[MrLemon]

If there are children involved who still live at home, I am 100% opposed to no-fault divorce.

Divorce to a child is like having one of their arms amputated. It is the single most destructive, insane thing you can do to a child. It fucks them over for 10 years minimum, so that they will forever be "behind" the rest of their non-divorced friends.

What is so fucking evil about no-fault divorce is that, just watch any divorce proceedings -- while the judge and the parents talk endlessly about "what is right for the children" -- inevitably in almost every divorce -- you'll see that the judge and the parents end up completely fucking over the kid. Suddenly the needs of the kids just vanish and what you are left with is:

1. A selfish asshole mom who wants to go relive her youth, who is willing to screw this kids our of THEIR youth so she can have hers.
2. A dad who says "I love you kids" and then goes off to find another wife who will INEVITABLY start screwing over his former kids in any way she can.
3. A divorce lawyer who takes 100K in fees -- so the kids don't get college paid for
4. A judge who gets a behind-the back payoff from the lawyer (his buddy from law school)
5. Some little kids who has no power, can't protect themselves, and is now is utterly at the mercy of every predator in the world

Marriage exists to protect and shield kids. It exists to remind parents to protect kids. When you divorce, you break that protection every single time. The parent is sacrificing their child's wellbeing in order to protect their own wellbeing. It is completely the opposite of what a parent is supposed to do.

Divorce is altogether evil. It cannot exist in the same sentence with "children" without being a lie.

There are now so many people who were fucked by their parents divorce, that it's utterly normalized. Many of you on this board grew up in divorced families and you don't even realize how badly you got fucked, because you don't know what you missed. The concept of a fully committed, loving set of BOTH PARENTS is so alien that we no longer even miss it.

[jeffreyjerpp]

(09-11-2018 08:41 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

What is so fucking evil about no-fault divorce is that, just watch any divorce proceedings -- while the judge and the parents talk endlessly about "what is right for the children" -- inevitably in almost every divorce -- you'll see that the judge and the parents end up completely fucking over the kid. Suddenly the needs of the kids just vanish and what you are left with is:

1. A selfish asshole mom who wants to go relive her youth, who is willing to screw this kids our of THEIR youth so she can have hers.
2. A dad who says "I love you kids" and then goes off to find another wife who will INEVITABLY start screwing over his former kids in any way she can.
3. A divorce lawyer who takes 100K in fees -- so the kids don't get college paid for
4. A judge who gets a behind-the back payoff from the lawyer (his buddy from law school)
5. Some little kids who has no power, can't protect themselves, and is now is utterly at the mercy of every predator in the world

Decades from now, when academics in China are analyzing the fall of the West, they will marvel at the insane degeneracy we embraced in our final years. They will chuckle heartily that stupid Americans, fat and dazed from cheeseburgers and an estrogenic water supply, allowed something like no-fault divorce in our society. At one point we put men on the moon. Not shortly after, we unleashed a whirlwind of evils we couldn't even imagine until they arrived, like Pandora opening the box.

On a related note, the massive damage divorce does to kids, along with the silent epidemic of child abuse by step parents, get zero media coverage despite being huge issues. Why no mainstream discussions or investigations? Because the obvious conclusions would expose no-fault divorce, having non biological parents in the house, and alimony for what they are: unconscionable evils.

[infowarrior1]

(09-11-2018 08:41 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

If there are children involved who still live at home, I am 100% opposed to no-fault divorce.

Divorce to a child is like having one of their arms amputated. It is the single most destructive, insane thing you can do to a child. It fucks them over for 10 years minimum, so that they will forever be "behind" the rest of their non-divorced friends.

What is so fucking evil about no-fault divorce is that, just watch any divorce proceedings -- while the judge and the parents talk endlessly about "what is right for the children" -- inevitably in almost every divorce -- you'll see that the judge and the parents end up completely fucking over the kid. Suddenly the needs of the kids just vanish and what you are left with is:

1. A selfish asshole mom who wants to go relive her youth, who is willing to screw this kids our of THEIR youth so she can have hers.
2. A dad who says "I love you kids" and then goes off to find another wife who will INEVITABLY start screwing over his former kids in any way she can.
3. A divorce lawyer who takes 100K in fees -- so the kids don't get college paid for
4. A judge who gets a behind-the back payoff from the lawyer (his buddy from law school)
5. Some little kids who has no power, can't protect themselves, and is now is utterly at the mercy of every predator in the world

Marriage exists to protect and shield kids. It exists to remind parents to protect kids. When you divorce, you break that protection every single time. The parent is sacrificing their child's wellbeing in order to protect their own wellbeing. It is completely the opposite of what a parent is supposed to do.

Divorce is altogether evil. It cannot exist in the same sentence with "children" without being a lie.

There are now so many people who were fucked by their parents divorce, that it's utterly normalized. Many of you on this board grew up in divorced families and you don't even realize how badly you got fucked, because you don't know what you missed. The concept of a fully committed, loving set of BOTH PARENTS is so alien that we no longer even miss it.

Indeed. The only thing good thing about "no-fault'' divorce is that it prevented Husband Murders which occurred at a much high rate prior to its implementation:

“Why Are So Many Wives Killing Their Husbands? from 1911

Quote:

Not since the dark days in the Middle Ages [Renaissance, actually, 1656] when 366 women are said to have formed a Roman Sisterhood of Death, and most of them poisoned husbands, has the world been shocked by so many deaths caused by women as in the United States in the latter days of the year 1911.

Within a few months writers for the press have been called upon to recount an appalling series of crimes. If the cases that obtain extensive publicity are criteria, they force the conclusion that more husbands are being killed by wives by husbands.

It is cited, merely as a curious coincidence, that this increase in the number of women’s crimes comes at a time when women are more active in public affairs than ever before in history. Doubtless it would be unfair to hint at any connection between the two conditions. The fact they exist simultaneously is given for what it is worth. But it cannot be denied that while some women are showing – rather convincingly, it must be admitted – the right of the sex and political leadership, other women are showing with equal conclusiveness the truth of Poet Kipling’s recent dogma, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male.”

~ Women in History Often More Ferocious Than the Sterner Sex ~

The long list of recent crimes committed by women or attributed to them bears out a theory held by the criminologists from Lombroso down. And that is that while women are less inclined to acts of violence than men, on account of their physical weakness, when they do become criminals their crimes are characterized by a cruelty and relentlessness not found in male offenders. [Editor's note: In my view, events and crimes, subsequent to 1911, show that men can be as cruel as women: full sex-equality is demonstrated in sociopathy. (St. Estephe)]

When a woman turns to murder she becomes ferocious. The bloodiest murders of the French revolution were not half so cruel as the fierce-eyed, wolfish females that urged them on. [Note: What this sentence identifies is now known as “Proxy violence,” a mode particularly favored by women (as well as political leaders), whereby males are used to do the work.] Mme. Defarge, who sat at the guillotine with her knitting and counted the heads as they fell into the basket, was a true characteristic of them.

In the early biblical days Jael lured Sisera, the friend of her house, to sleep, promising to shield him from his enemies, and as he slept she took a nail and drove it through his temples and into the floor below. And from that day until the last husband murder in today’s paper such crimes when committed by woman have been unspeakably brutal and inhuman.

The idea of a woman turning murderess is so repugnant to the average man that he scarcely can believe it possible. And the story of society’s leniency to women criminals is as old as the mountains of India, as old as the Ganges or the Nile, old as the pyramids with all their secrets. And back of all of it is unwillingness of one man to believe that the women he knows to be infinitely softer, more tender, more abhorrent of violence than he could dabble her delicate hands in human blood. And some singer spoke the truth when he said such things as this:

Cold eyelids, that hide like a jewel
Hard eyes that grow soft for an hour;
The heavy white limbs and the cruel
Red mouth like a venomous flower.
When these are gone by with their glories,
What shall rest of thee then, what remain,
O mystic and somber Dolores,
Our Lady of Pain?

~ Perhaps Leniency Toward Women Murderers Account for It ~

Whether this characteristic leniency of society toward women malefactors is responsible for the Amazing increase of husband murders of late is a matter, of course, of speculation. That criminologists should think so is not to be wondered at.

The Anglo-Saxon people are pretty thoroughly convinced, as a general thing, that capital punishment is a great deterrent of murder. The thing is easy enough to demonstrate, the advocates of the extreme penalty say. Switzerland abolished it and murders increased so rapidly that it was restored as an experiment. Murders immediately decreased in number.

Practically the same thing has been found true in France. For years the guillotine was in disrepute. And while its knife rusted in idleness France gave to the world some of the most appalling murders in the history of crime. The restoration of the death penalty was demanded by popular necessary.

Even in the United States murders have increased in commonwealths that have abolished the gallows. There is a great city on the border line of the two mid-Western states in one of which hanging in the extreme penalty for murder and the other life imprisonment. Newspaper men of that city say they have had to record many more atrocious murders in the latter than in the former.

If this be a true test, as it appears to be, justified by the fact, the criminologists strengthen their theory by applying it to women murderers. In late years but one woman has been put to death by process of law for murder. This woman’s crime was committed in a [sic] Eastern state and was most atrocious. She wished to be rid of her husband, with whom she had quarreled. She sent word she wanted to make up and named a trysting place of their sweetheart days. ~

After they had kissed and made up they spent several house there. The woman playfully picked up a rope and asked her husband to tie her hands. He did so. She then said she bet she could tied his hands so he couldn’t get away. Laughingly he let her try. She called a half-breed Indian boy to her aid, when they had secured the man’s hands they deliberately murdered him and threw his body into a stream.

Never was a more treacherous-crime committed. But when it was announced the woman was to hang, the Governor of her State was swamped with letters of protest. He withstood the pressure, however, and the sentence of death was executed.

That case was an exception. Everywhere jurors simply refuse to pronounce sentence of death against the women. In the rare cases when they do, popular sympathy compels an executive commutation of sentence. Within the last few weeks, readers of the Post-Dispatch will remember, at least two Coroner’s juries have wept in sympathy with women who have killed their husbands.