This is the first of a series of occasional articles about marriage today. It is intended as a primer for young women who hope to marry.
“I don’t want to be married anymore.
In daylight hours, I refused that thought, but at night it would consume me. What a catastrophe. How could I be such a criminal jerk as to proceed this deep into a marriage, only to leave it? We’d only just bought this house a year ago. Hadn’t I wanted this nice house? Hadn’t I loved it? So why was I haunting its halls every night now, howling like Medea? Wasn’t I was proud of all we’d accumulated – the prestigious home in the Hudson Valley, the apartment in Manhattan, the eight phone lines, the friends and the picnics and the parties, the weekends spent roaming the aisles of some box-shaped superstore of our choice, buying ever more appliances on credit? I had actively participated in every moment of the creation of this life – so why did I feel like none of it resembled me? Why did I feel so overwhelmed with duty, tired of being the primary breadwinner and the housekeeper and the social coordinator and the dog walker and the wife and the soon-to-be-mother, and – somewhere in my stolen moments – a writer?
I don’t want to be married anymore.
…I will not discuss here all the reasons why I did still want to be his wife, or all his wonderfulness, or why I loved him and why I had married him and why I was unable to imagine life without him. I won’t open any of that. Let it be sufficient to say that on this night, he was still my lighthouse and my albatross in equal measure. The only thinking more unthinkable than leaving was staying; the only thing mor impossible than staying was leaving. I didn’t want to destroy anything or anybody. I just wanted to slip quietly out the back door, without causing any fuss or consequences, and then not stop running until I reached Greenland.”
Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat Pray Love
So begins Gilbert’s blockbuster memoir, a chronicling of the “healing journey” she undertook after leaving her husband Michael Cooper, who has said he thought his marriage was rock-solid, the divorce unexpected and the result devastating. With a sweet book deal from Viking, Gilbert set out with several hundred thousand dollars to gaze at her navel in Italy, India and Bali.
In a recent post I referred to the trifecta of doom concerning the future of marriage – declining marriage rates, declining male college enrollments, and overly optimistic female beliefs about fertility. Much of this is beyond any one person’s control, but if you hope to marry you must understand the contemporary environment for marriage, which includes considerable disincentives.
While the average age at marriage has been increasing for both sexes, the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia found evidence that men are more interested in delaying marriage than women are. From a study exploring men’s feelings about commitment:
The men in this study express a desire to marry and have children sometime in their lives, but they are in no hurry. They enjoy their single life and they experience few of the traditional pressures from church, employers or the society that once encouraged men to marry. Moreover, the sexual revolution and the trend toward cohabitation offer them some of the benefits of marriage without its obligations. If this trend continues, it will not be good news for the many young women who hope to marry and bear children before they begin to face problems associated with declining fertility.
The ten reasons why men won’t commit are:
1. They can get sex without marriage more easily than in times past.
2. They can enjoy the benefits of having a wife by cohabiting rather than marrying.
3. They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks.
4. They want to wait until they are older to have children.
5. They fear that marriage will require too many changes and compromises.
6. They are waiting for the perfect soulmate and she hasn’t yet appeared.
7. They face few social pressures to marry.
8. They are reluctant to marry a woman who already has children.
9. They want to own a house before they get a wife.
10. They want to enjoy single life as long as they can.
According to the study, “[Men] fear that an ex-wife will “take you for all you’ve got” and that “men have more to lose financially than women” from a divorce.
Like other young adults, these young men are highly critical of divorce. They think couples are too willing to call it quits without trying to work through difficulties in a marriage. As one observed:
“One fight, and it’s like ‘I’m out of here.”‘
Some attribute the readiness to divorce as part of a societal trend toward narcissism, consumerism, and “too many choices.”
“You used to fall in love with the girl in your high school English class. Now you have more choices and you get married and then three years later, a better one comes along,” commented one man.
Others believe that both men and women are more independent and need each other less:
“Now women are making as much as their husbands so they can say ‘see ya,’” one said.
Finally, these men cite the legacy of parental divorce as a factor con- tributing to a persistently high divorce rate: “We figure ‘hey my parents got divorced, so we can get divorced.’”
Clearly, men’s fear of divorce is real and is reflected in the falling number of marriages. To understand why, it’s helpful to look briefly at the history of divorce, beginning in the mid-60s. From Brad Wilcox’s The Evolution of Divorce at the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia:
The divorce revolution of the 1960s and ’70s was over-determined. The nearly universal introduction of no-fault divorce helped to open the floodgates, especially because these laws facilitated unilateral divorce and lent moral legitimacy to the dissolution of marriages. The sexual revolution, too, fueled the marital tumult of the times: Spouses found it easier in the Swinging Seventies to find extramarital partners, and came to have higher, and often unrealistic, expectations of their marital relationships. Increases in women’s employment as well as feminist consciousness-raising also did their part to drive up the divorce rate, as wives felt freer in the late ’60s and ’70s to leave marriages that were abusive or that they found unsatisfying.
Divorce rates doubled between the mid-1960s and the mid-1970s. In fact, divorce rates are lower today than they have been since 1970, but that’s on a smaller base of marriages.
In a study aptly named These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women, Brinig and Allen (2000) stated that women file just over two-thirds of divorces. (They cite the anticipation of custody as the most statistically significant factor in women initiating divorce proceedings at any given point.)
Another study by Amato and Previti (2003) looked at People’s Reasons for Divorcing. It’s the only data I could find, which is not surprising, since no-fault divorce laws have been around since the 1970s and require no justification for filing. This study was done with 208 subjects (77M, 131F) over a 17 year period, 1980-1997. One limitation of the study is that they spoke with only one member of each divorced couple, so there is bound to be some personal “rewriting of history” that is embedded in the results. The table below shows how men and women reported the reason for their divorce. Please note that this data does not address who initiated the divorce.
|
Men % Cases n=77 |
Women % Cases n=131 |
|
| Infidelity | 15.6 | 25.2 |
| Alcohol or drug use | 5.2 | 13.7 |
| Physical or mental abuse | 0.0 | 9.2 |
|
Financial/Employment problems
|
3.9 | 6.9 |
| Physical or Mental Illness | 1.3 | 3.1 |
| Other/EPL*: | ||
| Incompatible | 19.5 | 19.1 |
| Personal growth | 3.8 | 1.5 |
| Grew apart | 9.1 | 9.9 |
| Personality | 10.4 | 8.4 |
| Unhappy | 2.6 | 3.1 |
| Loss of love | 6.5 | 3.1 |
|
Lack of communication |
13.0 |
6.1 |
|
Immaturity |
2.6 |
1.5 |
|
Interference from family |
2.6 |
2.3 |
|
Failure to meet family obligations |
1.3 |
4.6 |
|
Don’t know |
9.1 |
0.0 |
| Other | 6.5 | 2.3 |
| Total Other/EPL | 87.0 | 61.9 |
*Note:
1. Because some individuals provided more than one cause, the percentages for individuals sums to more than 100.
2. The selection of Other reasons as frivolous, or EPL, is mine and is entirely subjective. Obviously, legitimate divorces can occur within these categories, YMMV.
From the study:
Consistent with expectations, women in this study were more likely to report problematic behavior on the part of their former husbands (infidelity, substance use, mental and physical abuse), and men were more likely to report that they did not know what caused the divorce. These gender differences replicate findings from several prior studies (Bloom et al., 1985; Cleek & Pearson, 1985; Kitson,1992; Levinger, 1966).
Contrary to expectations, however, men were no more likely than women to refer to external causes, and men were more
likely than women to report problems with communication. The latter finding appears to clash with the assumption that women are more relationship centered than men (Thompson & Walker, 1991) and that wives are more sensitive than husbands to marital problems involving emotions and communication (Cleek & Pearson, 1985). Nevertheless, this result is consistent with a study showing that communication problems (such as avoiding problem-solving discussions) predict marital unhappiness more strongly among husbands than wives (Roberts, 2000).Although it is possible that men are becoming more sensitive to relationship dynamics in marriage, we suspect that some men used general references to poor communication and other relationship problems to avoid admitting that their own misbehavior undermined the marriage.
I assume, though I have no data to support my suspicion, that women are also using references to male misbehavior to obscure their EPL motives for initiating divorce.
Another important variable is socioeconomic status. The National Marriage Project puts the divorce rate among college educated couples at only 17% during the first decade, half the rate of their less educated counterparts:
College-educated Americans have seen their divorce rates drop by about 30% since the early 1980s, whereas Americans without college degrees have seen their divorce rates increase by about 6%. Just under a quarter of college-educated couples who married in the early 1970s divorced in their first ten years of marriage, compared to 34% of their less-educated peers. Twenty years later, only 17% of college-educated couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of marriage; 36% of less-educated couples who married in the early 1990s, however, divorced sometime in their first decade of marriage.
This growing divorce divide means that college-educated married couples are now about half as likely to divorce as their less-educated peers. Well-educated spouses who come from intact families, who enjoy annual incomes over $60,000, and who conceive their first child in wedlock — as many college-educated couples do — have exceedingly low rates of divorce.
Back to the Amato study on socioeconomic status:
Several studies suggest that socioeconomic status is correlated with people’s reasons for divorce. Kitson (1992) found that high-SES individuals, following divorce, were more likely to complain about lack of communication, changes in interests or values, incompatibility, and their ex-spouses’ self- centeredness. In contrast, low-SES individuals were more likely to complain about physical abuse, going out with the boys/girls, neglect of household duties, gambling, criminal activities, financial problems, and employment problems.
These results suggest that as SES increases, individuals are less likely to report instrumental reasons and more likely to report expressive and relationship-centered reasons.
It would appear, then, that the Eat Pray Love phenomenon is largely centered among the most educated and affluent Americans. Certainly Elizabeth Gilbert fits the bill. So do those who prioritize female concerns. Oprah Winfrey liked Eat Pray Love so much she devoted two segments to it, and has supported Gilbert with additional appearances since. Oprah has also supported frivolous divorce in other ways. Her website featured the article, She’s Happily Married, Dreaming of Divorce, which was linked by CNN.
Ex-blogger Novaseeker took her to task for championing a woman who decided to stay in her marriage while getting her own apartment at her husband’s expense:
What are the other compromises I’m questioning? I’m shy about telling you, because I’m afraid it sounds as if I’m looking a gift horse—my decent, basically good enough marriage—in the mouth. Maybe I am. But here goes: I want a physical space where I can see myself reflected without the influence (both aesthetically pleasing and overpowering) of my husband. I also want to create a distance between my husband and me specifically for the purpose of coming together with the intention of…being together.
Fifty years ago… divorce was taboo and few women had the guts, let alone the financial means, to brave the social stigma of walking out on a decent husband simply because she felt there must be “something more”. Until recently, with nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce, the most commonly cited reason was infidelity.
But times have changed. Last week, a survey of 101 family lawyers conducted by the consultancy firm Grant Thornton revealed that adultery was no longer the principal reason for break-ups. Instead, the most popular explanation was couples saying they were simply “no longer in love” and had “grown apart”.
That survey was done in the UK, and doesn’t necessarily reflect American divorce, but Smith believes that Eat Pray Love is at the root of it:
What does this say about our society? Is it a shocking indictment of our narcissism that we are ignoring “Until death us do part”? Or is it a triumph of feminism that women whose mothers would have put up and shut up in return for a roof over their heads have decided that they refuse to live out their years with a man whose idea of an enjoyable night is dinner on his lap in front of Top Gear?
Women initiate seven out of 10 divorces. Divorce is also soaring among the over-45s, with break-ups in that age bracket increasing by 30 per cent in a decade. The writer Fay Weldon recently said: “Women in their fifties instigate divorce because they are bored and want to be free and single again, not because they want the emotional and sexual excitement of another man.” They’re encouraged by a recent vogue of “finding-yourself” literature, headed by the international best-seller Eat, Pray, Love, which recounted author Elizabeth Gilbert’s decision to divorce her husband and embark on a round-the-world odyssey of – depending on your view – inspirational self-discovery or nauseating navel-gazing.
Some readers have suggested that in good conscience I should withdraw my support for marriage. I disagree, because I am a firm believer in the power of marriage. The National Marriage Project’s statement reflects my own support of the institution:
Marriage is a fundamental social institution. It is central to the nurture and raising of children. It is the “social glue” that reliably attaches fathers to children. It contributes to the physical, emotional and economic health of men, women and children, and thus to the nation as a whole. It is also one of the most highly prized of all human relationships and a central life goal of most Americans.
However, I do not pretend that all is well. In addition to the malignant Eat Pray Love trend, men fear the financial consequences of laws guiding custody, child support, alimony, and the division of marital property. There’s also the very real loss of economies of scale that occurs in every divorce, as one household splits into two.
Men will decide whether to marry based on their own personal assessment of the risks involved. Those risks are legal, financial, emotional and physical. A man contemplating marriage will bring his own tolerance for risk and uncertainty to bear on his personal risk/benefit analysis.
As a woman, it behooves you to be fully informed about about the risks men face, and the benefits you confer in your relationship. You will need to demonstrate that you are low risk, high value, and of sterling character. That means, among other things, willingness to take your wedding vows dead seriously, and to speak out against divorce as a means of personal growth and self-expression.
{ 1122 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 8 »
“It’s not only women – it’s really just people nowadays. Look at all the male-written travel-memoirs from guys previously stuck in cubicle farms. Existentialist funks fueled by delusions of grandeur, unfulfilled expectations, rampant narcissism, and having life too fucking easy.”
The couples I have known that participated in frivolous divorce, most divorced in less than 5 years and separated earlier than that…
The truth is most outside observers could have told you they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place… the countdown to break up usually started before the engagement was announced.
I think that men and women aren’t entering marriage with an eye toward partnering and building something together but coming to the table with unspoken list of expectations and requirements.
I think at the center of every frivolous divorce are usually two people who couldn’t tell you why they got married in the first place ~JS
“I do think most men (including me) want to marry but requiring essentially unconditional love is a very high bar.”
I believe “unconditional love” is a bogus notion for marriage. Marriage is a two-way street, both sides need to be equally committed to keeping their value up for the benefit of the other person or it becomes a mooch train.
Devotion and reasonable commitment in the face of job changes, body changes, disability, the passage of time and all the rest of it, yes. A suicide pact that says “you’re required to go all in no matter whether I feel like trying or not” is not a system I want to draft myself into. As Athol Kay says, if someone is asking for unconditional love, it’s because they don’t meet the conditions. I give my dog unconditional love. My partner has to show she’s at least giving a crap about being good enough to earn it.
Kim,
“Thank you for this post. While I completely disagree – I do appreciate the thoughts. Gilbert basically pisses me off.
”
I have to say I’m confused – what is it that you disagree with? Are you denying that significant numbers of women are initiating “I’m bored” divorces? Does the truth, as Rhett Butler would say, offend you? PLease get back to us on this.
Kids are the only people deserving of and entitled to unconditional love. Adults need to earn each other’s love.
I agree that often people learn bad behaviors that will plague them throughout their lives, but in my case those bad behaviors had the opposite effect on me. It taught me how not to be.
Both my DH and I came from broken/troubled homes. We both turned out to be rather exempliary people, highly respected in our community, largely because we learned from our parents’ mistakes. Yet, I can not say we were unscarred by our experiences. Nearly every problem we each have as individuals and every marital problem we have as a couple results directly or indirectly from our respective childhoods. Although we’ve made it work, I think we were both very bad bets for marriage.
@Heligko
I think it comes down to a matter of culture as well. We don’t live in one of those “Do better in spite of your circumstances” culture. We live in a “Because of your circumstances we will give you a pass a lower your accountability for your actions” world. People can just get a way with bad behavior and blame it on their upbringing. Im not trying to say there are no ramifications but people have a lot of room to extrapolate them and get away with it.
Though, I will admit that one thing I have noticed coming from a broken home/family is that I have a much harder time bonding with people. I used to think I was just independent, but I have a high need to be independent. Dependence or interdependence is a foreign concept to me. That probably wouldn’t be good for a long-term commitment.
@Megaman #151
Yeah I want to avoid men who are or who have been promiscuous. Unfortunately I believe they make poor relationship partners.
I didn’t know there was a gender imbalance in India.
I could live in France. All that wine, cheese, pastry …
“Kids are the only people deserving of and entitled to unconditional love.”
+1
People for get this all too often.
Great post Susan.
Over the weekend I found out one of my old friends is separated from (and will inevitably be divorced by) his wife because she says she “just doesn’t want to be married anymore.” It’s completely blindsided and crushed him. Our group always liked her and there never seemed to be any red flags.
It’s one thing to read about this stuff online, but to experience it firsthand really makes a guy think twice. The whole thing just makes me sick.
@Babydoll
Sorry, I was talking about gender imbalance at birth. China appears to be the worst by far. But it’s still very conservative in it’s marriage customs, at least out in the country.
I’m not a big fan of dramatic relocation just to find a suitable mate. From what I’ve read and seen, the most marriage-minded people tend to live in rural or suburban areas, at least in the U.S. It’s also where they go to raise children. If you can find a job in a community like that (towns and smaller cities), you shouldn’t have to move far to increase your chances of finding someone special.
” “women are also using references to male misbehavior”
Aint that a cue for “there´s no sparkle anymore, he´s too (…) ” beta?”
Yes. Athol has framed this as “the dishes are dirty and my vagina is angry with you!”
Susan speculates that blaming “male misbehavior” forms a coverup of women’s self-motivations for divorce. I think this is not entirely rational; I don’t think it’s controversial to state that women writ large don’t understand their attraction triggers (thus misattributing attraction to being “nice” or some other non-attraction factor), and so are likely to semi-subconsciously misattribute their lack of attraction to some tangible annoyance that wouldn’t be a big deal if he was still giving her the tingles.
Another thing: the most worthless part of any study is the part where the researchers speculate on the meaning of the data beyond what the data themselves say. It’s supposed to be the section that suggests and motivates further research, but it really often turns out to be a collection of just-so stories that flatter the researchers’ prejudices and sensibilities. This is especially true in psychology and sociology, where the temptation is so high to deny what the experiment has just told you in favor of some pretty lie that makes you feel better.
Here is one example:
“Although it is possible that men are becoming more sensitive to relationship dynamics in marriage, we suspect that some men used general references to poor communication and other relationship problems to avoid admitting that their own misbehavior undermined the marriage.”
What’s going on here is that they’ve started with a preconceived notion that men avoid relationships and don’t care about them, and that women want relationships more than they want to be alone – they state this notion up front. So using that notion as a self-referencing truth, they interpret the data as “men must be being dishonest in marriage surveys” instead of considering the alternate hypothesis that women are actually shitcanning marriages at a greater rate than men are for capricious, nebulous reasons that men don’t understand. I guess it’s not that I’m surprised, but I’m disappointed that even when faced with broad numbers, researchers don’t want to be honest about the cruel brutalities of the walkaway wife syndrome.
Notice the weasel word “some,” as well, which communicates “even though I’m a scientist, I’m painting with a broad brush and don’t care.”
I used to think I was just independent, but I have a high need to be independent. Dependence or interdependence is a foreign concept to me. That probably wouldn’t be good for a long-term commitment.
Ironically you can find 101 books to avoid being co-dependent but nothing to help people that have issues connecting and committing. Again this is a problem with many branches like the tree of death and ignorance
+1
People for get this all too often.
Au contraire they remember it too well, hence why people refuse to grow up
@J
I need to ask you something about my TTC issues can you sent me an email at:hypatiaausten@gmail.com? Thanks in advance.
I guess it’s not that I’m surprised, but I’m disappointed that even when faced with broad numbers, researchers don’t want to be honest about the cruel brutalities of the walkaway wife syndrome.
Take in account that coming with money to fund this studies is hard they surely know that if the study comes out “misogynist” many sources of money will dry up. I’m not justifying just explaining that PC language keeps pushing the truth back because nothing is worst than “hurting someone’s feelings”
instead of considering the alternate hypothesis that women are actually shitcanning marriages at a greater rate than men are for capricious, nebulous reasons that men don’t understand.
Ha, still not sure I understand. With my first marriage, we dated off and on for 8 years with a couple of 1-2 year gaps in there. Straight up truth, she basically issued me an ultimatum and I caved despite reservations. So getting married was very much her thing that she pushed very hard for.
You’d think someone is firmly committed to something they issued an ultimatum to get, right? Ha, you’d be wrong. We got married in May 2004, and I remember coming home one day from work in Oct 2004 and her just staring at me from across the couch. Minutes went by in silence, until she basically said “I’m outta here, I don’t want this anymore”. Later I learned she was having an adulterous affair (had no idea at the time).
Ironically, a few months later in early 2005 she wanted to “try again”. At that point I was GTFO and we divorced in spring 2005.
I have one theory about *some* women and marriage and it goes back the validation thingy. We know women will have sex with higher status guys with basically no committment to get male validation. I think for some women, the act of getting married, getting all dressed up in the pretty dress with all eyes on her while the guy waits for her is the ultimate act of validation. It is like the combination meth/crack high of validation. But then the next day starts the messy reality of day to day living as a married couple.
I think guys have their “angst” before they propose and before they say “I do”. Once done though, thats it. Loyalty, a man’s word is his bond, all that stuff and it is like “OK, I am in this now come hell or highwater”. I think for women it is the opposite. Being proposed to, planning the wedding, etc. all that before stuff it is fun and enjoyment, but the “angst” settles in after that and it seems like it hits different women at different times
“I had actively participated in every moment of the creation of this life – so why did I feel like none of it resembled me? Why did I feel so overwhelmed with duty, tired of being the primary breadwinner and the housekeeper and the social coordinator and the dog walker and the wife and the soon-to-be-mother, and – somewhere in my stolen moments – a writer?”
I’ve really tried to screen my current GF hard. We’ve cohabitated for about 1.5 years, and I’ve flat out said that nothing changes the day after we are married. Our day to day lives will remain basically exactly the same. Nothing magical is going to happen to change our daily lives or state of mind. Getting married isn’t waving a magic wand to fix whatever stuff is out there. She seems to really get that so I feel pretty comfortable. If by some fluke chance, I’ve got this wrong, I’ll be flabbergasted and join the crusaders saying no man should ever get married. I really think it is possible to find and identify women who take committment seriously. Reading some of the comments is encouraging.
@Megaman #160
Funnily enough, I relocated to a bigger city for a relationship which subsequently fell apart. I decided to stay on as it was such a fun place to be in. Since the breakup less than a year ago, I’ve been approached by more men than I ever was in my previous city. There is more migration to my current city both from within Australia and overseas, and there are lot of young professionals in that group. I think I’ve only been out with one locally born and bred Australian since the breakup. I agree with you, location does matter and so does our mindset. I’d hate to give up the city life though, I like the lifestyle.
I would hate to be a man in the Chinese SMP. I read somewhere that many are resorting to sex workers and sex toys to cope with the lack of women. Or going overseas.
“(They cite the anticipation of custody as the most statistically significant factor in women initiating divorce proceedings at any given point.)”
Dalrock has talked at length about this, and it’s a critical point to understand that can’t be minimized. The presumption of maternal custody does a few things:
-Guarantees the woman some stream of income (child support margins in America are very high compared to the rest of the developed world, and this is a recent development in line with the Clinton-era anxiety about “deadbeat dads”)
-Enables her to go on the offensive in court, knowing the field is tilted in her favor anyway
-Enables her to maintain her self-styled image as a mother while getting rid of the annoying male figure. This feeds the rationalization hamster that she’s doing it “for the children” or somesuch nonsense. Dalrock has quoted an example of a woman who envisioned divorce as a “neutron bomb” that would remove the man from her life but keep everything else intact. This despite the fact that a mother who would frivolously remove her children’s father from their house is nowhere near what one could term a “good mother” (http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/marriage-is-part-of-parenting/)
-Gives the woman a sort of moral bomb-blast suit, should she so choose to use it – she can always get a carte blanche of sympathy by appealing to her single-mother status, sometimes relying on the bogus cultural trope that divorce is about men leaving their wives for “younger models.”*
It’s a bit like the classic example of chutzpah, a kid who murders his parents then asks the court to be lenient to an orphan…a woman who destroys her marriage, requests custody and a parental pension then complains that she’s overworked with children and can’t have a high-powered career.
*The irony being, if the husband was attractive enough to attract (not sleep with, but attract) a younger model, they’d have enough value that most of these EPLers wouldn’t divorce them in the first place.
-Guarantees the woman some stream of income (child support margins in America are very high compared to the rest of the developed world,
What’s that I hear opening? Oh yeah, that’s the lid to Pandora’s Box
I think Doug and Olive were good for about 100+ comments on this on a previous thread. From what I recall of that thread, the idea that child support is really to some extent de facto spousal support/alimony was quite contentious.
@ Charm,
what makes you so sure you’d ever even know if your husband got a paternity test?
I know my wife would never know I did it, if I’d ever had any reason for doubting my child’s genetic relation to myself. Unless it came back negative, in which case I’d just announce that some of my obscure relatives had some genetic disorders, and I wanted our child to get screened to see if he was carrying that genetic marker from me. Test scheduled for this afternoon, and I’m taking him to the clinic.
I mean, if I already knew that the child wasn’t mine, how much would it bother me if she’s screeching and delaying and protesting? Don’t try to give any crap about “don’t you care about the child you’ve loved and developed a relationship with for the past few years?” Seriously, a woman cheats, gets pregnant, and lies every hour of every day to her friends, her child, and her “soul-mate” about who the father is, and what do you think the chances are that she’ll stick around for the rest of the childhood?
It is like the combination meth/crack high of validation. But then the next day starts the messy reality of day to day living as a married couple.
I want to expand that most women had been to a wedding but how many women of the past generation had lived the day to day of what a marriage is? I was excited about our wedding I got the dress and the planning and I even got a crown with my dress, so I was doing the whole princess day thing (and trust me i plan to renew our vows every ten years to get to play dress up again with the same man of course
) but then I was also looking forward to building a life with my husband, having small routines , cooking for him, doing laundry, encouraging his hobbies and passions and writing my novels and gaining some income with it so he worry less about money, I even wondered how our first fights were going to be but again I had been living with my very married parents since a few years before I moved in with my hubby. I had the whole picture fairytale wedding and the marriage too. I think this generation has a lot more info on the dating and the wedding than on anything else your crazy ex included.
@Badger
This is a really big part of the problem with relations between the sexes these days, and not just in a marital context. To use your term, there are so many “pretty lies” out there that have been fed to both sides. Obviously guys stand to repeatedly get burned by these lies until they see them for what they are. For women, the lack of social accountability allows them to go through life on a virtually unchecked diet of those lies and apply them to every situation involving men. This is dangerous, and why I think a big qualifier for marriage material in women is a really honest knowledge of self. Until the culture changes to be more realistic and less female-centric, a lot of women will still be living a lie about their nature and make themselves a liability for marriage without their own knowledge.
I’l like to call everyone’s attention to this (by and large) accurate post by Athol:
http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2011/12/technology-created-marriage-20-not.html
Marriage 2.0 is dying and will hopefully get killed off and then tossed into the dustbin of history due to either the emergence of new technologies which favor men or civilizational collapse, which also favors men (relatively speaking).
@BroHamlet
‘
“For women, the lack of social accountability allows them to go through life on a virtually unchecked diet of those lies and apply them to every situation involving men.”
What do you mean by lack of social accountability? Can you give an example? I am trying to about this issue – it makes me sad that so many here seem to be put off the idea of marriage.
@BroHamlet
Oops I meant “trying to learn about”
@Kathy
“Most men, as do women, have a biological imperative to reproduce.”
In a theoretical sense, yes. But men have no desire to reproduce. They desire to shoot their loads. Siring children has merely been the normal and unintended byproduct throughout the ages because condoms and other contraceptives didn’t exist. We can be sure that the overwhelming majority of children born throughout history were unplanned. The script has normally been the same: guy unintentionally knocks up girl, then gets pressured by his relatives, the girl’s relatives and his community into marrying her and then working like a pack mule. Just ask any old man about this. But now more and more men are refusing to be evolution’s puppets and women are freaking out. (I might add they’ve refused to be evolution’s puppets as well, but, you see, they don’t want men to do the same.) When you give people the option to control their fertility, they will do so. That’s why we’re witnessing demographic implosion everywhere.
Some world traveler PUA should release a book about his adventures entitled ‘Drink, Party, F*ck’.
@Hollenhund
I checked out MMSL over the Xmas break and that article you linked was one that I read. I remember thinking at the time that he was spot on. I’ve reread it and I still think he is spot on.
Hmm … maybe we should do away with the birth control pill – now I shall run for cover for daring to utter such a sacrilegeous statement.
On the subject of slut shaming (it seems to pop up in many threads here):
“I hope you do realize that it wasn’t the “embarrassment” of slut-shaming, but the concrete consequences of acquiring the label, that made women afraid of the label. Slut-shaming worked because sluts suffered. Nobody cared for them, nobody married them, they were physically isolated or even cast out of society. Sluttishness will decrease when sluts are no longer fed. Then slut-shaming will be a powerful tool again. Until then it’s just pointless nagging that will get the shamer shamed for being “judgmental”. Judging only makes sense when there is a punishment attached to the crime…Men’s reputations matter more than women’s. Women don’t really care about shaming… They have no honor to protect. For women, consequences have to be very concrete.”
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/a-model-of-the-collapse-argentina-2001/#comment-16547
@Babydoll
“Hmm … maybe we should do away with the birth control pill – now I shall run for cover for daring to utter such a sacrilegeous statement.”
Or maybe we should give the pill to the men.
Legitimate possibility within 10 years. (Maybe 15.)
And yes, the feminists are trying to shut down the research hard core but its got quite a few other uses in disease treatment that are keeping it very much alive.
@tvmunson #139
“Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
Under the shade of a coolibah tree….”
You know what, I’ve lived Down Under for as long as I have and I still need a dictionary to work out what that means. Shocking, no? Or maybe no one uses those terms anymore, I’ve certainly never heard ‘swagman’ or ‘coolibah’ uttered in conversation and when I see/hear ‘billabong’ I think of the surfing wear/fashion company.
Thanks for clearing that up re the Kramer movie. I may have watched it but it must’ve been a long time ago – I can only vaguely remember a bit of the courtroom scenes.
@Lokland
Wow really a pill for men? That never occurred to me. Will that make things any better though? We have the condom now and that serves it purpose unless it breaks … wait, that’s why a pill would be better right? And the sensation, of course, I’m not a man but I’ve been told it feels better without a condom.
And why are the feminists against a pill for men?
“Or maybe we should give the pill to the men.”
It will never be a popular choice with men..When they haveother options.
It just won’t.
Some men will feel emasculated.. The cost of such pills will be high. Side effects? Often not fully known until years down the track.
As one doctor said .”The main problem with the male pill is sheer practicality. In women, one egg cell is released per month, according to a fairly precise set of hormonal events. So, dead easy to throw a spanner in the works of this system and stop the egg being released.
Men, by contrast don’t have this precise hormonal sequence in sperm cell production; we just churn out sperm by the millions each day and every day. So, for the male pill to be effective, you’ve got to disrupt a far more robust mechanism and do so with better than 99.99% effectiveness or else a few sperm could get past the process and fertilize the woman.
This isn’t easy; so far nobody’s been able to do it, and frankly since doctors and biologists aren’t fools and know a very hard challenge with few payoffs when they see one, not many have even attempted it.”
@ sonofagunforbeer
I see that, but I happen to agree with those women. Not in the sense that I’d be looking for casual at this stage, but I generally prefer for men to be older. Guys mature later, and the educated, cultured men I could imagine marrying whom are <25 are so few in between that the generalization is usually worth making. Obviously many of those guys are doing an education, but most of the men looking to marry at this stage do not have a higher degree. Even statistics show to this – men with masters degrees and successful jobs usually look to marry around 28-30.
I am 21 now, and could imagine meeting someone for an LTR that would turn serious, and the men I consider are usually around 26-27.
I think what the taxi theory means for most women, is that you wait for the eligible guys to want to settle, out of nowhere they find themselves a cute little wife at 30. He's been playing the field forever, he's dated women that are far more beautiful, intelligent, funny and charismatic than the woman he now settles with. He's had women before that would have made great wives, he just wasn't there yet, and his light wasn't on. I've ever heard guys say, "for a wife, I'd like someone petite. And more with a job like..a nurse". Even if Charlize Theron put herself on a plate when they were 23, if they had options with women then, they still wouldn't go for it.
I get the men thinking "come on, this new girl is better than you and you should accept it", or Jesus' typical "you're not as amazing as you think you are", I'm not saying this from a bitter point of view, I'm merely quoting what other women (women with a lot of options) have passed on to me. It's not as easy as "a wife should be kind rather than career-focused". I honestly think the requirements for a wife are not always as high as women think they are. If the guy is alpha, that might be part of the story, as he's not planning to be faithful anyway.
Yes pill for men. SARMs(SMARMs? can’t remember which). They basically shut down testosterone signalling in specific areas of the body. (The problem is making it specific enough, example currently theres one to prevent hair loss but it also causes impotence.) Same idea as the female pill actually just aimed at testosterone instead of estrogen. The thing is theres been little to no research done on them in the past 50ish years. Until know because they appear to be useful in disease treatments and also before that feminists kept it out of reach for a male pill.
I don’t think accidental pregnancy is possible in todays day and age.
For that to occur a woman has to forget the pill for multiple days in a row, during her ovulation and also have the guy not wear a condom (but that can be eithers fault).Then throw on that the chance of pregnancy during one sexual encounter is 20-30%. For all of that to go wrong is simply ridculous.
I don’t think its conscious, I think its more of an ‘ohh silly me I forgot my pill today, and yesterdaey etc.’. But in the end its the same result as a women who takes the condom out of the trash and inseminates herself.
Switching it over to mens control would entirely prevent this because it places the onus on men (and if he f’s it up then he is responsible without a doubt). Condoms are very effective but its so easy to forget, they kill the feeling etc. A pill would be a more elegant solution as well as side-stepping the trash pickers.
The reason feminists are against it? I’m not sure.
If I had to take a guess,
it would short-circuit a lot of the unfair marriage laws in practice today regarding custody and child support (similar to mandatory paternity testing) because it would place all of the power of childbirth in mens hands (assuming women want children more than men here).
For example, in Canada if a women picks your condom out of the trash, inseminates herself you are responsible for child support. Ridculous, everyone with a brain knows its insane. Its essentially rape (on the reproduction issue not all the other negatives). A male pill would eliminate this problem.
Basically a man has always needed a woman to reproduce. A woman typically can reproduce without effort because guys are horny 24/7 and then some. (She needs resources but thats an entirely different debate.)
A male pill would make women dependent on men for children. The husband/bf/lover would gain an immense amount of power.
Thought experiment, imagine there were very few men wiling to father children and actually had a way to prevent fatherhood from occuring. That would leave lots of women who want children with few sources (these sources might not be alphas). What are women to do? I see either get with one of the guys who want kids or go in vitro and the single mommy route because there would be no way to force men to have children.
One way to entice men back into fatherhood would be to make it a fair or even winning proposition for them. (I’d settle for fair.)
Now one last thing, upthread it was mentioned that in the US that 30% of American women don’t end up having children. (Thats truly scary btw.)
What do you think would happen if a male pill was invented that prevented accidental pregnancy?
The change might not be huge but it would change.
@Warm Woman
Interesting. I read that 15% of women on JDate are Christian. I don’t think the Jewish women care for that much
@Munson
I wasn’t referring to the custody question so much, as Mrs. Kramer’s decision to throw off the shackles of her marriage and abandon her husband and child. A husband who was loving, decent and hard-working. She was portrayed as robbed by him of the opportunity to do something outside the home, while he got to have drinks out and come home late. The clear message was that being a SAHM not only made her feel worthless, but made her worthless. When she returns, she’s not wearing a Harley Davidson leather jacket, but she’s a career woman, wearing an expensive suit, and with a considerable annual income. All that is straight from the Women’s Movement.
Anna,
In my experience, women who can’t find commitment have obvious flaws, whether in their personalities, their screening processes, or combination thereof. They protect their egos by trying to put the onus on men, but really they should look inward.
In the same way that MRAs and MGTOW are annoying insofar as they blame women for their troubles instead of looking inward at themselves.
Megaman,
I don’t know why you’re so skeptical about game. You seem to think that if more men learn game, you’ll have to lock away the wife and daughters for fear of their safety.
Good game isn’t about making good guys bad; it’s about making good guys more marketable. It’s that simple.
@Mike C
Yes. It’s not just the culture either. The standards for learning and behavior in schools, along with the self-esteem stuff where everyone gets a trophy for showing up, feeds into female narcissism. The girls constantly get positive reinforcement that they’re doing it the right way, while the boys are constantly chastised and corrected. The shaming of competition, whether academic, physical, musical, etc. robs boys if their natural inclination to compete with other males. The whole public education system is rigged.
If I could, I’d abolish both the teachers’ union and the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where many of these harebrained schemes were born.
I enthusiastically cosign Badger’s advice to women.
@ Jesus
I agree, but in many women’s opinion a 23 year old guy learning game might get a taste for casual sex. Guys hate to hear the “good guys are just bad guys without options”, but this is how many women feel. At the age of 27, a guy might benefit from it in the sense that he can get the attractive women he wants and deserves. But the need to “play the field” before settling isn’t just some asshole thinking, many guys feel that way (due to how men are biologically wired). Perhaps you don’t, but you have to acknowledge how many do. So a young guy guy learning game is likely to use it to get casual sex for some time.
When I first read your comments here a long time ago, they were much more bitter and with little insight. I take this is a sign that either men indee mature later, or that there is a chance I come back at HUS 6 months from now and you’ve changed your POV again
Mike C,
Haha who made the statement you quoted? I’m gonna go hunt them down…
Yes, that is precisely what I found when I researched the topic for my own state. I won’t argue about it anymore, but feel free to take my position!
Female hostility to the idea of the male birth control pill is easy to explain. Women want and demand a monopoly on reproduction. They’ve traditionally been able to get impregnated by pretty much any man (any alpha, to be more precise), (almost) anytime, anywhere. This is one source of their social power. If something prevents this, they get angry.
Susan..”abolish both the teachers’ union and the Harvard Graduate School of Education”
Schools of education have done tremendous harm to the American public school systems, both directly through their promulgation of theories du jour and indirectly by being so generally awful that they deter talented and spirited people from entering the teaching field, because such people don’t want to spend years listening to nonsense from professors who have some of the lowest IQs in all of academia coupled with some of the highest arrogance levels.
Anna,
6 months ago I was still reeling from a failed engagement.
You’re right, BTW. Men who learn game young will be likely to use it to get some casual sex, at least occasionally.
But you don’t have to put out for them.
That’s why I added my own speculation about women not reporting accurately, consciously or subconsciously.
I don’t think we can sweep bad behavior under the rug, though. EPL is a real phenomenon and highly problematic, but every study I found points to exploitation by some males in marriage, much as the study you quoted did. FWIW, I believe Minig was the only female researcher in this group of studies.
Anna,
Btw, good guys generally are bad guys w/o options. Just as good girls are bad girls w/o options. Growing up with a lack of options tempers us, causes us to develop in ways we wouldn’t have otherwise. People who’ve never experienced a lack of options (which is to say a lack of power), are typically spoiled, bratty assholes who lack empathy and values.
I’ve heard this before, but I don’t think it’s accurate. A lot of these studies come out of evo-friendly departments, loathed by the Women’s Studies types. There are enough studies with conclusions that discredit feminism that it’s not credible to say they’re being suppressed.
@Hollenhund
I find that a rather shocking statement, and I’m anything but sure about it. What is your evidence for this claim?
Virtually all girls have options for sex. Yet many reject casual sex, and waste no time pursuing “alpha genes.”
@ Jesus
No I don’t have to put out for them, but other girls probably will. Which doesn’t give much progress.
Yes, good guys are often bad guys without options. But no, good girls are not bad girls without options. Unless you mean girls are “bad” from simply dating. In my mind, bad girls are into casual sex and also promiscuous behavior. If good girls didn’t have options, that would be like saying only attractive girls participate in casual sex. Most of the time, the opposite is true. Casual sex is not a privilege for women. Some of the time it’s because they want to, most of the time it is because they seek validation and they can’t get a real relationship with the guy they want, sometimes they just don’t know how to get what they want. From my experience:
Girls with options date and are in relationships with top notch men.
Girls without options date less attractive men or sleep casually with top notch men.
Men with options date top notch women or sleep with less attractive women.
Men without options don’t sleep with or date anyone.
I think that “unplanned by the man” would be more accurate…IMHO.
A number of male acquaintances have said that the decision to have children would be made by their partners…’they’ would know when the time was right.
I find this attitude absolutely appalling.
Give men a non-hormonal birth control pill and there would have to be a conversation about having a kid, whoops pregnancies would vanish in any relationship involving an above moron level man.
Birth rates would drop through the floor, I reckon. And rightly so. Decisions to have kids should be bi-lateral.
This loss of power for women will make feminists spit blood.
What’s so shocking about that? People’ve normally become parents in their late teens (or early twenties) throughout history. Do you think most of them understood human reproduction? Do you think all those 18-22 year-old peasant hicks wanted to become fathers? LOL. People are f*cking dumb. Teenage pregnancy still occurs regularly in the West even though there are many forms of contraception available.
I didn’t mean “options for sex,” I meant options in general. People who are good, who’ve developed empathy and kindness, are generally people who’ve been thwarted in their attempts to get what they want.
I think you guys are overestimating the influence of middle aged career women when it comes to propagating the “Eat Pray Love” mindset. Oddly enough, the worst anti-marriage “ELP” advice I’ve ever received has been given to me by self-professed “happily married” [*]American conservative women.
According to these women, I’m marrying my fiance because I’m pregnant/trying to piss off my parents/for attention/because my friends are getting married. Apparently I need to break off my engagement, before I make a big mistake. My future marriage will be miserable. I easily brush off these projections; however, I think it’s peculiar that the women who claim to personify happy successful traditional[-ish] marriages, are the individuals most likely to discourage young-women from pursuing said lifestyle.
[*] My Japanese relatives/friends are supportive. Only American women denounce my engagement.
@Just1X
I would welcome a male Pill. I bet the U.S. Supreme Court would hold that to be a fundamental right. I don’t see how any reasonable person could object.
Yes, but Susan, I was talking about feminists… LMAO
it’s so difficult to set up an old one-two without a high quality straight-man
thanks Susan
@Anna
“Guys hate to hear the ‘good guys are just bad guys without options’, but this is how many women feel.”
Yeah, maybe that’s how they ‘feel’…due to the apex fallacy, of course. The women who say this never actually consider pairing up with an actual good guy, of course. Real-life good guys are invisible to her, and thus she never actually interacts with them unless she’s rejecting them outright; ‘good guys’ only exist in her mind as ‘assholes in disguise’ i.e. caricatures to ridicule and trample on. This is yet another example of the female rationalization hamster at work. Of course women will say good guys don’t actually exist – it validates their choice to ride the alpha cock carousel by giving the impression that there’s no better alternative.
Needless to say, all this is just nonsense. There are many genuine good guys, they in fact make up the large majority of men. But their lower testosterone levels, the resulting lack of aggression and their open willingness to commit to a woman make them unattractive. If good guys actually didn’t exist, humanity would have gone extinct because no man, with or without options, would bother to rear his children. It’s beta good guys who fulfill the role of reliable fathers. Do you think alpha males are capable of that? Hell no, throughout history they just impregnate anything that moved and then they left. I bet most of their spawn wouldn’t have even survived into adulthood if cuckolded betas hadn’t been around to raise them.
“At the age of 27, a guy might benefit from it in the sense that he can get the attractive women he wants and deserves. But the need to “play the field” before settling isn’t just some asshole thinking, many guys feel that way.”
…and women too, I might add. Ever heard of preselection? Women only want men that other women want.
I know more Runaway Brides than Walk Away Wives… I don’t know if anyone mentioned the fact that Julia Roberts has played both.
I think these are shop worn fantasies that appeal to women who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices in life or partners.
I think “I’m bored” is more accurately translated as “I am boring”… and this is the result of a generation afraid of mediocrity and being average.
Normal isn’t sexy.
I had never given much thought to the behavior of the women that I know and know of, because in every instance I thought she did the guy a favor by getting out sooner rather than later, because it was obvious that at some point she was going to leave.
And it was my thinking that all the guys won because after these women left they found, in short order, women who made much better matches.
I have always seen this behavior as the male dodging a bullet.
I think the problem with these types of women is that they are practiced at the art of deception, because they are successful at securing commitment, which they want but they are afraid of choosing wrong and wasting their youth without knowing if things would have been better with someone else.
When the truth is that they weren’t equipped to make it work with anyone, even their dream guy would eventually come up short… because marriage isn’t about somebody making you happy and eventually they wouldn’t have been
I don’t think that these women are chasing the tingle, I think they are chasing something much more elusive… happiness
One of my favorite books Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual by Dennis Prager, it was written after he was going through divorce for the first time (full disclosure he has been married 3).
What I find valuable is the idea that while it is human nature to avoid pain, the constant quest for pleasure under the guise of seeking happiness is misguided… the problem is that most people don’t know what it means to be genuinely happy or let alone how to achieve real happiness.
Which is why I think the IDEA of EPL is so appealing… because getting engaged, planning the wedding, being married, getting married didn’t get them to happy… so maybe there is another path.
I think this becomes the problem, this is the thing that men don’t get, and it is ultimately why these women can’t achieve what it is they want most… to be happy. ~JS
Anna,
FWIW, I more or less agree with what you’re saying. I mean, obviously people should still try to make themselves the best person that they can be, both for their own sake and for their partner. And it also needs to be remembered that some guys are never going to want to settle down. So even if a guy is a bit older, it’s still important to test that the light is “on” before investing yourself too much. But overall, if you’re looking for a marriage partner then I think it’s a good strategy to look at guys in their late 20′s.
Anna,
I’d just like to point out a few things:
1. Girls who indulge in casual sex for validation aren’t girls who are exercising options, but girls who lack options. If they had options, they would find more productive ways of boosting their self esteem.
2. Girls who don’t know how to get what they want are also lacking options.
I would say that these girls are about as attractive as guys who have no options.
The girls who know what they want and also know how to get it, but choose to have casual sex, are as attractive as players.
My ex-fiancee was extremely pretty, and yet she slept around quite a bit in college, which was the reason I broke things off with her.
The other thing I wanted to say was that, “top notch” is a subjective notion. To a woman who’s shallow, who’s used to getting what she wants when she wants it, a top notch guy might simply be one with high status and a conventionally handsome appearance. a woman less accustomed to options, might look beneath the social status and conventional looks to find something less superficially attractive.
That ties in nicely with Olive’s theory correlating hypergamy with herd instinct.
@ Höllenhund
I am not personally buying into the “good guys are losers”, so you don’t need to preach the good guy’s cause here. There are degrees of good and bad, and most men find themselves somewhere in between, with a taste for casual sex as well as a desire for someone to settle down with. I just don’t buy into the idea that a grown up man with no luck with women whatsoever is simply “too nice” and that no women want a decent man. Not all women are as judgmental about men as most of your posts are on women. If a guy is stressing too hard the fact that he is “one of the nice guys”, that is a red flag to me. If he on top of it claims that no women want him because they all want jerks, then he’s definitely out. Bitter don’t make good partners, and he is possibly one bad date away from hating women. Those are the guys that turn into rapists, mind you. If no woman on the face of the earth could make it work with him, he would seriously be nuts to claim that this the world’s female population’s fault, rather than him.
Women like men other women like, not because they follow everyone else’s opinion (they wouldn’t necessarily know his exes anyway), but because a) he has relationship experience and sexual experience, b) they probably like him for a reason. I don’t fancy a guy more because other girls do, but I am likely to fancy him less if he has never been held by a woman at an adult age. Despite men’s insisting that this is a lady phenomenon, men are influenced by a girl being labeled as a slut, bitch or golddigger by other men, a girl having too many partners etc. In the same way, men are also influenced by media, this is how a “hype” around a celeb woman is created.
@ Jesus
“1. Girls who indulge in casual sex for validation aren’t girls who are exercising options, but girls who lack options. If they had options, they would find more productive ways of boosting their self esteem.”
That was exactly the point I was making.
You said: “good girls are bad girls without options”.
To me:
Girls who indulge in casual sex = girls with no options. And IMO, girls who indulge in casual sex = bad girls. Which means bad girls = girls with no options.
And according to you, bad girls without options are good girls. Which is why I found your statement to not make sense, unless you have another view on what bad girls are.
Anna,
I think that anybody at either extreme (having all the options, or having no options) is probably bad news.
I was over-simplifying when I said that good guys=bad guys with no options. Good guys are guys who’ve experienced a lack of options… who’ve experienced restrictions.
>> I think that anybody at either extreme (having all the options, or having no options) is probably bad news.
This!!! Seriously, when are we going to get our Jesus blog?
http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2012/01/modern-view-of-marriage.html
@ Jesus,
sure I don’t personally agree that all good guys are bad guys without options.
I believe they are guys who either mature late, have been unlucky so far, have had bad experiences or are unattractive to women. How they would react to having game is individual, but it is reasonable to believe that some would have success with a great girl in a healthy relationship, but a fair share would choose casual sex, at least for a certain amount of time.
My main point was that “good girls are bad girls without options” does not make sense, by any reasonable interpretation of what “bad” girls are.
Emily,
I don’t think that’s happening. I already spend too much time commenting here. I wouldn’t make any money if I tried to start my own blog.
“No guy has ever said, Wow, look at the delayed-gratification and thriftiness on her!”
I did.
Something to consider for those of you advocating mandatory paternity testing at birth. I don’t think you realize the number of fervently antifeminist men you would be alienating by advocating this. You would be putting these men (and they are becoming more numerous everyday) in the same camp as the feminists regarding this issue. People are realizing more everyday that they do not want more government in their lives, they want less. Wouldn’t it, therefore, behoove you to advocate removing the laws that are so slanderous against men that are currently on the books and have a vast majority of men standing with you than having those same men standing with the feminists?
@ Anna: Bitter [men]don’t make good partners, and he is possibly one bad date away from hating women. Those are the guys that turn into rapists, mind you.
Anna, that is a shockingly offensive statement. Evidence, please. Statistics, please.
It’s the women, not the men, who are brandishing the long knives on this thread. Hollenhund has come here expressing simple manosphere and game truths, and the gnashing of teeth is well underway.
Anna,
You’ve had casual sex. Why would you want to keep guys in the dark about how to attract women just because they might choose to indulge in a bit of the same?
@ Hollenhund:
I think you’re right that men don’t necessarily aspire to become fathers. When I was single I gave only the most fleeting thoughts to fatherhood. Married men want regular access to steady sex. Well adjusted married men accept fatherhood as a natural consequence of being married and getting to sex up your wife regularly, and they step into it gracefully and with aplomb. But it’s not something a man spends years preparing for, or thinking about, or considering, or dreaming of.
deti,
I’d say that’s flat-out wrong in my case. I’ve considered becoming a father. I think about it. I want it.
Plus, if that were true, then that would invalidate the argument that men are looking for a trustworthy woman because they have an instinctual fear of being cuckolded.
I know more Runaway Brides than Walk Away Wives… I don’t know if anyone mentioned the fact that Julia Roberts has played both.
I’m shocked at the casual way women suggest breaking off my engagement. How is stomping on a young-man’s heart a casual decision? I love my fiance; I can’t toss my feelings aside to chase rainbows. It’s like these women don’t realize men have feelings, and can get hurt.
@ Jesus
I don’t want to keep men in the dark. I just disagree with the fact that the “good guys” out there just need to learn game for everybody to be happy.
First of all, some of the “good guys” with no luck with women simply just haven’t got what women want. Not all, but some. Secondly, I believe men are more likely to jump on the carousel and participate in casual sex into their thirties if they got a late start. Most women will try casual sex at one point but not make it a lifestyle. I did when I was 19, I am a of a different believe now that I am 21.
If a “good guy” with no female action learns game and uses it for casual sex, no problem for me, I’m not going to sleep with him. But someone made a point out of it as a solution for the sexual market, and that it would result in more and better relationships, which I don’t actually believe to be 100% true.
I think Susan wrote once about guys who’s just converted, “pretending” to be bad guys: “some like the new action so much, they never come back from the dark side”.
@ Anna:
“Casual sex is not a privilege for women. Some of the time it’s because they want to, most of the time it is because they seek validation and they can’t get a real relationship with the guy they want, sometimes they just don’t know how to get what they want.”
This is only partially correct. It goes deeper than that, I think. Sex is a woman’s first, best agency. It is her trump card, first, last and always. Women understand that men want sex, women have it, and women decide which man/men will get sex from her, when and under what circumstances.
At bottom, in this SMP, casual sex for men is about sex. But for women, casual sex, and sex in general, is about power. Sex is how some (if not most) women assert power and authority in their lives, in their relationships, in their social interactions.
A woman between the ages of 17 to 29 has immense power in the sexual marketplace. The problem is that most women aren’t taught how to use it.
Anna,
There will be a lot of guys who choose to go the casual route through their 30′s. That’s their choice. True, women have the luxury of being able to try out casual sex young even if they’re social retarded. Most men don’t have that luxury. And once they do learn how to get it, many will want to make up for lost time. Understandable.
Getting game is about becoming a strong and independent man with high value. Even aside from its use in getting a guy laid or into a relationship, getting game helps guys be the men they’ve always wanted to be.
Jesus M:
You are a true outlier.
Anna,
That’s true. Some men will go the casual sex route and never look back. Or only look back once they get older and are ready to get married. Some women do that too.
deti,
I may be an outlier, but I know many more like me. Most guys I know want to have a family one day, if they don’t already have one. And not because of easy access to sex.
I disagree with this statement from Anna:
“Casual sex is not a privilege for women.”
This society has gone out of its way to create an entire legal, social, and cultural framework to confer the privilege of casual sex upon women.
Just look around you, Anna: SATC. EPL. “Cougartown”. “Friends with Benefits.” No-fault divorce tilting the legal playing field toward women and which actively destroys the financial lives of men. Easy access to cheap, safe, and reliable birth control under the total control of the woman. Slutwalks. A culture which permits the absolute excoriation and political evisceration of anyone who suggests that perhaps, maybe, women could protect themselves by not dressing like whores.
A religious culture (i.e. mainstream Churchianity) which
1. looks the other way at frivolous EPL-style divorce
2. exults in the fact that “only” 38% of its devotees divorce
3. does nothing to confront or even feebly condemn the chaotic wasteland that is the urban SMP, existing in thousands of cities with populations over 50,000
4. created and perpetuates the frauds of the “reformed slut” and the “born-again virgin”
5. shames men who refuse to marry “reformed sluts” and “born again virgins”
6. shames men who refuse to tolerate poor wife behavior
>> This society has gone out of its way to create an entire legal, social, and cultural framework to confer the privilege of casual sex upon women.
I agree with this, but the irony is that (IMO) most women don’t want it. I think there’s a small minority of women who are able to have no-strings-attached casual sex, and they have unfortunately been the loudest.
I think a lot of girls buy into this “sex positive” culture and try to trick themselves into thinking that they can have sex like a man, only to get burned by it. A lot of girls also get the idea that they can trick a guy into being their boyfriend by pretending that they only want casual sex but then trying to turn a hook up into a relationship. (Which I agree is a very stupid thing to do btw.)
This is why today’s generation of feminists need to stop pretending that they speak for all women.
deti, it’s quite possible that I am out of touch (please insert your own joke here) but I just don’t see evidence of 4 & 5. Especially 5.
The culture does not perpetuate the “reformed slut”. Rather, it just refuses to talk about slutdom at all. It refuses to make any moral distinction. It does, I agree, shame people who look down on sluts, with a finger-wagging “how dare you judge” message. But that’s not really the same thing.
On the margins, there have been a small number of books (e.g., “Thrill of the Chaste”) that celebrate an individual’s decision to stop being a slut. And some reviewers have praised that. But it seems senisble enough to me. If someone was behaving very badly and stops, that’s a good thing, no?
PARKER V PARKER
The purpose of this comment is to explain this decision. It has been bandied about as creating some “rule” requiring a husband to challenge paternity within 1 year or be barred. While that is what actually happened, Parker (wish I could underline-pretend) did not create any rule. The rule applied is Florida’s version of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b) pertaining to relief from judgments. In order to understand Parker, we must examine the distinction between “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” fraud. I begin with the former.
“Extrinsic” fraud (sometimes alluded to as “fraud upon the court”) is conduct which prevents a party from trying an issue before the court. Let’s say your considering a divorce you and your husband have property in Guatemala. You call me to get an opinion on whether the asset is part of the marital estate and thus 1/2 yours. Unbeknownst to you, your husband has already contacted me and bribed me into convincing you that property outside the U.S. is never community, and further convincing you not to even mention it to the attorney you hire. You go to court, get judgment, and then find out you were screwed. In that instance, you were prevented from even presenting the issue to the court, and the court never considered it. This is extrinsic fraud; you are entitled to attack the judgement and there is no time bar because it is an independent action.
“Intrinsic fraud” is the presentation of misleading information on an issue before the court that was tried or COULD (remember that) have been tried. Same facts as above, but your new attorney is smart and discovers the Guatemala property. Your husband presents a false deed showing that the property belongs to his mother, was not purchased with community assets and thus you are ixnay. The parties present evidence, testimony and argument. The court rules that the land is not part of the community. Intrinsic fraud has been committed-false evidence was presented to the court . Because it could have been raised as an issue in the case (the legitimacy of the document) , and is thus intrinsic to the action, Florida’s version of 54 (b) gives you 1 year to seek relief from that judgment (remember, an action seeking relief based on extrinsic fraud is independent, not relief from the judgment itself; it is a “collateral” attack in a separate proceeding).
In Parker, yes the result seemed harsh (I have an editorial later). But Parker was premised upon an earlier decision by the Florida Supreme Court, DeClaire v Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla. 1984). In that case the husband submitted false financial statements underestimating his net worth. Judgement was entered. His wife discovered the fraud and attempted to obtain relief. Citing the same rule I’ve just outlined, the Florida S. Ct. said no-you’re screwed. That same rule that screwed her screwed Parker. In Florida, paternity is presumed to be at issue in any proceeding for child support;Parker COULD have raised it. But don’t go citing Parker for the proposition the husbands are getting screwed.
BTW the Florida legislature legislatively changed the law to address DeClaire, and I read it also just did to reverse Parker. Given the on-going and quasi-equitable nature of divorce proceedings, Parker may win yet. BTW the illegitimate child in Parker was born in 1998; the case was decided in 2007. So Parker has 9 years of child support. I have something to say there, about a man raising a child 9 years. Not now.
So, are straight on this? No new law in Parker. In fact, based on precedent which is very old. Before Florida adopted the federal rules, there was NO RELIEF FROM INTRINSIC FRAUD! Know why-’cuz we want and end to litigation. Final judgments are that. you had your chance to prove your case-tough shit. A man was executed not too long ago on this principle,more or less. Under 54 (b), you’ve got one year to attack on the basis that false information was presented to the court. BTW don’t forget you’ve had pretrial discovery too.
So, men aren’t getting screwed, or at the very least Parker does not stand for that proposition. We can obtain relief through our legislatures if we get pissed off enough. God is in His heaven, Munson is at his keyboard-so it’s a draw.
MikeC 163
>I think for some women, the act of getting married, getting all dressed up in the pretty dress with all eyes on her while the guy waits for her is the ultimate act of validation. It is like the combination meth/crack high of validation. But then the next day starts the messy reality of day to day living as a married couple.
+1
Sadly, it’s all i can relate to. I knew early on that she was waiting for an engagement ring. Her previous 4yr+ LTR failed to conjure one up which was one reason why she left, tho her previous before that did pony up, but the ring was not the type she wanted (and he had all the personality of cardboard, and he was only chosen as a means of revenge on her previous bf) so she put him to the curb. Basically the neon sign above her said ‘Propose within a year or im gone’.
Our small simple wedding started to balloon into something extravagant, at the finest reception hall, etc.. and she was so into being a bride, tho she always qualified it was ‘our’ day and tried to make me more responsible for items on the wedding checklist. Yet whenever we talked in public amongst friends the joke was that all i had to do was rent a tux and show up. I never once took it as that day being ‘all eyes on me’. Weddings and wedding hysteria is the greatest form of vanity for vain women types.
They are the center of attention.
They must look at their most stunning and be the most beautiful prize amongst other women. Bridesmaids traditionally wore awful outfits to make sure they didn’t usurp the brides attention.
They receive validation about their looks from everyone, from their awesome hairdo’s, makeup, and of course their perfect dress choice.
Everything must proceed according to their laid out plan for perfection
And of course, there’s me in my rented tux.
And yeah, after the awesome honeymoon, we came home to unpack, do laundry, vaccuum, do the dishes, pay bills, make lunch for the next day and prepare to go to work. Every day after the wedding was just downhill in her eyes. The wedding was the goal, not the life afterwards. Once all the benefits were exhausted it was time to cast the vows aside and pull the ol’ “im love you but im not in love with you line.”
Translated… ‘id still like to be your friend, but will never let you express love for me, touch me or make love to me while i build my career at your expense and shack up with someone else down the road. taa!’
^238 above is mine. typed wrong email addy.
Emily:
I wasn’t talking about sex positive feminism. I’m talking about a culture and an environment that removes all the constraints on female sexual behavior. If we’re talking about women who want to marry someday, I don’t think that is a good thing.
We’re talking about a culture that tells women explicitly that
1. there are no differences between men and women;
2. they can have casual sex with no spiritual, psychological or medical consequences
3. they are entitled to whatever they want, when they want it. She should get whatever she wants from her hookups, relationships and marriage(s).
4. men of suitable attractiveness (i.e. SATC superalpha “Mr. Big”) will always be there to marry them when they are ready to step off the carousel/grow weary of their careers (cf. Bolick, Kate, “All the Single Ladies”).
“This is why today’s generation of feminists need to stop pretending that they speak for all women.”
This is what I hate about feminist. Their always talking about women, women, women. I want to be like “NO! Correction, women like you! Leave the rest of us out of it.”
But their sex positive message means nothing if everyone isn’t doing it. Are there actual stats on how many women engage in casual sex or are sex positive?
Susan: I find that a rather shocking statement, and I’m anything but sure about it. What is your evidence for this claim?
38% of pregnancies today are unplanned.
http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/september-2008
42,000 babies were born out of wedlock in Britain in 1920. During that time, about 90,000 babies were born per year in Britain. Some of the legitimate babies were probably unintentional too, so it seems reasonable to guess that the majority of pregnancies were unintentional.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4LYqAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA436&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U2TNZ-Pp9wDnSyP3wVFzt12-x5MzQ&ci=528%2C860%2C429%2C248&edge=0
This is a very limited context, though.
Britain had a 50% illegitimacy rate in 1920? Really? That stat sounds impossible to me.
“I’m shocked at the casual way women suggest breaking off my engagement. How is stomping on a young-man’s heart a casual decision? I love my fiance; I can’t toss my feelings aside to chase rainbows. It’s like these women don’t realize men have feelings, and can get hurt.”
@Butterfly Flower…
But you are in love and happy, looking forward to building a life with your fiance.
The chicks that I had a chance to ask about this directly all started with the fact that they weren’t happy and it only got worse.
They were also usually in the opposite position of people pushing them to stay engaged, pick a date, plan a wedding, give it 6 months… so that she could at least say she was married or with the idea of if it doesn’t work out she could divorce.
As I said earlier I think these situations exist as a result of people ignoring the elephant in the room.
One guy we know, got engaged to a girl who asked that the first ring he offered wasn’t clear enough, and then a few weeks later ‘they’ decided that since the price difference wasn’t that great maybe a slightly bigger stone with a different setting… this should have been a HUGE red flag.
But friends and family just chalked it up to him not having the same level of style and it was an investment after all… I think people didn’t see it as a character flaw because they didn’t want to.
I’m a big fan of pre-marital counseling… my sister is getting married next month and she won’t go, because she doesn’t want to any one to tell her that they may have differences that they should discuss and iron out before marriage.
I see this a lot… and I find it interesting that those who are apprehensive about marriage don’t have it on their list of things to do before you say I do.
Best wishes on your upcoming nuptials ~JS
“What do you mean by lack of social accountability? Can you give an example?”
Woman decides she’s “bored,” ditches her husband, gets a huge book deal and goes on Oprah.
@Anna
“So a young guy guy learning game is likely to use it to get casual sex for some time.”
That’s exactly what I was thinking, thanks for spelling it out. Guys learning “game” or whatever will no longer have the incentive to be monogamous. How is that going to bring about more commitment? Women can stop sleeping with players anytime they want. That doesn’t require a massive change in men’s behavior.
If something does more harm than good, I don’t see any reason to advocate it, except maybe in very specific situations.
Just1X #200
+1
I want to see them choke on that blood.
““No guy has ever said, Wow, look at the delayed-gratification and thriftiness on her!”
I did.”
*raises hand – The first thing I usually think is “wow that woman is kinda hot/attractive/etc”. Not long after chatting her up, the next thought is “does she have character?” And guess what, looking for a woman that can delay gratification and spend wisely is part of that. I wouldn’t even consider a next date if I found her character to be lacking.
Jesus M. – I started thinking about getting married and starting a family when I was in high school. Probably around 10th grade when I met and started dating my first LT girlfriend. Before that it had occurred to me, but I didn’t see a point in really thinking about it until a woman was in the picture. From then on, every woman I’ve spent any amount of time with was in the running for the role of wife.
I’ve said many times that I have ALWAYS considered my future wife and family when making important decisions in my life. I did so even when I wasn’t in a LTR, because I considered it MY responsibility to arrive at the alter as the best possible husband I could be. It just turns out that what I thought was being the best husband was far short of the mark and only about half of the story. No one ever told me that the best way to be a great husband is to simply be the best man you can be. I didn’t even realize until way too late that sometimes being a great husband means taking care of MY OWN needs first.
And honestly realizing it made me bitter for awhile. I chose to invest in a career based on job security and income, not what I like and/or wanted to do. Why? Because I knew that my income would be important to my wife and children someday. So I was a beta even when I wasn’t in a relationship, because I was brought up to believe it was my task to get a good job and provide for my family. I was never told to strive for myself, it was always for my future family.
>> I wasn’t talking about sex positive feminism. I’m talking about a culture and an environment that removes all the constraints on female sexual behavior.
I’d argue that the two are very closely linked. I agree with what you’re saying though.
Just1X #200
Also had a conversation months ago on a dating site blog (guy gives some great advice to women on why they can’t get men by telling them the guys perspective) about sperm snatchers and the subject of male birth control. Here’s a link to my first comment in the post.
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/invasion-of-the-sperm-snatchers/#comment-202298
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/all/1
You can see the wired.com link in that post about extremely easy reversible vasectomies. You can see how much ‘disdain’ there was and actual pushback to the possibility of male birth control, because they were so damn scared of losing their monopoly on reproductive rights.
Some manosphere sites term a men’s pill as a day of reckoning/Armageddon for everything that’s taken place since the invention of the pill and all the rights afforded to women’s reproduction to the exclusion of men.
@Renee “Marriage isn’t about kids. If two people who have no desire to have kids are both happy, in a good place mentally/emotionally/etc., in love, compatible, etc., then I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t marry.”
I see no reason why they should marry as well. Why not cohabitate? Marriage between 2 people without kids is a half-baked marriage. Certainly, it will be meaningful to those who participate, but the man bears the risk.
My advice is mostly to men, which was why I was wondering why you responded. It is clear that more and more women want to marry with no promise of kids. What the heck is up with that? Women without kids will hardly ever tap their mothering instincts. Their nuturing behavior is cut off. Is that what they want? It is a sad existence.
Munson,
You’ve done a fine job there explaining the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud so that a legal moron like myself can understand it.
Question. What is the purpose of the legal system? In my perhaps naive idealism, I would think it is to provide JUSTICE. I find the concept of limitations on intrinsic fraud in direct opposition to goal of maximizing justice. I can understand the desire to “put an issue to bed” but maybe something like 10-20 years is more appropriate than 1 year. The limitation on intrinsic fraud to say something like only a year seems a de facto reward to someone who has simply been very effective in hiding their fraud, and where it may take more time for the truth to come out. I find the idea of executing a man while disregarding some item of potential intrinsic fraud to be abhorrent.
In the case of paternity fraud, you’ve got a situation where the vast majority of men (the blue-pillers) are not willing or capable to consider what *some* women are capable of (pedestalizing). The vast majority of men don’t seriously entertain the notion that they married a cheating whore who is engaged in daily deception. Many men may not learn the truth of the matter until some indeterminate time down the road by the strangest of circumstances.
I found out my wife was cheating (after she had already left me) in a very strange way. I happened to be in the grocery store (I remember it was Election day) and I was walking down one of the aisles, when one of her co-workers who had been over our place saw me. She knew my ex had left me, and asked how I was doing. We were talking, and finally she said “Hey, I’ve got to tell you something” and then spilled the beans about my ex and the co-worker she was cheating on me with. Had I not run into her in the grocery store, would I have ever known? Would I have found out later some other way? Who knows? We didn’t have kids so it is a moot point, but I find it ludicrous that she may have some expiration date for getting away with fraud simply because I was too naive to consider the really nasty stuff that no guy thinks a woman he married is likely capable of.
So I get the whole intrinsic fraud thing. I just think it is stupid. And I understand that on a technicality basis, the Parker thing is about intrinsic fraud, NOT paternity fraud specifically per se, but in this case it is de facto about paternity fraud, and taking the lawyer cap off with associated legalese the intrinsic fraud versus paternity fraud is really a distinction without a difference.
In my book, what is right and just trumps what is legal. This is way OT, but I am an advocate and have given money in the past to FIJA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Informed_Jury_Association
Very often in my view, the last step before a miscarriage of justice takes place is a jury of regular people basically saying law X is a total crock of shit
The problems have been laid out plainly enough. Here are the things women can do practively to minimize them.
1) Don’t drink alcohol, smoke anything, do any drugs, or partake of the partying lifestyle.
2) Do not engage in sexual activity with men outside of serious, long-term relationships.
3) Save up, live frugally, pay off loans as much as possible, and do not incur any credit card debt.
4) Get good at cooking, cleaning and general housekeeping, and make these a habit.
5) Learn to enjoy a major male-oriented hobby, such as sports, video games, shooting, poker, etc.
6) Stop indulging in fantasies of a big diamond ring, a big dream wedding, and a big, extravant honeymoon. Plan for a simple band, a courthouse wedding, and save up for a nest egg.
7) Be humble, practice gratitude, exercise willpower, avoid drama, let go of entitled attitudes and behaviors, see things from the male perspective, and strive to be a mature, emotionally-healthy adult.
Demonstrate these qualities to men. It won’t be guaranteed to make them want to marry you, but a quality man will notice quality in a woman. If this list seems too far-fetched, it’s not. I’ve lived it, and my husband and I tell each other all the time how happy we are to be married to each other.
@Mike
gotta love the attitudes that those special ‘ladies’.
they absolutely can’t see any point of view than their own. ‘I’ want to have a baby and anything I do to achieve it is okay…that is hamsterisation at its clearest.
Stealing sperm from a condom, is okay is it? I mean she’s not going to claim money from him, so that’s okay (WTF?). And if she changes her mind and takes him to court, well what did he expect, getting her pregnant like that?
Esco 236:
“The culture does not perpetuate the “reformed slut”. Rather, it just refuses to talk about slutdom at all. It refuses to make any moral distinction. It does, I agree, shame people who look down on sluts, with a finger-wagging “how dare you judge” message. But that’s not really the same thing.”
****
“If someone was behaving very badly and stops, that’s a good thing, no?”
No question about it: if a slut stops sleeping around, that is a good thing. But there’s more to it than that.
The secular culture at large doesn’t talk about “reformed sluts”. But the “reformed slut” and “born again virgin” concepts are gaining lots of traction in Churchianity. Yes, it is good that a slut stops doing the things that makes her a slut. It certainly doesn’t damage her partner count further.
But the dangerous part of the “reformed slut/born again virgin” meme is it ignores the natural consequences of sluts’ pasts, and in fact tells sluts they don’t have to bear those consequences. It tells sluts that they can do whatever they want, and then when they are tired of it or adverse consequences come crashing down, the Church will fix it as if it had never happened. The Church will even supply a steady stream of Christian men ready to wife them up.
They are told in essence “all you have to do is come to Jesus (Christ, not Mahoney), attend church, and your past is wiped clean! You didn’t sleep with those 30 guys, you will be cured of HPV, it is as if that abortion never happened at all, you will be ready for marriage and motherhood and the house with the picket fence.” It is strongly implied or said outright that they will be relieved of all natural consequences of their past actions. I think this is dangerous and misleading.
Repentance starts a former slut on a new life, but it doesn’t erase or reduce partner counts. It doesn’t cure STDs. It doesn’t rewrite history. Also, it’s not a one shot deal; it’s a completely new way of life. That has to be learned, and that’s a process. Once you stop your slutting it up, you have to live that out every day. Sometimes it means working through things; getting counseling, discarding damaging friends and unhealthy relationships.
They are not told to examine WHY they did these things in the first place. They are not told to get physicals or gynecological exams. They are not told they might have fertility problems or that they might be too old to conceive. They are not told about the realities of male/female attraction, hypergamy, or the importance of physical appearance to women’s ability to attract men. They are not told that most men will find them unsuitable for marriage because of their pasts. No, they are only endlessly “affirmed” and “validated” and told that “God has a special plan” for them and “God has prepared a husband/soulmate” just for them, and all they have to do is keep on attending church and they will never, ever have to suffer any consequences.
In trying to find justice in one particular issue, you’re advocating opening a huge Pandora’s box that has implications far wider greater than this one issue. All civil issues have a time limit and to argue that 10-20 years is more appropriate also has other consequences you may not forsee. For example, what if 10-20 years after moving out of a rental property the landlord could pursue you in a court for an action? Would you have any records or evidence? Would you have anything other than a failing memory? That could even leave someone open to malicious lawsuits with one party intending to hold off for 10-20 years hoping the other party forgets or doesn’t keep records.
That’s why it’s hard to get with some of the manosphere claims because many of the solutions are simply… unreasonable. If false paternity is such a huge fear, then every man can simply have a paternity test. Once the child is born, it’s just as much “his” child as hers and he can have a paternity test whenever he wants.
Legislating it is unnecessary because it’s already available, legislating it is an attempt to “get back at” this feminist monolith while taking non-feminists women as casualties.
Fight the battle with who it’s with.
That should read “extravagant honeymoon” in the above post.
Also, in the age of the obesity epidemic, a girl who can properly delay gratification is generally not overweight. She might not be Angelina Jolie hot, but she’ll keep herself in shape. I think men intuitively understand this. If you’re a girl who does plan for the long-term but can lose a few extra pounds, get to it.
@Deti 254
I find that Christianity in general is very fond of giving a pass. After all, the whole point of going to confession is to tell the priest you’ve been beating your wife/sleeping around on your husband for the last 3 months, and with 2 hail mary’s and 1 our father, your dirt is washed off and you are now pure for entry through the pearly gates.
If you know you the car wash is coming up down the road, you don’t mind going off road for a while and getting a little dirty. Consequences? What consequences.. i’m pure as the driven snow.
http://www.care2.com/causes/would-mandatory-paternity-tests-protect-children.html
I love the language in some of these quotes:
“Women, who get pregnant while having an affair will be “punished” for doing so in all cases.”
- Your point?
” Men, however, who get a woman pregnant while having an affair will only be “punished” for doing so if there is a way to track them down and test them in order to obtain a match.”
- Good reason not to have an affair eh’
“Mandatory paternity testing would likely result in more women being left to raise a baby on their own, something that is all too prevalent already without paternity testing.”
- Only if they’re cuckolding bitches.
And the way the article finishes with poo pooing the idea… this is a PR battle that just can’t be won. They really try hard by going to Wikipedia to site that men have affairs more than women, but i think it’s debatable.
Apparently, you can get paternity done 12 weeks in, non invasive. Along with getting an accurate medical history of the child, I can’t see why anyone would argue against it, unless they had an agenda to continue letting some men get hoodwinked.
Guys learning “game” or whatever ***will no longer have the incentive to be monogamous***. How is that going to bring about more commitment?
This isn’t true. This is ONLY true if the ONLY thing a woman brings to a monogamous relationship is sex/pussy. I’m not going to propose and marry my GF because of the sex. I can get sex from plenty of other “sex providers/ladder 2 girls”. And truth be told, the level of pure/raw sexual satisfaction would probably be just as fulfilling with a variety of 6s compared to the same higher ranked woman forever (there is a reason the expression “show me a hot girl and I’ll show you a guy tired of fucking her” exists). Blunt, yes.
But there is a ton of other stuff I am getting in a monogamous commitment that I could NOT get going the casual sex route.
I point this out because I think it is a COLOSSAL MISTAKE to head down this road of sexual exchange for monogamy. Firstly, it won’t work, and it doesn’t even apply to attractive men. The answer is for women to bring alot more to the table then being a vagina provider. Both Deti and BB have written extensively on this with great accuracy.
Mike 257:
Yes. The mainstream church is doing society at large, and sluts in particular, a disservice by feeding them misleading messages about what it means to “reform”.
This is something that women wanting to marry need to grok, in my opinion. A slut who has not turned away from the conduct (not just stopped it, but TURNED AWAY) hasn’t addressed it fully. Men are really anxious about this. Why? Because a woman with a lot of experience is less likely to be attracted to, stay with, and be satisfied with, one man. She’s likely to compare her husband to her previous partners, either consciously or subconsciously. If she cheated in the past, she could cheat in the future. All of this could lead to a divorce, with all the financial and emotional consequences.
“If false paternity is such a huge fear, then every man can simply have a paternity test.”
Well, I haven’t checked, but I suspect that asking your pregnant partner for a paternity test is, or will be, defined as domestic violance.
I mean, how could it not be DV? You are implying that she might have some morality shortfalls…you bastard.
Seriously, making it mandatory is the only way to get it to happen. Otherwise some mug (male) will always be getting the shitty end of the legal stick. I understand that feminists are okay with that, MRAs are not.
p.s. I’m not sure that ‘fear’ is the right word, I’d have to go with ‘fucking outrage’ YMMV. I would not be surprised to hear that serious consequences commonly occur when the ‘father’ finds out…I wouldn’t blame him one bit.
You’re being melodramatic. And silly. The other parent’s consent is not required for paternity testing. You want to make it a legal issue out of revenge, not necessity.
@Butterfly Flower
That surprises me. I would have expected so cons to approve early marriage, and feminists to question it.
@Jhane Sez
Yes, I’ve seen this with my own kids. It’s like they think being happy means their are no bumps in the road. When really, being happy is feeling OK about the way you’re dealing with setbacks and crises, and keeping them in perspective.
I’ve resorted to reminding them what life must have been like in the Middle Ages -short and hard. We’re all really just incredibly spoiled…
@ Emily
I agree there is a minority of women who can enjoy no strings sex. But I think this also depends on more than whether you are a man/woman. Men who have casual sex/FWBs/ONS are sometimes juggling several women at the same time, they don’t have the energy or time to sit and obsess over one, and with more women available, the focus is taken off each. Whereas the woman only has one FWB and as we know, we are slightly more obsessing and analytical, which causes us to develop feelings (or start this “game” where you wonder who is more into the other). There is also a risk the guy has feelings for someone else (could even be a FWB). If you have feelings for one person, you can easily sleep with another with falling for him/her. The girls I know who’ve had casual partners without developing feelings, have been seeing this guy as a rebound or sth similar – it is not that they don’t have feelings, their feelings are just somewhere else.
And I must add, the reason this minority of girls is yelling about their rights is simply because they are able to have no strings sex and that there ARE women like them, and I can see it is frustrating for someone to label you as highly emotional when it is not true. And they are primarily yelling about not being written off as freaks. Personally I am a bit more for learning by doing. If you get burnt at a young age you have a pretty valuable experience. It’s just a question of when you learn. My sister is almost 27 and still has a lot of casual sex, she recently got hurt by a guy she thought had more feelings. At that age she should know better, but a previous casual encounter led to a relationship, which is probably why she sees it this way.
And I must add, I don’t think majority of women wakes up in love after their first night with a guy. It’s when a woman is seeing and sleeping with one guy alone, over time, having great sex that she will fall for him. She didn’t feel that way in the beginning, but after she’s been there once she should see the pattern and start differently next time. If a relationship is what she is looking for, obviously.
Although the majority of women easier develop feelings from sex and enjoy better sex when in love (myself included), we are not all emotionally similar and we view men differently. Some girls are unbearably hurt when men lust after them but doesn’t love them, walk around afraid of getting used and see men’s sexuality as an evil altogether. I know some of those girls. My best friend gets angry with a man when he has a boner. Being very inexperienced and constantly afraid of becoming a “slut” is part of why she is this way.
Yes, many of them did because children were a labor resource. Not sure why that’s funny.
Including condoms, which are 98% effective when used properly. How much more effective could the male pill be?
@Malia
Melodramatic? moi? ORLY? Check out entry three in the list below (plenty of references to be found via the following link)
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/australia-launches-the-plan-and-the-end-to-civil-rights/
“These machinations have now reached the stage of action, and are about to be implemented. They involve, but are by no means limited, to the following:
The systemic enabling and promotion of child abuse by mothers and other women.
The Australian government suppression of research that implicates women as child abusers.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to include acts such as making purchases without consulting your wife, not listening to your wife or even disciplining your dog.
The legal redefinition of domestic violence to exclude male victims from that legal definition.
Arresting and holding men in prison, without bail, on the accusation alone of domestic violence.
Summarily evicting men from their homes while forcing them to maintain financial responsibility for those homes on nothing more than an accusation from their wives or girlfriends.
Shifting the burden of proof on domestic violence from the state to the defendant. The accused will be forced to prove he did not commit an act of violence.
The legal redefinition of rape, and subsequent shift of the burden of proof onto a defendant to prove the he obtained specific kinds of verbal consent for sex.”
@Malia,
and THAT is the kind of shit that mean men shouldn’t even cohabit, let alone marry
@chris
That’s an excellent post by Whiskey. I’m working on a post about women who wish to stay single, and I think it will be useful. Thanks for linking.
Oh and I believe that Susan mentioned an article along those issues will be forthcoming. What She writes has a lot of credibility with me, you…well I’d tell you, but you might make a DV call…
@Mike C #260
Thanks for responding to that. I can’t figure out if that guy is just trolling or is really so stuck in white-knightdom that he can’t find his way out.
I’ve been through two LTRs (marriage, living together) before I started seriously looking at Game. The amazing thing I found is that by looking at what happened in those realationships through Game principles I could see *exactly* where I had made mistakes. Before that I was one if the 91% of guys who just couldn’t figure out why they went through a divorce/breakup.
Game principles are absolutely required for a guy to hang in any kind of male/female relationship these days simply for the fact that most women have been so brainwashed by feminist messaging that they barely understand their own thought processes. I know I am doing way better in my current relationship than I would be otherwise even though I’m far from a master of either Game or aspiring to be a ‘player’. It is almost scary how the words and actions of my FWB girl can be mapped to her instincts, and I know she is often totally unaware of *why* she feels the way she does.
Eh, I think that’s a bit extreme. First of all, Hollenhund is generally snide and aggressive in his demeanor, which does not help. We women do not like to communicate with men who approach us that way. For example, he has often demanded I read this or that, write about this or that, come up with stats for this or that. Yet when I write a post that should please him, what does he express? “Simple manosphere truths?” Like this?
Sorry, but that statement is hardly one I would swallow, and objecting to it does not constitute gnashing of teeth. I view Hollenhund as a rather extreme MRA, which means that many of this “truths” are less than obvious to most men and women.
Anna,
I’m only 28, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned. There was a time (unless it was a myth) that people began by having feelings for each other, and then moved on to sex. That seems to make a lot more sense then the way it plays out now.
deti,
Not sure if it’s the fact that I’m in a different place now or what, but your views seemed more tainted with MRA koolaid now than back in July when I first started hanging around. I mean, you always had a sort of business-like view of relationships that seemed strangely devoid of warmth, but it seems to have intensified since then.
Female hostility to the idea of the male birth control pill is easy to explain. Women want and demand a monopoly on reproduction.
I really don’t think many women feel hostile toward the idea of male birth control. I do know however that if I were young and single, I wouldn’t throw away my birth control because there was now a male pill. I wouldn’t want to place my fate in the hands of some guy who may be lying about being on it or less careful with it then I’d like.
I find the manosphere fear of “sperm-stealing” to be somewhat overblown. I also think the sphere underestimates the pain an unwanted pregnancy can inflict on a woman. Since I would have been the one who had to either abort or carry an unwanted pregnancy,or give up or rise an out of wedlock child, I was never crazy about the idea of trusting a man to be responsible for contaception. That’s a lot of trust to hand over to someone who primary motivation may be just to get laid.
@deti
Dr. Helen Fisher: Moreover, men in every age group are more eager than women to have children. Even young men. Among those between ages 21 and 34, 51% of men want kids, while 46% of women yearn for young.
http://blog.match.com/2011/02/04/the-forgotten-sex-men/
Warning: More alpha bashing:
Women were asked to value, who of men on pictures was most interested in children, who was most masculine, and whom they would like to have as a partner for long or short-term relationships.
Women recognized men, interested in children, amazingly precisely, and also pointed to men with highest level of testosterone. They chose men, who love children, for long relationships, and those who were more masculine – for short-term.
http://articles.familylobby.com/312-does-your-man-want-children3f-his-features-wi.htm
Finally, by way of personal anecdote, my husband told me on our third date that he wanted a daughter with a particular name he had always loved. He got it.
@Babydoll
The issue is that most women don’t know their true motivations and what really attracts them. Not what society says morally SHOULD attract them or what society says the reasons for their actions are. So in the end true knowledge of self is very hard to come by in women these days. If nobody encourages you to examine yourself, most of the time, you won’t, especially if there’s always someone there to assure you that nothing is your fault. A few examples:
1) Girl is in her 20′s and looks cute. Plenty of guys chat her up and she accepts dates with some of them. Still, she repeatedly flakes on most of those guys except for the most “alpha” of them, who probably won’t date her long term anyway. She’s been socialized to believe that it’s the guy’s job to make her feel like honoring a commitment she’s made, so if she just doesn’t feel like it, any disrespect that they might feel is irrelevant (their fault). Now she’s about to turn 30. She’s not as cute as before. Fewer dudes are chatting her up, and definitely fewer “alphas” that she liked so much earlier on. All of a sudden, she’s wondering “where are all the good men?” and finds a wide variety of women in the media writing exactly the same thing and challenging men to “man up” to correct the situation. She believes she can blame men for her situation, and learns nothing about herself or the reality of how she got to where she is in the dating landscape.
2) Girl marries guy, guy acts in a socially-approved “nice” way and she finds she can’t stand him after a while, although she doesn’t completely know why. She divorces him thanks to media outlets that tell her she has no obligation to stay in a situation she’s not happy with, and it must be someone else’s fault if she’s not happy.And we’re not talking about how she got custody of the kids by default and alimony. Thus, no introspection or learning about herself has occurred because she was never held accountable by society (socially accountable).
I could list several more examples in this same vein, but I don’t have time. Notice the trend. In both cases, the girl is doing what she believes is socially acceptable, and when she gets a negative result, society is also offering her a convenient mental out to avoid feeling like it’s her problem. No accountability means nothing can be learned.
Badger a real-life example of number 2:
@Babydoll
End of the last post should have read “Badger pointed to a real-life example of number 2″
@Anna
FWIW, I think a small percentage of men do this. Most guys who get some game are relationship-oriented, and use their newfound knowledge of female sexuality to get a girlfriend. Amber Madison found in her book that guys are “Impostor Assholes” for that express purpose.
To be a real player, a guy has to be pretty low on empathy, high on narcissism (flip side of the same coin), high on novelty seeking and low on impulse control. He’s also got to have a dopamine system in overdrive. Luckily, there just aren’t that many men who have all those traits.
Still not comfortable with this. I wouldn’t want to be long term material for a girl who’d go elsewhere for a short-term fling. Not sure how I’d be pegged in a picture, but I think I’d be unhappy either way.
@deti, @Jesus
I believe that Jesus is only an outlier in the manosphere, and not even the whole manosphere. Most guys looking to get some game share his views, I think. He is an outlier among the MRA crowd, for sure.
@ Jesus,
I dunno, it takes time for me to develop strong feelings for someone, it’s not like a 3 or 4 dates kind of thing. I have to really like a guy before I go to bed with him, but that’s usually just a matter of compatibility and mutual attraction. It’s either there or not from quite early on – I don’t “take the time to become friends so we can fall in love”. I’ll wait until a few dates has gone by, but that’s just to say I’m not easy. If I say yes to a date 2 I already like him a lot. I could be the exception here, but I know plenty of girls who feel this way, unless they think “sensible, not passionate” about a guy.
As women fall harder for someone from sex, it also means that there is a certain missing thing that falls into place after sex. You fall for a guy in a way you couldn’t unless you had slept together. Now I am aware some wait until marriage for sex, but I don’t get what that’s about at all and really don’t associate with them to be honest.
#252 Mike C
That’s a very broad question. I’ll do my best.
Yes, the law is there to promote justice. But that is achieved through process, a process that entails many other considerations beyond the simple search for truth. Sometimes, frankly, that process defeats the absolute justice you are referring to. For example, the 4th Amendment protects our rights to be secure in our homes. That means the police need to have an articulable basis for searching a home.The police fail to get a warrant; they find evidence that proves the homeowner raped and murdered a little girl. But because of that violation a murderer goes free, and can murder again. The process that protects our rights to be secure in our homes protected him from the consequences of committing a heinous crime.
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is also part of the process of justice. In most cases, a jury will tell you “yeah, the guy probably did it-but I was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt”. A killer, rapist, robber, dope seller goes free. Should we lower the standard, say to the civil one whic is “preponderance of the evidence” which translates into “more probable than not”? “If you the jury having weighed the evidence are convinced that it is more probable than not that the defendant committed the crime charged in count 1 of the indictment, you must enter a verdict of guilty.” How would you like that charge read to a jury in a case where you are accused of sexually molesting your daughter’s 6 year old friend, and she took the stand and pointed directly at you and said you had done it, and in fact you had not? Her dad would be screaming for justice too-he’s want to kill you. But he’d let the inmates on the prison yard take care of that.
The opening scene of “The Godfather” concisely presents the dilemma. The funeral director’s daughter has been brutally beaten by 2 boys. They’d gone to criminal court, but the boy had clean records, had not sexually touched her (the judge mentions this in the book) they’re from nice families and, impliedly, the girl is Sicilian-so tap on the wrist. Don Corleone tells him you’ve had your justice, but then relents. The director wants them killed, but Corleone refuses and tells Clemenza to handle it(actually more problematic to beat them than kill them, at least from Clemenza’s). In the book, Clemenza hands it off to Pauli, the kid who gets whacked in the back of the head in the movie. In the book, he gets two loan shark boxers to beat the boys within an inch of their lives. Good, satisfying Godfather justice. Until the Godfather calls. In the book, the director has no idea what he wants, imagines all sorts of scenarios and regrets to God his pact with Don Vito. Turns out,it’s to take care of Sonny’s body.But the point is made-take The Godfather’s justice, you must do his bidding.
So everything worked out-in “The Godfather” . But what about “The Ox Bow Incident”? A report is made that a rancher has been savagely murdered. Rumors circulate, ultimately accepted as fact, that 3 men are responsible. A posse is formed, they head out and find 3 men. In an excruciating narrative the 3 plead for their lives, proclaim their innocence-to no avail. They are allowed to write last letters, and one, the leader of the 3, wrttes to his wife and children, and in part mentions certain kindnesses shown to him by the protagonist who is telling the story. They are hanged. The posse arrive home in the clear blue dawn to discover the rancher is not dead, in fact is enjoying very good health. There appears to have been no basis whatsoever for the rumor. The last thing I remember about the book is that one of the posse, the meanest, most quick to judge and hang of them all, kills himself.
Rule of law, process, procedure-all are designed to and do slow things down, to make sure we’re careful, deliberate,that what we do is dne wth “due process”, and also to protect other rights we deem self-evident. Vengeance is wedded to criminal law as lust to marriage; both are tempered in the institutions sanctioning them. The process that deprives of The Godfather’s justice assists us in avoiding The Ox Bow’s.
@ Jesus
“I wouldn’t want to be long term material for a girl who’d go elsewhere for a short-term fling.”
Change “guy” for girl and you’ll be most women! And see why sluts is a problem.
And many women decline the privilege.
Anna,
Okay. I’m not saying that you should be willing to commit to a person for life before having sex. I’m just saying that it makes sense to care a bit about a person first, know something about him, trust him, enjoy his personality, want to make him happy, etc…
Still not comfortable with this. I wouldn’t want to be long term material for a girl who’d go elsewhere for a short-term fling. Not sure how I’d be pegged in a picture, but I think I’d be unhappy either way.
The key is to be the guy who is long term material and the guy woman want for a long term fling. It is possible to be both. But to be this, you really have to screen for woman who is long term material as well (though, I do realize after reading your comments that you realize this).
Stingray,
Yea, that’s been my strategy. I don’t feel like my girlfriend would’ve turned me away for someone else if she were looking for something short-term. I’m pretty sure that she’s not a “short-term” type, anyway.
@Susan
Hollenhund said:
You said:
I agree with you, not because I totally disagree with Hollenhund, but because I don’t think it’s as simple as he says. Feminists and maybe extremely conservative (think Catholic) women are probably the only groups of women that hate the idea of the male pill for the reason that he gave. I think most women are of varied opinion on the subject. I think most normal women (i.e. women that like men) probably would have been either happy or indifferent to a male pill. Most wouldn’t be angry that they couldn’t “oops” guys at will. Most girls are not that excited about getting pregnant at the drop of a hat.
@Munson
Thank you for explaining the Parker case. I’ve learned that non-lawyers sharing cases is a tricky business. In my recent research on divorce, I have been reading codes, statutes and some cases, and honestly, it’s beyond me. I am not capable of interpreting this information. I will no longer take the word of anyone sharing stories without that legal knowledge, nor believe and repeat anything I read on a website that has a particular POV about divorce. I have found it very, very difficult to get at the truth in many of these cases.
One thing I did read was that the judge in the Parker case was sickened by the outcome, which was dictated by law. He urged that the law be changed.
Oh, I see why sluts are a problem.
@ Jesus
“Okay. I’m not saying that you should be willing to commit to a person for life before having sex. ”
No I know… I didn’t say that either.. Attraction can be good before sex, but not the same as after. I mean exactly what I wrote. I haven’t said anything extreme in either direction.
@JClimber? Sorry if Im getting that wrong
Okay, if it was done behind my back there would be nothing I could do about it. Actually if I was a man Id probably secretly send off samples to be tested regardless of how I felt about my wife. But Im just paranoid like that.
Susan,
Question for you on the links (no time to read them now). Was there a negative correlation between the men who strongly desired chldren, and the high testosterone men?
I believe that Jesus is only an outlier in the manosphere, and not even the whole manosphere. Most guys looking to get some game share his views, I think. He is an outlier among the MRA crowd, for sure.
Jesus is more typical of the men I know IRL than then men in the manosphere are. And he sounds like a good guy who in the long run will find a good gal.
@Jesus 180
“Still not comfortable with this. I wouldn’t want to be long term material for a girl who’d go elsewhere for a short-term fling. Not sure how I’d be pegged in a picture, but I think I’d be unhappy either way.”
Couldn’t a woman like me say the same thing about men? You sleep with more slutty or promiscuous women as “fun” or short-term but you want to settle down and get serious with someone like me who has been more chaste because I’d be a better long-term partner?
Im just as offended. I too wasn’t the first choice.
Question for you on the links (no time to read them now). Was there a negative correlation between the men who strongly desired chldren, and the high testosterone men?
I’d be very curious about this as well. In the past, it was always implied that a high T man wanted lots of children to carry on his good name. Mostly, strapping boys. It was also proof of his high status because he was obviously very virile.
Mike C,
It doesn’t state that explicitly, but it’s implied.
@Anna
I agree with Jesus, and you need to realize that “guy” and “girl” are not exactly interchangeable here. If a guy enters into a long term arrangement with a girl, it usually at the very least means he’s attracted enough to be interested in having sex with her on a daily basis, along with a host of other qualities that she embodies that make her good to live with. Her value to him is intrinsic to what she is as a person.
For a guy who is the “long term” option for girls, he runs the risk of raising another man’s child if she goes elsewhere for a fling. By being the long-term option, he is walking a very fine line of being valued for his resources, not his own intrinsic value. That is why you want a girl to get excited about you in a sexual way when she first meets you, even if she can see you as long term material later on. As a man, you want to be valued for what you ARE, to a far greater degree than what you HAVE.
« 1 2 3 4 … 8 »
{ 1 trackback }