[oldnemesis]

(01-26-2011 12:48 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

1. It's extremely likely that today's wife will cheat on today's husband (but not vice versa or else he'll lose everything, including his kids).
2. The husband becomes enslaved to a materialistic bitch with zero sex appeal
3. The children aren't raised in a fashion the husband wants, he's just the tool for the wife while she turns her sons into little beta bitches and her daughters into more whorish users America can't seem to get enough of

1. The way you stated it it is an urban myth. So far, as we discussed it, you only have something to worry about if you're earning a pension from local or state government.

2. The solution is simple: don't marry materialistic bitches. Marry within your means, a working girl from similar social background, who makes close to what you do, is very unlikely to become a materialistic bitch.

3. Responsible people discuss how they'd raise children before having them, not after. Yes, her opinion matters too - if you married a girl who is so dumb that you'd rather ignore her opinion, that's YOUR fault. What fun is it to hang out with idiots? And if you do not agree about the way to raise children with a person you're having sex with, then don't have children with them.

But I can summarize it even shorter: if one has low value, he will suffer in any kind of situation - be it a marriage, employment, sports or anything else. People only value you when they see that you could quit on them any time, and you'll easy find something similar or even better. They must feel that by staying with them you give them a favor or at least it is even, not that they give you a favor by letting you hang around. Note this is about your real value, not displayed one, as you cannot display a fake higher value for a long period.

Quote:

- Finding a donor wife to give me children, then hiring a nanny to raise the children while they grow up to 18 (way cheaper than a wife)

I doubt it is even possible legally for someone just to "give you" a child. Even if the child is yours it should go through the court, and if she gives you a child (100% custody), she becomes liable for child support. Also it kinda sucks for a baby to live without mother - and no, a nanny cannot replace a mother unless she practically lives with the baby.

Your "way cheaper" argument is also very strange. Some wives make well over 100K a year. Mine, for example, does. How could a nanny be cheaper?

Quote:

- Foreign women with foreign laws favorable to men

Raises a lot of other problems (the most obvious being that the foreign laws also change). I'd also add that US law is much more fair to men comparing to, for example Russian law - as a man, your chance to get ANY custody in Russia during divorce is roughly 5%. And child support payments for the first kid are 25% of your after-tax income.

Quote:

- Figuring out a way to escape the shitty laws in America and still get married in the eyes of society: for example, you have a wedding but never sign the state marriage contract so you are still legally "single" on your tax forms (and you back it up by having an official residence listed as some shitty apartment somewhere that you rent).

This is an amusing point. First, IMHO it is incredibly stupid to get married for society. If you don't want it yourself, there is even less reason to do it for someone else, especially for someone as abstract as "society". Do you really give any shit what others might think about you? Second, if you go through wedding ceremony, and live together for some time, in some states you might be considered married in common law (heard about it some time ago), so check with local lawyer before attempting that.

Quote:

Also, your non-state sanctioned wife must also take full custody of the kids at birth or give you full custody (so there's no child support laws to rape you).

If one side gets full custody, another side should be liable for child support. I doubt there is a single legal way to avoid child support laws for your own kids if one side gets full custody. However, if $1000 a month is an amount that would financially kill you, you probably shouldn't have kids anyway - properly raising your kid would cost more than that.

Quote:

The problem with this solution is finding an American woman who would agree to such terms. If she does agree, however, you know she must be really in love with you

No, your problem is the difference in value. As I stated before, a relationship where one side has significantly more value than another side has much lower chance to survive comparing to a balanced relationship, as the side which brings higher value and therefore "sponsors" another side has incentive to switch to a more balanced relationship. Your terms greatly favor you, so to compensate the value imbalance you should bring something great on a table as well - appealing personality (something she knows other men wouldn't do, like tolerating her bitching or hysteria), major wealth, status, age difference (meaning a chick is ten years older than you) or something like that. If you don't get any of those, your relationship will be imbalanced in her favor, and she'll eventually starts looking for a more balanced relationship.

Until you either fix the initial imbalance, or figure out how'd you compensate for it (and find a girl who'd agree it is fair compensation), your relationship will not work no matter what kind of woman you'll get.

[IshGibbor]

(01-27-2011 07:02 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 12:48 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

1. It's extremely likely that today's wife will cheat on today's husband (but not vice versa or else he'll lose everything, including his kids).
2. The husband becomes enslaved to a materialistic bitch with zero sex appeal
3. The children aren't raised in a fashion the husband wants, he's just the tool for the wife while she turns her sons into little beta bitches and her daughters into more whorish users America can't seem to get enough of

1. The way you stated it it is an urban myth. So far, as we discussed it, you only have something to worry about if you're earning a pension from local or state government.

2. The solution is simple: don't marry materialistic bitches. Marry within your means, a working girl from similar social background, who makes close to what you do, is very unlikely to become a materialistic bitch.

3. Responsible people discuss how they'd raise children before having them, not after. Yes, her opinion matters too - if you married a girl who is so dumb that you'd rather ignore her opinion, that's YOUR fault. What fun is it to hang out with idiots? And if you do not agree about the way to raise children with a person you're having sex with, then don't have children with them.

But I can summarize it even shorter: if one has low value, he will suffer in any kind of situation - be it a marriage, employment, sports or anything else. People only value you when they see that you could quit on them any time, and you'll easy find something similar or even better. They must feel that by staying with them you give them a favor or at least it is even, not that they give you a favor by letting you hang around. Note this is about your real value, not displayed one, as you cannot display a fake higher value for a long period.

Quote:

- Finding a donor wife to give me children, then hiring a nanny to raise the children while they grow up to 18 (way cheaper than a wife)

I doubt it is even possible legally for someone just to "give you" a child. Even if the child is yours it should go through the court, and if she gives you a child (100% custody), she becomes liable for child support. Also it kinda sucks for a baby to live without mother - and no, a nanny cannot replace a mother unless she practically lives with the baby.

Your "way cheaper" argument is also very strange. Some wives make well over 100K a year. Mine, for example, does. How could a nanny be cheaper?

Quote:

- Foreign women with foreign laws favorable to men

Raises a lot of other problems (the most obvious being that the foreign laws also change). I'd also add that US law is much more fair to men comparing to, for example Russian law - as a man, your chance to get ANY custody in Russia during divorce is roughly 5%. And child support payments for the first kid are 25% of your after-tax income.

Quote:

- Figuring out a way to escape the shitty laws in America and still get married in the eyes of society: for example, you have a wedding but never sign the state marriage contract so you are still legally "single" on your tax forms (and you back it up by having an official residence listed as some shitty apartment somewhere that you rent).

This is an amusing point. First, IMHO it is incredibly stupid to get married for society. If you don't want it yourself, there is even less reason to do it for someone else, especially for someone as abstract as "society". Do you really give any shit what others might think about you? Second, if you go through wedding ceremony, and live together for some time, in some states you might be considered married in common law (heard about it some time ago), so check with local lawyer before attempting that.

Quote:

Also, your non-state sanctioned wife must also take full custody of the kids at birth or give you full custody (so there's no child support laws to rape you).

If one side gets full custody, another side should be liable for child support. I doubt there is a single legal way to avoid child support laws for your own kids if one side gets full custody. However, if $1000 a month is an amount that would financially kill you, you probably shouldn't have kids anyway - properly raising your kid would cost more than that.

Quote:

The problem with this solution is finding an American woman who would agree to such terms. If she does agree, however, you know she must be really in love with you

No, your problem is the difference in value. As I stated before, a relationship where one side has significantly more value than another side has much lower chance to survive comparing to a balanced relationship, as the side which brings higher value and therefore "sponsors" another side has incentive to switch to a more balanced relationship. Your terms greatly favor you, so to compensate the value imbalance you should bring something great on a table as well - appealing personality (something she knows other men wouldn't do, like tolerating her bitching or hysteria), major wealth, status, age difference (meaning a chick is ten years older than you) or something like that. If you don't get any of those, your relationship will be imbalanced in her favor, and she'll eventually starts looking for a more balanced relationship.

Until you either fix the initial imbalance, or figure out how'd you compensate for it (and find a girl who'd agree it is fair compensation), your relationship will not work no matter what kind of woman you'll get.

Damn, let me remember you when I decide I want to find a woman to raise a family.

Ish

[IshGibbor]

I would like to get married and have a wife and kids but I could not possibly do it before the age of 35. That said, finding a wife later in life may be difficult given that most people within my age group by then will be either married, divorced or have kids of their own (I don't want any baggage).

My plan is to spend my late twenties (27 now) to late thirties (thinking 37-38) banging, traveling the world, etc. I am open to having an open relationship of course if I find a woman I want to practice being in love with but commitment I will not be ready for until I have got over my desire to bang every girl I find attractive.

Once I am nearing forty I will have to tie a knot on my cock and commit to a woman to raise a family, although there are models for open relationships and I noticed more women are of the persuasion that monogamy is not natural and we should have outside sex partners.

My only fear is that I may not have enough experience in relationships to actually have a healthy one with a woman. Pick up is about banging women but relationships are a whole other ball game and I feel I may be setting myself up for failure just starting to learn how to play the relationship game in my late 30's. By then, many women will probably assume that I should know many of the relationship lessons that they have learned at a young age.

Also, in terms of child rearing, I would like to have a younger woman as my wife since I want a healthy child. I am wondering what are the options out there for older men looking to find a younger wife to get married and have kids? Is it easy as pie or quite a challenge? I'm assuming if one were to fall flat in that area in the states and wanted it bad enough, they could always move to Thailand or the Philippines. Perhaps I shouldn't worry about age so much since with advances in technology, women are in their fourties having healthy kids (seems to be the norm of hollywood). I know men don't have to worry about their biological clocks though, a great sense of comfort in being a male.

Kinda speaking off the top of my mind but I feel my feelings have been expressed. If I had the perfect life I would have spent my teens and twenties traveling the world, having sex, drugs, drinking etc and would have got married at thirty;however, that was not how my life played out. I think I have plenty of time to catch up though and hope I will have enough experiences to grow out of my desire to bang and party and eventually find a woman and be happy.

I remember reading Dennis Rodman's (one of my few role models) Wikipedia and how the man in his early thirties reinvented himself from being a shy, socially retarded introverted nice guy (he has Asperger's Syndrome) to a NBA bad boy. He partied it up but eventually found a wife and had some kids (although marriage broke up and now nearing fifty, the man is still having orgies in his hotel room, nice). Needless to say, it is never to late to live life and the way things are going now (women putting off making kids to further their careers) I don't think there will be a short supply of women in their 30's looking to have kids or get married.

Ish

[Easy E]

"Left out as a result of following this lifestyle. i.e not "settling down" and get married as per conventional societal norms.

I was looking at the pictures of all my friends that I went to school and university with and they all have pictures with their smiling families, kids, wives etc. etc. And then there are pictures of their childrens life milestones. All of a sudden I just felt left behind. Their kids are growing up and here I am still looking for the next bang or the cute 18 year old. I mean some of my friends that got married when they were like 21 and are beginning to have daughters that I might consider hitting on.

Makes me wonder. "

I am younger than you, and even I feel left out. Most of the people I know are in serious relationships and thinking about marriage.

Thing is, a lot of "players" want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to party it up for as long as possible, and then settle down in their 40's or later. This, in my opinion, is unrealistic. If you want to settle down, then doing so when you are younger makes more sense since it is far easier to meet and fall in love with a chick closer to your age.

For example, right now I could be completely broke and still get most young girls to agree to get serious with me b/c they aren't as concerned that someone my age doesn't have his shit togther.

However, if I wait until I am much older to start looking for "the one," then things get more complicated. Age starts to be a factor since now you will be seen as a loser by a lot of chicks for not having your shit together. Also, being at different stages in life makes it harder to relate.

So, I think if you want to settle down, then you should settle down.

On the other hand, if you don't want to settle down, then that is fine too. Just don't delude yourself that you will "settle down someday."

Be realistic and build a lifestyle you are comfortable with.

[kimleebj]

Men who date and marry foreign women should appreciate that international custody fights are a nightmare. For example:

The U.S.-Japanese Child Custody Spat

Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction... .

There are 82 outstanding child abduction cases in Japan... .

But the State Department has said it is not aware of any case where the Japanese courts have returned a child abducted to Japan to the United States.

[IshGibbor]

(01-28-2011 08:42 AM)Easy E Wrote:  

"Left out as a result of following this lifestyle. i.e not "settling down" and get married as per conventional societal norms.

I was looking at the pictures of all my friends that I went to school and university with and they all have pictures with their smiling families, kids, wives etc. etc. And then there are pictures of their childrens life milestones. All of a sudden I just felt left behind. Their kids are growing up and here I am still looking for the next bang or the cute 18 year old. I mean some of my friends that got married when they were like 21 and are beginning to have daughters that I might consider hitting on.

Makes me wonder. "

I am younger than you, and even I feel left out. Most of the people I know are in serious relationships and thinking about marriage.

Thing is, a lot of "players" want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to party it up for as long as possible, and then settle down in their 40's or later. This, in my opinion, is unrealistic. If you want to settle down, then doing so when you are younger makes more sense since it is far easier to meet and fall in love with a chick closer to your age.

For example, right now I could be completely broke and still get most young girls to agree to get serious with me b/c they aren't as concerned that someone my age doesn't have his shit togther.

However, if I wait until I am much older to start looking for "the one," then things get more complicated. Age starts to be a factor since now you will be seen as a loser by a lot of chicks for not having your shit together. Also, being at different stages in life makes it harder to relate.

So, I think if you want to settle down, then you should settle down.

On the other hand, if you don't want to settle down, then that is fine too. Just don't delude yourself that you will "settle down someday."

Be realistic and build a lifestyle you are comfortable with.

That is what bothers me. I know I could never settle down for at least another five to eight years and even still, I would want to get more time in as long as I have my looks know what I'm sayin? Between being 38 having done 70% on what is on my bucket list and not having a kid versus being 38 having had a wife and kids but not have done 70% of what is on my bucket list I would go for the former.


You only need one good fuck with a woman to get a girl pregnant. I can imagine having at least one child after thirty five just to get the ball rolling and another near my late 30's early 40's. I know for a fact I would want to be married by the time I am 40 since I really wouldn't want to be the 40 year old guy at the bar. But as you said you can't have it all and I can't predict how I will feel about the subject five years from now, so, we will have to wait and see.

Ish

P.S. So what age would you been seen as a loser? I understand that being in your twenties and broke is alright but being thirty five still trying to figure your shit out is a bit of a turn off. I had a desire to get a PHD but I could never see myself being a broke college student approaching my mid thirties.

[oldnemesis]

(01-28-2011 09:00 AM)kimleebj Wrote:  

Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction... .
There are 82 outstanding child abduction cases in Japan... .
But the State Department has said it is not aware of any case where the Japanese courts have returned a child abducted to Japan to the United States.[/i]

It is the same in a lot of countries. Russia, Thailand, most of Eastern Europe. Generally when a baby is born in US, and one or both his parents have foreign citizenship, he gets US citizenship because he was born in US, and one or two foreign citizenship since he inherits the citizenship of his parents by the laws of his parent country. It results in funny cases - for example, my kids are citizens of three countries right now.

What it means, that if one parent grabs the child and flies back to the country the child is citizen of, for that particular country legally it looks like a baby was brought home, and typically there are no legal means to force the country to "deport" its citizen. Especially if the sole reason for that is that an US court said so. Now if someone manages to bring the child back to US out of that country, it will be classified as "child abduction" by local authorities as well. There were several well-published cases in Russia in 2010.

[Samseau]

(01-27-2011 07:02 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 12:48 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

1. It's extremely likely that today's wife will cheat on today's husband (but not vice versa or else he'll lose everything, including his kids).
2. The husband becomes enslaved to a materialistic bitch with zero sex appeal
3. The children aren't raised in a fashion the husband wants, he's just the tool for the wife while she turns her sons into little beta bitches and her daughters into more whorish users America can't seem to get enough of

1. The way you stated it it is an urban myth. So far, as we discussed it, you only have something to worry about if you're earning a pension from local or state government.

2. The solution is simple: don't marry materialistic bitches. Marry within your means, a working girl from similar social background, who makes close to what you do, is very unlikely to become a materialistic bitch.

3. Responsible people discuss how they'd raise children before having them, not after. Yes, her opinion matters too - if you married a girl who is so dumb that you'd rather ignore her opinion, that's YOUR fault. What fun is it to hang out with idiots? And if you do not agree about the way to raise children with a person you're having sex with, then don't have children with them.

1. I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. You think women will be faithful to you as long as you get married and make over 50K a year? You think something like a relationship is that easy? This makes no sense.

Most relationships fail because the women grow bored and their hearts wander elsewhere. This is the #1 cause of death of all relationships. And, aside from constantly gaming your wife, there is nothing you can do to stop this process. Even with game, there is no guarantee. I'd say less than 15% of marriages stay happy past 15 years.

The only real guarantor of a wife's fidelity is if she loses a significant amount of her looks over time, so she knows that she cannot leave her husband and expect to find another man. In which case, I do hope you love your wife, because she is now an uglier wife.

2. Don't marry materialistic bitches: couldn't agree more. But that rules out (at least) 70% of American women.

3. Come on, you really think a woman won't change her mind even if she agreed to something beforehand? A woman can say one thing and do another. They do it all the time and I would expect all wives to be no different. Most women make terrible mothers: FACT.

Quote:

But I can summarize it even shorter: if one has low value, he will suffer in any kind of situation - be it a marriage, employment, sports or anything else. People only value you when they see that you could quit on them any time, and you'll easy find something similar or even better. They must feel that by staying with them you give them a favor or at least it is even, not that they give you a favor by letting you hang around. Note this is about your real value, not displayed one, as you cannot display a fake higher value for a long period.

High value has nothing to do with the loss of attraction a wife feels for a man over time. Rich men suffer just as much, if not more, infidelity from their wives. It is a natural process that no one can stop.

Quote:

Quote:

- Finding a donor wife to give me children, then hiring a nanny to raise the children while they grow up to 18 (way cheaper than a wife)

I doubt it is even possible legally for someone just to "give you" a child. Even if the child is yours it should go through the court, and if she gives you a child (100% custody), she becomes liable for child support. Also it kinda sucks for a baby to live without mother - and no, a nanny cannot replace a mother unless she practically lives with the baby.

Your "way cheaper" argument is also very strange. Some wives make well over 100K a year. Mine, for example, does. How could a nanny be cheaper?

Because if you get divorced, guess how much your wife costs you? Versus some full-time nanny from a third-world country, such as Africa...

Quote:

Quote:

- Foreign women with foreign laws favorable to men

Raises a lot of other problems (the most obvious being that the foreign laws also change). I'd also add that US law is much more fair to men comparing to, for example Russian law - as a man, your chance to get ANY custody in Russia during divorce is roughly 5%. And child support payments for the first kid are 25% of your after-tax income.

I won't deny that you must be very careful if you choose to expatriate. But it is the most complete solution if you can work it.

Quote:

Quote:

- Figuring out a way to escape the shitty laws in America and still get married in the eyes of society: for example, you have a wedding but never sign the state marriage contract so you are still legally "single" on your tax forms (and you back it up by having an official residence listed as some shitty apartment somewhere that you rent).

This is an amusing point. First, IMHO it is incredibly stupid to get married for society. If you don't want it yourself, there is even less reason to do it for someone else, especially for someone as abstract as "society". Do you really give any shit what others might think about you? Second, if you go through wedding ceremony, and live together for some time, in some states you might be considered married in common law (heard about it some time ago), so check with local lawyer before attempting that.

You aren't getting married for society, you get married because you love your wife. The point of the wedding is for your wife's sake, so she can fit in with society's norms (extremely important for any woman of any country). But, LEGALLY, you are not actually married.

And yes, I know about common law, which is why I suggest having a separate shitty apartment as your official residence on all your IRS tax forms.

But one would need to talk to a family law lawyer in great detail before pulling this off, as laws vary from state-to-state.

Quote:

Quote:

Also, your non-state sanctioned wife must also take full custody of the kids at birth or give you full custody (so there's no child support laws to rape you).

If one side gets full custody, another side should be liable for child support. I doubt there is a single legal way to avoid child support laws for your own kids if one side gets full custody. However, if $1000 a month is an amount that would financially kill you, you probably shouldn't have kids anyway - properly raising your kid would cost more than that.

I'm not sure if child custody must happen no matter what. For example, suppose your wife were to be artificially inseminated by her own choosing, with your sperm, so technically in the eyes of the law she is a single mother choosing to have her own child?

The practical effect would be to have your child without any child support laws hanging over your head.

Quote:

Quote:

The problem with this solution is finding an American woman who would agree to such terms. If she does agree, however, you know she must be really in love with you

No, your problem is the difference in value. As I stated before, a relationship where one side has significantly more value than another side has much lower chance to survive comparing to a balanced relationship, as the side which brings higher value and therefore "sponsors" another side has incentive to switch to a more balanced relationship. Your terms greatly favor you, so to compensate the value imbalance you should bring something great on a table as well - appealing personality (something she knows other men wouldn't do, like tolerating her bitching or hysteria), major wealth, status, age difference (meaning a chick is ten years older than you) or something like that. If you don't get any of those, your relationship will be imbalanced in her favor, and she'll eventually starts looking for a more balanced relationship.

Until you either fix the initial imbalance, or figure out how'd you compensate for it (and find a girl who'd agree it is fair compensation), your relationship will not work no matter what kind of woman you'll get.

I agree that, in terms of value, both sides need to be equal. Why do you continue to rehash this?

You seem to believe that if I were in a relationship where:


- I've been with a woman for 3 years
- We have had a wedding, but according to the state we are both single
- She is having my children and also bypassing child-custody laws

You think the wife would have value over me? Because if she leaves me, she has no alimony, no take half of all my shit, and no child support. I'm out free and she's a single mom.

If a woman were to marry me under these conditions, they would greatly favor my side, and I assume any woman I marry would be intelligent enough to understand this, so the only reason a woman would agree to these terms (of giving up her legal advantages) would be if she was deeply in love with you.

[oldnemesis]

(01-28-2011 07:06 AM)IshGibbor Wrote:  

Once I am nearing forty I will have to tie a knot on my cock and commit to a woman to raise a family, although there are models for open relationships and I noticed more women are of the persuasion that monogamy is not natural and we should have outside sex partners.

Getting married around 35-40 seem to be a very typical scenario of what a lot of guys want. The obvious problem with it is natural shortage - if you're marrying a woman close to your age (which is good), you gonna face the fact that there is not a lot of marriage-quality women available, as most are already in relationship, and a lot of those who got out of relationship are either not looking for a relationship, or carry a baggage. And if you marry much younger, you may get the same value imbalance problem I described above.

Open relationships are there, and they do work, but you need to set it up properly. The correct way to set it up is that you have a relationship which allows you to fuck around for fun. You have the trust of each other, and you are sure you won't dump her for someone who is better in bed, and you're sure she won't either. You limit your fuck arounds to some specific/agreed days of week, and spend the rest of time together. And you are always ready to dump another fuck toy if because of some reason your lady is not comfortable with it.

This is the way how to have an healthy open relationship. Unfortunately some people set it up differently - it is about being "open" first, chasing the pussy 24/7, and getting back home only when there was no action for today. This way it typically goes south very fast, as you feel more and more like roommates instead of having a relationship.

Quote:

My only fear is that I may not have enough experience in relationships to actually have a healthy one with a woman. Pick up is about banging women but relationships are a whole other ball game and I feel I may be setting myself up for failure just starting to learn how to play the relationship game in my late 30's. By then, many women will probably assume that I should know many of the relationship lessons that they have learned at a young age.

Yes, this is a valid concern. Another problem is that a qualified relationship girl which would satisfy your requirements of having no baggage might be in the same situation as you - she may have spent her 20s and 30s partying and fucking, and has no long-term relationship management experience either.

Quote:

Also, in terms of child rearing, I would like to have a younger woman as my wife since I want a healthy child. I am wondering what are the options out there for older men looking to find a younger wife to get married and have kids?

There are a lot of options if an older man brings significantly more value to the relationship comparing to a man of her age. Meaning, if you have a lot of money (not necessary Donald Trump, but you do make much more than an average Joe would), or you have significant status, then it will work, and it may work quite well. You'll have to accept, of course, the fact that your money/status play a major, or even critical, role in her decision to stay with you.

Quote:

Is it easy as pie or quite a challenge? I'm assuming if one were to fall flat in that area in the states and wanted it bad enough, they could always move to Thailand or the Philippines.

It is the same everywhere, the rules of value in relationship do not change because you move to Thailand. You'll get some status comparing to local guys (being white, being a foreigner), and you'll likely have more money than them. You'll lose some status as well - by having to counter the "sex tourist" image, not speaking Thai and not knowing the culture, having to deal with visa issues, and so on. Most of your status will wear off if you decide to bring the girl to US, and if you not, you might consider whether you really want to live in Thailand. I've been there; it is a nice vacation place, but definitely not something I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life.

Quote:

Kinda speaking off the top of my mind but I feel my feelings have been expressed. If I had the perfect life I would have spent my teens and twenties traveling the world, having sex, drugs, drinking etc and would have got married at thirty;however, that was not how my life played out. I think I have plenty of time to catch up though and hope I will have enough experiences to grow out of my desire to bang and party and eventually find a woman and be happy.

I've seen quite a few married couples doing exactly what you described - traveling the world, having sex (either together or not), drinking, partying and so on. It feels like some of you guys have a strange idea that getting married must mean moving to suburbia, buying an SUV, joining PTA, sex once a month and so on. It doesn't. You'll get what you want to get as long as you marry someone who is compatible with you, not just the first girl you made pregnant. Don't be in hurry, choose wisely.

[oldnemesis]

(01-28-2011 05:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

1. I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. You think women will be faithful to you as long as you get married and make over 50K a year? You think something like a relationship is that easy? This makes no sense.

I'm saying the following:
- If a woman wants to divorce a man, she can do it even if a man does not cheat, as there is no-fault divorce now in all 50 states. So it doesn't matter whether anyone cheated or not, both spouses could file a divorce anytime. It doesn't matter who cheated either.

- There is really no way to "lose everything" in divorce. In the worst case one spouse loses roughly half of what has been earned during the marriage, plus half of the pension, and will have to pay alimony for the rest of her life, and child support for all kids. This is the worst case, which assumes the marriage lasted at least ten years, the second spouse never worked and is not able to find work because of physical disability. Most divorces seem to have much easier terms.

- Most of those "got bored" excuses come from those couples where a husband insists the wife should stay at home. This is indeed very boring, especially if their wife was a party girl before the marriage, who liked to go out. So if you're one of those guys, you'll need to weight up all the consequences before making a decision.

- Sexual faithfulness (i.e. monogamy) carries no value to me, so this is something I'm not concerned about. However if it is something really important for you, you do have choices. For example, you can marry a girl whose value is much lower than yours, so if she loses you she'll never be able to find anything close. Or you can marry a truly religious girl. Or an average Indian girl. As with everything in relationship, you do have choices, but they will have consequences.

Quote:

2. Don't marry materialistic bitches: couldn't agree more. But that rules out (at least) 70% of American women.

Your glass is half-empty. Look on it differently: even if you say it is 90%, this still leaves 10M suitable adult women in the USA alone. And you only need one.
Also - and I would speculate here - my impression so far is most American women are NOT materialistic golddiggers; a poor girl from EE has a much higher chance to turn into materialistic bitch.

Quote:

3. Come on, you really think a woman won't change her mind even if she agreed to something beforehand? A woman can say one thing and do another. They do it all the time and I would expect all wives to be no different. Most women make terrible mothers: FACT.

Disagree here. Adult people do not change their opinions that easily; someone who believes in strict discipline for kids is not likely to change their beliefs to spoil the kids. If you are concerned she might lie to you, do that indirectly - discuss news articles, make up stories and ask her opinion, ask her friends. And talk about it several times. It is not possible to hide your true opinion for long enough in the relationship.
I never heard that most women make terrible mothers as a fact, and I don't believe it at all. Makes me wonder where your facts come from.

Quote:

High value has nothing to do with the loss of attraction a wife feels for a man over time. Rich men suffer just as much, if not more, infidelity from their wives. It is a natural process that no one can stop.

Those "rich men" you mention have a similar-value relationship - they traded their value in money for their wife's value in looks and age. So it is not high value relationship.

Loss of attraction happens, although not very often. We all get older, and we typically we look worse in our 50s than we did in 20s. Indeed, if one decided that if he got married, he can now quit gym and gain 100 pounds, this is a well-deserved loss. But in most cases the "loss of attraction" means there was really no attraction before.

Quote:

Because if you get divorced, guess how much your wife costs you? Versus some full-time nanny from a third-world country, such as Africa...

I don't believe we'd ever divorce, but in this case the costs will likely be zero. She works, and makes close to what I make, so the half of what we have is genuinely hers. A full-time live-in nanny through Au Pair costs around $1,500 a month (her salary, extra bedroom, other expenses), so it is obvious that's a much worse choice. Not to mention that I'd be cautious to have my kids being raised by some poor gal from Africa, who grew up in a very different culture and speaks different language.

Quote:

I won't deny that you must be very careful if you choose to expatriate. But it is the most complete solution if you can work it.

It is not a solution - you're trading one set of problems with a different set of problems. Did you try to live in a foreign country for at least a year?

Quote:

You aren't getting married for society, you get married because you love your wife. The point of the wedding is for your wife's sake, so she can fit in with society's norms (extremely important for any woman of any country). But, LEGALLY, you are not actually married.

I don't see any point here. Why do you need a wedding if you're not married? You can just live together. It is not 50s anymore, and they don't ask a marriage certificate to rent an apartment to a couple. For her having a fictitious wedding, and therefore lying about being married to all her friends, family, elders and so on, is a liability. How she'd gonna look if you decide to quit after a month and they find out she just fooled them?

Quote:

I'm not sure if child custody must happen no matter what. For example, suppose your wife were to be artificially inseminated by her own choosing, with your sperm, so technically in the eyes of the law she is a single mother choosing to have her own child?

This case is very simple - the court will decide you're the father, and you're liable for child support. Not really different from the case when you fucked a chick and she got pregnant by her own choosing, even though you did not want kids. Even if you adopted a child, you'd still be liable for child support.

Money-wise it makes little sense to fight a child support legal system in a court. Thing is, the state is interested in assigning child support, as otherwise the state would have to spend taxpayers money on it. So you'll spend a lot of money in attorney fees, probably much more than child support would cost you.

Quote:

The practical effect would be to have your child without any child support laws hanging over your head.

There are some possibilities - for example, the mother might die while giving birth, or she can run away, or she may lose all custody. Those all cases really suck for the kid.

Quote:

I agree that, in terms of value, both sides need to be equal. Why do you continue to rehash this?

Because you clearly want a relationship which is heavily balanced into your favor. This makes it not equal, and you haven't explained yet how you plan to address this imbalance. I don't see any reason why a woman of equal value would agree to such terms; she can marry an average Joe instead, and have a real wedding and the legal protection - meaning that, all other things equal, this Joe would have a higher value than you. Why would she choose you?

Quote:

If a woman were to marry me under these conditions, they would greatly favor my side, and I assume any woman I marry would be intelligent enough to understand this, so the only reason a woman would agree to these terms (of giving up her legal advantages) would be if she was deeply in love with you.

Feelings alone does not change the value. Especially for females, they tend to be even less emotional in those cases. The history is full of examples when the girl loved one guy, but married another one because of better prospects. Just look around - you'll see much more married couples with a wealthy very old dude and a young girl than couples with a wealthy very old woman and a young guy. If all you count on is that you'll met a nice quality girl and she'll love you so much that she'd agreed on whatever terms just to be with you - well, this happens, but as often as winning the jackpot in the lottery. Don't count on that.

[Dash Global]

I really wish I had the same mindset when I was like 17. I didnt know I wanted to travel and live abroad.

Im 24 right now, I have a business degree from one of the best Uni's in North Carolina that I wont be using anytime soon. Im in the process of going back to school to get a teaching license to enable me to legally move anywhere and earn enough to enjoy life somewhat abroad in South America and Asia ect.

I wanna get married and have kids no doubt. But I also wanna go out to the bars and clubs and meet women and have fun. So im planning on having kids around 35. This gives me about 8-10 years to do me.

I wish I knew what I wanted to do in high school. I could have graduated college at age 20. Move directly to South America and live it up for 8 years. Then settle down at 29-30 and have kids. But sadly that isnt how shit panned out for me. Ill have to hope I can get what I want when the 30's come knocking!

[Samseau]

Hey OldNemesis. I'm enjoying this exchange with you.

(01-29-2011 06:09 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(01-28-2011 05:47 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

1. I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. You think women will be faithful to you as long as you get married and make over 50K a year? You think something like a relationship is that easy? This makes no sense.

I'm saying the following:
- If a woman wants to divorce a man, she can do it even if a man does not cheat, as there is no-fault divorce now in all 50 states. So it doesn't matter whether anyone cheated or not, both spouses could file a divorce anytime. It doesn't matter who cheated either.

I'm only pointing out that if a woman cheats on you, and, again, it is very likely given the average woman in the USA today, then you can't divorce her without getting screwed over yourself.

Quote:

- There is really no way to "lose everything" in divorce. In the worst case one spouse loses roughly half of what has been earned during the marriage, plus half of the pension, and will have to pay alimony for the rest of her life, and child support for all kids. This is the worst case, which assumes the marriage lasted at least ten years, the second spouse never worked and is not able to find work because of physical disability. Most divorces seem to have much easier terms.

The terms almost always favor her, you will lose out no matter how you cut it. Either your kids, your paycheck, your existing earnings... etc. In fact, the most perverse aspect of today's marriage laws is that the more successful your marriage has been, in terms of how long it has lasted, the more you stand to lose and her to gain if you divorce. Fucked, no?

Quote:

- Most of those "got bored" excuses come from those couples where a husband insists the wife should stay at home. This is indeed very boring, especially if their wife was a party girl before the marriage, who liked to go out. So if you're one of those guys, you'll need to weight up all the consequences before making a decision.

Not in my experience. Wives get bored regardless of where they live. In fact, couples usually live where the wives want to live. Most men today don't even have the balls to ask their wife to quit her job for the kids or stay in the house or whatever. Most wives get exactly what they want, in terms of logistics, and she will still get bored.

And party girls? Even the diehard Christian girls at my college attended parties. I've never seen a woman who doesn't like to party. Indeed, some may be more hardcore party girls than other types, and do shit like coke or whatever, but even still, the constant stability and predictability of married life is more than what most women expect when they tie the knot.

They grow bored. I can't blame them too much either.

This is why married women are usually pushing their husbands to do more things, to travel with them, help their new business (one guy's rich wife does terrible art... and he gets to promote it! Fun! [/sarcasm]), or help them with their weird yoga/yenta hobbies or whatever.

Quote:

- Sexual faithfulness (i.e. monogamy) carries no value to me, so this is something I'm not concerned about. However if it is something really important for you, you do have choices. For example, you can marry a girl whose value is much lower than yours, so if she loses you she'll never be able to find anything close. Or you can marry a truly religious girl. Or an average Indian girl. As with everything in relationship, you do have choices, but they will have consequences.

Sexual faithfulness only matters to me insomuch it matters to her. If she insists on strict monogamy, but then grows bored and flighty and were to cheat on me, I would probably feel destroyed in that I wasted years of my life being monogamous to a women who ultimately lies to me (by cheating on me).

What's important is her integrity, not her actual sexual behavior. If she tells me she wants a commitment but is actually someone who would grow bored and move onto some other dude (like most women I've seen as they get older). Conversely, if she says "I don't care if we sleep with other people, as long as we can stay together" then I would find this just as appealing. I want an honest woman over anything else. (less than 1% of girls, perhaps?)



You may think I'm overly negative, but I'm reporting you the facts as I've experienced them from other older men's lives I've seen firsthand. Less than 80% of the men I've talked to who are over 40 years old have never been divorced. What a shit deal.[/quote]

Quote:

2. Don't marry materialistic bitches: couldn't agree more. But that rules out (at least) 70% of American women.

Your glass is half-empty. Look on it differently: even if you say it is 90%, this still leaves 10M suitable adult women in the USA alone. And you only need one.
Also - and I would speculate here - my impression so far is most American women are NOT materialistic golddiggers; a poor girl from EE has a much higher chance to turn into materialistic bitch.[/quote]

Yeah I guess.

Quote:

3. Come on, you really think a woman won't change her mind even if she agreed to something beforehand? A woman can say one thing and do another. They do it all the time and I would expect all wives to be no different. Most women make terrible mothers: FACT.

Disagree here. Adult people do not change their opinions that easily; someone who believes in strict discipline for kids is not likely to change their beliefs to spoil the kids. If you are concerned she might lie to you, do that indirectly - discuss news articles, make up stories and ask her opinion, ask her friends. And talk about it several times. It is not possible to hide your true opinion for long enough in the relationship.
I never heard that most women make terrible mothers as a fact, and I don't believe it at all. Makes me wonder where your facts come from.[/quote]

If mothers do such a good job, why are most people in this country so messed up in the dating scene? Why are white populations declining? This is all caused by a lack of proper rearing by the parents, and since women have more control over the children, it follows they are more to blame.

Quote:

Quote:

High value has nothing to do with the loss of attraction a wife feels for a man over time. Rich men suffer just as much, if not more, infidelity from their wives. It is a natural process that no one can stop.

Those "rich men" you mention have a similar-value relationship - they traded their value in money for their wife's value in looks and age. So it is not high value relationship.

Loss of attraction happens, although not very often. We all get older, and we typically we look worse in our 50s than we did in 20s. Indeed, if one decided that if he got married, he can now quit gym and gain 100 pounds, this is a well-deserved loss. But in most cases the "loss of attraction" means there was really no attraction before.

Really? So all of those divorced couples were never attracted to each other when they got married? Why did they get married in the first place?

I think you overestimate how much "value" can do for a relationship. It's not all games and power struggles (although most of it is). In the final analysis, you either have a good woman as your wife or a bad one. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Quote:

Quote:

Because if you get divorced, guess how much your wife costs you? Versus some full-time nanny from a third-world country, such as Africa...

I don't believe we'd ever divorce, but in this case the costs will likely be zero. She works, and makes close to what I make, so the half of what we have is genuinely hers. A full-time live-in nanny through Au Pair costs around $1,500 a month (her salary, extra bedroom, other expenses), so it is obvious that's a much worse choice. Not to mention that I'd be cautious to have my kids being raised by some poor gal from Africa, who grew up in a very different culture and speaks different language.

Okay, you have a rich wife. In this case, my nanny argument doesn't hold. But it does apply to many successful men who earn more than their wives.

And finding a girl who speaks english in Africa wouldn't be too difficult.

Quote:

Quote:

I won't deny that you must be very careful if you choose to expatriate. But it is the most complete solution if you can work it.

It is not a solution - you're trading one set of problems with a different set of problems. Did you try to live in a foreign country for at least a year?

Obviously, you would need to do your research and weigh in the trade-offs. No country has a perfect situation. But if finding a good woman is important, then it's probably a smart alternative for most men.

Quote:

Quote:

You aren't getting married for society, you get married because you love your wife. The point of the wedding is for your wife's sake, so she can fit in with society's norms (extremely important for any woman of any country). But, LEGALLY, you are not actually married.

I don't see any point here. Why do you need a wedding if you're not married? You can just live together. It is not 50s anymore, and they don't ask a marriage certificate to rent an apartment to a couple. For her having a fictitious wedding, and therefore lying about being married to all her friends, family, elders and so on, is a liability. How she'd gonna look if you decide to quit after a month and they find out she just fooled them?

She's not lying about her marriage. In the eyes of God and society, she is truly married. She simply would not be married through the state, so there would be no coercive element in the relationship.

Quote:

Quote:

I'm not sure if child custody must happen no matter what. For example, suppose your wife were to be artificially inseminated by her own choosing, with your sperm, so technically in the eyes of the law she is a single mother choosing to have her own child?

This case is very simple - the court will decide you're the father, and you're liable for child support. Not really different from the case when you fucked a chick and she got pregnant by her own choosing, even though you did not want kids. Even if you adopted a child, you'd still be liable for child support.

Money-wise it makes little sense to fight a child support legal system in a court. Thing is, the state is interested in assigning child support, as otherwise the state would have to spend taxpayers money on it. So you'll spend a lot of money in attorney fees, probably much more than child support would cost you.

If I donate sperm to a sperm bank, and a woman decides to have my children, would I be liable for child support?

Quote:

Quote:

The practical effect would be to have your child without any child support laws hanging over your head.

There are some possibilities - for example, the mother might die while giving birth, or she can run away, or she may lose all custody. Those all cases really suck for the kid.

I agree, I wouldn't want that to happen either. You want a positive female influence in the child's life.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree that, in terms of value, both sides need to be equal. Why do you continue to rehash this?

Because you clearly want a relationship which is heavily balanced into your favor. This makes it not equal, and you haven't explained yet how you plan to address this imbalance. I don't see any reason why a woman of equal value would agree to such terms; she can marry an average Joe instead, and have a real wedding and the legal protection - meaning that, all other things equal, this Joe would have a higher value than you. Why would she choose you?

Easy. Because she would love me.

Quote:

Quote:

If a woman were to marry me under these conditions, they would greatly favor my side, and I assume any woman I marry would be intelligent enough to understand this, so the only reason a woman would agree to these terms (of giving up her legal advantages) would be if she was deeply in love with you.

Feelings alone does not change the value. Especially for females, they tend to be even less emotional in those cases. The history is full of examples when the girl loved one guy, but married another one because of better prospects. Just look around - you'll see much more married couples with a wealthy very old dude and a young girl than couples with a wealthy very old woman and a young guy. If all you count on is that you'll met a nice quality girl and she'll love you so much that she'd agreed on whatever terms just to be with you - well, this happens, but as often as winning the jackpot in the lottery. Don't count on that.

I'm not counting on shit. I don't need a marriage and I don't want one if it means enslaving myself to a dying nation state.

[jfree]

(02-14-2011 01:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Why are white populations declining? This is all caused by a lack of proper rearing by the parents, and since women have more control over the children, it follows they are more to blame.

As to why the white population is declining, I think you have the wrong conclusion. It is a liberal rich nation thing along with birth control. Japan and South Korea actually provides financial incentives to their women to have kids due to declining population trends. They are also starting to "import" more women from poorer countries.

The large studies show that women in wealthy liberal countries go to school longer, more likely to have a career, and as a result have less kids, space them out more, and have them later in life.

I'm all for this btw as we benefit from the productivity increase (true wealth not just inflation) of women who swing from being an expense to generating income for an increased part of their lives which our businesses benefit from. Think two bread winners vs. 1 bread winner + more dependents since the women's main option is to have more kids whether they want to or not (especially if birth control is frowned upon).

It's easy math.

Imaginary 4 kids starting at age 20 vs. 2 kids starting at age 30 over 60 years:

4 x (60/20) = 4 x 3 = 12 kids vs.

2 x (60/30) = 2 x 2 = 4 kids

or based on actual data projected with no changes over 60 years:

2.5 x (60/23) = 6.5 kids vs (theoretic hispanic female)
1.8 x (60/26) = 4.1 kids (non-hispanic white female).
1.35 x (60/28) = 2.9 kids (japanese female)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.htm

Anyways, the statistical replacement rate today is said to be 2.1-2.2 per female.

So if you want a lot of kids and more control, live wealthy in a poor country that discourages women's rights and birth control (basically strongly religious countries). They definitely don't have problems with declining populations but will probably have poorer infrastructures.

[Samseau]

I do not believe that allowing women to work improves an economy's long-term output.


Take this thought experiment: Country A and Country B have identical laws, with the exception that women cannot go to college in Country B. Each have a population of 2 million.

Let's say there are 500 million youths in Country A that go to college.
Conversely, only 250 million youths in Country B go to college (since the women do not).

Because Country A's women go to college, their birthrate is low, around 2 per woman. In country B, their birthrate is high, around 4 per woman.

Country A, however, is able to immediately utilize 250 million more workers than Country B does. Country A's GDP and overall size of their economy becomes much greater than Country B's.

Country A's 250 million women produce 500 million children. Country B produces 1 million children.

Generation 1:

Country A sends the next generation of 500 million children to college. Country B sends 500 million males to college.

Generation 2:

The generation of Country A will send 500 million children to college. Country B will send 1 million children.

Generation 3:

Country A: 500 million. Country B: 2 million.


As you can see, in just one generation will Country B, although starting with half as many workers as Country A, create as many workers as Country A. Therefore, the idea that female liberation creates prosperity is false. It only increases prosperity in the short term, but within a few generations female liberation spells a stagnating economy that will be left in the dust by patriarchal economies.

In addition, without growing populations, there will be no new jobs created for each new generation of workers. This is one of the primary reasons why every developed country in the world today has growing unemployment rates. Population growth = real wealth for existing people to grow with. In fact, I would say population is the most valuable resource. If you want more buyers and sellers you need more people. It's retarded how most economists overlook this.



Of course, population growth means nothing if the rest of the country's laws are fucked up (i.e. middle eastern countries). But female liberation? Bad for the country's economy any way you slice it because it kills growth rates.

[jfree]

deleted because the argument didn't make much sense in hindsight and needed improvement.

[oldnemesis]

(02-14-2011 01:19 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm only pointing out that if a woman cheats on you, and, again, it is very likely given the average woman in the USA today, then you can't divorce her without getting screwed over yourself.

My point was that you mentioned two irrelevant things together. Cheating is completely irrelevant to determine whether one is screwed during divorce or not, as you can divorce her, or she can divorce you whether anyone cheated or not.

Quote:

The terms almost always favor her, you will lose out no matter how you cut it. Either your kids, your paycheck, your existing earnings... etc. In fact, the most perverse aspect of today's marriage laws is that the more successful your marriage has been, in terms of how long it has lasted, the more you stand to lose and her to gain if you divorce. Fucked, no?

I don't understand what you say. In California and other community property states, for example, it is 50/50 split of everything gained during marriage - no matter how long your marriage lasted, or whatever. Hard to see how those terms would favor her, unless the guy was a moron who married a girl which did not want to contribute to the marriage in any way. In that case it is not a problem with legal system either - the law did not force him to marry that particular girl. Could you provide a specific example?

Quote:

Not in my experience. Wives get bored regardless of where they live. In fact, couples usually live where the wives want to live. Most men today don't even have the balls to ask their wife to quit her job for the kids or stay in the house or whatever. Most wives get exactly what they want, in terms of logistics, and she will still get bored.

What you're essentially saying that some dudes out there are pussies who cannot stand up for their interests, so they got screwed. This is true, but again this definitely doesn't mean there is something wrong with marriage itself. If one does not want to put any effort to protect his own interests, why would anyone else do? The adult world is tough place, and those people who are doormats will get screwed by everyone, including their families, spouses, employers and so on.

Quote:

Sexual faithfulness only matters to me insomuch it matters to her. If she insists on strict monogamy, but then grows bored and flighty and were to cheat on me, I would probably feel destroyed in that I wasted years of my life being monogamous to a women who ultimately lies to me (by cheating on me).

What's important is her integrity, not her actual sexual behavior. If she tells me she wants a commitment but is actually someone who would grow bored and move onto some other dude (like most women I've seen as they get older). Conversely, if she says "I don't care if we sleep with other people, as long as we can stay together" then I would find this just as appealing. I want an honest woman over anything else. (less than 1% of girls, perhaps?)

This is the main reason sexual faithfulness in term of "sacred promise" has no value for me, because it forces people to do things which are not natural to a lot of them. Comparing to that, a non-monogamous marriage does not force any of you to have sex with others, so it is much less restrictive.

Considering that integrity is more important for you than sexual faithfulness, I'd suggest making it straight to any lady you're considering for LTR that "I don't care if we sleep with other people, as long as we can stay together". Explain the same rationale as you posted above - that a lot of people are discovering every day that they cannot be faithful, so you don't want your relationship to fall into the same trap. You may be genuinely surprised how many of them would agree to that.

Quote:

You may think I'm overly negative, but I'm reporting you the facts as I've experienced them from other older men's lives I've seen firsthand. Less than 80% of the men I've talked to who are over 40 years old have never been divorced. What a shit deal.

The Census statistics says the divorce rate for the first marriage is roughly 50%.

Quote:

If mothers do such a good job, why are most people in this country so messed up in the dating scene? Why are white populations declining? This is all caused by a lack of proper rearing by the parents, and since women have more control over the children, it follows they are more to blame.

Using the same logic the fathers are the ones to blame as they surrendered all the control over the children education to women while limiting themselves to fishing, drinking and playing video games. For example, when I go to the kids playground in a public park, I'm typically the only guy here. And quite a few ladies mentioned that they would love it if their husbands also took a walk with kids, but they're always too busy or whatever.

Quote:

Really? So all of those divorced couples were never attracted to each other when they got married? Why did they get married in the first place?

There may be a lot of reasons why they get married. Peer pressure (esp. families), legal issues (green cards), financial issues, pregnancy and so on.

Quote:

I think you overestimate how much "value" can do for a relationship. It's not all games and power struggles (although most of it is). In the final analysis, you either have a good woman as your wife or a bad one. And there's nothing you can do about it.

The value balance is necessary element of a healthy relationship, but it is not the only element.

Quote:

Okay, you have a rich wife. In this case, my nanny argument doesn't hold. But it does apply to many successful men who earn more than their wives.

No, I found a wife which works a lot, and makes probably 70% of what I make; the rest comes from her spending time on taking care of me and our kids. None of us came from rich families, and by Bay Area standards we're as rich as top 20% of local population.
My point, however, is that she is what I was looking for. I did not marry a random girl from the street expecting her to make similar to what I do, and I've disqualified well over 500 girls before I found her.

Now why those successful men married the ladies who earn much less than them if this was something important to them? I guess, because their other expectations were not balanced, and they had to compensate for the imbalance in value.

Quote:

Obviously, you would need to do your research and weigh in the trade-offs. No country has a perfect situation. But if finding a good woman is important, then it's probably a smart alternative for most men.

I'd say if one has problems to find a good woman in their own cultural environment, it would be even more difficult in the different culture environment unless you know that different culture very well and you are into that. To give you an idea, it takes 2-3 years living here in US for a Russian to come to conclusion that our culture is so different from any Western culture that we are very unlikely to get a long-term healthy relationship with Westerns, no matter how good other qualities he or she would possess.

Quote:

She's not lying about her marriage. In the eyes of God and society, she is truly married. She simply would not be married through the state, so there would be no coercive element in the relationship.

Nope. In the eyes of the society you're only married if you possess the marriage certificate. Which means you went through a civil procedure required by law. Neither wedding nor church is needed. We got ours from a civic hall on our way to work, and it took 15 minutes. No chapels were involved, and we didn't even have a formal wedding. However we are still married in the eyes of the society, and I bet even your pastor wouldn't say we are single.

However if you don't have a marriage certificate, at least the government part of the society will not treat you as married. For example, your "wife" may be forced by the court to testify against you, which would not happen if you were really married; you'll have to pay estate taxes, you wouldn't be able to sponsor her an immigrant visa, or file taxes jointly and so on.

Quote:

If I donate sperm to a sperm bank, and a woman decides to have my children, would I be liable for child support?

Probably not, but legally it will not be your kid either. If she decides not to keep him and give him for adoption, there is nothing you can do. If she dies, the kid goes to adoption, not to you. Your opinion is legally irrelevant no matter how she raises her kid. And if she meets another guy and marries him, you can forget about ever seeing your kid again as no court would grant you any custody. If you are ok with all of this, you may as well marry a girl who has a very young (<2 years) kid from previous relationship, and avoid yourself a lot of trouble.

Quote:

Easy. Because she would love me.

This is similar to if let's say you're looking for a job, and saying how hard is to get one. When asked what you want, you say the job should pay no less than $10M a month. Of course there are jobs which pay that much, but your qualifications must be exceptional. However when asked about why would any company pay you such amounts, your answer is "because they would like me". Of course, there is a chance, but I'd rather bet on winning a jackpot, the chance is much higher.

Indeed, she may love you, but still marry an average Joe. As I have said in previous post, this is what typically happens. Same as the company might really like you, but they'll hire someone with more qualifications, or less demands. This is how real world works.

Quote:

I'm not counting on shit. I don't need a marriage and I don't want one if it means enslaving myself to a dying nation state.

This is fine as well - if you don't want to get married, nobody forces you to do so. You just need to be honest with yourself about that. The problem is not that marriage is wrong, or all local women are unfit to be married. The problem is that your expectations exceed your qualifications. Same as above: the problem is not there are no jobs in US. The problem is not even that there are no 10M a months jobs. There are. The problem is that you don't have qualifications to land such a job, which means your expectations exceed your qualifications.

What you can do is to say to yourself something like "I would only consider getting married when the value in relationship is very imbalanced. It is extremely unlikely that anyone of the similar value as mine would agree on those terms. This means I have to either work to add more value while keeping my expectations the same, or I have to accept the fact that I will never get married". Again, nothing wrong with that, especially if you're in early twenties.

[jfree]

(02-14-2011 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I do not believe that allowing women to work improves an economy's long-term output.


Take this thought experiment: Country A and Country B have identical laws, with the exception that women cannot go to college in Country B. Each have a population of 2 million.

Let's say there are 500 million youths in Country A that go to college.
Conversely, only 250 million youths in Country B go to college (since the women do not).

Because Country A's women go to college, their birthrate is low, around 2 per woman. In country B, their birthrate is high, around 4 per woman.

Country A, however, is able to immediately utilize 250 million more workers than Country B does. Country A's GDP and overall size of their economy becomes much greater than Country B's.

Country A's 250 million women produce 500 million children. Country B produces 1 million children.

Generation 1:

Country A sends the next generation of 500 million children to college. Country B sends 500 million males to college.

Generation 2:

The generation of Country A will send 500 million children to college. Country B will send 1 million children.

Generation 3:

Country A: 500 million. Country B: 2 million.


As you can see, in just one generation will Country B, although starting with half as many workers as Country A, create as many workers as Country A. Therefore, the idea that female liberation creates prosperity is false. It only increases prosperity in the short term, but within a few generations female liberation spells a stagnating economy that will be left in the dust by patriarchal economies.

In addition, without growing populations, there will be no new jobs created for each new generation of workers. This is one of the primary reasons why every developed country in the world today has growing unemployment rates. Population growth = real wealth for existing people to grow with. In fact, I would say population is the most valuable resource. If you want more buyers and sellers you need more people. It's retarded how most economists overlook this.



Of course, population growth means nothing if the rest of the country's laws are fucked up (i.e. middle eastern countries). But female liberation? Bad for the country's economy any way you slice it because it kills growth rates.

Samseau,

Expanding on your thought experiment, your example would be correct when it comes to an economy's total output, GDP. But have you considered GDP per capita? While GDP per capita is imperfect, is a much better marker for individual wealth and therefore individual "prosperity" than just GDP. Another problem with your logic is that it lacks a basic understanding of a basic business principle - cost.

Let's use an extremely simplified business example as a metaphor for your country thought experiment:

Let's assume the following:

total output (GDP) = total revenue
individual wealth (GDP per capita) = revenue per employee
individual costs = cost per employee (we'll pick $25 per employee for easier math)

Company A: Employs both salesmen and saleswomen along with support staff, who sometimes feel neglected and stressed because they don't get to spend time with their beautiful, nurturing saleswomen except after hours.

-Has 10 salesmen, 10 saleswomen, and 20 support staff (2 per salesman + saleswoman combo).
-Each salesperson sells 10 units @ $10 for $100 in sales. Therefore:

-Revenue = (salesmen + saleswomen) x units x price = (10 + 10) x 10 x $10 = $2000
-Revenue per employee = $2000/(salesmen + saleswomen + support staff) = $2000/(10 + 10 + 20) = $50 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 40 = $1000
-profit = revenue - costs = $2000 - $1000 = $1000 (50% gross profit margin)

Company B: Employs only salesmen but each has a secretary that boost their sales effectiveness by 50%, but has even more support staff because secretaries are not allowed to sell and are bored and end up influencing more support staff to be hired. The support staff are very loveable and do the cutest things.

-Has 20 salesmen, 20 secretaries, 80 support staff (4 per salesman + secretary combo)
-Each salesman sells 15 units @ $10 for $150 in sales. Therefore:

-Revenue = salesman x units x price = 20 x 15 x $10 = $3000
-Revenue per employee = $3000/(salesmen + secretaries + support staff) = $3000/(20 + 20 + 80) = $25 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 120 = $3000
-profit = revenue - costs = $3000 - $3000 = $0 (0% gross profit margin)


So Which company is healthier?

While company B can leverage its size occasionally to gain influence, company A would almost always be in a better position. Of course, we assume no marketing/quality advantage nor the influence of corruption.
1. in direct competition, company A can lower their price to $8 which is below company B's cost and still make a profit ($3 per unit) thereby pricing B out of the market.
2. in downturns, assuming all of it is fixed cost (unrealistic but good for simplicity), company A burns through $1000 worth of cost vs. company B's $3000 worth of costs. As you can see, company A is much more likely to survive the downturn as A's burn rate is lower while it generated more profit previously and should have more reserves.
3. in labor and capital investments, company A also has the advantage of being able to apply more of its profit toward its employees and for capital investments (such as automation). If done fruitfully, this should lead to even greater disparity between company A and B.

So what has any of this to do with Country A and B?

If we agree that revenue per employee = "GDP per capita". And we agree that "GDP per capita" is a better measure of individual wealth, then by having the mother (saleswoman) contribute along with the father (salesman), you are effectively increasing the household (salesman + saleswoman + support staff) output and therefore the GDP per capita (revenue per employee = individual wealth).

If country B attempts to "grow" its way out of this by generating more males(salesmen), it also generates more females (secretaries) who while supposedly boosting male productivity (imaginary 50% boost added to not make it too lopsided against you) only generate costs in theoretical country B along with birthing more kids (support staff) and their costs.

Company B: Increases salesmen trying to grow its way out.

-Has 40 salesmen, 40 secretaries, 120 support staff (4 per salesman + secretary combo)
-Each salesman sells 15 units @ $10 for $150 in sales. Therefore:

-Revenue = salesman x units x price = 40 x 15 x $10 = $6000
-Revenue per employee = $6000/(salesmen + secretaries + support staff) = $6000/(40 + 40 + 160) = $25 per employee
-costs = cost per employee x # of employees = $25 x 240 = $6000
-profit = revenue - costs = $6000 - $6000 = $0 (0% margin)


Therefore, while GDP is increased by producing more males, you are also producing more females and children who just require an increasing amount of resources, housing, safety nets, etc. so there is no gain vs. country A which continue to produce more individual wealth especially if investments are further made to improve labor efficiencies, infrastructure, and even completely new industries.


Of course, in real life, it is much more complex than this. But, it's my take on your thought experiment.

As to your hypothesis about "patriarchical societies" (women prevented from working) being more prosperous in the long run. It sounds like wishful thinking to me. Outside of a couple of tiny oil rich monarchies, all lists of wealthiest countries by GDP per capita are dominated by countries with "liberated women".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...per_capita

As to growing unemployment rates, have you considered the effect of automation? As one business of mine deals in a specific sector of automation, I can say from first hand experience, that more and more roles are being automated away. It only seems to be getting worse (or better depending on your viewpoint) as intelligent devices get both more powerful and cheaper. We are constantly replacing/enhancing human labor which only gets more expensive as time goes on with automation which trends downward in price. It's much more of an impact than "outsourcing" to other countries for unemployment, IMO. I also worry what is going to happen to high population countries with low GDP per capita in 20-30 years when automation appears likely to potentially replace the great majority of basic production. Food for thought.

[MiXX]

(01-27-2011 07:02 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

But I can summarize it even shorter: if one has low value, he will suffer in any kind of situation - be it a marriage, employment, sports or anything else. People only value you when they see that you could quit on them any time, and you'll easy find something similar or even better. They must feel that by staying with them you give them a favor or at least it is even, not that they give you a favor by letting you hang around. Note this is about your real value, not displayed one, as you cannot display a fake higher value for a long period.

This is actually VERY true. I once went out with a client to a social, but business event. While we were there, I bumped into former (female) executive clients of mine who, without knowing I was with a new client, started offering me opportunities for other assignments. This happened about 4x with other people in my industry. My client just stood quiet, and said nothing at the time.

Suddenly, I started getting phone calls from my client asking if I was OK, and if I needed anything, and he flat out asked me: "Mixx, you are not planning on leaving anytime soon right? I know that you are this coveted <my tittle> and can go anytime you want, I just want to be sure you are ok; the project cannot afford to lose you right now."

Funny, he had not said that to me before.....

Mixx

[Andreas]

Can someone live with a person without getting "married" (by using the definition of society)? Is there a law that says if you wanna live with someone and have kids with that person, you must spent money on a ceremony and have a title?

Isnt that most men can't attract women properly and therefore they get married by the first chance they have with a woman so that they will not be "sterile"?
I'm too young for discussing this but im just very curious about it.

[kimleebj]

(02-14-2011 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Country A and Country B ... . Each have a population of 2 million.
...
Country A, however, is able to immediately utilize 250 million more workers than Country B does.
...
The generation [2] of Country A will send 500 million children to college. Country B will send 1 million children.

Dude, this is incoherent. Countries with total populations of 2 million send hundreds of millions of kids to college? Country A is able to simultaneously send more to college and have more workers? In only two generations, Country A sends 500 times as many children to college?

I think you just like population growth and want to emulate India. Regardless, most college-age men here are probably glad to have women companions in class.

[Moma]

(02-15-2011 11:09 AM)MiXX Wrote:  

This is actually VERY true. I once went out with a client to a social, but business event. While we were there, I bumped into former (female) executive clients of mine who, without knowing I was with a new client, started offering me opportunities for other assignments. This happened about 4x with other people in my industry. My client just stood quiet, and said nothing at the time.

Suddenly, I started getting phone calls from my client asking if I was OK, and if I needed anything, and he flat out asked me: "Mixx, you are not planning on leaving anytime soon right? I know that you are this coveted <my tittle> and can go anytime you want, I just want to be sure you are ok; the project cannot afford to lose you right now."

Funny, he had not said that to me before.....

Mixx

Pardon me, your client was male? I am just confused cos I thought it was about actual HV with women..

[jfree]

(02-15-2011 02:33 PM)kimleebj Wrote:  

(02-14-2011 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Country A and Country B ... . Each have a population of 2 million.
...
Country A, however, is able to immediately utilize 250 million more workers than Country B does.
...
The generation [2] of Country A will send 500 million children to college. Country B will send 1 million children.

Dude, this is incoherent. Countries with total populations of 2 million send hundreds of millions of kids to college? Country A is able to simultaneously send more to college and have more workers? In only two generations, Country A sends 500 times as many children to college?

I think you just like population growth and want to emulate India. Regardless, most college-age men here are probably glad to have women companions in class.

You're right kimleebj, I didn't even notice that... I apparently was on mental autopilot.

[Giovonny]

(01-28-2011 07:06 AM)IshGibbor Wrote:  

I remember reading Dennis Rodman's (one of my few role models) Wikipedia and how the man in his early thirties reinvented himself from being a shy, socially retarded introverted nice guy (he has Asperger's Syndrome) to a NBA bad boy. He partied it up but eventually found a wife and had some kids (although marriage broke up and now nearing fifty, the man is still having orgies in his hotel room, nice).

Ish

Ha. I love Dennis Rodman too. He is a bad mofo. From the projects of Dallas to the greatest rebounder in NBA history. Always did it his way and never gave a fuck about what anybody said or thought. Most mainstreamers have the wrong impression of him. Phil Jackson said he was the best athlete that he ever coached. I saw him in Vegas a few years ago and he was driving a Hummer that was custom painted with naked girls all over it. He had 2 blondes with him. Supposedly, when he dated Madonna, they had mfffffff orgies, just Dennis with like 5 or 6 chicks. He used to live on the beach in Newport Beach, California and would have wild parties all the time. I think he landed a helicopter in his backyard one time and got arrested for it. His dad lives in the Philippines and has like 20 kids. Kind of a crazy lifestyle but way more fun then some bullshit corporate 9-5.

One of the great athletes and lifestyle artists of our time.

[Moma]

(02-17-2011 12:36 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Ha. I love Dennis Rodman too. He is a bad mofo. From the projects of Dallas to the greatest rebounder in NBA history. Always did it his way and never gave a fuck about what anybody said or thought. Most mainstreamers have the wrong impression of him. Phil Jackson said he was the best athlete that he ever coached. I saw him in Vegas a few years ago and he was driving a Hummer that was custom painted with naked girls all over it. He had 2 blondes with him. Supposedly, when he dated Madonna, they had mfffffff orgies, just Dennis with like 5 or 6 chicks. He used to live on the beach in Newport Beach, California and would have wild parties all the time. I think he landed a helicopter in his backyard one time and got arrested for it. His dad lives in the Philippines and has like 20 kids. Kind of a crazy lifestyle but way more fun then some bullshit corporate 9-5.

One of the great athletes and lifestyle artists of our time.

Dennis Rodman = Huge shareholder in Viagra and Ciallis

[speakeasy]

Are we talking about the same Dennis Rodman that wore a wedding dress on his book cover and talked about wanting to fuck another man in the ass?