "My dad saw your mom on lonely fans"(or pick your platform) is not a conversation I'd want to have with a 3rd grader.
> 
> You have to consider life phases though. What I'm saying is more for a 30-something who wants to start a family of his own, not a 50+ with grown kids.


I definitely understand the implications of selling yourself online.

Putting that securely in the past takes a lot of extra work. It can be done though and hopefully, anyone wanting to start a family and have a regular life isn't stupid enough to not understand what they will have to do to keep their identity and family safe.

I'm obviously for not doing it in the first place.


----------



## ConanHub

DownButNotOut said:


> The internet is forever. Whether she has stopped or not, "My dad saw your mom on lonely fans"(or pick your platform) is not a conversation I'd want to have with a 3rd grader.
> 
> You have to consider life phases though. What I'm saying is more for a 30-something who wants to start a family of his own, not a 50+ with grown kids.


P.S. I dated an ex porn star and had no problems with it. It might have developed into more but she was still too damaged by her past to work on a healthy relationship.

This was before I was twenty. It takes a lot of work, but women who have videos online can get away from it and keep it buried.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Well..... I call a spade a spade and whoring is wh0ring even at low levels like stripping or burlesque. LoL!😆
> 
> *However, I am one of those men who is not overly concerned about a woman's past as long as it is securely in the past, she doesn't promote it and will never visit it again if it came to promiscuity, prostitution, starring in porn, etc.*
> 
> People do make decisions to change for the better and actually bust their butts working to be better people.
> 
> I can take a woman where she is at.
> 
> I changed a lot from my youth and I wouldn't be hurting now if I was looking for a mate because my past has been securely put away for a very long time.


I agree with that bolded part, but only if she isn't still of the sex worker mindset, and unfortunately a couple I've encountered were still holding onto some of their bad habits into their 50s. Still needing the validation. It wasn't extreme, but it was there. 

One of them was well known for coming onto guys who were married or otherwise taken by simply pledging silence. 

The other was mostly okay, but she had a bondage photo on her dining room wall where she fed her grandkids every day after school and also was inappropriate with a cute waiter at my favorite restaurant, always showing off her fake boobs and then coming onto him in a really corny way (offering dessert -- ugh -- I spent the next 2 months apologizing to him and overtipping). 

She met her husband while on the job, being introduced to him to entertain by her pimp (she won't call the man that, but he was well known to be) and was married for decades, but she still went to basketball games with an old john of hers at 50. Claims it was just friends, and it may have been, but I am quite sure he was still giving her money. I lost track of her once she got to where she was anesthetizing herself with what I think were prescription meds for mental illness and she got to where she wouldn't get out of bed except to pick the grandkids up from school and feed them before their mom got home from work. Her husband didn't seem like a bad guy. He certainly was tolerant....


----------



## DownByTheRiver

DownButNotOut said:


> The internet is forever. Whether she has stopped or not, "My dad saw your mom on lonely fans"(or pick your platform) is not a conversation I'd want to have with a 3rd grader.
> 
> You have to consider life phases though. What I'm saying is more for a 30-something who wants to start a family of his own, not a 50+ with grown kids.


Yeah. You know how kids never stop asking "Why?" For that reason alone, I'd not want to make that mistake. But hey, maybe she won't have kids and it won't really matter.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> I agree with that bolded part, but only if she isn't still of the sex worker mindset, and unfortunately a couple I've encountered were still holding onto some of their bad habits into their 50s. Still needing the validation. It wasn't extreme, but it was there.
> 
> One of them was well known for coming onto guys who were married or otherwise taken by simply pledging silence.
> 
> The other was mostly okay, but she had a bondage photo on her dining room wall where she fed her grandkids every day after school and also was inappropriate with a cute waiter at my favorite restaurant, always showing off her fake boobs and then coming onto him in a really corny way (offering dessert -- ugh -- I spent the next 2 months apologizing to him and overtipping).
> 
> She met her husband while on the job, being introduced to him to entertain by her pimp (she won't call the man that, but he was well known to be) and was married for decades, but she still went to basketball games with an old john of hers at 50. Claims it was just friends, and it may have been, but I am quite sure he was still giving her money. I lost track of her once she got to where she was anesthetizing herself with what I think were prescription meds for mental illness and she got to where she wouldn't get out of bed except to pick the grandkids up from school and feed them before their mom got home from work. Her husband didn't seem like a bad guy. He certainly was tolerant....


It isn't easy at all to overcome some of that stuff and sounds like the women you were talking about didn't.

I know at least one who did though.😊


----------



## DownButNotOut

ConanHub said:


> P.S. I dated an ex porn star and had no problems with it. It might have developed into more but she was still too damaged by her past to work on a healthy relationship.
> 
> This was before I was twenty. It takes a lot of work, but women who have videos online can get away from it and keep it buried.


Fun to date. Not really marriage material though.

Trying to keep online stuff buried comes with the constant dread of it surfacing hanging over your head ... basically forever.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> It isn't easy at all to overcome some of that stuff and sounds like the women you were talking about didn't.
> 
> I know at least one who did though.😊


Well, at least one of these didn't want to overcome it and would still be hooking today if she could, no doubt. Her game hasn't changed any. 

I think the one I knew better was probably anesthetizing herself because she's been in denial and trying to pretend she wasn't a sex worker and being exploited for many years. Of course, her marrying a john is one big reason why she can't face it and let it go. She wasn't a street prostitute but more being used by this pimp guy to entertain clients and probably drug connections. I knew of him way before I met her in my late 40s online. He was super smarmy.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> The internet is forever. Whether she has stopped or not, "*My dad saw your mom on lonely fans"(or pick your platform) is not a conversation I'd want to have with a 3rd grader.*
> 
> You have to consider life phases though. What I'm saying is more for a 30-something who wants to start a family of his own, not a 50+ with grown kids.


C'mon @DownButNotOut . We all know the answer to that question is "you need to speak to your mommy about what Daddy saw on lonely fans.".


----------



## ConanHub

DownButNotOut said:


> Fun to date. Not really marriage material though.
> 
> Trying to keep online stuff buried comes with the constant dread of it surfacing hanging over your head ... basically forever.


I would have no problem marrying a woman with nearly any past but it takes a lot to get my attention so if a woman does, get my attention that is, she has done enough to deserve it.

I know for a fact that putting a porn history behind you is very doable.

A woman has to really work and change though and that requires giving up a previous identity.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> Trying to keep online stuff buried comes with the constant dread of it surfacing hanging over your head ... basically forever.


This is very true. I think that if you're going to put anything online you need to own it. 

I'll also add that I believe ANYTHING that is recorded digitally and sent via the internet is dangerous. And before anyone says, "but it shouldn't be a problem in a trusted relationship", today's trusted relationship is tomorrow's bitter breakup. Just saying.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> C'mon @DownButNotOut . We all know the answer to that question is "you need to speak to your mommy about what Daddy saw on lonely fans.".


Wrong child.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> Wrong child.


Then the answer is to deny and ask who is this child's mommy because you need to speak with her. 

A child finding this information on their own is one thing. A parent telling their 3rd grader that they saw some other kid's parent on Only Fans is ridiculous. Maybe it me but if I'm going down, I'm taking everyone down with me.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well, at least one of these didn't want to overcome it and would still be hooking today if she could, no doubt. Her game hasn't changed any.
> 
> I think the one I knew better was probably anesthetizing herself because she's been in denial and trying to pretend she wasn't a sex worker and being exploited for many years. Of course, her marrying a john is one big reason why she can't face it and let it go. She wasn't a street prostitute but more being used by this pimp guy to entertain clients and probably drug connections. I knew of him way before I met her in my late 40s online. He was super smarmy.


Yeah. Paying for women and then offering to marry one. A real prince. 😡


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> This is very true. I think that if you're going to put anything online you need to own it.
> 
> I'll also add that I believe ANYTHING that is recorded digitally and sent via the internet is dangerous. And before anyone says, "but it shouldn't be a problem in a trusted relationship", today's trusted relationship is tomorrow's bitter breakup. Just saying


I've beaten into my kids heads "If you don't want Mamaw to see it, don't take it, and for God sakes don't post it."


----------



## Numb26

Lila said:


> Then the answer is to deny and ask who is this child's mommy because you need to speak with her.
> 
> A child finding this information on their own is one thing. A parent telling their 3rd grader that they saw some other kid's parent on Only Fans is ridiculous. Maybe it me but if I'm going down, I'm taking everyone down with me.


I may be putting myself in line for ridicule but what is Only Fans?


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> I may be putting myself in line for ridicule but what is Only Fans?


It's a web hosting service (i think) where people create pages where they charge a fee to view the content. Most of it is sexual content. It's made up mostly of Instagram model and such.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> I've beaten into my kids heads "If you don't want Mamaw to see it, don't take it, and for God sakes don't post it."


Same here. I have drilled it in my son's head that once it's sent, it's out of your control.


----------



## Numb26

Lila said:


> It's a web hosting service (i think) where people create pages where they charge a fee to view the content. Most of it is sexual content. It's made up mostly of Instagram model and such.


So strippers online?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Yeah. Paying for women and then offering to marry one. A real prince. 😡


Well, I have wondered about it, but it was the 70s. It might have been the pimp who got her to entertain clients for his legit business in that instance who paid, but who knows. He was here from NY, I think. So whether he asked to be fixed up and paid or was some benefit to the pimp, can't be sure. Nowadays they call girls like that VIPs (Tiger Woods -- remember?)


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> Then the answer is to deny and ask who is this child's mommy because you need to speak with her.
> 
> A child finding this information on their own is one thing. A parent telling their 3rd grader that they saw some other kid's parent on Only Fans is ridiculous. Maybe it me but if I'm going down, I'm taking everyone down with me.


I figured the kid overheard dad talking to a friend or something.

Ok. Fine. A 6th grader. Her classmate found it and spread it all over school. Jr high isn't any less evil than you remember. If anything it's worse.

The real answer, from my perspective, is to not father a child with that woman in the first place.


----------



## Lila

Numb26 said:


> So strippers online?


I honestly don't know but from what I've heard it could be anyone doing anything. If there's a market for it, then I'm sure you'll find it.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Lila said:


> This is very true. I think that if you're going to put anything online you need to own it.
> 
> I'll also add that I believe ANYTHING that is recorded digitally and sent via the internet is dangerous. And before anyone says, "but it shouldn't be a problem in a trusted relationship", today's trusted relationship is tomorrow's bitter breakup. Just saying.


Right. And let's face it, whoever you're sending it to gets to see it live and in person, so they're not asking for it for themselves, but to show off to their pals.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> I would have no problem marrying a woman with nearly any past but it takes a lot to get my attention so if a woman does, get my attention that is, she has done enough to deserve it.
> 
> I know for a fact that putting a porn history behind you is very doable.
> 
> A woman has to really work and change though and that requires giving up a previous identity.


And getting into therapy and dying your hair and getting plastic surgery and changing your name and putting on a few pounds!


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Numb26 said:


> I may be putting myself in line for ridicule but what is Only Fans?


Yeah. I never heard of it either.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well, I have wondered about it, but it was the 70s. It might have been the pimp who got her to entertain clients for his legit business in that instance who paid, but who knows. He was here from NY, I think. So whether he asked to be fixed up and paid or was some benefit to the pimp, can't be sure. Nowadays they call girls like that VIPs (Tiger Woods -- remember?)


Tiger Woody is a loser who wouldn't last a minute if things got real.

He had a family and he fd it away. He should be remanded to the tender mercies of towel boy in a Turkish prison.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> I figured the kid overheard dad talking to a friend or something.
> 
> Ok. Fine. A 6th grader. Her classmate found it and spread it all over school. Jr high isn't any less evil than you remember. If anything it's worse.
> 
> The real answer, from my perspective, is to not father a child with that woman in the first place.


If a man is of a mind to marry, then yes, I agree, it's probably best to avoid women with baggage, and this could become baggage in the future. MGTOW do not have to worry because they aren't interested in marrying or procreating.


----------



## ConanHub

DownByTheRiver said:


> And getting into therapy and dying your hair and getting plastic surgery and changing your name and putting on a few pounds!


It's worth it. People often make terrible decisions but it doesn't have to end or stay there.


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> If a man is of a mind to marry, then yes, I agree, it's probably best to avoid women with baggage, and this could become baggage in the future. MGTOW do not have to worry because they aren't interested in marrying or procreating.


I almost agree with this totally with the caveat that a few women are definitely worth it once they have reworked themselves.

Some men are too.😉


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> If a man is of a mind to marry, then yes, I agree, it's probably best to avoid women with baggage, and this could become baggage in the future. MGTOW do not have to worry because they aren't interested in marrying or procreating.


If you hang around MGTOW spaces for any time, you'll hear this (online naughty videos, and their prevalence among the 20-somethings) as a talking point in support of MGTOW.


----------



## lifeistooshort

ConanHub said:


> I understood. You were giving a valid counterpoint.
> 
> I've never paid anything for female attention or otherwise but my past wasn't exactly a point in my favor to be chosen by quality women.
> 
> It takes a lot of work to change and pull yourself out of the gutter though so anyone that has done it is probably a good bet. Many are never able to overcome.
> 
> I can kind of understand the sentiment behind MGTOW but I don't endorse it.
> 
> I believe there are solid women out there and many women who will become solid upon interacting with men who actually act like men and don't put up with nonsense but don't run away either.


I understand the sentiment too and I fully support people doing what they want. In fact, I would argue that everyone should go their own way to some degree by pursuing their own interests. If they are open to a partner then maybe they'll run into one doing what they like to do. The primary pursuit of a partner often leads to bad decisions.

But I am intrigued by the notion that this somehow bothers us women. It doesn't....there are plenty of men for us and many of the guys here have said as much. According to this philosophy there are so many options for us that we can be jerks and thus are no longer worth the effort. If we didn't have options we couldn't afford to be so incredibly demanding (assuming one really thinks we are). Any guy who chooses to go his own way only affects himself....women don't care. In fact, based on some of the anti women attitudes I see we're probably better off if those guys don't bother us. 

Side note....I understand some guys don't actually dislike women and are hurting. 

But women have been doing this for ages. A lot of women decide men aren't worth the effort...the issue for us historically is that we couldn't support ourselves. But if you can support yourself then one could argue that MEN are in fact a lot of effort.

I happen to think a good guy is worth a fair amount of effort, but there are women who don't.


----------



## Lila

ConanHub said:


> I almost agree with this totally with the caveat that a few women are definitely worth it once they have reworked themselves.
> 
> Some men are too.😉


Absolutely. Think about all of the stupid things we do as young people on impulse. No one is perfect, not by a long shot. 

True story. One of my best friends was an alcoholic in school with a history of sleeping with guys indiscriminately. She turned her life around, became a doctor, married well, and has raised three beautiful and intelligent daughters. Her daughters know all about mommy's "wild days". She's one of the most genuine and vulnerable people I know. It's what makes her a magnet for people.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> If you hang around MGTOW spaces for any time, you'll hear this (online naughty videos, and their prevalence among the 20-somethings) as a talking point in support of MGTOW.


See, i never understood this. Why are those guys worried about the small handful of beautiful women doing the online videos? These women are a fantasy. Why not focus on the average Jane next door?


----------



## ConanHub

Lila said:


> Absolutely. Think about all of the stupid things we do as young people on impulse. No one is perfect, not by a long shot.
> 
> True story. One of my best friends was an alcoholic in school with a history of sleeping with guys indiscriminately. She turned her life around, became a doctor, married well, and has raised three beautiful and intelligent daughters. Her daughters know all about mommy's "wild days". She's one of the most genuine and vulnerable people I know. It's what makes her a magnet for people.


Cool story. I didn't even graduate but have made six figures most of my adult life. I've been a committed husband and father and have married once, for life.

Mrs. C was married twice before me, is 11 years older and was a single mom when I met her.

She has been an amazing wife and mother, has worked along side me at times even making as much as me.

Nothing is written in stone when it comes to the past.

We make a choice every day about who we are going to be.


----------



## Numb26

ConanHub said:


> Cool story. I didn't even graduate but have made six figures most of my adult life. I've been a committed husband and father and have married once, for life.
> 
> Mrs. C was married twice before me, is 11 years older and was a single mom when I met her.
> 
> She has been an amazing wife and mother, has worked along side me at times even making as much as me.
> 
> Nothing is written in stone when it comes to the past.
> 
> We make a choice every day about who we are going to be.


It's not the life you chose, it's the life you lead


----------



## DownByTheRiver

ConanHub said:


> Tiger Woody is a loser who wouldn't last a minute if things got real.
> 
> He had a family and he fd it away. He should be remanded to the tender mercies of towel boy in a Turkish prison.


Well, he at least learned something about himself, which was how much validation he needed, undergoing psychotherapy after the debacle.


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Lila said:


> If a man is of a mind to marry, then yes, I agree, it's probably best to avoid women with baggage, and this could become baggage in the future. MGTOW do not have to worry because they aren't interested in marrying or procreating.


Well, except that their fear of getting hurt is extra. So going that route would be extra risky.


----------



## Lila

DownByTheRiver said:


> Well, except that their fear of getting hurt is extra. So going that route would be extra risky.


I thought MGTOW choose not to marry or procreate. Why would they fear getting hurt? I mean you can't get hurt if you don't enter into relationships right?


----------



## DownByTheRiver

Lila said:


> I thought MGTOW choose not to marry or procreate. Why would they fear getting hurt? I mean you can't get hurt if you don't enter into relationships right?


My impression is they run on fear and anxiety and think women are conspiring against them, so I don't know either why they'd want to get mixed up with the worst of them, sex workers, but I bet they do.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> See, i never understood this. Why are those guys worried about the small handful of beautiful women doing the online videos? These women are a fantasy. Why not focus on the average Jane next door?


From what I hear, average Jane next door is there as well.


----------



## DownButNotOut

DownByTheRiver said:


> My impression is they run on fear and anxiety and think women are conspiring against them, so I don't know either why they'd want to get mixed up with the worst of them, sex workers, but I bet they do.


Your impression was disabused a good 1000 posts ago in this thread.


----------



## Enigma32

Numb26 said:


> I may be putting myself in line for ridicule but what is Only Fans?


Have you been living under a rock for the past few years? OnlyFans is a website where ladies can charge a subscription price for their own personal porn pages. A lot of porn stars have started using it because they can cut out the porn producers and the money goes right to them. Not only that but the site has become immensely popular with younger ladies now. I personally know of several people on there. You pay so much money per month and then you can view all of their "content" which is basically just naked pics and porn videos. Women all over the internet have been bragging lately about how much money they make from this stuff instead of getting a job. Social media such as Instagram and Tiktok have all-but been taken over by OF (OnlyFans) hookers using those platforms to encourage people to pay for their OF page. The younger generation of men is actually going to struggle trying to find a woman that has NOT sold herself on OF. It's that popular now.


----------



## Numb26

Enigma32 said:


> Have you been living under a rock for the past few years? OnlyFans is a website where ladies can charge a subscription price for their own personal porn pages. A lot of porn stars have started using it because they can cut out the porn producers and the money goes right to them. Not only that but the site has become immensely popular with younger ladies now. I personally know of several people on there. You pay so much money per month and then you can view all of their "content" which is basically just naked pics and porn videos. Women all over the internet have been bragging lately about how much money they make from this stuff instead of getting a job. Social media such as Instagram and Tiktok have all-but been taken over by OF (OnlyFans) hookers using those platforms to encourage people to pay for their OF page. The younger generation of men is actually going to struggle trying to find a woman that has NOT sold herself on OF. It's that popular now.


LOL. I don't spend much time time on SM (TAM excluded). I don't have FB, or Twitter or any of those.


----------



## Laurentium

Numb26 said:


> I don't spend much time time on SM (TAM excluded).


Please don't tell me TAM is social media. La la la la


----------



## lifeistooshort

Laurentium said:


> Please don't tell me TAM is social media. La la la la


I like to think the moderation on TAM is better then most social media.

Admittedly that is self serving 😀


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> From what I hear, average Jane next door is there as well.


{Sigh}. If that's what they believe, and it's not something they can accept, then they should absolutely stay away from women. It's for the best. 

But I still don't understand why it's a talking point for the MGTOWs. If these men don't want to associate with women, they don't want to deal with kids, then why do they care so much what women do? 

And if they in fact want to associate with women, just not the ones who post videos online, then why not just ignore those and instead share information on the unicorns? They won't all get to find one, but at least they are collectively working towards the same goal. It's crowd sourcing at it's best.


----------



## In Absentia

Enigma32 said:


> The younger generation of men is actually going to struggle trying to find a woman that has NOT sold herself on OF. It's that popular now.


Exaggerating a touch?


----------



## minimalME

In Absentia said:


> Exaggerating a touch?


It's not too far off.

Sex is the focus more and more - as opposed to character. 

Hollywood is basically soft porn (getting more explicit/extreme each year), with female actresses (admired by millions of little girls) telling the world how liberating it is to be naked in front of a camera.

And it's not just the females.

One of my adult children works at a private Christian school, where a 7th grade boy sent a photo of his penis to every single one of his female classmates. _There was no consequence for doing this. He was not punished._


----------



## Numb26

minimalME said:


> It's not too far off.
> 
> Sex is the focus more and more - as opposed to character.
> 
> Hollywood is basically soft porn (getting more explicit/extreme each year), with female actresses (admired by millions of little girls) telling the world how liberating it is to be naked in front of a camera.
> 
> And it's not just the females.
> 
> One of my adult children works at a private Christian school, where a 7th grade boy sent a photo of his penis to every single one of his female classmates. _There was no consequence for doing this. He was not punished._


My feeling is it's just a certain section of the population that does this sort of stuff.


----------



## minimalME

Numb26 said:


> My feeling is it's just a certain section of the population that does this sort of stuff.


Maybe. But with each generation it will become more common. It'll be normalized. Just like blowjobs and anal sex, which my parent's generation viewed as activities that only prostitutes participated in. It didn't take any time at all for those to become a 'required' expectations.


----------



## Numb26

minimalME said:


> Maybe. But with each generation it will become more common. It'll be normalized. Just like blowjobs and anal sex, which my parent's generation viewed as activities that only prostitutes participated in. It didn't take any time at all for those to become a 'required' expectations.


All part of the slippery slope


----------



## Enigma32

In Absentia said:


> Exaggerating a touch?


Nope. The younger generation is all about OnlyFans. A lot of them dabble in it, post a few naked pics, don't make much money and eventually stop updating the site after a few months. One they find out how much work it takes to actually make a decent living on there, most of them bail. I am a member of several relationship groups on FB and you'd really be surprised how many younger ladies talk about their BF doesn't want them on OnlyFans or how guys should have no problem with them being on OnlyFans. I see it all the time.


----------



## Enigma32

Numb26 said:


> My feeling is it's just a certain section of the population that does this sort of stuff.


Man, I wish that were the case. I know a woman that is around 400lbs who is on OnlyFans (beats a real job, right?) and she just posts pics of her boobs and her feet even. She isn't making much money on there but she gets a little. She tells every female who will listen about how they can make easy money by posting a few naked pics. And she's right about that much at least.


----------



## ConanHub

Enigma32 said:


> Man, I wish that were the case. I know a woman that is around 400lbs who is on OnlyFans (beats a real job, right?) and she just posts pics of her boobs and her feet even. She isn't making much money on there but she gets a little. She tells every female who will listen about how they can make easy money by posting a few naked pics. And she's right about that much at least.


Destructive and hard to resist, especially with no warning documentaries. Porn has some serious warnings attached and still attracts dipshit young women with a wild hair up their ass or thinking it will help them out of a financial bind only to find the real cost later in life.


----------



## Enigma32

ConanHub said:


> Destructive and hard to resist, especially with no warning documentaries. Porn has some serious warnings attached and still attracts dipshit young women with a wild hair up their ass or thinking it will help them out of a financial bind only to find the real cost later in life.


Yup. Hence the new push to normalize sex workers like OnlyFans girls who want to be able to make easy money without the judgement. Sorry honey, have to take the good with the bad.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> {Sigh}. If that's what they believe, and it's not something they can accept, then they should absolutely stay away from women. It's for the best.
> 
> But I still don't understand why it's a talking point for the MGTOWs. If these men don't want to associate with women, they don't want to deal with kids, then why do they care so much what women do?
> 
> And if they in fact want to associate with women, just not the ones who post videos online, then why not just ignore those and instead share information on the unicorns? They won't all get to find one, but at least they are collectively working towards the same goal. It's crowd sourcing at it's best.


You're looking at the extreme "monk mode" MGTOW. They don't want to associate at all. More milder MGTOW are happy to have a casual fling, but have a hard and fast no-LTR, no-cohabitation, no-marraige policy.

You have to look at the "why" they don't want relationships with women. Many who identify as MGTOW would gladly entertain long term relationships if the societal conditions were different than they are today.

Most common MGTOW justifications: promiscuity in young women, the "alpha seed, beta need" stereotype, the explosion of IG and only fans content among 20-somethings, no fault divorce, and the outcomes men experience from family court.

Swing the pendulum back, and many MGTOW proponents would gladly re-engage with the dating market.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> You're looking at the extreme "monk mode" MGTOW. They don't want to associate at all. More milder MGTOW are happy to have a casual fling, but have a hard and fast no-LTR, no-cohabitation, no-marraige policy.
> 
> You have to look at the "why" they don't want relationships with women. Many who identify as MGTOW would gladly entertain long term relationships if the societal conditions were different than they are today.
> 
> Most common MGTOW justifications: promiscuity in young women, the "alpha seed, beta need" stereotype, the explosion of IG and only fans content among 20-somethings, no fault divorce, and the outcomes men experience from family court.
> 
> Swing the pendulum back, and many MGTOW proponents would gladly re-engage with the dating market.


Again, I'm not saying that men choosing to go MGTOW is bad or good. No judgement from me either way. Everyone has a right to find happiness however they choose and if MGTOWs feel that the cards are stacked against them, and the best way for them to be happy is to avoid entanglements with women and to avoid having children, then more power to them. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back if the MGTOWs are missed.

But none of this has anything to do with what I asked. If they are so happy going their own way, why are they spending energy talking about Only Fans, or promiscuity with women, or any of the other complaints they have? I mean, are they trying to fight for the removal of Only Fans or Instagram Models? Are they trying to work with their respective governments to make promiscuity in women illegal? Are they writing their local governing bodies to get rid of "no-fault" divorce? Or are they really not happy going their own way?


----------



## Al_Bundy

Lila said:


> Again, I'm not saying that men choosing to go MGTOW is bad or good. No judgement from me either way. Everyone has a right to find happiness however they choose and if MGTOWs feel that the cards are stacked against them, and the best way for them to be happy is to avoid entanglements with women and to avoid having children, then more power to them. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back if the MGTOWs are missed.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with what I asked. If they are so happy going their own way, why are they spending energy talking about Only Fans, or promiscuity with women, or any of the other complaints they have? I mean, are they trying to fight for the removal of Only Fans or Instagram Models? Are they trying to work with their respective governments to make promiscuity in women illegal? Are they writing their local governing bodies to get rid of "no-fault" divorce? Or are they really not happy going their own way?


Take away the labels and you have a large group of guys who got burned by the marriage machine. The stove (marriage) is hot, so don't touch the stove. For many of us that doesn't mean no dating or LTRs, it just means don't touch the damn stove. I'm at a point at my life where the risk/reward doesn't make sense for ever getting married again.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> Again, I'm not saying that men choosing to go MGTOW is bad or good. No judgement from me either way. Everyone has a right to find happiness however they choose and if MGTOWs feel that the cards are stacked against them, and the best way for them to be happy is to avoid entanglements with women and to avoid having children, then more power to them. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back if the MGTOWs are missed.
> 
> But none of this has anything to do with what I asked. If they are so happy going their own way, why are they spending energy talking about Only Fans, or promiscuity with women, or any of the other complaints they have? I mean, are they trying to fight for the removal of Only Fans or Instagram Models? Are they trying to work with their respective governments to make promiscuity in women illegal? Are they writing their local governing bodies to get rid of "no-fault" divorce? Or are they really not happy going their own way?


For the most part, I think they're happy leaving the actual fight to the various men's rights movement organizations. Possibly some as members, or donators while they go off in pursuit of what fulfills them in single life.


----------



## Lila

Al_Bundy said:


> Take away the labels and you have a large group of guys who got burned by the marriage machine. The stove (marriage) is hot, so don't touch the stove. For many of us that doesn't mean no dating or LTRs, it just means don't touch the damn stove. I'm at a point at my life where the risk/reward doesn't make sense for ever getting married again.


I get that and can respect their decision. If that's what makes them happy, go for it.

But my question was why they spend so much effort bemoaning the things @DownButNotOut described? I get making the decision to "go your own way" but then it seems like they feel they were forced to make that decision due to reasons, and that they aren't entirely happy.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Lila said:


> I get that and can respect their decision. If that's what makes them happy, go for it.
> 
> But my question was why they spend so much effort bemoaning the things @DownButNotOut described? I get making the decision to "go your own way" but then it seems like they feel they were forced to make that decision due to reasons, and that they aren't entirely happy.


As my parents used to say, some people just like to b***h. And as others have mentioned you have different groups within the larger group. For example there are some guys who endorse sex dolls instead of women. I tend to gravitate towards the guys who focus on themselves and things like business and fitness because when your money and health are right, other things tend to fall in place.


----------



## Al_Bundy

DownButNotOut said:


> For the most part, I think they're happy leaving the actual fight to the various men's rights movement organizations. Possibly some as members, or donators while they go off in pursuit of what fulfills them in single life.


One good example of that is I don't think divorce laws will change until they start impacting women the same way they currently do men. So until more women start losing half their stuff and probably a high profile case that people care about comes around, nothing will change. Me spending my time "fighting" for things to change would be a waste.


----------



## Hiner112

Lila said:


> I get that and can respect their decision. If that's what makes them happy, go for it.
> 
> But my question was why they spend so much effort bemoaning the things @DownButNotOut described? I get making the decision to "go your own way" but then it seems like they feel they were forced to make that decision due to reasons, and that they aren't entirely happy.


Not a subscriber to the movement. Take this with a grain of salt from an outsider.

I think that from their perspective they've chosen the least of evils and often there are consequences for following societal scripts accompanied by half truths and lies. 

That from their perspective there are serious negative consequences associated to and aspects of the "normal" college, marriage, kids life that seems expected of men that isn't talked about is frustrating / annoying. Why does "doing the right thing" both not get attention / sex and often leads to losing significant time and resources to someone that doesn't value it. They would feel lied to. They'd probably try to be vocal to warn others and because of the intensity of their feelings.


----------



## Lila

Hiner112 said:


> Not a subscriber to the movement. Take this with a grain of salt from an outsider.
> 
> I think that from their perspective they've chosen the least of evils and often there are consequences for following societal scripts accompanied by half truths and lies.
> 
> That from their perspective there are serious negative consequences associated to and aspects of the "normal" college, marriage, kids life that seems expected of men that isn't talked about is frustrating / annoying. Why does "doing the right thing" both not get attention / sex and often leads to losing significant time and resources to someone that doesn't value it. They would feel lied to. *They'd probably try to be vocal to warn others and because of the intensity of their feelings*.


Intensity of their feelings. That's a great way to explain it. I certainly understand the feelings associated with rejection after having done everything I thought was right. They dig deep.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Lila said:


> Intensity of their feelings. That's a great way to explain it. I certainly understand the feelings associated with rejection after having done everything I thought was right. They dig deep.


If you allow me to stereotype here for a moment.......guys tend to keep things to themselves. When guys decide to literally bite the bullet, often times people around them will talk about how they had no idea the guy was thinking about suicide. So to reach those guys before they eat a 45, you have to be loud and vocal because you have to drown out that inner voice inside them.


----------



## Lila

Al_Bundy said:


> If you allow me to stereotype here for a moment.......guys tend to keep things to themselves. When guys decide to literally bite the bullet, often times people around them will talk about how they had no idea the guy was thinking about suicide. So to reach those guys before they eat a 45, you have to be loud and vocal because you have to drown out that inner voice inside them.


The problem is that the loudest and most vocal are also the most angry extremest. These are the ones who blame all of their troubles on feminism, the court system, and women in general. The loudest voices espouse entitlement. They feel entitled to the beautiful woman who loves him unconditionally, never questions his authority, is aggreable and happy all of the time, sexually desires him, and services him on demand in whatever way he chooses. All of this without having to put forth an equal amount of energy on their part. It's an unrealistic expectation.

Maybe if we started by teaching these young men nothing is unconditional, no one is perfect, and everything has a price they would not feel like biting the bullet in the first place.


----------



## Numb26

"peeks head in"

"shakes head and leaves again"


----------



## Al_Bundy

Lila said:


> The problem is that the loudest and most vocal are also the most angry extremest. These are the ones who blame all of their troubles on feminism, the court system, and women in general. The loudest voices espouse entitlement. They feel entitled to the beautiful woman who loves him unconditionally, never questions his authority, is aggreable and happy all of the time, sexually desires him, and services him on demand in whatever way he chooses. All of this without having to put forth an equal amount of energy on their part. It's an unrealistic expectation.
> 
> Maybe if we started by teaching these young men nothing is unconditional, no one is perfect, and everything has a price they would not feel like biting the bullet in the first place.


MGTOWs are generally right in their diagnosis of the issues. However, as others in the space would say, I just don't agree with their solutions.

Curious as to what, if anything, you'd teach young women.


----------



## Al_Bundy

Numb26 said:


> "peeks head in"
> 
> "shakes head and leaves again"



Don't worry, I'll keep stirring.............


----------



## Lila

Al_Bundy said:


> MGTOWs are generally right in their diagnosis of the issues. However, as others in the space would say, I just don't agree with their solutions.
> 
> Curious as to what, if anything, you'd teach young women.


The same thing my dad taught me and the same thing I teach my son.."nothing is unconditional, no one is perfect, and everything has a price". I'll add "get an education and don't depend on anyone else to make you happy (that's your responsibility)". 

It's very simple.


----------



## DownButNotOut

Lila said:


> The same thing my dad taught me and the same thing I teach my son.."nothing is unconditional, no one is perfect, and everything has a price". I'll add "get an education and don't depend on anyone else to make you happy (that's your responsibility)".
> 
> It's very simple.


Just add the price of marriage from a man's viewpoint and you have the makings for a good mgtow son there.


----------



## Lila

DownButNotOut said:


> Just add the price of marriage from a man's viewpoint and you have the makings for a good mgtow son there.


I'm pretty sure he'll do just fine without the help of MGTOW. He's lived his whole life surrounded by examples of good women AND men. And as far as seeing the price of marriage, he's watched several couples, including his father and me, divorce amicably and equitably. It could just be that none of the divorces he's seen were between a working and stay at home parent.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Trident said:


> It would naturally follow that your girlfriend is of the female variety.


with so many genders to chose from these days it's not a guarantee....


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Rus47 said:


> Where I live, all of the strip clubs etc are associated with organized crime. Drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, IMHO the women are being victimized by criminal enterprises. Anyone patronizing such are contributing to a criminal enterprise


You are assuming the victimisation. Many are there willingly but would gladly claim to be the victim if it gains them deniability, excuses them from responsibility from their choices or actions, or lets them accuse/place blame on someone else.

Agree re: patronage, which one reason I avoid those places.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Lila said:


> I'm pretty sure he'll do just fine without the help of MGTOW.


MGTOW isn't an organisation or a movement and avoid those who makd it so, because that's usually a "victim" looking for codependence, or a scammer who is willing to take advantage of someone vulnerable, if only for their own validation.

Do a search on google or youtube for "Joker" / "Better Bachelor". While therer's a touch or red-rage and coments section does include people going through their red-rage phase, it's generally a good placec to find ones independent Own Path for those going their own way.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

ConanHub said:


> The marketing I'm referring to is the investment for teasers and high quality videos.
> 
> For lack of eloquence I don't feel this subject deserves, a woman shaking her ass in a club for money is not marketing it or getting nearly as wide a distribution as online ass shakers.
> 
> I hope if she does ever have children, she has somehow buried this part of her life so it never touches them.
> 
> There are children getting their lives destroyed right now because good old mom decided to sell herself online.


so just what _exactly_ is "destroying" these childrens lives? Is it a brain affecting pathogen or chemical agent that blocks their pituitary gland or disables their learning center of their brain?


----------



## ConanHub

Spotthedeaddog said:


> so just what _exactly_ is "destroying" these childrens lives? Is it a brain affecting pathogen or chemical agent that blocks their pituitary gland or disables their learning center of their brain?


It's actually dead dogs with rabies who **** where children play. Dogs with rabies all have one fate.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

Enigma32 said:


> Maybe the bar owners prey on the dancers, but trust me, those dancers are preying on the men there too. Crap rolls downhill as the saying goes. Once money exchanges hands, you are no longer a man, you're just a customer.


Which is why it was just totes ridiculous when the SJW and feminst crowdsclaim thatthe customners are using and abusing women [for sexuality etc] - when it was completely around the other way - but it was disrepectful to challenge the females narrative (as that was daring to question the females truthfulness in any/all things).


----------



## Enigma32

Spotthedeaddog said:


> Which is why it was just totes ridiculous when the SJW and feminst crowdsclaim thatthe customners are using and abusing women [for sexuality etc] - when it was completely around the other way - but it was disrepectful to challenge the females narrative (as that was daring to question the females truthfulness in any/all things).


Let's just say I lived a little when I was younger. Anyway, I never saw that sort of thing, not inside of any clubs. Most strip clubs have security around all the time keeping the men (and women) in line. Most of the time, it's the ladies who want to be able to push the envelope a little inside the clubs because they know that the more they can do with the customers, the more money they will make. 

From my experience, which admittedly was a good while ago now, the only abuse those strippers got from men was after they punched the clock. That's when they started hitting up those customers for more money in exchange for more services. Prostitution is not legal nor is it a very safe act for all parties involved. Sure, some hookers get abused by men, but some idiots trying to get laid also get robbed by hookers and beat up by pimps.


----------



## tech-novelist

Numb26 said:


> All part of the slippery slope


Which in this case may be literal.


----------



## oldshirt

Lila said:


> The same thing my dad taught me and the same thing I teach my son.."nothing is unconditional, no one is perfect, and everything has a price". I'll add "get an education and don't depend on anyone else to make you happy (that's your responsibility)".
> 
> It's very simple.


Totally agreed. 

Maybe 100 years ago when women
were basically property and were taken care of like a beloved pet it may have been a good system at that time and in that culture.

But today?? Just no. Everyone, men and women alike, need to be able to take care of themselves.


----------

