[Jean Valjean]

I was reading on Quora an answer to the question, "Should no fault divorce be abolished?":

Ty Doyle Wrote:

Among other things, fault divorce was (1) expensive, (2) time-consuming, (3) ugly by default, and (4) placed the onus on the party seeking divorce to prove the other spouse's lack of fitness, which wasn't always easy, even when allegations of wrongdoing were true. Further, (5) the process gave power to a spouse who wanted to oppose the divorce, which often made the process even more onerous and sometimes dangerous, with the spouse seeking divorce (plus any children) made hostage. And finally, (6) in many states, the fault regime had broken down, with parties and their lawyers lying about the conditions of the marriage in order to check one of the permitted boxes for a divorce, and judges looking the other way.

I wonder, why don't we apply this kind of logic to other kinds of litigation? For example, if you buy a $10,000 car, and it breaks down the next day and turns out to be totally defective, why don't the courts say, "It would be a big hassle to try to figure out who's really at fault for this deal not working out, so let's just arbitrarily find that the dealership is not at fault, and that the purchaser needs to continue making payments on his car"?

With no-fault divorce, that's essentially what you're dealing with: an as-is purchase where if your wife is so defective that she can't/won't fulfill her marriage vows, you still have to make child support payments after she leaves and takes the kids. As-is purchases are great if you think that car salespeople are just really trustworthy people by nature, and therefore you don't mind taking the risk; but maybe some people would prefer a warranty.

What I find interesting is that even though we have no-fault divorce as a way of avoiding costly litigation, the courts still are called upon to make the very subjective and potentially controversial determination of what's in the best interests of the child. I asked on Quora, "If expert witnesses can determine what is in the best interests of children, why can't they also determine who was at fault for a divorce?" but, as often happens on Quora, I'm not sure that respondents understood what I was getting at.

In child custody proceedings, often they'll subject the child and/or parent(s) to evaluations, so that an expert witness can give his opinion about whether the child would be better off in the custody of the father or of the mother. If you try to question the expert witness's conclusions, the court will say, "Well, this guy has a long string of letters after his name, so he's qualified to say what is the truth about this matter." In reality, the expert is just looking at the available facts and interpreting them in light of what his culture would say is appropriate behavior for a parent.

Why, then, wouldn't an expert witness be able to also look at the behavior of both parties to a marriage and decide which one was at fault for the marriage's breakup? That would be like how a mechanic could testify as to whether a car was defective, or if the owner abused the car (didn't perform the proper maintenance, etc.)

I think we can safely say that if warranties didn't exist, most people simply wouldn't buy new cars, because they would perceive it to be too much of a risk, especially if they saw that a bunch of their friends had gotten ripped off after buying defective cars. That's what MGTOW is all about. Men are deciding they'd rather sit on the bus next to a wino (i.e. bang sluts, and forgo the advantages of having condomless, reproductive sex), or just sit at home (i.e. masturbate), rather than invest in a car.

Hey, public transportation can be fun. I enjoyed riding the jeepneys in the Philippines. I like riding trains sometimes too. But maybe having to rely on it all the time gets old after awhile.

[not_dead_yet]

No fault divorce is one example of a societal change that blue-pilled men rolled over on to our detriment, probably because they thought (maybe correctly) that it would never apply to them. Other examples include the leftist control of education and women's suffrage.

The conditions that do exist for fault divorce (adultery, etc.) are easy enough to prove, so that's not the advantage of no fault divorce. I think what you want is a new form of fault divorce where the fact finder points the finger and says it's the wife's fault, or maybe it's 50% the wife's fault.

It's an interesting concept, but in today's world you're likely to get a blue pill judge who is biased towards the woman. Statistics and personal experience bear this out. So you might as well have no fault and save the money spent trying to persuade a blue pill judge to go your way.

That said, I'd be happy if there was a ballot initiative somewhere to put obesity on the list of grounds for fault divorce. That might be a good first step.

As always, don't get married without consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction and/or getting a pre-nup.

[Jean Valjean]

(05-21-2017 06:43 AM)not_dead_yet Wrote:  

No fault divorce is one example of a societal change that blue-pilled men rolled over on to our detriment, probably because they thought (maybe correctly) that it would never apply to them. Other examples include the leftist control of education and women's suffrage.

The conditions that do exist for fault divorce (adultery, etc.) are easy enough to prove, so that's not the advantage of no fault divorce. I think what you want is a new form of fault divorce where the fact finder points the finger and says it's the wife's fault, or maybe it's 50% the wife's fault.

It's an interesting concept, but in today's world you're likely to get a blue pill judge who is biased towards the woman. Statistics and personal experience bear this out. So you might as well have no fault and save the money spent trying to persuade a blue pill judge to go your way.

That said, I'd be happy if there was a ballot initiative somewhere to put obesity on the list of grounds for fault divorce. That might be a good first step.

As always, don't get married without consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction and/or getting a pre-nup.

This is true; that kind of system would only work in a red pilled society. Otherwise, obese women would try to claim, "The way he was treating me made me feel unhappy, so I turned to food as a way of coping" and maybe the court would side with her.

Even in countries like the Philippines where divorce is totally illegal, some couples still separate. From what I've read, there's not a lot of child support enforcement over there, though, so that may be part of what influences women to try to make their marriages work. They will often stick with their husband even if he gets a mistress, because they know that he can't divorce her to marry that other woman.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

No fault divorce is a disaster waiting to happen for anyone who knew female nature.

In reality there can never be equality before the law among the sexes. We will always treat women more leniently.

That means we have to balance it out better in other areas. We have to bring back fault divorce, also the right for men to keep the children if a woman decides to leave on a whim. If he leaves a good woman for a younger wife, he should pay alimony for life, but not when she frivorces him.

No fault divorce essentially ignores basic human nature that will never change. It gives women plenty of reason to follow their hypergamy and go for cash and prices. But this is not the only thing that is destroying families - there are other issues of course.

Also - the arguments of divorce being costly - this is just pure bullshit. Divorce is far more costly in the US than anywhere else in the world. It is utterly female centrist. Countries like Norway could get copied, but even there the women are massively advantaged, though the legal situation looks much better for men and is a lot cheaper. Still - the massive legal lobby and the anti-family oriented globalists will never let go of the destructive US divorce system. Most men go into it not being aware of what they are dealing - the Blue Pill indoctrination keeps them blind or otherwise hardly any man would get married.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The alternative to no-fault divorce is, what, trapping the man or the woman in a terrible marriage?

Most of the drama would be dealt with by granting equal custodial rights as an assumption and therefore requiring no child support. In particularly nasty cases the court could order a third party handle joint expenses like school fees or orthodontist appointments. The assets are a PITA but these days if you're loaded and you don't get a pre-nup then it's your own dumb fault.

Take those simple steps and women would be a lot less interested in divorce anyway.

[Vaun]

(05-21-2017 10:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The alternative to no-fault divorce is, what, trapping the man or the woman in a terrible marriage?

I am guessing most of these opinions of anti-no fault are coming from men with zero experience in these matters, of marriage or divorce.

So what if she can prove without a doubt you cheated, were abusive, were financially irresponsible, in front of a sympathetic judge and jury? Men will get hosed exponentially more than they do now. It may have been harder for a woman to lawyer up and divorce in the 1950's without no fault, but if it were ever the case again for no-fault, an entire legal support industry would explode to assist women. I would probably go to law school. Talk about a gold rush.

Laws that enable marriages to end more easily only benefit men, en masse. They may appear otherwise, but in the grand scheme of things, getting out of marriage easier helps you as a man avoid a bad women, and a bad marriage, then carry on and create a happy enjoyable life. But if you are inexperienced in relationships or marriage, that opinion falls of deaf ears, to idealistic young men who think they are going to find a virgin conservative serf and never get divorced. Half of you mostly likely will get divorced. Enjoy the decline. If you want to prove you are the exception to the divorce epidemic, dont get married, hire a surrogate if you want to have kids, and enjoy your life drama free with money in the bank. Sometimes I think it takes young men getting burned to see the light and kill the idealism, sad but true.

Men generally get hosed in no-fault divorce because they conduct their divorces very badly. Usually its because they are pussies and dont lawyer up with good lawyers that represent men in divorce.

[Jean Valjean]

(05-21-2017 10:06 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

The alternative to no-fault divorce is, what, trapping the man or the woman in a terrible marriage?

Who's to say it's "terrible"? Sometimes the marriage is just going through a rough patch, and the husband will still have his Pepe le Pew "romantic optimist" attitude while his wife will be feeling more like Penelope and wanting to get out:

But that's when you're supposed to be even MORE persistent and double down rather than giving up. Vive l'amour!

[Leonard D Neubache]

My wife and I have had some fantastic arguments in the past but the D word has never been spoken.

Not. Even. Once.

So I don't really know what it's like to try and salvage a shitty marriage. Our grandparents simply accepted that once you were married, that was it. Unless the husband or wife became an utter flaming train wreck you stuck by them, and sometimes even then.

But from the time of my parents onward (hooray for the free love movement) it was all about "my journey". Narcissism exploded into our culture in ways that were frankly unfathomable to previous generations. So when a woman decided she would likely have 5 more smiles a day if she were divorced (the grass is always greener...) then the choice was plain as day, and it was the man's responsibility to lure her back.

Fuck that.

If you're married to someone who's so flighty that they'd bin your entire history over a rough patch then trying to win them back is essentially selling yourself into slavery. Forever she will remind you that YOU are the one who couldn't live without HER.

Marry a woman for whom marriage is sacrosanct. Marry out of country if that's what it takes. Marry out of race if that's what it takes. Let the rest become bitter old cat ladies and die out as nature intended. And if you happen to get suckered by one and have her rip your life apart, rebuild yours and leave her bitter ass in the swamp of sorrows as a warning to your children and anyone who witnesses her sad life.

[Jean Valjean]

(05-21-2017 07:18 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

If you're married to someone who's so flighty that they'd bin your entire history over a rough patch then trying to win them back is essentially selling yourself into slavery. Forever she will remind you that YOU are the one who couldn't live without HER.

Yeah, but Pepé Le Pew never let that deter him. I know he's a cartoon character, but he's also my inspiration.

Unfortunately, restraining orders spoiled all the fun of relentlessly chasing after a lover. Stalking is a pastime that's been enjoyed, or at least indulged in, by both men and women since the dawn of romance. Nothing can change that.

My sister is part of the poly community, so theoretically she's not supposed to get jealous, but if she thinks her guy might be with another woman, she'll start hanging around his house and peeking over the fence to see what he's up to. Plus, of course, women will always be all up in your phone looking through your messages when you leave the room for 30 seconds to take a whiz, if you haven't set a password. In Filipino culture, if you're not obsessively jealous to the point of paranoia, it means you don't love the person. Treating someone as your property is how you show you care. If you fly into a rage and smash their door down, it shows there's passion in the relationship.

It's just human nature to be territorial like that. Even those candy hearts they give out on Valentine's Day say stuff like "Be mine" which suggests ownership. Abusive, controlling behavior? You decide.

Young women like to have some physical altercations in their relationships. They want drama and excitement. They want to be desired to the point that a man will even cross the boundaries she puts up to keep him out. They want to be ravished. That's why the outlawing of marital rape was such a tragedy.

Maybe that's why there are so many fat women today. They would prefer if they could get in a shouting match with their lover and then slap him and get forcibly bent over some piece of furniture and fucked hard as a masculine show of dominance, to remind her that even if she gets out of control with her feminine emotionality, he will firmly reestablish the patriarchal order of the family and protect her from her own excesses. It gives her permission to let loose and be herself, abandoning herself to her whims, secure in the knowledge that he will do what is necessary to keep her behavior within its proper boundaries. This heightens the sense of sexual polarity.

All of this would give her a rush that would distract her from her petty worries and trivial complaints. But instead, she has to sooth and comfort herself with a quart of double-fudge chocolate ice cream, finding what sensual enjoyment they can in the realm of food rather than sexuality. She looks for stimulation and satisfaction in the storyline of her TV shows rather than experiencing tension, climax, and resolution in real life. Studies have shown that women in physically abusive relationships have more sex, although researchers aren't sure whether it's because they get coerced into sex, or because the power and control wheel is erotically arousing. Maybe it's a combination of both! Their willingness to unleash their animal sides by getting physical during arguments may also be associated with a lack of restraint in the sexual realm, which makes the sex more pleasing.

We're all familiar with the fact that crazy women are the best in bed. Well, women like their Machiavellian narcissistic sociopaths too, who don't let society's rules or women's shit tests get in the way of what they want.

[captain_shane]

(05-21-2017 07:45 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 07:18 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

If you're married to someone who's so flighty that they'd bin your entire history over a rough patch then trying to win them back is essentially selling yourself into slavery. Forever she will remind you that YOU are the one who couldn't live without HER.

Yeah, but Pepé Le Pew never let that deter him. I know he's a cartoon character, but he's also my inspiration.

Unfortunately, restraining orders spoiled all the fun of relentlessly chasing after a lover. Stalking is a pastime that's been enjoyed, or at least indulged in, by both men and women since the dawn of romance. Nothing can change that.

My sister is part of the poly community, so theoretically she's not supposed to get jealous, but if she thinks her guy might be with another woman, she'll start hanging around his house and peeking over the fence to see what he's up to. Plus, of course, women will always be all up in your phone looking through your messages when you leave the room for 30 seconds to take a whiz, if you haven't set a password. In Filipino culture, if you're not obsessively jealous to the point of paranoia, it means you don't love the person. Treating someone as your property is how you show you care. If you fly into a rage and smash their door down, it shows there's passion in the relationship.

It's just human nature to be territorial like that. Even those candy hearts they give out on Valentine's Day say stuff like "Be mine" which suggests ownership. Abusive, controlling behavior? You decide.

Young women like to have some physical altercations in their relationships. They want drama and excitement. They want to be desired to the point that a man will even cross the boundaries she puts up to keep him out. They want to be ravished. That's why the outlawing of marital rape was such a tragedy.

Maybe that's why there are so many fat women today. They would prefer if they could get in a shouting match with their lover and then slap him and get forcibly bent over some piece of furniture and fucked hard as a masculine show of dominance, to remind her that even if she gets out of control with her feminine emotionality, he will firmly reestablish the patriarchal order of the family and protect her from her own excesses. It gives her permission to let loose and be herself, abandoning herself to her whims, secure in the knowledge that he will do what is necessary to keep her behavior within its proper boundaries. This heightens the sense of sexual polarity.

All of this would give her a rush that would distract her from her petty worries and trivial complaints. But instead, she has to sooth and comfort herself with a quart of double-fudge chocolate ice cream, finding what sensual enjoyment they can in the realm of food rather than sexuality. She looks for stimulation and satisfaction in the storyline of her TV shows rather than experiencing tension, climax, and resolution in real life. Studies have shown that women in physically abusive relationships have more sex, although researchers aren't sure whether it's because they get coerced into sex, or because the power and control wheel is erotically arousing. Maybe it's a combination of both! Their willingness to unleash their animal sides by getting physical during arguments may also be associated with a lack of restraint in the sexual realm, which makes the sex more pleasing.

We're all familiar with the fact that crazy women are the best in bed. Well, women like their Machiavellian narcissistic sociopaths too, who don't let society's rules or women's shit tests get in the way of what they want.

Jean you post some things that are really out there.

Quote:

Unfortunately, restraining orders spoiled all the fun of relentlessly chasing after a lover. Stalking is a pastime that's been enjoyed, or at least indulged in, by both men and women since the dawn of romance. Nothing can change that.

Seriously? Wtf?

[Jean Valjean]

(05-21-2017 11:27 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Seriously? Wtf?

I'm being slightly facetious. We all know that, contrary to popular culture's narrative, restraining orders are usually sought, not so often in the context of someone relentlessly pursuing a terrified ex and trying to coerce her back into a relationship, but more often when when both parties know the relationship is already dead and ready to be buried. At that point, it's time for the woman to launch a preemptive strike to gain control of the kids, the home, etc. so she can start inviting her new male companion(s) over to hang out with her in the place her (now-)ex is paying the rent or the mortgage on. It becomes the ultimate fulfillment of the AF/BB strategy. The process for getting a restraining order, designed for emergencies but subverted for tactical advantage, gets results a lot more quickly and affordably than waiting around for a civil suit to wind its way through the court system.

It is true, though, that up till the point when a restraining order is sought, the parties may be acting friendly toward each other. Once that order is issued, everything is strictly business, and handled through an attorney. There's no more of the playfulness and sentimentality that used to characterize the relationship. A victimhood narrative now permeates the whole proceedings, in which the accusations are now Serious Business because jail time is being threatened for the slightest infraction. Whereas normally, a breakup would be considered "no fault" (i.e. it just wasn't working out), now the accused is officially considered The Bad Guy™.

In light of the absurdity, and the unwillingness of the powers that be to recognize the absurdity or even tolerate dissent from their narrative, all we can do is mock the situation by parodizing the stereotype of "My love is stronger than any restraining order" or "Restraining order? She's just playing hard to get." This is similar to how the humor behind Pepé Le Pew, in which he always stays confident and interprets rejections (e.g. a hammer blow to his head) as flirtation. After all, she can't just give in to his advances right away; she has to shit test him and offer token resistance.

We all know that a woman has the most incentive to accuse a beta chump rather than the kind of alpha badboy who would be most likely to actually manifest Dark Triad characteristics, since the goal is to get the beta bux for free rather than to continue to give him sex. Having sex with an alpha, on the other hand, is an incentive in and of itself to stay with him rather than getting a restraining order. The "chicks dig jerks" trope is by now well-established in the manosphere. Finding ways to rationalize accepting or taking betas' stuff, while at the same time denying them sex, on the other hand, is the whole basis of feminism.

Another thing about Pepé Le Pew is that even though he freaked Penelope out, he was actually one of the least dangerous Warner Brothers characters. Most of the other cartoons involved characters trying to kill each other. It's kind of like how, even though feminists freak out about the manosphere, the men in our community are not known for actually harming any women.

[cascadecombo]

[RatInTheWoods]

I am in favor of no fault divorce.

Its modern times, and no one should be bonded into slavery with someone they don't want to.

The real issue here is the female centric settlement laws.

We need to reform the law so that people can keep what they have earned (title deed, paid for ect) and not have this retarded judge handing over all assets to women based on them having tits.

Child custody should be 50/50 with no alimony or child support payments ever.

In other words, separate finance from love love. they are two different things.,

[ElFlaco]

(05-22-2017 02:59 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

I am in favor of no fault divorce.

Its modern times, and no one should be bonded into slavery with someone they don't want to.

The real issue here is the female centric settlement laws.

We need to reform the law so that people can keep what they have earned (title deed, paid for ect) and not have this retarded judge handing over all assets to women based on them having tits.

Child custody should be 50/50 with no alimony or child support payments ever.

In other words, separate finance from love love. they are two different things.,

The original justification for these policies came from an era when women had fewer educational and career opportunities, when women were true homemakers and fathers/husbands had a smaller role in the home and in childrearing. That world is,long gone.

[captain_shane]

(05-22-2017 12:12 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:27 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Seriously? Wtf?

I'm being slightly facetious. We all know that, contrary to popular culture's narrative, restraining orders are usually sought, not so often in the context of someone relentlessly pursuing a terrified ex and trying to coerce her back into a relationship, but more often when when both parties know the relationship is already dead and ready to be buried. At that point, it's time for the woman to launch a preemptive strike to gain control of the kids, the home, etc. so she can start inviting her new male companion(s) over to hang out with her in the place her (now-)ex is paying the rent or the mortgage on. It becomes the ultimate fulfillment of the AF/BB strategy. The process for getting a restraining order, designed for emergencies but subverted for tactical advantage, gets results a lot more quickly and affordably than waiting around for a civil suit to wind its way through the court system.

It is true, though, that up till the point when a restraining order is sought, the parties may be acting friendly toward each other. Once that order is issued, everything is strictly business, and handled through an attorney. There's no more of the playfulness and sentimentality that used to characterize the relationship. A victimhood narrative now permeates the whole proceedings, in which the accusations are now Serious Business because jail time is being threatened for the slightest infraction. Whereas normally, a breakup would be considered "no fault" (i.e. it just wasn't working out), now the accused is officially considered The Bad Guy™.

In light of the absurdity, and the unwillingness of the powers that be to recognize the absurdity or even tolerate dissent from their narrative, all we can do is mock the situation by parodizing the stereotype of "My love is stronger than any restraining order" or "Restraining order? She's just playing hard to get." This is similar to how the humor behind Pepé Le Pew, in which he always stays confident and interprets rejections (e.g. a hammer blow to his head) as flirtation. After all, she can't just give in to his advances right away; she has to shit test him and offer token resistance.

We all know that a woman has the most incentive to accuse a beta chump rather than the kind of alpha badboy who would be most likely to actually manifest Dark Triad characteristics, since the goal is to get the beta bux for free rather than to continue to give him sex. Having sex with an alpha, on the other hand, is an incentive in and of itself to stay with him rather than getting a restraining order. The "chicks dig jerks" trope is by now well-established in the manosphere. Finding ways to rationalize accepting or taking betas' stuff, while at the same time denying them sex, on the other hand, is the whole basis of feminism.

Another thing about Pepé Le Pew is that even though he freaked Penelope out, he was actually one of the least dangerous Warner Brothers characters. Most of the other cartoons involved characters trying to kill each other. It's kind of like how, even though feminists freak out about the manosphere, the men in our community are not known for actually harming any women.

You talk about all of this Alpha/Beta stuff, but I don't think you really understand any of the mentality of being "Alpha". An "alpha" isn't getting so wrapped up and obsessed with one woman where he stalks and harasses her to the point of getting a restraining order put on him. That's the epitome of a scarcity mindset. I wouldn't expect you to understand this considering you married a hooker.

[questor70]

(05-22-2017 12:12 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

...restraining orders are usually sought, not so often in the context of someone relentlessly pursuing a terrified ex and trying to coerce her back into a relationship

Jean, this one cuts close to home and I have to interject. Restraining orders are not only issued against men. My ex-wife stalked me after the breakup. She keyed my new car at the courthouse. She snuck through the security gate of our apartment and started banging on the door. She left threatening voicemails. The end result of all this is the court gave me full custody and ordered her to get psychological help if she ever wanted to have visitation. Of course, she wound up NOT getting that help, which is why she's been out of my daughter's and my life ever since.

When the restraining order was issued, unfortunately the judge slapped it against both of us, but it was clear he knew who the instigating party was. I wound up catching her violating the restraining order on video but because I did not immediately take the tape to law enforcement they would not hold her in contempt. So the restraining order had very limited effectiveness. At one point my lawyer told me "a restraining order won't stop a speeding bullet". Mind you, my daughter was still being potty-trained at the time. I was mostly concerned with her welfare, not mine.

I sympathize with the idea that women are too quick to designate men a "creep" and how it puts men in a bind of not knowing how forcefully they should try to sell themselves against the usual battery of coy resistance. I'm sure there are frivolous restraining orders just as there are frivolous lawsuits. But they have their place too.

[Vaun]

(05-22-2017 08:13 AM)captain_shane Wrote:  

(05-22-2017 12:12 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 11:27 PM)captain_shane Wrote:  

Seriously? Wtf?

I'm being slightly facetious. We all know that, contrary to popular culture's narrative, restraining orders are usually sought, not so often in the context of someone relentlessly pursuing a terrified ex and trying to coerce her back into a relationship, but more often when when both parties know the relationship is already dead and ready to be buried. At that point, it's time for the woman to launch a preemptive strike to gain control of the kids, the home, etc. so she can start inviting her new male companion(s) over to hang out with her in the place her (now-)ex is paying the rent or the mortgage on. It becomes the ultimate fulfillment of the AF/BB strategy. The process for getting a restraining order, designed for emergencies but subverted for tactical advantage, gets results a lot more quickly and affordably than waiting around for a civil suit to wind its way through the court system.

It is true, though, that up till the point when a restraining order is sought, the parties may be acting friendly toward each other. Once that order is issued, everything is strictly business, and handled through an attorney. There's no more of the playfulness and sentimentality that used to characterize the relationship. A victimhood narrative now permeates the whole proceedings, in which the accusations are now Serious Business because jail time is being threatened for the slightest infraction. Whereas normally, a breakup would be considered "no fault" (i.e. it just wasn't working out), now the accused is officially considered The Bad Guy™.

In light of the absurdity, and the unwillingness of the powers that be to recognize the absurdity or even tolerate dissent from their narrative, all we can do is mock the situation by parodizing the stereotype of "My love is stronger than any restraining order" or "Restraining order? She's just playing hard to get." This is similar to how the humor behind Pepé Le Pew, in which he always stays confident and interprets rejections (e.g. a hammer blow to his head) as flirtation. After all, she can't just give in to his advances right away; she has to shit test him and offer token resistance.

We all know that a woman has the most incentive to accuse a beta chump rather than the kind of alpha badboy who would be most likely to actually manifest Dark Triad characteristics, since the goal is to get the beta bux for free rather than to continue to give him sex. Having sex with an alpha, on the other hand, is an incentive in and of itself to stay with him rather than getting a restraining order. The "chicks dig jerks" trope is by now well-established in the manosphere. Finding ways to rationalize accepting or taking betas' stuff, while at the same time denying them sex, on the other hand, is the whole basis of feminism.

Another thing about Pepé Le Pew is that even though he freaked Penelope out, he was actually one of the least dangerous Warner Brothers characters. Most of the other cartoons involved characters trying to kill each other. It's kind of like how, even though feminists freak out about the manosphere, the men in our community are not known for actually harming any women.

You talk about all of this Alpha/Beta stuff, but I don't think you really understand any of the mentality of being "Alpha". An "alpha" isn't getting so wrapped up and obsessed with one woman where he stalks and harasses her to the point of getting a restraining order put on him. That's the epitome of a scarcity mindset. I wouldn't expect you to understand this considering you married a hooker.

This entire conversation started by Pepe' Jean V is the total antithesis of game. Really surprised he made it this far.

[The Gooz Boos]

I have no experience with any of this, but it seems to me like the most sensible solution would be to do away with divorce altogether. Fault divorce, no-fault divorce, all of it. If a marriage takes a wrong turn, why shouldn't the husband and wife struggle to reconcile their conflict? All talk of ex-husbands and ex-wives strikes me as degenerate. Do not give people an easy escape from their responsibilities, from the sacred duty they have imposed upon themselves, from their duty towards their children and towards their spouse. Divorce also seems to inspire frivolity in mate selection. Such frivolity also strikes me as degenerate. Why should we want these things?

Is it slavery to take divorce off the table completely? Of course not. When people enter into a marriage, they swear before God and the law that the marriage is without end. They do this of their own accord. They had better select their spouses carefully and commit, so as not to make themselves liars before God and the law.

It seems that without divorce there would be no more wrestling over child custody, house ownership, and the rest of it. I'm sure there are periphery circumstances, situations and events in which it would seem at least from some angle unjust to disallow divorce. But with divorce, it seems that unjust edge cases are also present and all the more so.

[Baphomet]

(05-25-2017 10:43 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

I have no experience with any of this, but it seems to me like the most sensible solution would be to do away with divorce altogether. Fault divorce, no-fault divorce, all of it. If a marriage takes a wrong turn, why shouldn't the husband and wife struggle to reconcile their conflict?

So... Force a guy to stay married to a woman who loves going out at night and getting gang-banged by the local sports team?

Might want to re-think that.

[The Gooz Boos]

(05-26-2017 08:49 AM)Baphomet Wrote:  

So... Force a guy to stay married to a woman who loves going out at night and getting gang-banged by the local sports team?

Might want to re-think that.

If she loves doing that so much, why did he marry her? Big mistake. If they have kids, it's cruel to divorce and divorce would create a custody problem. If they can have kids but don't, why did they marry? Even without kids, if she's engaging in such degenerate behavior, then to divorce is to throw her to her vices. She would keep being degenerate, degrading the overall quality of civilization. Better for spouses to edify one another than to jump ship without a second thought.

Without the possibility of divorce, don't you think she would be more compelled to please her husband and nurture their relationship? She has no failsafe, no second chances. And given that she knows she's stuck with whomever she chooses, don't you think she would spend more time carefully selecting a mate that she more deeply respects? Divorce is one of the things that gives girls a lot of license to be incredibly degenerate.

Yeah, infidelity is a tough situation especially when its this massive, but what little divorce would solve is still overshadowed by the problems it would create. That's my opinion anyway. No matter what we do, there'll be tough situations like this. I don't think we can avoid that. Last thing, most divorces are initiated by the woman against the man. Doing away with divorce would be to the benefit of men.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^This has all the worldly wisdom of a man born in space, that grew up in space and lives still in space.

[captain_shane]

(05-26-2017 08:02 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 08:49 AM)Baphomet Wrote:  

So... Force a guy to stay married to a woman who loves going out at night and getting gang-banged by the local sports team?

Might want to re-think that.

If she loves doing that so much, why did he marry her? Big mistake. If they have kids, it's cruel to divorce and divorce would create a custody problem. If they can have kids but don't, why did they marry? Even without kids, if she's engaging in such degenerate behavior, then to divorce is to throw her to her vices. She would keep being degenerate, degrading the overall quality of civilization. Better for spouses to edify one another than to jump ship without a second thought.

Without the possibility of divorce, don't you think she would be more compelled to please her husband and nurture their relationship? She has no failsafe, no second chances. And given that she knows she's stuck with whomever she chooses, don't you think she would spend more time carefully selecting a mate that she more deeply respects? Divorce is one of the things that gives girls a lot of license to be incredibly degenerate.

Yeah, infidelity is a tough situation especially when its this massive, but what little divorce would solve is still overshadowed by the problems it would create. That's my opinion anyway. No matter what we do, there'll be tough situations like this. I don't think we can avoid that. Last thing, most divorces are initiated by the woman against the man. Doing away with divorce would be to the benefit of men.

[Vaun]

(05-26-2017 10:07 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^This has all the worldly wisdom of a man born in space, that grew up in space and lives still in space.

I remember high school. I thought anarchy could be a good form of government.

[Splord]

(05-25-2017 10:43 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

I have no experience with any of this, but it seems to me like the most sensible solution would be to do away with divorce altogether. Fault divorce, no-fault divorce, all of it. If a marriage takes a wrong turn, why shouldn't the husband and wife struggle to reconcile their conflict? All talk of ex-husbands and ex-wives strikes me as degenerate. Do not give people an easy escape from their responsibilities, from the sacred duty they have imposed upon themselves, from their duty towards their children and towards their spouse. Divorce also seems to inspire frivolity in mate selection. Such frivolity also strikes me as degenerate. Why should we want these things?

Is it slavery to take divorce off the table completely? Of course not. When people enter into a marriage, they swear before God and the law that the marriage is without end. They do this of their own accord. They had better select their spouses carefully and commit, so as not to make themselves liars before God and the law.

It seems that without divorce there would be no more wrestling over child custody, house ownership, and the rest of it. I'm sure there are periphery circumstances, situations and events in which it would seem at least from some angle unjust to disallow divorce. But with divorce, it seems that unjust edge cases are also present and all the more so.

Yes, yes, of course we should select our spouces more carefully etc. but this is not a viable solution at all. Wishful thinking is one thing, reality is another.
What if the wife decides to whore it up after she gets married?
Or the man start doing drugs?

Even if people were really that pious, the mere threat of it can serve very well as a come-to-your-senses slap.

Fault or no-fault, sometimes divorce is necessary.

[JohnnyBo]

Absolutely it's a personal matter for each pair when they both realize that they can not be together anymore. Someone breaks up because of a loud sneeze, and someone will endure their humiliation for the rest of their lives and assume that everything is in order. But for everyone, divorce or separation is a difficult period when you need support and strength to resolve the court and conflicts. I was lucky and I went through this path painlessly with my family lawyer. But is that so for everyone?