[vinman]

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/...rs-part-1/

[Aliblahba]

Their ALL whores. You wed them, another man beds them. A couple years back I opened up an Ashley Madison account. The hits I got were high. There truly are some lonely housewives in Atlanta. I never followed through.

[Vitriol]

Quote:

Above and be­yond this, dowries often used to be offered with brides to sweeten the deal. Our author’s description of this ancient custom is delightful: “females are considered a worthless burden so families pay men to marry them.”

Even the ancients knew that, from a man's perspective, women are useless except for momentary use as sex toys. The rest is just a burden. Therefore, men need to be coerced into what is essentially a bad deal.

Overall, that's a good article but it summarizes most of what readers of a site like this would already know. Interesting to note that the book was written by a woman who seemed to only want to discover the truth about why so many married women are unhappy... and she realized how ugly the truth was.

This poses the question of asking what the best arrangement would be now that we know marriages are inherently unstable and burdensome? If you were going to design a society how would you set up gender relations and reproduction?

[vinman]

I today's times a man in the west isn't a husband, he's a hostage.

[Screwston]

(06-26-2011 08:44 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Their ALL whores. You wed them, another man beds them. A couple years back I opened up an Ashley Madison account. The hits I got were high. There truly are some lonely housewives in Atlanta. I never followed through.

You have to pay for that site don't you?

[Aliblahba]

(06-27-2011 01:31 AM)houston Wrote:  

(06-26-2011 08:44 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  

Their ALL whores. You wed them, another man beds them. A couple years back I opened up an Ashley Madison account. The hits I got were high. There truly are some lonely housewives in Atlanta. I never followed through.

You have to pay for that site don't you?

It's free to join but to really get it going required a $50 buy in. This eliminated a lot of scrubs from the site. I switched my profile to a few other cities while traveling and got the same responses.

[MiXX]

They said the book would make single men cringe, and want to puke with fear in their guts..... and they were right; I just merely looked at the $100USD price tag for it, and I started shaking and getting cold sweats up my spine. I ran to my bed to cover myself with the sheets in fear already

I could only imagine how terrifying it must be to actually hold the 100USD book in your hands.

Mixx

[Adventure21c]

To the OP:

Thanks for the link.

In this day and age, information like that can never be overlooked. Vital in both game and marriage, well-known facts for those in the know once again reinforced.

Thanks to the feminism, the ugly truth that's been denied, lied, and hidden for 180,000 years is now out the closet. Bravo feminism.

[Lumiere]

(06-26-2011 09:23 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

This poses the question of asking what the best arrangement would be now that we know marriages are inherently unstable and burdensome? If you were going to design a society how would you set up gender relations and reproduction?

Funnily enough that's covered in a book that I am writing right now.

[Lumiere]

Interesting quote - 'Men have an inherent reluctance about joining together to defend their interests in the manner of feminists.'

Guess the author has done been to this site and others like it.

[Samseau]

If you think about how marriage used to exist, with tons of laws to punish the cheating spouse, it's a no brainier why getting married in a "no-fault" divorce age is pure idiocy.

[oldnemesis]

(06-29-2011 11:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

If you think about how marriage used to exist, with tons of laws to punish the cheating spouse, it's a no brainier why getting married in a "no-fault" divorce age is pure idiocy.

If you're so worried that your spouse would cheat on you that you must have a law punishing for that behavior, I'd speculate you have a lot of personal issues to deal with. Most notably it is lack of confidence - you do not see yourself as a prize, something worthy to pursue and keep. You do not believe a woman would not cheat on you because SHE would be afraid you'd drop her and find someone else - a better one - instead.

But you know what? The at-fault divorce (which actually still exists in some states) would not solve your confidence problems. Cheating has existed during the whole world history, several wars started because of cheating spouses. If public people cheated even with the fate of their whole State was on stake, do you think some minor monetary punishment would be a detergent?

[sylo]

OP do you happen to have the link for the 2nd part of the article?

[vinman]

Part 2

http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/...rs-part-2/

[Samseau]

(06-29-2011 05:40 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 11:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

If you think about how marriage used to exist, with tons of laws to punish the cheating spouse, it's a no brainier why getting married in a "no-fault" divorce age is pure idiocy.

If you're so worried that your spouse would cheat on you that you must have a law punishing for that behavior, I'd speculate you have a lot of personal issues to deal with. Most notably it is lack of confidence - you do not see yourself as a prize, something worthy to pursue and keep. You do not believe a woman would not cheat on you because SHE would be afraid you'd drop her and find someone else - a better one - instead.

But you know what? The at-fault divorce (which actually still exists in some states) would not solve your confidence problems. Cheating has existed during the whole world history, several wars started because of cheating spouses. If public people cheated even with the fate of their whole State was on stake, do you think some minor monetary punishment would be a detergent?

God, could you please stop with the ad-hominem attacks? It's really annoying.


It has nothing to do with being a prize, or confidence, it has to do with the laws being rigged against men and the very high likelihood of a marriage (or relationship) ending.

If you think of the old days, with all of the laws to prohibit divorce, enforce marriage, and punish slutty behavior (of either sex), then marriage made sense. Without these safeguards, most human beings are unable to keep long-term relationships.

[oldnemesis]

(07-01-2011 06:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

God, could you please stop with the ad-hominem attacks? It's really annoying.

I'm making conclusion based on what you said, not on your persona. Don't play the victim game, it is for losers.

Quote:

It has nothing to do with being a prize, or confidence, it has to do with the laws being rigged against men and the very high likelihood of a marriage (or relationship) ending.

You keep repeating the same things as before, while most of them were uncovered as simply not true. Let me list those:

1. You did not provide ANY evidence of "laws rigged against men", even though you keep telling about it. So far all the evidence you had was about some men who made a bad choice to combine their assets with someone who did not want to contribute, and they screwed up. This, however, is not a problem with the law. Nobody forced them to accept this choice, and there is no law which prevented their wives from working, or making as much money as they did. Blaming it on the government is typical American modern "responsibility", when there is always someone else at fault.

2. You failed to show the link between availability of no-fault divorces and the likehood of number of divorce. From your posts I also got an impression that you didn't actually investigate the subject yourself (as otherwise you'd know that for example NY did not have no-fault divorce till 2010), and just quoting some unknown source. Do you actually know that there were (and still are) at-fault divorces, and how they worked? Do you know the history why no-fault divorce was actually implemented as a law in all fifty states now?

3. It should be obvious that the likehood of the success in the relationship depends on YOU, not on the government policy. You seem to operate on a presumption that making the divorce more difficult, or even impossible, would somehow make the relationships happier. This presumption, however, is wrong.

Quote:

If you think of the old days, with all of the laws to prohibit divorce, enforce marriage, and punish slutty behavior (of either sex), then marriage made sense. Without these safeguards, most human beings are unable to keep long-term relationships.

Could you please define the "old days", so we can have a clear comparison at laws and divorce statistics? Which time period you are talking about, and which country? This is important as I don't remember there was ever time period in the US history when there was a law to prohibit divorce.

It is also funny that you think that it is the laws which actually affect how long the long-term relationships are kept. However if you look at divorce stats comparison, it is clear that a lot of countries with very low divorce rates have no such laws. For example, Canada has a twice lower divorce rate comparing to US, despite having no-fault divorce since 1968.

And of course the most important point here is that you seem to fixate on sexual faithfulness here. So, in your opinion, the marriage when there is no love or any feelings, spouses do not care about each others and practically hate each other guts is ok as long as there is no cheating involved? And you think prohibiting the divorce would do any good in this case? This comes from your statements above.

[ccurtis189]

(07-01-2011 08:55 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

1. You did not provide ANY evidence of "laws rigged against men", even though you keep telling about it. So far all the evidence you had was about some men who made a bad choice to combine their assets with someone who did not want to contribute, and they screwed up. This, however, is not a problem with the law. Nobody forced them to accept this choice, and there is no law which prevented their wives from working, or making as much money as they did. Blaming it on the government is typical American modern "responsibility", when there is always someone else at fault.

Indeed. It's time for men to step their game up and stop feeding women's entitlement behavior by refusing to marry women who don't want to work.

[Stitch]

This article almost EXACTLY describes what my wife did/is doing. And yes, it looks like I'm about to lose the house too. I cannot advise the legal institute marriage under any circumstances except those in which you are likely to profit.

[ccurtis189]

Dude, after reading this kind of stuff, I don't know if I'll ever be able to form a functional relationship based on mutual attraction and respect.

[kbell]

Its an excellently written blog. Was a bit taken a back by the Jew bashing. That was well written too though! Not sure why the book is so expensive.

[blurb]

I... I... am speechless.

I knew how that family courts and the divorce industry were stacked against men, but that second article really opened my eyes to just how bad it really is.

Makes you wonder if you really can game your wife 24/7 until the day you die.

Remember one of Roissy's maxim's:

Quote:

When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

[kbell]

I've been wanting to get taken into custody for some time. I just never have seen it at a store yet.

[Andreas]

Anyone read the book?

[Lumiere]

Yeah I read it

[vinman]

(11-12-2011 10:08 AM)kbell Wrote:  

I've been wanting to get taken into custody for some time. I just never have seen it at a store yet.

They have Taken Into Custody at Amazon.