The End of Marriage

Post image for The End of Marriage

by Charles Martel on January 8, 2010

The marriage rate is declining in the USA and other Western countries. You knew that. But what exactly does that mean? Men and women are still marrying. Marriage will continue, won’t it? Let’s take a look at the data for the USA.

The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia publishes an annual report titled The State Of Our Unions which includes data on US marriage rates since 1960. From 1970 through 2008, the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women — see the chart below:

It’s immediately obvious that the decline of marriage can be divided into two distinct periods. From 1968 through 1977, as the seismic shocks of the sexual revolution and the Vietnam war rolled through our society, the marriage rate tumbled from 79.1 to 63.6. Then from 1980 on, the marriage rate settled into a steady decline to arrive at 37.4 in 2008.

Let’s take another look at the later period of the data set:

Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the Hockey Team would have to do some serious adjustments on a data set like this.Not only is the marriage rate declining, but the rate of decline is accelerating. Let’s fit a trend line. The best fit trend lines are second and third order polynomials with R-squared of 0.9868 and 0.9871 respectively:

So there it is. If the current trend continues, sometime between 2028 and 2034 the US marriage rate will reach zero. What will America look like in year one AM?

{ 156 comments… read them below or add one }

Snark January 8, 2010 at 03:03

What will America look like in year one AM?

Men in forced labour camps, women in palaces.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 8
Cannon's Canon January 8, 2010 at 03:29

a lot more rappers and basketball players

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
HR Lincoln January 8, 2010 at 03:34

With health care “reform”, we’re also about to introduce another factor that will drive down marriage rates. A new entitlement to health care is about to be created, along with individual mandates to purchase health insurance. Henceforth, a self-supporting man dating a non-self-supporting woman (ie., one eligibile for “free” health insurance) will be looking at taking on a substantial incremental expense by marrying her. FAR cheaper to shack up and keep her enrolled in Obamacaid.

Just one more nail in the coffin of marriage in our culture.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 7
Paul January 8, 2010 at 03:57

Charles can I ask why there are no data points between 1995 and 2000? In fact there appears to be only one data point between 1995 and 2004.This gap looks out of place.

The story is not all good news as I suspect the amount of co-habitation is probably rising. So men are still note ignoring women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
fred January 8, 2010 at 04:13
fred January 8, 2010 at 04:14

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/1050/The-Fatherless-Civilization.aspx

The link goes to a relevant article on how culture in the West is dominated by adolescent idiocy and gina tingles.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Snark January 8, 2010 at 04:46

The story is not all good news as I suspect the amount of co-habitation is probably rising. So men are still note ignoring women.

When ‘common law’ marriages come into effect, cohabitation will decline in much the same way.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Kevin K January 8, 2010 at 04:49

You will always get better fits if you include more free parameters. You need to justify use of increased number of fit terms, for instance, fit a line and show that the chi squared is > 1. Even Phil Jones knows that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 04:51

@Paul

The data is as reported by the National Marriage Project. You can see the source at the link in the story above. The National Marriage Project uses data drawn directly from US Government publications: the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1986; the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001; and the National Vital Statistics Report 56:21, 2008. No data points were omitted by me.

I was surprised to see that not only is the marriage rate declining, but it’s declining at an accelerating rate. If forced to guess without seeing the data, I would have guessed that the marriage rate would be declining at a declining rate. The trend line fitting is a purely theoretical exercise, of course, though the fit is extraordinarily good, with an R-squared of 0.987. I don’t expect the marriage rate to literally fall to zero, but this does tell us that the cultural changes of the next 30 years are likely to be profound.

Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 04:58

@Kevin K

You need to justify use of increased number of fit terms, for instance, fit a line and show that the chi squared is > 1. Even Phil Jones knows that.

First bite on the Warmerbait. :)

The difference between me and Phil Jones is that you can see my source data.

Rebel January 8, 2010 at 05:16

The purpose of feminism has been the “deconstruction” of marriage and family.
On top of which they stated their objective of destroying the male gender. For those who still maintain doubts about it, read the SCUM manifesto, found everywhere in the net now. And don’t forget the feminist mantra “All Men Must Die” to which, as far as I remember has never met with any woman”s disapproval.

This means that all women agree with the above statements. The hate movement is spreading throughout the planet like wildfire.

Men will have to accept this, adapt and go their won way.

Say good-bye to civilization.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 7
Rebel January 8, 2010 at 05:17

Sorry for the typo: I meant to say “own” way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 05:52

Interesting article.

The data I have seen suggests substantial disparities in marriage rates based on socio-economic slice, such that in the “dual educated, dual working with combined income over 100k” slice, marriage rates are high, still, and divorce rates are low. Of course that is a very small demographic slice, but it seems significant because it describes how the elites are living — in the world of the elites, there is no marriage crisis, because when they look around at each other, they see most of each other are married and a rather small number have ever been divorced — so the reality of what is happening to marriage in the culture as a whole is less “real” to the elites who are in a position to change policy and so on. So the problem perpetuates itself, and marriage becomes increasingly an elite institution, while it effectively dies in the rest of society.

Certainly people are cohabiting rather than marrying — that’s a given. And outside the socio-economic elites, women are avoiding marriage as much as men are, because there really isn’t that much of a benefit for them either unless the guy brings a substantial amount to the table. The reason for this is fairly simple — old marriage was based on a division of labor between husband and wife. That division of labor pretty much no longer applies outside of the elite because most cannot afford that division of labor. So that model of marriage is pretty much scrapped — the new watchword is independence, and the social model has been created to support that. Among the elites, the new model that has emerged is the “consumption marriage”, which is held together by the raw consumptive power of two incomes creating a lifestyle that only one of them would be hard-pressed to replicate alone — > these are couples that are not super-rich like movie stars, but folks who depend on the dollars from both incomes to support their upper middle class lifestyles. They tend to not divorce a lot, because the cost is high in terms of lifestyle hit. And they tend to marry a lot because the benefits, in economic terms, are clear. Trouble is — that model only works for people who earn a lot of money. In lower socio-economic rungs, it just doesn’t work because there isn’t enough economic “there” there. So there really is no viable social model (i.e., one that is based on brass tacks interests of the spouses rather than emotional fulfillment) that supports marriage in most socio-economic demographics.

As we move forward, we will see the results of this experiment as to whether an advanced civilization can sustain itself for very long with most of the demographic not having stable marriages, or even marriages at all. No precedent for that, of course, so it’s brave new world for everyone. And as far as the elites are concerned, they don’t see an issue, because in their small demo there isn’t an issue.

The other point I’d like to make is that we need to lose our sentimentality about this culture. If it is to end, which seems more likely than not but clearly not a given, it is to end. The world will go on, and men will go on, long after any demise of the West. It was a good run, for a while, but it’s foolish to tie yourself to the fortunes of the West. It may very well be nearing the end of its run.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 06:01

Speaking from the UK, where many things (laws etc) are different, but the numbers and trends are about the same.

1/ In UK Law there is no such thing as a “common law” wife.

2/ There are Civil Partnerships, married in a Registry Office.

3/ There are traditional Church weddings.

There are lots of other factors too, the change from single income households to wife working households, the effects this has on Tax breaks, and the change in the social status of bastard children, the effects this has on the statutory duty of local authorities regarding housing.

But, most of all, you have to first understand what marriage is.

Marriage is not for men, it never has been, marriage is not proof of paternity or anything else (this is what dowries were all about, you don’t give a dowry unless the trade is of dubious and unproven value)

Marriage was however of benefit to women, it was an employment contract or long term lease for the uterus, either you get this or you don’t, life is too short to preach to the wilfully ignorant.

What has happened is that the benefits, to women, of being married vs being single have effectively evaporated over the past 30/40 years, life really is not better for a married women, in many cases, you can argue that life is worse for a married woman, because as a single woman (with or without children) you get all the same benefits, plus you are a free agent.

Here in the UK you have *ABSOLUTE* proof of this, and the true nature of women, simply by looking at the proportionately huge as part of the whole number of single / unmarried mothers.

They get all the social and financial benefits of a traditional marriage, except it is the State handing out cash for living and housing, and all the benefits of being a free agent.

And what happens?

The VAST majority of this already proportionately HUGE section of mothers all CHOOSE to have a different father for each child.

NO WOMAN gets pregnant by accident or in any way other than deliberately, and this has been so for the past 30 years plus.

SO this “three kids, all with different fathers” is nothing more and nothing less than pre-meditated deliberate behaviour by women freed from all restrictions and controls.

—————————————-

Unfortunately, this is a social, financial and economic demographic time bomb, because we are talking about a parasitic culture living off the society it inhabits, and which produces, via these fatherless households, generation after generation of misfits, all of whom are VASTLY more prone to academic underachievement, mental illness, suicide, being victims of abuse, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, imprisonments, etc etc etc, and when I say VASTLY more prone than the kid who grows up with mummy and daddy, I mean exactly that. Vastly.

At this point people usually start quoting George Orwell and 1984, but it is far more apt to start quoting HG Wells, The Time Machine, and specifically the Morlock and the Eloi.

In short, we have been steadily, drip drip drip, creating social problems that, by their very nature, cannot be fixed by simple social or political means.

America is trying one solution, ever increasing numbers of people in penitentiary, and ever increasing numbers of people in authoritah, toting a gun.

The least violent, most successful, long term approach is the Chinese method (China has at some point in its history tried *everything*, 20th century fiat currencies? check, etc etc) which involves licenced childbearing and forced sterilisation…

see China’s One Child Policy.

To use the American epithet “pussies” it won’t happen here in the west, because we are pussies, besides, the white man likes his wars… they do the same thing.

See http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm and read it all, slowly are carefully.

So, my argument against this article is that it is like discussing the symptom of bleeding gums, and ignoring the cause of a fatal radiation overdose.

Not only is discussing the symptom utterly pointless (there is no remedy) but it is in fact ASSISTING the root cause, by spending time and effort that can ONLY be productively spent on dealing with the cause.

The only remedies are….

1/ prepare for society as we know it to change totally.

2/ contribute nothing to the State.

3/ contribute nothing to marriage or the parasitic culture.

4/ take everything you can from the State.

5/ plan according to the following story…

There is a BBC cameraman, and a BBC soundman, in Africa, filming big cats.

Long story short, after a while the BBC guys realise that they have just become the prey, and prepare to abandon their equipment and run for their lives.

Suddenly the sound man bends down, chucks off his desert boots, and puts on a pair of running shoes.

The cameraman starts laughing at him, and says “You’ll never outrun a lion in them!”

The soundman smiles back, and says, “I don’t have to outrun the lion, only you.”

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 5
Avinguda Diagonal January 8, 2010 at 06:04

that is most likely to be the sum of two
curves:
- a logistic decay curve, for the lower classes
- a constant (horizontal line), for the upper classes

so we will see the curve begin to flatten and eventually to approach asymptote
at whatever % equals the upper class part of society … once they are the
only ones what are still marrying

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Snark January 8, 2010 at 06:20

And don’t forget the feminist mantra “All Men Must Die” to which, as far as I remember has never met with any woman”s disapproval.

This means that all women agree with the above statements.

Not quite true … there are a number of women, some who even post here, who are vitriolic towards feminism, and not only appreciate men but rise to our defence, and not in the sense of our utility but in the sense of our inherent human and male value.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
Epoxytocin No. 87 January 8, 2010 at 06:24

Afor:
Marriage is not for men, it never has been, marriage is not proof of paternity or anything else (this is what dowries were all about, you don’t give a dowry unless the trade is of dubious and unproven value)

Not true.

Well, true, but in only two, very limited, ways.

(1) Modern Western “marriage” – whose shell has been gutted and stuffed full of toxic contraband by feminists – is not for men. Certainly true.

(2) Monogamous marriage has always been a raw deal for men at the top of hierarchies, for whom polygamy would obviously be a better deal.
If what you say is really true, that you’re the type of guy who’s fucked Wilt Chamberlain-esque numbers of women by just snapping his fingers (and that you’re the magic STD-proof barebacker, on top of it all), then there’s something to what you’re saying.
But for the most part, when you say “marriage has never benefited men”, you’re committing the Cosmo fallacy: you’re using the term “men” when you really mean “alpha men”.

Real marriage, though – monogamous marriage in which the woman’s sexual power is properly balanced by the man’s physical and economic control – absolutely benefited rank-and-file men, and did for centuries upon centuries. It guaranteed a wife and (usually) offspring to any Joe Sixpack who wasn’t a complete societal-dropout urchin, thus creating a society that, to first order, motivated the bulk of its productive and creative citizenry to actually produce and create.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 06:32

What has happened is that the benefits, to women, of being married vs being single have effectively evaporated over the past 30/40 years, life really is not better for a married women, in many cases, you can argue that life is worse for a married woman, because as a single woman (with or without children) you get all the same benefits, plus you are a free agent.

Here in the UK you have *ABSOLUTE* proof of this, and the true nature of women, simply by looking at the proportionately huge as part of the whole number of single / unmarried mothers.

They get all the social and financial benefits of a traditional marriage, except it is the State handing out cash for living and housing, and all the benefits of being a free agent.

And what happens?

The VAST majority of this already proportionately HUGE section of mothers all CHOOSE to have a different father for each child.

Indeed, and because there is solid biology behind this, it’s not likely to change. Women prefer a small % of men for breeding — studies have shown that women are attracted to these guys when they are ovulating. But it’s not likely that any of them can actually snag one for commitment, even if the woman wanted to do so (and today she increasingly doesn’t, due to the fact that the state plays the husband role well enough). The Dad vs. Cad distinction is simple: cads are for breeding and dads are there to raise the kids sired by the cads, preferably without them knowing about it. The prevalence of cuckoldry varies depending on how draconian the penalties are against it — and historically men enacted severe penalties indeed because it was well understood that without restrictions, women would cuckold and cuckold and cuckold. It’s just their biology. But we shouldn’t pretend that women, as a sex, liked being tied up by the restrictions of marriage. Not at all. They tolerated it because it was the way to obtain male investment in their children, and men were willing to provide that only if good precautions were taken to ensure paternity. Cuckolding still happened, of course, but if discovered the penalty was often death.

The women’s revolution was of neccessity directed against marriage because marriage tied women down in a real way. Women wanted to be free from being dependent on men in marriage, precisely because this “freedom” removes the pressure on women to make the trade-off of marrying a dad, rather than pursuing a cad for breeding while supporting herself and her children based on her own income and subsidies from the state. By removing the “need” for women to marry dads/betas, women were freed up to pursue what Devlin calls their sexual utopia: the endless pursuit of the most breeding-preferred men, based on caveman-days criteria. And so that is precisely what we are seeing — we should not be surprised. It is merely female sexuality unleashed, and that unleashing being put on steroids due to technological advances and legal changes (birth control, abortion) which effectively remove the consequences of sexual activity for women.

This was, without doubt, the apex of a millennial struggle by women against the restrictions put upon them by monogamous marriage — restrictions that benefit men much more than they do women. It’s natural that a main priority of the women’s movement was to be rid of these restrictions so that women could pursue their own sexual utopia. Of course, that scenario leads to widespread social dysfunction, but at least women are free, right? I mean it’s not like the women’s movement had any larger issues in mind, in truth, than the liberation of women — society would have to deal with it, or not, but sexually liberated they would be, and have become. The world be damned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
too late for romance January 8, 2010 at 06:52

Let’s get down to brass tacks.

Assuming all of this is true and inevitable, how do I make as much money as possible from it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 07:01

@ Novaseeker

You were doing so well until the last paragraph, and then you lost the plot like Epoxytocin et al.

Monogamous restrictions do NOT benefit men, they benefit women, by protecting THEM and THEIR OFFSPRING from men.

Otherwise we get the law of the Jungle, at the very LEAST kill off the existing offspring (eg dating the single mum) or, if cuckoldry is suspected, kill em all.

You’re doing the same thing as everyone else who doesn’t get it, you’re intellectualising something that is nothing more complex than basic animal instincts.

It is only since the advent of guaranteed contraception that an ever increasing number of married men are encouraging pseudo-cuckoldry, eg “bang my wife” stuff, because there is no biological downside, and there is a sexual upside, the competition makes you horny as fuck.

You are ALL doomed to lose at this game until and unless you realise that EVERYTHING is biology / DNA.

Everything ELSE is just a smokescreen to sell the biology / DNA to you.

Females, from the year dot, are NEVER in doubt about maternity, even when they don’t know the paternity themselves, and buddy, I can introduce you to *women* who needed a DNA test to know who the father of their child was.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 07:04

@ too late for romance January 8, 2010 at 06:52

Let’s get down to brass tacks.

Assuming all of this is true and inevitable, how do I make as much money as possible from it?

————————————

Follow my 5 point plan, as above.

Option B is to play the system as it is, e.g. milk it while supporting it, start a DNA paternity test service, that doesn’t cater to men, but does cater to females seeking child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 07:17

Excellent analysis. I was hoping one of the heavy hitters here would pick up on that CDC/NMP data and run with it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 8, 2010 at 07:24

Maybe you could run with this story …

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/01/india-to-pay-women-to-cry-rape.html

Any woman in India alleging rape will receive the equivalent of $200,000, which does not have to be paid back if she is found to have invented the allegation.

This was justified on the grounds that “women never lie about rape.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Puma January 8, 2010 at 08:18

Interesting timing that the Heritage Foundation is picking up on the same topic, through an editorial in the Sacremento Bee newspaper, the very same day:

The Home Truth About Marriage and Family
http://www.sacbee.com/848/story/2447522.html

Allthough their analysis focuses more on the divorce side of the equation (as opposed to the new-marriage side).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bob January 8, 2010 at 08:37

I’m continually amazed by A) how few people seem to get that a parasite must leave enough for its host to survive, and B) how long the “host” legion of beta males will continue to put their nose to the grindstone for women and government that do not care.

Eventually, since the government does not care about marriage, but needs income, they will remove the tax benefits of being married. That will be the death knell of the institution, and probably a rude wakeup call to even the most oblivious observer. Does anyone here know of a country where that has already happened?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary January 8, 2010 at 08:38

Charles can I ask why there are no data points between 1995 and 2000? In fact there appears to be only one data point between 1995 and 2004.This gap looks out of place.

To further Charles’ answer to this, it is worth noting that the reason for the gap is that the national program for aggregating this data was basically cut in the mid-90s to save on funding. In theory the original information could still be collected from the various states involved (this actually only represents data from 44 states + DC) and aggregated by an independent agency, assuming the states still have the data stored somewhere.

There is a similar problem with availability for specifics on divorce data; beyond documenting the number of divorces, no further statistics are regularly aggregated on a national level any more “to save on funding”. Additional data is collected for semi-regular special reports, but I don’t think any of the most recent few are particularly enlightening.

In short, if an independent agency with sufficient funding and an interest in publicizing these issues existed, the data should still be largely available in storage on a state-by-state basis, but it has not been aggregated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 8, 2010 at 08:44

I suspect that marriage among the wealthy will only hold up in the short term, not the long term. Divorce will be the main driver there; rich men do not like being forced to pay a wife who leaves them.

Though, with that said, the US has the benefit of having quite a bit of case law with regard to enforcing pre-nups (unlike the UK), and quite a bit of case law showing the decline and downfall of common law marriage (far less common than people think, and only possible in a handful of states now).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 08:46

@Puma

From the Sacramento Bee article:

“For starters, Project Director Dr. Brad Wilcox notes that in 2008, the first year of one of the worst economic downturns in U.S. history, the divorce rate actually declined by seven-tenths of a percent. “Since the downturn began in December of 2007,” the report says, “millions of Americans have adopted a home-grown bailout strategy. They are relying more upon their own marriages and families to weather this economic storm.””

This is of course liberal spin and complete bullshit. The divorce rate has been declining since 1980. The divorce rate is declining because the marriage rate is declining.

Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 08:49

@AFOR-

So you’re in the UK. No wonder your approach of “stare to ensnare” works so well. Women in the UK are even more sexually liberated than US girls. They are far more openly slutty, as your state will take care of them and their bastard children better than ours, and sexual liberation was a European fad long before it hit the states. US chicks have to be a little more selective, as social status here in America is a contact sport. I’m figuring you out, step by step. The rules of “game” need to be fine tuned depending on the culture. American women are “Star Fuckers”, celebrity worshipers, status whores, materialism obsessed. US men need to peacock more. Act like a celebrity. UK girls just want a good strong fucking by an Alpha Chav.

I’m speculating a lot here, as usual. I’m sure I’m out on an intellecutal limb again. Get your saw out AFOR.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Reinholt January 8, 2010 at 08:54

Divorce rate as a % of the total population is a meaningless statistic, agreed. You need rate of divorce among those already married.

As in, given x married partners, there were y divorces, so the divorce rate (given that you are married, which is usually a pre-requisite to getting divorced) should be y/x.

I ignore the divorce rate and usually dig up data myself for many reasons tied to mathematical illiteracy or idiocy among most “researchers”.

Never trust a social scientist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 09:00

Charles, you are right. Many of these “pro-marriage” foundations hit the cheerleading button every time there is a temporary downtick in divorce rates or some localized uptick in marriage rates. They are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room which is the sustained & accelerating decline in new-marriage rates which is the tap feeding the through. Once that tap is effectively turned off (i.e. new marriages are few and far in between, only in certain religious enclaves) with the coming two generations, all of this data about “divorce rates” will be a moot point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
InternetWood January 8, 2010 at 09:04

Novaseeker said:

The data I have seen suggests substantial disparities in marriage rates based on socio-economic slice, such that in the “dual educated, dual working with combined income over 100k” slice, marriage rates are high, still, and divorce rates are low. Of course that is a very small demographic slice, but it seems significant because it describes how the elites are living — in the world of the elites, there is no marriage crisis, because when they look around at each other, they see most of each other are married and a rather small number have ever been divorced — so the reality of what is happening to marriage in the culture as a whole is less “real” to the elites who are in a position to change policy and so on. So the problem perpetuates itself, and marriage becomes increasingly an elite institution, while it effectively dies in the rest of society.

That’s right. Because of the especially servile nature of slave-animals in America, most elite cannot see past the light shining off their own ass. Add to this one of the most censored presses in the world, and the collapse will not be televised.

http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Timothy+Herndon%22&cf=all&start=0

Notice no Reuters, and no AP. That means this story effectively doesn’t exist outside of St. Louis. But I assure you, it is happening in all 50 states now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary January 8, 2010 at 09:04

I ignore the divorce rate and usually dig up data myself for many reasons tied to mathematical illiteracy or idiocy among most “researchers”.

This is one case where I think it is probably malice rather than incompetence…someone, at some point, decided to present the statistics in this way, and it strains belief to think that this was the easiest way for them to present “number of divorces” that occurred– why divide by the population of people rather than the population of marriages?

That said, the continued reporting of these numbers rather than any others is probably just a matter of tradition (if not automation) at this point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 09:06

@Jabher

You’re on target about UK women. For a UK woman a baby, father unknown, gets her a government funded place to live plus living expenses. It’s an irresistible “career” path for many.

Reinholt January 8, 2010 at 09:07

I try not to judge on the basis of malice vs. incompetence, as that takes more digging than I am usually willing to invest.

I’ve seen many cases where it goes both ways; often what appears to be malice is actually incompetence driven by lack of data (or lack of willingness to compile the data), and often what appears to be incompetence is actually malice (deliberately ignoring data, etc). It’s not clear cut, and the reason I don’t chase it is simple: once you realize either one is going on, you ignore the source and move on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
InternetWood January 8, 2010 at 09:08

Bob said:

Eventually, since the government does not care about marriage, but needs income, they will remove the tax benefits of being married. That will be the death knell of the institution, and probably a rude wakeup call to even the most oblivious observer. Does anyone here know of a country where that has already happened?

Single males have always been taxed more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:10

””””””””HR Lincoln January 8, 2010 at 03:34
With health care “reform”, we’re also about to introduce another factor that will drive down marriage rates. A new entitlement to health care is about to be created, along with individual mandates to purchase health insurance. Henceforth, a self-supporting man dating a non-self-supporting woman (ie., one eligibile for “free” health insurance) will be looking at taking on a substantial incremental expense by marrying her. FAR cheaper to shack up and keep her enrolled in Obamacaid.

Just one more nail in the coffin of marriage in our culture.

””””””””””””
Woman with kids already get free healthcare by virtue of having kids. Another thing I just kind of discovered. Ya know how ya hear about the medicated boys right. Well apparently you can just follow the money on that. Once a boy is medicated and is said to not be able to function in school and such. The mother can then apply for social security for that kid. So yea double dipping. They can get child support money for him and then turn around and get a ssi check for him too if he really really fucks up in school. So it has a benefit for mothers who care about money now rather than their sons future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 09:11

@Puma

Charles, you are right……..the sustained & accelerating decline in new-marriage rates which is the tap feeding the through.

There’s good news and bad news. :) The good news is that by about 2030 our political leaders will be taking credit for reducing the divorce rate almost to zero. The bad news…..

TAllagash January 8, 2010 at 09:12

year one AM….lol. nice. ah, that made my day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:12

Or like winning the mini lottery depending on his age. An extra 400 to 600 comes in handy on top of child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:19

”””””””Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 09:06
@Jabher

You’re on target about UK women. For a UK woman a baby, father unknown, gets her a government funded place to live plus living expenses. It’s an irresistible “career” path for many.
””””””””’
That is actually an interesting diference. The uk must want the woman to have kids and leaves the men alone. In the us the welfare system expects the woman to name a father. Probably why ya see those mory shows where the woman is crying. She is crying because she can’t find a father to get that money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
slwerner January 8, 2010 at 09:21

In skimming through the responses, I noticed that at least one person, HR Lincoln, has already alluded to this, but here’s the Wall Street Journals take on it:

Married Couples Pay More Than Unmarried Under Health Bill

By MARTIN VAUGHAN

WASHINGTON — Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.

The built-in “marriage penalty” in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say “I do.”

The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single.

As Noveseeker rightly notes, what remains of marriage will likely be confined to the upper-middle income to rich classes. Added “marriage penalties” will only serve to hasten this eventuality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 8, 2010 at 09:23

Oops, I apparently failed to closeout the “blockquoted” section, and my own final paragraph ended up appearing as a part of the linked article. I did not mean to make in appear that Novaseeker was referenced by the WSJ.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 8, 2010 at 09:31

One thing that occurred to me WRT the ultimate fate of Marriage 2.0 is the matter of weddings.

Clearly, for a very significant portion of women, the point of getting married is not so much as to enter into marital union so much as it is to have a wedding. It’s the way for many of them to be “Queen For A Day”. It’s no accident that it’s come to be known as “Her Day” [even that insipid television commercial which featured a "stunt groom" managed to speak to the reality of modern weddings].

I don’t have any “feel” for where the trend towards ever-increasingly expensive show/status weddings is going to lead. I’m basically just fijhing for the thoughts of others on the matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:32

And this is already happening too.

My health insurance at my company was 100 bucks a month for me. When a family was included. Which could just be husband and wife. The bill was 500 bucks a month. So 1200 vs 6000 a year. Big diference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:36

My buddy was paying 2k a year for worldwide coverage for health insurance for a family from an english company. So not to bad. That is what is said about expats that gets them in trouble. Eventually they get sick and it fucks there savings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 09:42

What the welfare mothers don’t know though is that a man and woman team that works there buts off a little bit and can save 2k a month for 4 years can then have more money coming in than welfare. Save 100k and make 2800 a month off 4 duplexes. So really a husband and wife that works together can create their own welfare system that is better than what they get free. Plus they don’t have a bunch of woman involved in their lives with their social service degrees.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 8, 2010 at 09:51

Fine, fine — does anyone have any proposed solutions?

Full disclosure: I’ve been happily married for almost four months and am in that socioeconomic demographic in which marriage still seems to be doing well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Red January 8, 2010 at 09:56

@Steezer January 8, 2010 at 09:51

Fine, fine — does anyone have any proposed solutions?

Note this is coming from limited knowledge and I might be wrong: We need to do what the British did with the Victorian age. They completely redid their their upper class culture and pressed the middle and lower classes into following it. It was a renewal of their nation morality after a long decline.

How do we do this? Not a clue, I still don’t know enough about the Victorian age.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 09:57

Steezer,
Does your wife work? One solution to the “divorce theft” risk is for her to be in a field where she makes more than you. But that may then cause other emotional problems in itself. So sorry, no answers for you.

Puma

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 8, 2010 at 10:00

Steezer,

Some serious advice:

1 – I hope you had a pre-nup.

2 – If not, make sure that you have both LTR game and that your wife knows divorcing you is the nuclear bomb option, not a payout bonanza.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Noobius January 8, 2010 at 10:01

I’m not that good with math but did the author just etrapolate a trend from a non parametrical model? I thought that doesn’t work. Sorry for being a geek, I just like to understand these things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Noobius January 8, 2010 at 10:02

Spelling fail. Meant to say “extrapolate”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 10:06

””””’Steezer January 8, 2010 at 09:51
Fine, fine — does anyone have any proposed solutions?

Full disclosure: I’ve been happily married for almost four months and am in that socioeconomic demographic in which marriage still seems to be doing well.
”””””””””

Yea make it so you both are independantly wealthy you should be fine as long as she doesn’t want to do something else but at least you will have something to split.

How long did you date before you got married?
Did you talk about what would happen if you split up ie in relation to disposition of children.
Did you talk about her not using the system to cut off your balls in event of divorce since you find that unaceptable?
Does she remain calm during pressure situations or have you had to go through any of those since you have money?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 10:09

Noobius – It is probably that the decline may taper off at some point as there will always be demographic enclaves of marriage here and there. These holdout enclaves can take decades to fall, just as Byzantium outlived the Fall of the Roman Empire by another 1000 years (albeit as a tiny holdout in its last few centuries).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 10:10

… typo … meant “probable”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 8, 2010 at 10:15

Noobius,

What? That comes across as a bunch of nonsense jargon.

The reality of trend projection is that the process, in truth, cannot be accurately done mathematically thanks to some epistemological problems that cannot be evaded (no matter how hard various modelers try to rationalize about it); more so, projecting trends is always a matter of confidence and specificity…

In short, are you objecting to the precise date? The shape of the curve leading there? The general direction of the trend? Is the data clean in the first place? Is it measuring what we think it is measuring? How confident do we want to be?

And even given all that, reality may well throw us a Black Swan anyways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 10:22

The black swan is when anti ballistic missile technology is perfect and china places thousands of them and can take any amount of the current missiles in all the other countries. Then you have conventional war as an alternative again. So blitzkrieg with 10k planes a day flying out as bombs will take out all infrastructure. Make a 365 day supply of these. Poison reservoirs around the world and destroy all airports. And no defense from conventional chinese airpower. Take out all land based army vehicles on the ground and no defense against conventional chinese tanks. Bloodbath ensues and there is no hope for a win. Simple shit. he he he
Remote controlled tanks mowing down 100k people a year each.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 10:23

@ jabberwockie

I’m speculating a lot here, as usual. I’m sure I’m out on an intellecutal limb again. Get your saw out AFOR.

——————-

Yank woman are different, and I’ve only met (and fucked) that sub-set of Yank women who travel abroad, but in my experience they were as easy as any other race.

The most notable characteristics of yank women are twofold.

1/ they will suck a cock if there is an “a” in the week, as a substitute for a smile or saying “hello”

2/ 8 out of 10 pussies that expressed a preference, were all *really* fascinated by and turned on by the foreskin, and then the next day pretended it was yucky in public front of their yank female friends.

For a while I hung out in places popular with the 6th fleet, and the whores *loved* the yanks, because they were happy with a lot less “service”, what I will always remember was them walking in with the AT&T cards and while waiting for the call getting laid with a whore, then getting the phone call and bursting into tears because it was a dear john phone call.

of course they were also mainly from certain states of the US, and also a self selecting minority.

hah, I’ve just remembered something else, the first woman I ever saw stick a shower head up her cunt was a yank, and that led to an explanation of something I had never even heard of before, “douche bag”

Keep up the good work with the amateur psychoanalysis though, you’re not getting any closer, but it is fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Steezer January 8, 2010 at 10:37

I don’t mean solutions for me — I mean for society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 10:49

Steezer – Society will take care of itself. Don’t worry about society. You save yourself first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 10:55

“Keep up the good work with the amateur psychoanalysis though, you’re not getting any closer, but it is fun.”

Isn’t it.

US chicks always whore out on vacation and trips, so that invalidates your argument some. Girls I knew in highschool who would take a family beach trip came back with that, “I’ve been fucked.” smug smile, and that is a highshool girl traveling 50 miles with her family. I wouldn’t be surprised if US chicks allowed themselves to get gang banged by a team of latex hooded donkey’s if they ended up as far out there as some place like Kazakistan. “What happens in Kazakistan stays in Kazakistan.” Amanda Knox anyone?

“When a slut sucks dick in a foreign country, and no one is around to hear it, does she make a gurgling sound?”

AFOR-

You were an only child, correct?

What kind of shitty car do you drive?

How many guns do you own? Just one, right? That all you need.

You’re good a fixing stuff, probably? A couple of projects always in the works that you dabble with when you get the time?

(I’ll run a joke into the ground by the way, then step on its neck to put it out of its misery, only to continue to beat it until my arm gets soar. I squeeze every last bit of amusement out of one, probably like you treat women. Forgive me.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Steezer January 8, 2010 at 10:56

I will — I guess what I’m trying to say is I’d personally rather read somewhat constructive comments. Too much “the end is nigh” and, well — that gets old.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 10:57

””””””’Steezer January 8, 2010 at 10:37
I don’t mean solutions for me — I mean for society.”””””

The solution for society. When you have cancer ya don’t play nice with the cancer cells ya kill em off. I am kinda hoping on the china thing to be the cure for this crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 10:58

@Steezer-

Step one. Destroy the credibility of feminism.

The rest will probably be somewhat easy to work out, once the feminazi phalanx can no longer interfere with male logic and productivity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 11:05

@ Jabberwocky

You were an only child, correct?

Incorrect. The only child worth a damn, maybe.

What kind of shitty car do you drive?

100% reliable euro diesel, preferably 15/20 years old, purchase price always < than 5 tanks full of diesel.

motersickles too of course

How many guns do you own? Just one, right? That all you need.

none, don’t need one.

the old adage about 5 rounds in a revolver is right though, if 5 ain’t enough, you already fucked up.

Favourite gun of all time was a browning 22lr pistol with silencer.

Most frightening was a L1a1 with paraphones and nightscope, really, really, really hard to resist pulling the trigger

You’re good a fixing stuff, probably? A couple of projects always in the works that you dabble with when you get the time?

I’m *excellent* at fixing stuff.

yes, always a project or two on the go, big boys just have better toys.

BTW, all the above answers are 100% honest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 8, 2010 at 11:11

@Steezer

It used to be said that the man is the head of the household and the woman is the neck. I guess what that means is that women were pretty good at figuring out men and getting them to do what they want. I think to some degree, if not in love, they no longer have a need for this innate skill-set. So, I guess the only solution for men if they want to succeed, is to start doing what women have been doing all along subconsciously . Study women and learn how to deal with them. I guess a 100 years ago men could afford to say, ah, women are complicated and still have a stable family life. I do not think that is a case any more. In addition, if you are happily married, hanging out on sites as these will not allow you to fully rationalize that your marriage was actually a good choice ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 11:11

Thank you. I’ll annoy some more later.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 11:12

””””””’Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 10:58
@Steezer-

Step one. Destroy the credibility of feminism.

The rest will probably be somewhat easy to work out, once the feminazi phalanx can no longer interfere with male logic and productivity.
”””””””””’
Naa change a couple of the laws that fuck men and the feminist won’t matter when woman get no benefit from men other than what they can willingly get them to give then woman will act diferent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 11:15

nor will the men that want to fuck over men exist either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 11:18

To change those laws, we need to destroy feminism, or it will block that change.

Really, either way, I want feminism destroyed for one simple reason: I hate it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
just curious January 8, 2010 at 11:23

@Gunslingergregi

well how else would you define Game? ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 11:25

@AfOR

Most frightening was a L1a1……

I carried the L1A1 for a few years, for a while in South Armagh. We called it the 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle. I assume that’s what you mean. No-one called it the L1A1, to the best of my recollection.

Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 11:33

So, I guess the only solution for men if they want to succeed, is to start doing what women have been doing all along subconsciously . Study women and learn how to deal with them. I guess a 100 years ago men could afford to say, ah, women are complicated and still have a stable family life. I do not think that is a case any more.

And why should men work to dance to the tunes of women? This is equality? I think not.

No, men should let women raise their children as they wish. It’s their problem now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 11:35

@ Charles

where I was we all called em f1a1, to differentiate from the fal, it replaced the lee-enfield there, and there was also names to differentiate the various ak’s

like I said, wasn’t mine, but with the paraphones and starlight it was a tempter…

if you had more money (I did) you went for a mini14 in stainless.

“slr” is like “gimpy”, you’re showing your roots, kunta kinte.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel January 8, 2010 at 11:43

@AfOR

“slr” is like “gimpy”, you’re showing your roots, kunta kinte.

Yup. Although phonetically it’s more like “jimpy”. I’m not big on self-disclosure in a public forum, so that’s all you get.

Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 11:44

Fine, fine — does anyone have any proposed solutions?

Full disclosure: I’ve been happily married for almost four months and am in that socioeconomic demographic in which marriage still seems to be doing well.

If you’re in that demographic, then your best bet is to make certain that your collective lifestyle fully depends on both of you working hard and being promoted at your jobs. That way if anything does go wrong with the marriage, it will be too painful, as a practical matter, to dissolve it — or at least so painful that both of you will have second thoughts.

Don’t worry about social solutions — there aren’t any. Marriage is on the way out for most demographics because it doesn’t add value for most demographics any longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Steezer January 8, 2010 at 11:45

just curious — the only reason I’m here is because I’ve known Welmer for nearly 30 years!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
just curious January 8, 2010 at 11:49

@Novaseeker

And why should men work to dance to the tunes of women? This is equality? I think not.

I think my comment was a bit one-sided and on a micro level. One-sided because I believe that women should try to please their husbands as well, I hope Steezer’s wife is like that. Marriage requires that both sides compromise and try to understand each other.

In addition, I think what a lot of men posting here do not realize is that Game is some irresponsible, sordid version of playing to the tune of irresponsible women. As women used to observe men and tried to figure them out to get what they want so do men do now with the Game, meaning women are the ones with power. It is still playing by female rules though they kid themselves it is not. The Game allow women not seeking a consuming relationship but not wanting to degrade their own “worth” to put themselves in a position of a male victim (he just used me, he is such a jerk) and still get exactly what they want. An irresponsible affair and possibly even a kid with a man paying child support.

As far as macro level goes, Gunslingergregi was right, laws should be changed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 11:54

Nah, Game allows men to get sexual relationships with women on their own terms. It’s not *that* hard to avoid pregnancy, really, from the male perspective. The whole “commitment, relationships and children” thing is something that is more desired by women than by men, so Game allows men to make an end-run around that and get what *men* want from women without providing to women what women want from men. Sounds nasty, right? Well, the entire dating/mating/marriage/divorce system is currently a nasty mess, and men are well advised to deal with it with clear-eyes and a firm grasp of what they want and how they are going to secure it. It’s a war between the sexes on every level, really. Game is the great equalizer for men as the answer to all of the unbridled sexual power women have been throwing around since the sexual revolution. And more power to it.

Changing the laws on the macro level also won’t happen until women feel enough pain under the current laws to want, themselves, for the laws to be changed. Game helps raise that pain factor, too, so it’s also useful from the larger political perspective.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
DirkJohanson January 8, 2010 at 11:57

Lets make America a sexual utopia for guys.

We have the sluts – now all we need are the laws. We need to legalize consensual sex – everywhere, not just in small counties in Nevada.

DirkJohanson, Beta Male/John by Choice

Guyinism – Advocating for the “guys’ Right to Choose (willing sex partners).” See http://guyinism.com/?p=11

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 11:58

”””””””just curious January 8, 2010 at 11:23
@Gunslingergregi

well how else would you define Game?
”””””””

I don’t know it has always been easy for me to get woman. Except after my first divorce when I went through a period of nothing for a minute. But yea I always had first hand knowledge of what happens when a woman wants a divorce and to fuck over the guy from my dad. So that kept me fairly safe so far in so much as I know what to look for in a woman that will be bad later. I also talk with the woman about situations that might occur and how I will not be a guy that will put up with that crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Welmer January 8, 2010 at 12:00

if you had more money (I did) you went for a mini14 in stainless.

-Afor

I’ve got one of those in the closet downstairs. They sure are fun little machines.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 12:00

But yea after the divorce watching thing I never did marry an american woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jz January 8, 2010 at 12:39

re: marriage only for the socio-economic elites.

I just had this discussion with the woman painting my house. She makes $30,000/yr. The father of her babies makes $20,000/yr. Together they have 4 kids. Given non-married cohabitation, they receive Medicaid benefits and earned income credits (welfare) of $5,000/yr. She stated she’d never get married until they jointly earned $100,000/yr.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kave January 8, 2010 at 12:46

It’s only been in the last few hundred years that the peasant class has formed formal unions at all. Before that marriage served the purpose of joining families for business reasons. This old-fashioned value of marriage really is a fairly new concept.

I married my wife because of our families, without their bias regarding living in sin we would have spent the last 10 years doing exactly what we are doing without a contract. With less people involved in churches, and old social constraints regarding what is proper and what is not more and more people men and women are regarding weddings as what they truly are.. a cash cow and nothing else.

We got married, but within a civil service by ourselves on a vacation we would have been on anyways. My wife sprained her ankle on our wedding day climbing, so I spent our wedding night drinking vodka and red bull till five in the morning with some blokes I met. Both sets of parents got the legality they wanted, without us shelling out thousands and milking relatives out of their hard earned dollars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 12:51

@ Welmer
I’ve got one of those in the closet downstairs. They sure are fun little machines.
——-

like Charles, I don’t want to go into much detail…

I didn’t buy one as a tool of the trade, rather, that is why I bought one (good enough for them… etc)

USains seem to equate calibre with penis size, anything less than .577 nitro express is a plinker…

the mini14 in stainless was a very popular tool of the trade for many reasons…

1/ very, very, very reliable.
2/ very, very, very easy to maintain
3/ short and light, easy to swing
4/ light ammo, anyone could carry 100 rounds and water etc
5/ quite accurate, smithed it would do 1″ groups @ 300 feet

others used to “diss” it for fears the light bullet was easily deflected by the bush, and worries that it lacked sheer knock down power.

owners dismissed all this, and used it because it was a man killer***, and the slight tradeoff in knockdown and bullet deflection was more than compensated for by short length, accuracy and the other benefits, in the bush it was a really hard weapon to beat.

*** SWAPO used ak / akm / rpk / galil, usually cheap chinese copies, and old soviet 7.62 ammo, the 5.56 was dissed as passing through the target too easily (before tumbling or fragmenting), not being a man killer, but again the “3 round” fire selection took care of that nicely, and I also heard talk that the higher bone / tissue density of the negro negated this a lot.

different world

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 8, 2010 at 13:01

Hmm. Military. That explains the cold-blooded nature and pragmatic realism.

Keep getting him to open up team. By the time we’re done, I’ll be able to tell you his first pets name and how old he was when he lost his virginity.

Spartacus and 15?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 13:19

@ jabberwocky
Hmm. Military. That explains the cold-blooded nature and pragmatic realism.

——–

nope, not a military bone in my body, though it runs in the family***…

my attitude to the military has always been “put a gun in my hand, and I will shoot every officer I can”

without wishing to diss military types, frankly I think you have to be soft in the head to sign up.

*** I have one grandparent in particular, ran away to sea at 14, saw action at Jutland, then signed up first day of war (RNR) for the next one, tankers on arctic convoy, silly bastard had THREE ships (tankers at that) torpedoed out from under him, and went back for more.. died in the sixties of gut cancer, chewin baccy on the tankers.

another rellie was RN signals, told to stay behind at the fall of singapore and report on jap activity as long as possible (suicide mission) MIA for 9 months, made his way via dugout etc around to calcutta, found hisself listed as dead so had to steal rations for 6 months until they confirmed he was who he said he was

and all for 2s 6d a week

I could go on… mad bastards one and all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Abject Man January 8, 2010 at 14:09

The Dad vs. Cad distinction is simple: cads are for breeding and dads are there to raise the kids sired by the cads, preferably without them knowing about it.

There’s an evolutionary-logical fallacy here: if the Cads sire the kids the Dads take care of in a significant number and persistently throughout a very long time, the doofus Dads end up eliminating their genes from the gene pool. The Cads don’t take care of those kids, either, which puts the offspring at risk, reducing their chances of survival.

So, how does this compute?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Abject Man January 8, 2010 at 14:14

Also, when we say women prefer “cavemen” and not “providers”, there’s again a curious anachronism. You’d think the cavemen were “players”. They were the “providers” of their day. This is anachronistic because it is assumed that women have always been so thoroughly sexualized as they are now. Not so. In most traditional societies (you know, when there were no printing presses and romance novels, TV and movies, etc.), hardly any female was doing nothing but thinking of humping cads all day long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Snark January 8, 2010 at 14:32

Women have forever been thoroughly sexualised; traditional societies are those in which religion restricts the expression of female sexuality. That does not mean it is not there. It means it is kept under control, just as male sexuality always has been.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 15:18

There’s an evolutionary-logical fallacy here: if the Cads sire the kids the Dads take care of in a significant number and persistently throughout a very long time, the doofus Dads end up eliminating their genes from the gene pool. The Cads don’t take care of those kids, either, which puts the offspring at risk, reducing their chances of survival.

So, how does this compute?

Because it is both/and, not either/or. Both men and women have incentives to pair bond and at the same time cheat the pair bond opportunistically. For women, you marry the Dad who provides and protects and invests, and, sure, you have some offspring with him, but you don’t “put all your eggs in one basket”, quite literally in this case. It’s the best of both worlds for the reproductive success of the woman’s genes, provided, of course, that she doesn’t get caught. That’s why the likelihood of the behavior waxes and wanes with the penalties associated with it. Today there are basically no penalties associated with it, so it is waxing to beat the band — as is to be expected. It is a natural strategy for the genes inside every woman — hence the studies that clearly show that women are attracted to different kinds of men at different times in their monthly cycle (and more socially dominant Cad types during ovulation). But yet the rest of the month more attracted to Dad types. Hence not either/or but both/and — in other words, cuckolding. If a woman can “get away with” high value cuckolding, she is advantaged genetically at the expense of her Dad mate.

Also, when we say women prefer “cavemen” and not “providers”, there’s again a curious anachronism. You’d think the cavemen were “players”. They were the “providers” of their day.

Not players, but socially dominant men of their day. Women are attracted to social dominance and social proof above all else. That has not changed in millenia and probably won’t, because it is the main way females have to sort males by their respective mate value — by their dominance amongst each other. How that dominance is achieved — i.e., how social dominance is achieved — varies quite a bit by era. But the constant is that the socially dominant males are always the ones who are preferred for breeding during human female ovulation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 8, 2010 at 15:25

@Abject-

The dads still get some kids in there, most often more than the cad.

Also, many soldier types fall into the masculine arch type of cad (hyper-masculine, fearless, athletic) and throughout history these Alpha/soldier/cads would die off in great numbers. Now and days we jail them. Cads will always be in the minority for several reasons, but also because they are prone to risk taking, and generally die off faster. Thats why they have developed cuckoldry. It suits their lifestyle, but also deals with the issue of them possibly dieing of war, disease, or mischief. They are hyper aggressive parasites, that in times of prosperity and stability, over populate, as their is no mechanism to cull them affectively in modern times. I theorize that women are drawn to them, because nature needs them to be because they serve such a vital role as soldier, explorer, risk taker, etc. And sense they are in limited supply, humanity needed a creative mechanism for them to reproduce. Evolutions solution: women like them, they in turn pump and dump. That way, no matter how irresponsible or risky they go about their life, they ensure their offspring will be raised to adulthood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 15:31

@ Novaseeker

again you’re right, and then you blow it in the last para.

women don’t give a fuck about social dominance / proof or any other part of that namby pamby game bullshit.

you need to get it through your head it is the DNA in control, women choose based on subtle subconcious cues, basically they are looking for healthy DNA that differs from themselves… end of.

How to cock block yourself from that…

1/ wear perfume (sorry guys, after shave etc etc is all perfume)

2/ wear synthetic clothes that don’t absorb and then radiate your smell

3/ don’t let them look deeply into your eyes to determine your health

4/ start flapping your mouth to force them to engage higher brain functions and ignore the biochemistry

5/ everything else 99.9% of men do

How to fuck them…

0/ unwritten rule zero “You want sex”

1/ look em in they eye

2/ keep your fucking mouth shut

job done

I can hand a woman in a blind test my tee shirt and have a higher score rate than any gamer on the planet, because it directly bypasses their higher brain functions and talks directly to the cunt

this is what none of you people get….

YOU ARE ALREADY “IN THERE”, and then you FUCK IT UP by engaging their higher brain functions…

Jesus H Christ

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kirt33 January 8, 2010 at 15:35

What is meant by ‘marriage’? Is it a legal concept? Is it a religious concept? I know this article takes it to mean a legal contract, and thus my question is somewhat rhetorical, but I have a point to make: As someone mentioned, marriage will become something that only religious people do, mostly. Owing to factors like the financial disincentive mentioned by several posters, even religious folks will increasingly opt to marry according to a religious ritual, but not in the legally-binding, civil sense. As a conservative Christian, I support this – I don’t want to be part of a legal institution that has become a tool of abuse. I only care about being married according to the rules of my religious beliefs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 8, 2010 at 15:41

Fuck you Afor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 8, 2010 at 15:44

AFOR-

So now its all about how your manly awesomeness permeates through your sweat glands to overwhelm the females psyche by by-passing her higher thought processes! You can see how that won’t work for a lowly, weak smelling, hard to maintain eye contact or keep my mouth shut, baby faced geek like me, but I appreciate the advice.

Hired mercenary gun? A hit-man maybe? Assassin? I joke. Those don’t count.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 15:44

Nova nailed it.

(as usual)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 8, 2010 at 15:45

@Nova-

Funny. Unexpectedly funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma January 8, 2010 at 15:50

… LOL I just saw that too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 16:23

@ Jabberwocky from home January 8, 2010 at 15:44

AFOR-

So now its all about how your manly awesomeness permeates through your sweat glands to overwhelm the females psyche by by-passing her higher thought processes! You can see how that won’t work for a lowly, weak smelling, hard to maintain eye contact or keep my mouth shut, baby faced geek like me, but I appreciate the advice.

—————————-

Now you’re talking like a bitch too.

sex is biochemistry, nothing more, nothing less.

it isn’t about my throbbing gristle exuding he man pheromones…

you lot need to learn to read

y’all got perfectly good biochemistry going for you, but y’all cock-block it like pros…

invoking higher brain functions just kills that instinctive stuff…

you think 1 women in a million is smart enough to realise that she is looking into your eyes to gauge your health? give me a fucking break…

but, it ain’t about smart, it’s biochemistry, nothing more….

——————-

I’ll tell you a fact jabberwocky

If I put this stuff in a book or a DVD these stiffs would queue round the block to suck my cock and press 20 dollar bills into my hands for a copy.

tell it to em straight and for free and they can’t handle it…

how the fuck do you assholes think the rest of the animal kingdom manage to fuck and reproduce?

that fucking Onion piece was spot on

Jesus H Christ.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Mr.M January 8, 2010 at 16:32

that fucking Onion piece was spot on

Which?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 8, 2010 at 16:35

google “Iridology” and maybe learn something that actually does relate to getting laid

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
whiskey January 8, 2010 at 18:08

Actually Afor, human evolution suggests that there are significant factors associated with social dominance and control of resources that deeply affect women’s sexual choices.

I.E. transition to agricultural era, when socially dominant men who exhibited certain “asshole” behaviors that no other man could exhibit, had far more resources to put on women who bore his children. The explosion of population in the Agricultural era (around 11K years ago) meant that this relatively short time span skewed human evolution. In favor of women wanting to be part of the Big man’s harem, instead of with a “loyal” hunter-gatherer.

Note too, that the relative chaotic changes in dynasties and so on made aggressive assholes a better evolutionary bet than plain old providers. Since it was a bet on the possibility of an adventurer founding a dynasty. Not without risks, but then women have always been FAR MORE RISK-FRIENDLY in terms of choices of fathers for their children, than men are with mothers of their children.

Women search out for dominance, or the possibility of an adventurer, because the natural selection (more resources for those who win big leading to reproductive advantage and more kids) led them to it relatively recently, but the effect was amplified by the population explosion. Which was basically the Big Man fucking a lot of ordinary women in his harem. Solomon had 100 wives or some such. and so on.

Hunter-gatherers are mostly monogamous, too little resources to keep women and too much ability to stick a spear in a would be big man by a disgruntled guy. Whereas the King always has palace guards just for that eventuality.

More recently industrialization selected for provider status (a cad was likely to get you not a payoff as an adventurer taking the throne but in the poorhouse), by eliminating the positive bet on risk-taking. That’s changed in the last fifty years or so.

What can be done? Nothing save use Game to have as many women as possible, with as many kids as possible, and taking responsibility for none of them. This is what women want, they should have it. [Long term, the bet is to reversion for adventurers becoming Kings and all else slave-peasants.]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
codebuster January 8, 2010 at 18:42

@whiskey

A very important aspect about female psychology is self-consciousness. Women are inclined to work themselves into a lather about things, and this works against them realizing their ambitions. For example if a handsome, wealthy dude happens along who represents everything they had ever dreamt about in their stupid soap operas, they freak and jeopardize everything. Playing “hard to get” is not a strategy… women are not that clever. They spook easily. That’s why asshole wins the day. He does not make them freak. He does not expect much of them. He does not even have to be good-looking or clever. He just takes. She, on the other hand, does not have to decide anything, because the asshole that takes is doing all the stuff that would otherwise make her feel self-conscious and awkward. Women’s minds are no less inclined to sink to the sewer than men’s, but their inhibitions require men to take the initiative. And when a man takes the initiative, to push beyond a woman’s resistance, he is often surprised how easy it was, and she is often surprised… quietly and secretly, “mmmmm, I liked that”. It’s why women finish up with assholes. Nothing magical, strategic or clever about it. These creatures of freak-out are victims of their own psychology, and there is nothing strategic or formidable in their evasions, tactics and objectives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Noobius January 9, 2010 at 00:29

“In short, are you objecting to the precise date? The shape of the curve leading there? The general direction of the trend? Is the data clean in the first place? Is it measuring what we think it is measuring? How confident do we want to be?”

I’m not objecting to anything, just asking. From what I understand you can’t extrapolate a trend unless you know the precise mathematical model behind it and what parameters come into play in time. So what I’m saying is pretty much like this xkcd:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=41929

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian January 9, 2010 at 03:16

Forget it, men. There’s no hope for marriage in its current state. None. Oh, there’ll still be young men getting married, but the declining trend is irreversible. Thanks to feminism, women do not need men and are opting to stay single. Fertility rates in western societies everywhere have crashed through the floor, which will have grave consequences in the decades ahead. We are all witnessing the inevitable and certain end of Western civilization as we know it.

Marriage has no chance of long term survival in the society we have now — and neither does Western Civilization, for that matter. They both must be replaced with something better. We’re on a sinking ship, gents, and that’s no lie. Either stay single, or expatriate to a non-western foreign country which hasn’t yet been destroyed by feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 9, 2010 at 05:54

Brian January 9, 2010 at 03:16
Forget it, men. There’s no hope for marriage in its current state. None. Oh, there’ll still be young men getting married, but the declining trend is irreversible. Thanks to feminism, women do not need men and are opting to stay single.

Not likely. I figure they say this to make it look like they are in control, but women still fawn over marriage and weddings and any sort of bride’s magazine. No, the main reason is Men opting out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
jz January 9, 2010 at 08:11

women still fawn over marriage and weddings and any sort of bride’s magazine. No, the main reason is Men opting out.

Women are more loyal to their purses than to wedding fantasies. They will marry when they are no longer eligible for entitlements.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
globalman January 9, 2010 at 08:20

Its simple. The Illumimnati think there are too many sheeple consuming THEIR resources so they have depopulation as the #1 agenda at the moment. This can only be achieved by convincing men that women are so much trouble that men refuse to have children with them. After all, you can not convince a woman to choose not to have children. We all know the biological clock goes off like a bomb around 35-40 and women with no children get ‘baby hunger’.

Basically men have to be so abused that they won’t even have sex with a woman or they go and get themselves snipped so they produce no more children. This is happening in massive numbers in germany. Indeed, so fast that the collapse of the birthrate is precipitous and is affecting the society quite badly.

For those of you who want to ‘stop’ this you might want to consider that once a man really knows what is going on and uses it to his advantage, like me, then our life improves substantially. The ‘losers’ are the wimmin. The number of hours I need to work per year has massively declined and my quality of life has massively improved. And I can get laid pretty much whenever I want.

As far as the wimmin. Just cut them off finanically. Give them no money. No jobs. No attention. Then you will see that they will chase you to try and get them pregnant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
globalman January 9, 2010 at 08:24

Brian,
“Thanks to feminism, women do not need men and are opting to stay single.”

Nope. Women want to marry because they are parasites and that is how they ‘legitimise’ their parasitism. The men have woken up and no longer want to be hosts for a parasite. I date a lot of eastern european women and they are very honest about this. It is only the western women who are hiding the fact that what they want is ‘babies and money’. Once you know that all women want are ‘babies and money’ and the man is ‘optional’ and has been replaced by ‘the state’ to induce a state of slavery for wimmin then you know how to respond. Don’t let women co-habit and don’t consent to legislation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
globalman January 9, 2010 at 08:32

Just in case you guys don’t know. Marriage was invented by the Illuminati in order to oppress men into defending the ‘women and children’ with their lives if necessary in order to increase the population and have high birth rates. The men have always been considered expendable. Just look at wars. Wars were organised to maintain control over the sheeple. High birth rates were needed to replace all those who died from so many various causes.

Now that they want the population to decline they are getting rid of marriage. We only see this as ‘bad’ because we have been brainwashed how ‘good’ marriage is for 10,000 years and we have seen how well it ‘works’. But it was always about oppressing men and making them expendable. All that is about to happen is that women are about to be as oppressed as us men have always been and they are also going to be as expendable. Personally, I think that is really funny. Wimmin have already lost. The question is whether men are willing to defend their rights from the Illuminati. So far the answer is no for 99.9% of men. Well, if you don’t defend your rights, you don’t have any.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel January 9, 2010 at 09:54

@Noobius

I’m not objecting to anything, just asking. From what I understand you can’t extrapolate a trend unless you know the precise mathematical model behind it and what parameters come into play in time.

You’re uncomfortable with the method, but you’re not sure why. Yet you insist on pressing your point. Feminists: “They’re not sure what they want, but they want it really, really badly.”

Let’s start with your cartoon. It incorporates the most basic error. In the cartoon, there is no data set, just a single data point (one wedding). No interpolation, no extrapolation, no curve fitting is possible with a single data point. The cartoonist has arbitrarily selected the origin of the chart (0,0) as a second data point in order to create a completely false and spurious example. You’ve unwittingly provided an example of a key reason that I resent the feminization of our culture. Math and science education has been so dumbed down that most people will believe just about anything (e.g. Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant). Science is dead. Well done, feminism.

Moving on. You say, “you can’t extrapolate a trend unless you know the precise mathematical model behind it.”

That’s a classic. If you knew the “precise mathematical model,” you wouldn’t need to fit a trend line, would you?

And then, “and what parameters come into play in time.” You’re saying you can’t predict the future unless you know what is going to happen in the future. If you knew what was going to happen in the future, prediction would not be necessary, would it?

I’ll keep this simple and avoid mathematical terms. When you have a well-behaved data set like this one, you can fit a trend line. The “goodness of fit” of the trend line is maximized by minimizing the sum of the errors between the actual data points and the imputed data points on the fitted line.
That’s what the “R-squared” of the fitted curve tells you. The closer that R-squared is to 1, the better the fit of the calculated trend line to the data set.

The second and third order polynomials that I fitted to the marriage rate data set are both a very good fit, with R-squared of 0.987. This means that any interpolation of the data set will yield very good results. However, extrapolation is a different story, and here’s where you get a little validation. With polynomial functions of greater than degree one, the extrapolated curve is increasingly unreliable the further you get away from the data set. In other words, the curves I fitted can be used to predict the marriage rate in 2012 with a high degree of confidence, but 2025, not so much.

My extrapolations were not intended to be taken as a set-in-stone literal expression of the future marriage rate. They were made solum ad argumentum, as a basis for discussion.

So, here’s what you should have pointed out. I manipulated the data set in two ways. First, I cherry-picked my starting year for the data series carefully, to yield the overall shape of the data set that I wanted – negative slope, increasing gradient. Second, I fitted polynomial curves that have the inherent property of increasing slope in the direction of the trend. The boys of the Hockey Team would be proud.

Good discussion January 9, 2010 at 11:08

I would think that availability of prostitution would harm feminism, but that has obviously not been the case in Europe. Is that due to expense?

I have been talking to friends more often about Men’s Rights/Anti-Feminism recently and the men are actually more resistant to it than women. Maybe that is more of a reflection on my choice of friends though.

Young women do not necessarily want marriage anymore but they do all desperately want committment and support from a male and brutal penetration and semen from a male. Those do not have to be the same men, of course.
A successful marriage strike will effectively chasten some older women but the young women just want money and babies and don’t care how they get it.

That’s why bachelor vacations (or celibacy) and a hardened heart is the way to go to fuck over women. Game does get the man sex but it also fulfills the female desire for sexy sperm. Let’s not give these cunts anything anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Nutz January 9, 2010 at 14:11

The acceleration over the last few years stands to reason and people become more connected and shows like Maury et al illustrate the downfalls of marraige. I think it’ll level off though at some point once information disssmenation reaches a saturation point, if it hasn’t happened already.

Men are also learning from their brothers, counsins, fathers, uncles, friends, and coworkers that marriage just isn’t worth it anymore and they’re starting to listen, evidenced by the increasing age of when people do in fact get married.

In the future I foresee marriage as primarily being something “old people” do to stave off loneliness and increase their life expectancy once they reach the empty nest stage of life. Sure there will be the occasional young single that thinks they know better, but society at large will tell them they’re a fool. Right now it’s maybe 50% of society that tells them such. Once the old timers that got married before the paradigm shift stop injecting their perspective and today’s jaded culture becomes the old sage advice, marriage as an institution will end as we know it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gentry January 9, 2010 at 14:26

I gather that you gentleman are not in favor of single parents dating?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gentry January 9, 2010 at 14:27

Men are also learning from their brothers, counsins, fathers, uncles, friends, and coworkers that marriage just isn’t worth it anymore and they’re starting to listen, evidenced by the increasing age of when people do in fact get married.

That means they haven’t actually learned anything.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 14:37

I gather that you gentleman are not in favor of single parents dating?

-Gentry

I’m not sure it’s a good idea, and I’m a single parent.

Actually, to tell the truth, I’m not in favor of “dating” period. But maybe that’s just me…

For American men, dating is a thinly-veiled job interview where you buy dinner for your prospective boss.

If a guy has to take a woman out, spend money on her, and try to persuade her he’s worth her time, he’s already lost the game. People’s minds are generally made up before all that anyway, so if the date doesn’t pan out you just got used.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Gentry January 9, 2010 at 14:47

If not dating then what do you propose? Mass celibacy?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 14:58

If not dating then what do you propose? Mass celibacy?

-Gentry

Young people don’t really date anymore (they “hook up”) and they have plenty of sex.

But if you asked me, I’d take celibacy over dating. It’s really up to you. If you want to go get laid, I’d say use Game and forget about dating. Of course, by “date” I mean the traditional concept of taking a woman out and acting like her footman. I find that demeaning, and, to be quite honest, your typical American woman simply doesn’t deserve it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel January 9, 2010 at 15:13

@Welmer

For American men, dating is a thinly-veiled job interview where you buy dinner for your prospective boss.

Excellent! I really like that!

Gentry January 9, 2010 at 18:55

So rather than traditional dating (whether paid for by the man, woman or both) you think it’s a better idea that people just hook up for no strings attached sex?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 9, 2010 at 19:00

So rather than traditional dating (whether paid for by the man, woman or both) you think it’s a better idea that people just hook up for no strings attached sex?

-Gentry

UR done here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
zed January 9, 2010 at 19:16

UR done here.

Good call.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Jay Hammers January 9, 2010 at 20:23

It’s funny, I’d like to get married someday but depending on how much my partner makes it could be financially unwise to do so. The company I currently work at allows health insurance for a “domestic partner,” however, so even if I didn’t get married I could still share insurance. I also have an inclination to get married because it’s romantic, ha, but it might not be the best thing. I’ll have to think about it when I get to that point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Globalman January 10, 2010 at 08:28

Gentry January 9, 2010 at 14:47
“If not dating then what do you propose? Mass celibacy?”
I do really feel for you guys in the US or UK where there are so few non-feminised women. I can’t stand to even talk to them. When I am in the UK I am celebate. I simply could not be bothered trying to get laid. The women are so horrible that trying to have sex with them would be akin to eating broken glass to get nourishment. Who needs that? I was married for 18 years, I know how to go without sex. Most married men do!

Dating non-feminised women is fine by me. I am happy to buy dinner if I am getting laid afterwards. Often times I don’t even have to buy dinner or we just buy food from the supermarket. Nothing special. It is not expensive to get laid but you do have to have a ‘good pitch’ that sounds like you have some money to get the woman to put in her best efforts to hook you. They are investing their time in you.

It is so obvious what is going on, that the eastern women are chasing money, that the guys a little further down the earnings pyramid do ‘sex tours’ to places like brazil or thailand because they can’t compete in the money stakes for the eastern chicks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Globalman January 10, 2010 at 08:29

LOL! The google add today is ‘Ukraine Ladies for Marriage’ on this page. I got a real laugh out of that!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Doug1 January 12, 2010 at 14:40

Novaseeker

This was, without doubt, the apex of a millennial struggle by women against the restrictions put upon them by monogamous marriage — restrictions that benefit men much more than they do women.

Only if you assume that they’ll be able to collect state extracted child support at huge after tax percentage levels from the men that impregnated them. That’s only been true in the last couple of decades. Before that the trade was be willing to marry, at least, in return for child support or the woman got nothing and would end up living as a ward of her family if they didn’t kick her out which they usually would, or normally empoverished and supported only by meager local or church aide.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 12, 2010 at 19:55

Assuming all of this is true and inevitable, how do I make as much money as possible from it?

Invest in video games. Seriously.

Well, this speculation is all well and interesting, but you forgot to parse the data for weekly religious attendance. Makes a huge difference. Like I said before, the religious shall inherit the earth. You should come to Mass with me on Sundays. Many of the families take up whole pews, and the pews seat 15 people. It’s almost embarrassing sitting there with my replacement-rate family.

So the secularists aren’t getting married and reproducing? Awww… shucks. I’ll cry about it later. Any civilization that can’t sustain marriage and procreate doesn’t deserve to exist. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I’m just sitting still, impatiently waiting for America 2.0 to arrive.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
David January 12, 2010 at 20:16

Absolutely, Black&German, whole areas of the West are going to have what people here call that “Wil. E. Coyote” moment when they realise that they are going extinct for lack of babies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Black&German January 13, 2010 at 05:42

I hate to say it, David, but most countries have already had that moment and met it with a collective shrug. People who don’t reproduce don’t really care about babies or going extinct. They’re too busy having fun.

Liberals have always outsourced their reproduction to more traditional types. (It’s not just religion but a general traditional viewpoint that drives reproduction, religious attendance is just a reliable proxy for that). They’re counting on that continuing in the future. My point is that I don’t see that happening. Traditionalism is becoming more entrenched now that the negative effects of liberalism are so obvious to anyone with eyes in their head. Now that even traditionalists are having 2-3 children, rather than 5-6, the stakes have been raised dramatically. We’ve become high-risk investors.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David January 13, 2010 at 18:00

Black&German

That is exactly what has happened. Modern people, women in particular, have simply decided that they will cash in their birthright and have fun without regard for future generations.

I am always reminded of this when I see young women supporting abortion. If women before them had thought the same way, they might not exist. But it never seems to occur to them. My mother-in-law was arguing with one of her daughters about this once, and finally she said, “If I had thought like you about abortion, you wouldn’t even exist.”

As Cindi Lauper sang, “Girls Just Want to Have Fun”. They want to take from the culture and put nothing back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
john March 25, 2010 at 19:09

Considering American Women are among the most unattractive and obese in the world, and the American Family Courts are slanted against the man, only a stupid man would get married in America. A man who wants a family should look at emigrating to another country to fulfill this goal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
john March 25, 2010 at 19:23

I forgot. For you young American Men. I would highly recommend that if you are serious about having a family, that you do not do it in the USA. Most American Women are not fit for the role of wife and mother. And the society and culture of America is very anti-man and anti-family. If you do have children with an American Women, it is quite probable that you will lose access to the children in the American Family Court System and you will be financially ruined. I would recommend emigrating out of America and meeting a girl from a different country and settling in her country and then having a family. Look for countries with a low divorce rate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Sebastian April 13, 2010 at 01:14

Marriage is antiquated. At least in this post modern day and age. To marry the average western woman out here is suicide. It’s as simple as that. If you crave having a wife and children and you’re financially stable,physically attractive, and still able to get it up – then do so in a non-Christian country that has a low divorce rate. The women are still traditional in these countries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Gorbachev June 12, 2010 at 15:17

What we need is a formally organized Marriage Strike.

Only when it hits the mainstream media will the blinkered and ignorant left-wing elites in the academic and cultural preserves actually sit up and take notice. Many think it’s a good idea: No More Marriage, No More Fathers.
Marriage:
Men don’t want to.

A small number of men will end up servicing the sexual needs of a larger number of females; Female hypergamy. These females will be permanently single. More and more men will be left out, and will cease to support the state or have a stake in the future.

More and more single women will have no father for their kids or, more and more, no kids at all. This is the trend in every western country.

As states go bankrupt, government money will just dry up; it’s been happening for 10 years. The “feminized” non-manufacturing service economy, with manufacturing now outsourced to Asia, will have no base to support it, and the female-dominated public sectors will wilt. This is already true.

Vast numbers of people are going to suffer.

Whether or not we want to see it, liberal politicians and thinkers have to start taking notice.

If they don’t, … we need a formally organized Marriage Strike. A Marriage Boycott.

Just stop marrying women. And stop having children.

Leave them to their own devices. Really, …

We need a new Secession of the Plebs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Bill July 18, 2010 at 18:17

This has been one of the best non-marriage threads I have come across. I work with a bunch of Asian Americans, many of them first generation. Thus they still have the old country pressures to get married. One Asian American I work with is probably third or fourth generation American. He understands both sides and gives me an interesting perspective. He also has contradicitons and is probably aware of them. His culture is that marriage is important so that you don’t die lonely in your old age. On the other hand he is aware of costly divorces, no fault divorce, common property laws, and so on. Yet he’s in his late 50s and never married.

Myself, I have learned from other men I worked with how financially devasting divorce is. The fear of a bad marriage is very real in every man I know, including those who are married. In the last year at the small company I work at, I learned of two men who got divorced. I never heard of a man who was happy with the divorce outcome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
royalfuzziness July 20, 2010 at 18:48

People are starting to wake up and realize that marriage is an expensive,
waste of time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
monica July 21, 2010 at 20:57

I’m 34 and I decided to be single forever. Guy feel attracted to me but I dont want dating, being a mom nor give explanations for everything I want to do. I have a good job, nice place. I travel whenever I feel like it. What do I need a man for? Friendship, high price, no more freedom anymore and I’m not a party girl or anything like that. I don’t fool around either but I love being single!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 13
Sam August 9, 2010 at 11:41

Change the unfair divorce laws in this country and watch the marriage rate shoot back up. Financial devastation should not need to be considered when deciding whether to get married or not, yet surprise surprise… it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Americano September 7, 2010 at 11:36

When civilization falls, and women no longer are afforded the power and protection of government, government created and run by men, btw, women will find themselves powerless objects, chattel, once again. Then and only then, will marriage become a good idea again. Better to be the chattel of one, than the slave of many. This inevitable outcome is one of the few things that make me smile, while mired in the throes of divorce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
alpha September 28, 2010 at 20:42

lol I prefer to think of it as “the suicide rate among men is decreasing”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lord Viktor November 21, 2010 at 12:26

@monica:

Im 34 and I decided to be single forever. Guy feel attracted to me but I dont want dating, being a mom nor give explanations for everything I want to do. I have a good job, nice place. I travel whenever I feel like it.

Oh, but if you were to hear a man say the same thing about women, you’d be comin’ down on him for being a sexist, wouldn’t you?

What do I need a man for?

You see, THIS is why men no longer want YOU anymore, either. We’ve been hearing this bullshit since the bra-burning ’60s and we’re sick and tired of hearing about how unimportant and irrelevant we are to you ladies!

Come to think of it, what the hell are you doing here, anyway? Are you expecting applause or something?

Go join your man-hating sisters on Feministing.Org if you want to be worshipped for your imperious attitudes towards males because you’re not gonna get that shit here on The Spearhead!

Go on, get on now! Git!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Winged Wolf February 9, 2011 at 09:51

As a female, I just have to say…what are you all smoking? Most women don’t hate men. I certainly don’t, and I have no wish for them to die. I’m married to one, and he’s kind of cool. However, marriage is a tax convenience.

You see, there is no reason to get a government contract and get ‘officially married’, unless there’s some financial benefit to it. You can get married within your religion without informing the government. You can also simply choose to cohabitate if you don’t have a religion, or don’t care that much. There’s no longer any stigma attached to having children outside of an official marriage contract, so why go to the expense?

Get over the persecution complex, men. The world has changed, you’re no longer soley in charge, and you don’t get to make all the rules. In reality, you never did, so deal with it. No, I’m not talking to all men, just the mysogynists–you know who you are. It’s no more attractive in you than it is in in radical feminists. You’re the same as they are. There are no ‘gender roles’, give up that idea too. Individuals are individuals. There may be more females interested in one type of lifestyle than another, but that doesn’t mean they all are, or that there aren’t any males just as interested in it. Equality means people get to do what makes them happy, whether it’s being Betty homemaker or a vicious corporate ladder climber–or a stay at home dad, or a lumberjack. Whatever. If you care, you have too much free time, and aren’t spending enough time doing what makes YOU happy.

As for the disillusioned people who have decided to hate the opposite gender because they couldn’t maintain a relationship…it takes two to tango, and if you’ve had luck that bad, it’s time to take a good hard look in the mirror and figure out what YOU are doing wrong. Are you picking them wrong, or are you just that bad to live with? Likewise, if someone chooses to refrain from dating, it’s not a personal affront to you, because they sure as heck wouldn’t pick you if they started. So get over that, too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13
John April 24, 2011 at 08:19

Statistics show 50% or more of the marriages will end in divorce. You dont need to marry someone, to love them and be with them. Marriage is nothing more than a completely outdated legally binding contract. Those of you that are the high earner or the one that possessed most of the premarital assets, will find out the very hard way how unfair Family courts are. You will become nothing more than a human ATM to your ex-spouse especially if you were married more than 5 years. If you made the HUGE mistake of having children, you will be paying for at least 16 years, possibly 23yrs. In equitable distribution states (yeah equitable alright, haha) you will lose 50-80% of all that you accumulated during the marriage, as well as 59-80% of ALL your premarital assets in some states. If your ex is awarded alimony you could be paying FOR THE REST OF THE LIFE ! 97% of the alimony payers are men. To me, in 2011, except for the tax break you may get being married, for any high earner of those of high net worth, THERE IS NO REASON TO GET MARRIED, period.
The divorce industry is a multi-billion $$$ machine, that will ruined all high earners, and those that inherited significant family assets. Seriously, if you want to be truly loved get a pet. If you have a hankering for children, there are many needy children in the world you can adopt. Or volunteer for big brother or big sister. The end of marriage is that natural end point for the grossly unfair rules of family courts. Hopefully all divorce lawyers and courts will go out of business, but there sometimes you cant stop people from making big huge mistakes..that is life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
sg September 5, 2011 at 11:08

THIS IS A WAKEUP CALL TO ALL WESTERN SOCIETIES:

Men’s issues do affect women and the whole society in general: while there are misogynists and misandrists around, the majority of the population is not. I love women so much – I cant live without them – they are the fairer sex and I have a weakness for them too – but I also have a brain which can think. This is not a post to beat down women but a legitimate thought as in this highly feminist western society women support their own cause and many men support women’s cause as well. Also when a very large number of people start supporting a trend: that is shift of balance against marriage: it begs the question why:

Marriage has nothing in it left for the higher income partner, and in most cases MEN, especially if the income gap is big – this is based on one way or the other some screwy laws designed against men – these include highly unfair community property (and in some states “equitable assets division”) and alimony laws. Initially these laws were designed so that the cheating partner who was identified largely as the male would deter from breakup and lose at least half of his assets and pay support for a long duration in the future so that women have their security. However statistics clearly show that 50% of the cheating spouses and even 40% of domestic violence is initiated today by women. The abuse of this law is immense as divorce is imminent and higher income partner is going to lose. And furthermore to protect the women when they are the higher income partner is “domestic violence (DV) ” and “child support (CS) ” laws – so that women when they are the higher income partners have an easy “out” or better “negotiation” most of the times if a legal battle is fought – claiming one of the 2: a frivolous case of “DV/abuse” or “CS”.

Remember most (I would claim 80%+) men DO NOT have a problem in supporting children or paying for them whether they stay with them or not. This is especially if the fatherhood was willingly adopted by them and it was not a case of either forced fatherhood by trick or deception – BUT CHILD SUPPORT IS NOT DESIGNED THAT WAY – IT IS DESIGNED TO REALLY SUPPORT THE EX-WOMAN AND THE CHILD, NOT THE CHILD ALONE- so that she can survive with the child support payments. Otherwise why is their no ACCOUNTABILITY to how these child support payments are used- I myself know very many women who are using that child support money to live 20 years of their life without a job or sometimes a very small part-time/recreational/voluntary job and continue to leach on the poor dad – who gets nothing in return for 20 years of payments – only verbal abuse that he was a jerk that is why she divorced him and took away his kids.

THIS IS SEVERE ABUSE OF THE LAW AND SOCIETY AND MEN. EASY WAY TO SOLVE THIS IS IF THE PARTNER WHO RECEIVES SAID MONEY HAS TO JUSTIFY WHERE THE MONEY WAS SPENT ON CHILD SUPPORT – AND IF NOT SPENT SHOULD RETURN THAT MONEY AND IF THEY MONEY IS UNFAIRLY SPENT ON THEMSELVES RATHER THAN THE CHILD THEY SHOULD BE SENT TO JAIL RATHER THAN THE DAD WHO DOESNT PAY.

Further Men have no rights whatsoever in choosing whether to become a father or not – but have been burdened with duties for 18-22 years depending on where they live in the western societies. Most men would not want to voice what they are going through because of at least 4 reasons: 1. In feminist society any issues that men bring forward are met by contempt. Men are considered heroes for supporting the cause of women and complete jerks/looked down upon if they don’t or try to voice their own issues- just look at the posts of some women in response to a very legitimate posts by men – most women will not support men – but the issue is many men also do not.

2. Men traditionally are supposed to not complain or “bitch” as this post even may sound like- that is a right women proudly claim to be theirs –

3. Men have a weakness for women –they want to see the best for women and the children- even giving up everything they have and their own lives is considered the right thing to do to protect the women and child. In this highly feminist western society where women support their own cause and many men support their cause as well – while such efforts of chivalry maybe individually appreciated – a man who does not follow that chivalry norm is baulked upon – and considered selfish and jerk – with so much disrespect and disdain of men in general and every law designed against men – how do women expect any chivalry to survive in general – majority of men will become extremely insecure and highly suspicious of commitment which is the reason for decline.

4. And many men in this highly competitive society with lack of time with their constant rat race and fight amongst men themselves – find that other men are their only enemy – they lack the awareness that they are severely overburdened in social duties because of women and society – unless they themselves go through it – to discover as to how much the system is designed against them.

Remember the entire society will go down – this awareness will take another 2 decades when majority men will individually realize after having gone through the pains – the pendulum certainly has swung the other way heavily in favor of women in the last 4-5 decades that some men do not have the pride and the self confidence left and some of them have gone through immense pain as to live and love has become difficult for many -explains the decline of marriage – the decline of population in western societies. Feminism and even more importantly support of feminism among men, explains not just the decline of marriage and populati0n but also why all beggars are men (nobody would take care or support the cause of a weak man who needs help) and why men die 5-10 years earlier in “advanced societies”. Men wake up and vote for changing the laws – does not mean you hate women -stand up for what is right and dont tolerate this system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
art September 18, 2011 at 16:59

finally I see someone expressing it right; the previous post (sg?) sounds the closest to the best description I have seen: men are not women haters – vast majority are not – but what is wrong is wrong – most people when they look at the minute details of how laws are written and implemented by courts for marital and paternity and child support or domestic violence issues will find it not just unfair but grossly unfair to men – no wonder marriage is declining as awareness among men grow.

Importantly however, I am not saying that it SHOULD as many previous posts says – the solution is not end of marriage or boycott of marriage or end of family and end of children or adoptation. Marriage/Family/society and children in nuclear families is important for societal well-being.

The solution is change of laws to be not so much against men that men shiver at the name of marriage and are insecure or almost in certain cases enslaved or looted by the very women they once loved!!

Women : men need you and they want you and love you – support men’s causes sometimes; now that all marital and child support laws are in your favor – it is your turn to be chivalrous as many men in the past have been for you – lets not polarize this world.

men and women : VOTE for resolving the draconian marriage and paternity laws designed against men and try and make them fairer – it is for benefit of men and women both to do so- the world can be such a beautiful place – women are beautiful; lets keep the ugliness and unfairness out – cant we ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray October 3, 2011 at 21:52

A polynomial in a percentage is a bad fit – polynomials freely go +/- inf, percentages don’t.

A fun way to match them is to run them through the logistic curve. take your percentages p1, p2, etc. transform them by q = log(p / (100-p)). Fit a polynomial to *that*. To transform back, go p = 10^q / (1 + 10^q). The curve won’t be polynomial, but it will make better sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
j stevenson November 3, 2011 at 21:26

People!
I think so many you are missing the whole point! The issue isn’t marriage or the decline of marriage. The fundamental thing,(but not the only thing), in life is love. Now, love is hard, if not impossible, to define. One thing, however, is damn clear to me; and I’m sure to you as well, if you examine it. I know loving behaviour and attitudes when I encounter them. The whole point is to have a loving relationship, married or not. Sure, we’ll all fall short of this ideal from time to time; however, remind yourself every morning when you awake—How can I, today, put a smile on that face slumbering beside me and then, get up, go out and do it and, by some sorcery, all things will fall into place. Believe it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Aoirthoir An Broc November 29, 2011 at 21:24

“What will America look like in year one AM?”

Like heaven.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
fred December 19, 2011 at 16:22

Love does not last forever, in mjaority of the cases – otherwise there would be very few divorces. In love you will marry and then when selfishnes in relationship, bad sex, differences in lifestyles, or promiscous genes (either yours or your partners) will result in infidelity, it will be a man that will suffer the consequences.

The stupid arguments used in favor of marriage laws against men: women need protection against infidelity of men: “what if HE decides to screw around”. women are responsible for half of the cases of infidelity . many married women sleep with other men; remember sex for a married women is much easier to get than married men . Most marriage laws are draconian enough that they are “no-fault” systems where regardless of fault, whether it is his or hers – the man pays half or more of his past wealth and continues supporting the woman for alimony and child support -that is after she commits infidelity again and again !! Isnt that lovely ?

Community property/alimony and child support when put together – it is just ludicrous – of course there is nothing in it for poor men; after paying massive taxes to the society, the money that is left as savings is also not yours, it is “community” – community defined by wife and you. Doing it any other way is unfair to women correct? So divide everything by 2 regardless of who contributed? Fair ? Furthermore then pay alimony and child support for rest of your life which if you want to pay lump sum then lose all what you inherited – futher pay her attorney fees to sue you – fair?.
Domestic violence is another one of those laws designed against men – where you can lose all what you acquired and go to jail. Domestic violence is a serious crime – no question. However while serious injuries may be caused by men larger than women, domestic violence perpetrators in general (including slapping/throwing things at partner/maliciously attacking) are almost an equal number of women and in the case of women it is almost always with impunity – as for a man it would be so hard to prove domestic violence. That is America and real western society – people blame some cultures as regressive – in advanced society men are now the “women of the past “regressive” cultures
This awareness is increasing – that is the reason behind decline in numbers- there is nothing in it for men. Marriage often means — do whatever women want out of you. But many are still not aware and many who think that this wont happen to them or somehow they will escape.

Imagine before marriage vows if somebody were to instead announce the laws you are inheritng and explain those clearly before marriage – instead of the traditional vows of “till death do us part ..” announce what is in store for you legally. That is almost never done. How many men would opt to still tie the knot or if given a chance to protect themselves without having to go through painful and embarassing procedure of having a pre-nuptial – how many wont opt for it. Imagine at the time of tying the knot if an option were to be given for a pre-nuptial and a man were to specifically waives the option – community asset division/alimony or child support discussion in proportion to the contribution to the common wealth created – how many will not opt for those. If the law is so explicit about these things at breakup of marriage – why is that opportunity to waive them before marriage nt given and make the potential losing party or both parties well aware of in writing – too much work right ?- yet we spend 10′s of thousands of dollars on marriage and then 10′s of thousands on breakup and broken homes and courts full of angry people/

Marriage is an “implied contract”. Remember in any other contract – employment/legal/real estate – whatever – contract is not valid until you sign something in advance for your liabilities – giving you a fair chance to negotiate with the other party- in marriage this is “implicit” and missing – making it embarassing to even open the discussion. Many men even if they do know the extent of laws against them – do not want to bring it up to avoid embarassing situations and arguments ” I dont want your money/you dont trust me?/you dont love me ?”

Remember when a divorce occurs – she will have the entire power of the state backing her – during the marriage you have ceded complete control. And when a divorce occurs – there is some differences always at the minimum that even the best of the best hearted women would still be tempted to get back to you. Everyone including lawyers/friends/relatives would advise her to take her “fair” share and make him pay – in most cases men would be screwed – only the extent and the manner depends on who you are dealing with.

Many men still claim that if you raise the question of pre-nuptial – you are marrying the wrong person – the person is not wrong – it is the law and the tremendous power over you that she is inheriting that is the wrong. Most pre-nuptials do you know are initiated by women – in the rare cases where they have the upper hand in bringing higher income to the “community”

Men cant complain – it is considered “un-manly” and regressive and shunned upon. Few man dare come out in the open and complain like women have all the prerogative to. They would be ridiculed to the extent to hide, they can complain anonymously – how far does that go.
Very few would be able to argue these points to the woman or society from the open – all such arguments would be met by “you dont trust me” /”I dont want your money” /”am i not worth it”/”should I write down something for you”. Nothing is indeed worth more than the freedom and marriage is now amounting to complete control by women.

The appeal is to women to keep some fairness- they have the upper hand in being vocal about things and getting their way.
If women feel strongly about keeping these laws, protectionism and intending to control men like puppets, women shouldnt feel bad in guys making false promises to marry because many of those who have faced this or are well aware of this, would avoid marriage as much as possible. Women should then not feel bad about men acting suspicious and losing love among insecurity – how long is it possible to love and live among insecurity of something grossly unfair happening to you in the future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous December 31, 2011 at 14:02

regardless how much in love you are – love does not last forever – it is statistically proven. Do NOT marry and if you have to because of whatever religious and other views or force/emotions- at least get a pre-nuptial – it wont save everything but it could save a substantial part of what you could otherwise lose. get both her and yourself to be represented by a lawyer before marriage – if she objects – you have to explain that it is just for your security as without it, it is not fair to you- you can clearly reason out a pre-nuptial.

Remind her in a divorce – most states are no-fault divorce states – where even without any fault of yours, even based on whims or even if she commits adultery, you can lose 50% of your assets acquired during marriage and the remainder 50% to provide for her alimony and child support.

Dont believe it? ask a lawyer what if your wife commits adultery or just wants to end it for no good reason, in any community property state – the answer in majority of the states of US would be the same- the fault or intention does not do anything and you lose it all in community/”euqitable” property/alimony/child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
justin March 10, 2012 at 12:25

- I am a lawyer in family court and see misinformed people and largely men shafted in family courts. I dont intend to gain anything by advising you all men – it is for your own benefit – spend 3000-5000 to get a proper pre-nuptial/post nuptial to gain peace of mind – it will work wonders if properly crafted- it will give you negotiating leverage against an otherwise all powerful angry spouse with the power of the state and helpless judges enforcing the laws in her favor.

you can at least get rid of community property and alimony . make the agreement air tight. have 2 decent lawyers involved, with each party independently represented and 4 squares of the agreement covered for it to hold up, and you may save at least half of what you would have lost otherwise in a divorce. remember with a pre-nuptial you cannot still decide on children that you dont have – women will still get their way on child support – but you would not get completely screwed – it can offer substantial protection on other 2 fronts community property and alimony.

this is only if you have to marry and produce – ideal solution is as above – dont marry and make sure that you are not co-habitating either for long term as that can be considered marriage

also POST-NUPTIALS are possible – most people dont know this – if you already committed the mistake of marriage and have a woman telling you to continue marriage “as she has little interest in your money” – do it – avoid the situation when she would be angry at something and leave you with all laws behind her- also remember if she does not want to do the post nuptial – what are her intentions for divorce against you.

they are tremendous peace of mind and give a tremendous negotiating leverage – however they need to be carefully crafted. to make them strong they need some consideration right there on signing so as to clearly show that the woman was not under some kind of duress. you can always do those to get rid of community property and alimony –

many lawyers are just wrong if they tell you they cant do a “POST-NUPTIAL”- they are avoiding themselves any liability in case the agreement is thrown apart in court. Remember to throw out an agreement in court – the woman has to really go after you – which is unlikely … most likely not knowing what is in store by the judge – they are far more likely to negotiate and bring this to mutually acceptable solution which will be far less damaging to your purse and mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tim Shepard April 27, 2012 at 12:12

I just wanted to point out that the trend continued and by 2010, the marriage rate had declined to 34.9 from 37.4. Does this fit the trendline from this article in 2010?
http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_2011.pdf
page 61

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Robert in Toronto July 31, 2012 at 07:55

Oh they are going to push the evil as far as they can. Marriage is dead.. So I read the post from a Lawyer (USA) who says co-habitate. Well here in Canada, after 6 MONTHS the state considers that marriage. Now that puts men into hit & drop mode. The feminists are now pushing for IVF. Google “single women IVF”. That’s right, they will now pull the same crap with THE STATE & have every tax payer pay for the IVF, Day Care, Welfare. Ultimately maybe the Islamists are right. If this is where society & women want to go, stone them & change the laws because it is not a place I want my son (or daughter) growing up in. It is here now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 16 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: