Why we stopped dating AW, volume 12

[Boethius]

No, I said that she was breaking the marriage contract by cutting him off unilaterally. 

Then you tried to deflect by saying that it was covered under contract law. 

After that I challenged you to provide a case where a man was rewarded over a woman breaking the contract in this fashion - so far you haven't provided one. 

A contract with provisions that can't be enforced or that have no effect if breached - what is a typical term for such a contract? "Unconscionable?"  "Null and void?"  "Fraudulent?"

Contracts typically deal with an "offer" and "acceptance".  Unless there is a written contract stipulating that a wife is going to have sex X times per week, the court is not going to look at behaviour.

However, if there were a written contract and it was not found to be unconscionable due to public policy, and the court were to look at it, it will also look at the husband's behaviour.  Did he cheat on her, thereby nullifying the contract?  Did he beat her?  Does the contract stipulate that sex must be pleasurable for both, and his clumsy lovemaking has resulted in the lack of sex, thereby negating his claim for damages?  Is she suffering from an illness, such as depression, which means the contract is frustrated?  Have the circumstances changed, so that the contract is frustrated, i.e., he has he gained weight or is bald, or aged?  Was the contract entered into under duress, and therefore, should be declared void ab initio?  Is it unconscionable?

So, even if we are to apply contract law, the answer is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

[Boethius]

When i read the posts it's impossible to not notice the common hostility about this new society that has screwed up (write feminists, government, politicians here if you prefer) relationships between genders.
I mean that, whatever are the arguments pointed by Bo men have largely suffered about the situation, and especially about the divorce. As a result, this new deal in the divorce has also leaded women to a new dating (no big efforts, no respect for men ....).

If your assertion were true, the majority of WM would not be marrying WW.

[GuppyCaptain]

Statistically, women do not fare better under divorce if they have children. 

Explain to me how a man is "raped" if assets built during a marriage are split 50/50.

Okay, I can't take you seriously if you can't acknowledge the travesty that has become the American divorce courts. Gimme a break 

[Patagonie]

I was recently atonished to hear this story.

A young buddy related me this one:

An attractive young  french female was about to gang a guy during her vacations. Already naked and ready for the action she has to bargain with the guy because he was ok to wear a condom but he started to be very pushy about her to know if she was taking the pill. She told her why if you wear a condom.
The guy refused to have sex because he was afraid about breaking the condom, he wanted to have the guarantee that she cannot abuse him by having a child.
Finally she has to lie to him, saying that she could'nt be pregnant for medical reasons since her childhood.

For a french that's unbelieviable. She was atonished.
But guess what is the nationality of the guy? USA.

So it says a lot now, about the treshold reached.
Welcome to new rotten society, full of romantism.
But i understand the guy.

[Boethius]

Okay, I can't take you seriously if you can't acknowledge the travesty that has become the American divorce courts. Gimme a break 

Please demonstrate that travesty with examples.  Not the one off, but examples of the law which result in men being routinely "raped" by the courts.

The courts in the United States are not uniform in application of matrimonial property laws, as they are set by the state, not the federal government. 

Please link me to all the cases where a man is being "raped" of assets, given that most US states only divide property accumulated during a marriage.  California is one exception to that rule, as it takes into account assets acquired before marriage unless there is a prenup.  I think there are only one or two other states with similar laws. 

[Slumba]

Contracts typically deal with an "offer" and "acceptance".  Unless there is a written contract stipulating that a wife is going to have sex X times per week, the court is not going to look at behaviour.

However, if there were a written contract and it was not found to be unconscionable due to public policy, and the court were to look at it, it will also look at the husband's behaviour.  Did he cheat on her, thereby nullifying the contract?  Did he beat her?  Does the contract stipulate that sex must be pleasurable for both, and his clumsy lovemaking has resulted in the lack of sex, thereby negating his claim for damages?  Is she suffering from an illness, such as depression, which means the contract is frustrated?  Have the circumstances changed, so that the contract is frustrated, i.e., he has he gained weight or is bald, or aged?  Was the contract entered into under duress, and therefore, should be declared void ab initio?  Is it unconscionable?

So, even if we are to apply contract law, the answer is not as cut and dried as you would like it to be.

Part of the reason that men are dissatisfied (as Patagonie points out) with the current situation, is that the marriage and divorce laws were changed, very nearly wholesale, in a rapid period of time. 

reality:  if women didn't receive financial and social benefits for divorce, they wouldn't be the 67% + of people filing for divorce in the USA.


reality:  the guy in this photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_of_Joy was married under 1 set of rules and circumstances, and divorced under an entirely different set of rules.  His original "contract" was torn up, thrown aside, and a new one written without his having any choice in the matter; in his case he was serving his country and was a POW.

Reading his story, you realize that "he got reamed" and that his wife probably, in a more just time, would have been publicly punished, repudiated, and shamed for her behavior.  Instead she got rewarded financially and socially (remarried without any societal disapproval).

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-04/news/mn-9908_1_vietnam-war

reality:  men are expected to behave as if they are in "Marriage version 1.0" but the feminists have substituted a very different product inside the packaging, called it "Marriage 2.0" and have forcibly pulled v1.0 off the market.

[Boethius]

I was recently atonished to hear this story.

A young buddy related me this one:

An attractive young  french female was about to gang a guy during her vacations. Already naked and ready for the action she has to bargain with the guy because he was ok to wear a condom but he started to be very pushy about her to know if she was taking the pill. She told her why if you wear a condom.
The guy refused to have sex because he was afraid about breaking the condom, he wanted to have the guarantee that she cannot abuse him by having a child.
Finally she has to lie to him, saying that she could'nt be pregnant for medical reasons since her childhood.

For a french that's unbelieviable. She was atonished.
But guess what is the nationality of the guy? USA.

So it says a lot now, about the treshold reached.
Welcome to new rotten society, full of romantism.
But i understand the guy.

I have no issue with men having to support children they made.  I also have no issue with them having joint custody of that child.  That reality is to protect children. 


The guy was stupid.  He should have asked all those questions before he even entered a bedroom.  The girl was lucky, as she could have ended up with such a genetically inferior specimen in her life.

[Slumba]

Please demonstrate that travesty with examples.  Not the one off, but examples of the law which result in men being routinely "raped" by the courts.

The courts in the United States are not uniform in application of matrimonial property laws, as they are set by the state, not the federal government. 

Please link me to all the cases where a man is being "raped" of assets, given that most US states only divide property accumulated during a marriage.  California is one exception to that rule, as it takes into account assets acquired before marriage unless there is a prenup.  I think there are only one or two other states with similar laws.

Examples of "travesty" for all 50 states are easily found here:

http://realworlddivorce.com/

so far my favorite is the appointment in Massachusetts, of a radical man-hating feminist lesbian, to be the judge for divorce and custody court.  In a review of 500 cases that came before this apparatchik, only 2 cases resulted in custody for the father - one druggie and one mental hospital admittee - who then got custody after leaving the hospital.

To see if the attorneys we contacted were exaggerating and/or if the bias towards sole custody indicated by the official state form did not reflect outcomes, we hired an attorney to pull and analyze all of the cases for one judge, Maureen Monks in Middlesex County, for 2009, 2010, and 2011 (approximately 350 cases per year, though not all of them involved disputed custody). Judge Monks awarded custody via temporary order to the mother in nearly all of the cases examined except for one case where the mother was a drug addict and another where the mother was in a mental hospital (and as soon as the mother was released from the mental hospital, Judge Monks awarded custody of the children back to her). During the three-year study period no father was successful in going to trial and obtaining a 50/50 shared physical custody situation from Judge Monks in the cases that our attorney-analyst examined. Our attorney-analyst for the May 2011 study concluded that one plaintiff mother was "objectively unfit" due to alcoholism; Judge Monks awarded her sole physical custody of three children. The record of Judge Monks is consistent with March 2014 U.S. Census Current Population Survey data suggesting that over 90 percent of custody lawsuits in Massachusetts are won by women (Census data doesn't track the lawsuits themselves, but shared parenting is uncommon in Massachusetts and the Census found that 97 percent of the Massachusetts residents collecting child support are women). This is consistent with our May 2011 analysis, which found that roughly 91 percent of the "primary parent" winners were women and only 7.5 percent of children were assigned to shared parenting.

Don't expect the Lugenpresse to tell the truth to their readers - both Boston papers supported this radical nutcase in their editorials:  http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/monk_0610.html

[Slumba]

I have no issue with men having to support children they made.  I also have no issue with them having joint custody of that child.  That reality is to protect children. 


The guy was stupid.  He should have asked all those questions before he even entered a bedroom.  The girl was lucky, as she could have ended up with such a genetically inferior specimen in her life.

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how the USA child support system works.  See the link in the other post I just made for examples of women gaining multi-million dollar rewards for a single night of sex.

Many men recommend having a small travel bottle full of bleach to use, to add to the discarded condom - there have been cases of rich men hit with child support because the woman retrieved the condom and used the contents to get pregnant. 

Slightly meaner men, use hot sauce to add to the discarded condom instead 

[Boethius]

Part of the reason that men are dissatisfied (as Patagonie points out) with the current situation, is that the marriage and divorce laws were changed, very nearly wholesale, in a rapid period of time.

It wasn't so rapid.  As I posted, the Goths introduced community property, and US states which had civil law had similar laws in place.  Community property was first introduced in California in 1915.  What did change was maintenance for children, but a woman does not have to be married to a man to receive that maintenance. 

reality:  if women didn't receive financial and social benefits for divorce, they wouldn't be the 67% + of people filing for divorce in the USA.

What are all the "social benefits" of divorce? 

People don't divorce lightly.  A woman divorcing after age 35 knows that her chance of finding another suitable mate is low. 


Divorce is more common because the stigma attached to being divorced is gone.  Furthermore, divorce is far less common now than it was 40 years ago.

reality:  the guy in this photograph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_of_Joy was married under 1 set of rules and circumstances, and divorced under an entirely different set of rules.  His original "contract" was torn up, thrown aside, and a new one written without his having any choice in the matter; in his case he was serving his country and was a POW.

He didn't come home to a whole new set of rules.  California community property laws predate his marriage.  What he came home to was a wife who didn't honour him.  Do you think that is so different in Russia and Ukraine?

Reading his story, you realize that "he got reamed" and that his wife probably, in a more just time, would have been publicly punished, repudiated, and shamed for her behavior.  Instead she got rewarded financially and socially (remarried without any societal disapproval).

You don't know if there was societal disapproval.  She may have moved somewhere where people didn't know her.


How was she rewarded?  She received half the assets accumulated during marriage, and half the debt.

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-04/news/mn-9908_1_vietnam-war

reality:  men are expected to behave as if they are in "Marriage version 1.0" but the feminists have substituted a very different product inside the packaging, called it "Marriage 2.0" and have forcibly pulled v1.0 off the market.

From your link -

"I love you--we all love you, but you must remember how very unhappy we were together," it said. "It wasn't your fault--we are extremely unsuited and managed to make each other miserable. . . ."

It sounds as if she was unhappy in her marriage, and his absence made her realize it more. 


Should people who are unhappy together stay together?

[Boethius]

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how the USA child support system works.  See the link in the other post I just made for examples of women gaining multi-million dollar rewards for a single night of sex.

Many men recommend having a small travel bottle full of bleach to use, to add to the discarded condom - there have been cases of rich men hit with child support because the woman retrieved the condom and used the contents to get pregnant. 

Slightly meaner men, use hot sauce to add to the discarded condom instead 

Reread what I actually posted.

[Boethius]

Examples of "travesty" for all 50 states are easily found here:

http://realworlddivorce.com/

so far my favorite is the appointment in Massachusetts, of a radical man-hating feminist lesbian, to be the judge for divorce and custody court.  In a review of 500 cases that came before this apparatchik, only 2 cases resulted in custody for the father - one druggie and one mental hospital admittee - who then got custody after leaving the hospital.

Don't expect the Lugenpresse to tell the truth to their readers - both Boston papers supported this radical nutcase in their editorials:  http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08b/monk_0610.html

So in other words, a bunch of articles by embittered men, rather than real examples. 


You don't need the "lugenpresse".  You can go to court websites and read judgments.  If you do, you will see a pattern, and that pattern is usually a pretty fair split.


I can tell you that where I live, despite all the whingy pronouncements of men's rights groups, division of property is equitable. 


The only inequity is when one parent (usually the mother) poisons a child's mind against the other parent.  In some cases, the courts have forced children to see the father, in one case, the court here jailed the mother, but in general, those cases are difficult, because the child usually has a set of beliefs ingrained that courts are not equipped to deal with.

[Patagonie]

Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how the USA child support system works.  See the link in the other post I just made for examples of women gaining multi-million dollar rewards for a single night of sex.

Many men recommend having a small travel bottle full of bleach to use, to add to the discarded condom - there have been cases of rich men hit with child support because the woman retrieved the condom and used the contents to get pregnant. 

Slightly meaner men, use hot sauce to add to the discarded condom instead 

That was the point. Thank Slumba.
How men have become suspicious and don't trust women. Because any time they are the loosers.
So what next?
What is important to improve?
Or is it going to be worse (i have my opinion)?

[Boethius]

How is this different from time immemorial, where women could not trust men, because if a woman was pregnant and unmarried, she could not be certain the father of her child would marry her, and he had no obligations of support?  To add insult to injury, men decided whether or not the woman should carry that child to term, and, in some jurisdictions, if the woman was unmarried, her child was taken from her at birth, whether she consented or not.

Were men complaining of the lack of romance at that time?  Or how relations between the sexes have deteriorated?

[Miquel Westano]

Explain to me how a man is "raped" if assets built during a marriage are split 50/50.

I will explain how I think it happened to a friend of mine.  He married after he started a small business.  He then worked six days a week, went in often on Sunday to catch up on paperwork.  He helped around the house and in fact as his wife was no superstar housekeeper did as much as her.  He helped raise their two children, spending as much time with them as her.  He remained faithful throughout their marriage and forgave her an affair.

After more than twenty years of marriage, she again had an affair and told him she wanted a divorce.  They agreed and went to separate attorneys.  She demanded the house, all of the saving investments and half of the value of the business which had grown to a substantial amount.  My buddy did not have that much in cash and she then demanded the business be sold to pay her half.

The judge decided she had a legitimate right to half of everything.  Not 100% of anything, but half.  She had never worked a day in the business or any other job during their marriage.  She got her half, he had to borrow against his own business to buy her out, and give her half of all the savings they had.  None of the savings had ever been accumulated by her.  He also had to sell his house, giving her half of the proceeds for that.  She got her half, and he used his to pay down on the loan he had to take to buy her out of the business.

You call it what you want, but I think he was raped.

[Boethius]

That seems equitable.  They each received half of all assets and, presumably, half of all debt.  Whether she worked as much as he did is subjective, and you, from the outside, can't know the truth.

[Slumba]

So in other words, a bunch of articles by embittered men, rather than real examples. 


You don't need the "lugenpresse".  You can go to court websites and read judgments.  If you do, you will see a pattern, and that pattern is usually a pretty fair split.


I can tell you that where I live, despite all the whingy pronouncements of men's rights groups, division of property is equitable. 


The only inequity is when one parent (usually the mother) poisons a child's mind against the other parent.  In some cases, the courts have forced children to see the father, in one case, the court here jailed the mother, but in general, those cases are difficult, because the child usually has a set of beliefs ingrained that courts are not equipped to deal with.

I think you are skimming again 

They hired an attorney-analyst to review 500 cases over 3 years by this lesbian judge and compile the results.  That is actually DATA, not just your anecdotes.

[Miquel Westano]

That seems equitable.  They each received half of all assets and, presumably, half of all debt.  Whether she worked as much as he did is subjective, and you, from the outside, can't know the truth.

I met them both in 1977, spent many a night at their house playing cards with them and my wife, and still know them both quite well to this day.  Outside/inside call it what you want.  She never worked a day in her life except at the gym staying thin.  I know the truth inside and out, including the two guys she cheated with.  I also know the many she has been with since.  She dates by financial statement rather than emotion.   

And naturally you think it was fair.  BTW the only debt was what my friend ended up with, in getting rid of her.  Now I might agree it was worth it, but certainly not equitable.  It is funny to see you are even willing to defend someone like her, rather than just admit there could be a case now and then where the man gets raped by the system.

[Patagonie]

So in other words, a bunch of articles by embittered men, rather than real examples. 


You don't need the "lugenpresse".  You can go to court websites and read judgments.  If you do, you will see a pattern, and that pattern is usually a pretty fair split.


I can tell you that where I live, despite all the whingy pronouncements of men's rights groups, division of property is equitable. 


The only inequity is when one parent (usually the mother) poisons a child's mind against the other parent.  In some cases, the courts have forced children to see the father, in one case, the court here jailed the mother, but in general, those cases are difficult, because the child usually has a set of beliefs ingrained that courts are not equipped to deal with.

Fair is not the word i will use in case of split, for men.
If it was so fair, i would have not signed a prenup.
And as i have studied 100 appeal cases available in my court, i was atonished by the unfairness of the verdicts.
And that fitted perfectly with what i saw during 15 years seing hundreds of divorcees, males and females.
I never saw a guy getting better financially, but i saw a lot of women beween 30 and 40 getting between one hundred and two hundreds grands without any link with their professional status.

And the rare time i met some divorced "rich" women they never dropped a dime, even when the ex husband asked to the court.
I never understood how a woman earning twice less than me can be the owner of a house of 250000$ at 30 and that i need 25 years of saving to do the same. You know the answer? A large part of men's saving is given back during the divorce. So why i cannot use this type of legal prostitution for my profit? Because i am a man and that's work only in one direction except if you are married with Madona (sorry thank not  ).

So sorry but don't speak about "fairness", the pattern is obviously fair for women, but as you can see the reaction of the posters present here, men have a very different bitterness.

[Slumba]

It sounds as if she was unhappy in her marriage, and his absence made her realize it more. 


Should people who are unhappy together stay together?

They had 4 kids together and were together for over 12 years when he became a POW.  She got attention from other men and retroactively "remembered" how unhappy they were.  C'mon you know women better than what your response indicated.

[GuppyCaptain]

Please demonstrate that travesty with examples.  Not the one off, but examples of the law which result in men being routinely "raped" by the courts.

The courts in the United States are not uniform in application of matrimonial property laws, as they are set by the state, not the federal government. 

Please link me to all the cases where a man is being "raped" of assets, given that most US states only divide property accumulated during a marriage.  California is one exception to that rule, as it takes into account assets acquired before marriage unless there is a prenup.  I think there are only one or two other states with similar laws.

Nah.....I couldn't be bothered to put forth the energy to try to prove something that is so widely acknowledged.

[GuppyCaptain]

That seems equitable.  They each received half of all assets and, presumably, half of all debt.  Whether she worked as much as he did is subjective, and you, from the outside, can't know the truth.

So this is the logic we are dealing with here gentleman....

[Gator]

If they have been married a long time, and built their lives together, why shouldn't she get half of their accumulated wealth?

Sold!  Sign me up. Does it work retroactively?   

[redfeather]

American women have been indoctrinated since birth to believe in and embrace divorce. They have been indoctrinated and instructed to believe that their feminine instincts are wrong and bad. This causes a great deal of confusion in their minds and, to put it plainly, many of them are unfit for marriage and raising a family. Especially avoid women who use psychiatric drugs and especially avoid women who go to therapy. Therapy only makes women more insane and teaches them to blame men more for their problems.
There is no denying that marriage is a very, very bad deal. When you get married you immediately give your wife all the power over your money and your children. “No-fault” divorce really means “his-fault” divorce. If your wife is to decide she wants a divorce she can have all the benefits of being married and none of the drawbacks. Divorce is theft from the man. It’s a redistribution of wealth from men to women. She can live off of your paycheck via alimony and child support and big cash settlements that she did not work for and she can keep your children and raise them in a single-mother or step-daddy household. She has the complete and full support of Papa Government behind her. In the eyes of the law she can do no wrong and you can do no right. You have to minimize the chance of divorce theft and child robbery That’s why you have to choose the right wife in the first place to eliminate much of that risk.
Marriage should be old school traditional for it to work. Pick a non-traditional feminist woman and have some baloney non-traditional marriage and you can expect non-traditional results: Big cash settlements, alimony payments, child support payments and seeing your children every other weekend.
These are a few more of the reasons why we have made the choice to stay away from AW at all costs.

[Gator]

These are a few more of the reasons why we have made the choice to stay away from AW at all costs.

Who is we?

Not me.  Feel free to say "Gator, you lie  because you have twice married RW."

Know this - On occasion I did date AW, and had a relationship with one off and on over several years.  Good woman.  I could never live with her, but that was more about our interactions rather than feminism.  She was slender, young and intelligent  and would have given me all the sex I wanted of any form at any time of the day. 

There is much more to happiness than sex.  Feel free to say, "Gator, you lie again, and you say such just because you are old."  Yes, old, still feeling sexy, and wise (about myself).