In this part of the internet there are many traditionalists and others who attack the idea of going ghost and try to promote marriage. They will repeatedly say that they are “defending marriage”. For those of us who know the score about marriage 2.0 and how marriage 1.0 is already dead in Western countries, these “defenders of marriage” are either intentionally or unintentionally pushing men into the feminist institution of marriage 2.0. Many of these “defenders of marriage” will claim that they are just trying to protect ”traditional marriage” (i.e. marriage 1.0) from those who are trying to “destroy marriage” (which typically means MRAs to them, even though MRAs aren’t trying to “destroy marriage,” but warn men of the dangers of marriage 2.0). How do we know whether these “defenders of marriage” are legitimate in their defense of marriage, or are just trying to force men to submit to a conservative/traditional form of feminism? The answer is the expat test.
In these arguments for and against marriage, the debate is presented as getting married vs. not getting married. This is an inaccurate way to frame how men are dealing with the current situation regarding marriage. There are more than just those two answers — there are actually three options:
- Get married in a marriage 2.0 (feminist) country
- Get married in a marriage 1.0 country (which by definition involves expating, because bringing a woman to a marriage 2.0 country ends up being option 1)
- Don’t get married whether you expat or not
Anyone who claims to defend “traditional marriage” should love option 2. They should love the idea of a man making sure that he gets a traditional marriage by expating to a marriage 1.0 county. It shouldn’t matter to them where a traditional marriage happens as long as it happens. This objectively does more to preserve “traditional marriage” – by any definition that the “defenders of marriage” would use – than getting married in a marriage 2.0 country, which does nothing to preserve traditional marriage.
If you confront “defenders of marriage” with the expat test, what will their response be? Typically, they will be against the idea of a man expating to another country to enjoy a traditional marriage. They will come up with all sorts of nonsense to argue against expating to contract a marriage 1.0 arrangement. The arguments range from culture to, in extreme cases, white nationalism/racial obligations. In other words, in nearly all cases, a “defender of marriage” will fail the expat test, proving that their real goal has nothing to do with “traditional marriage;” instead, it is about placating the women in their churches and producing more babies. Their push for marriage is really about white knighting for women and/or their fear that their group or race is not having enough babies.
If you’re reading this, it’s likely none of this is is new to you. However, the expat test still has value because it can be used as a tool to prove objectively that nearly all “defenders of marriage” aren’t actually defending marriage, but have other goals, none of which take men’s interests into consideration.
{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }
Amen for sure. The, “Defence of Marriage” must pass explicit tests of Patriarchal Marriage, the only REAL marriage. If such persons do not subscribe to such, they are not defending stable civilization but either unstable civilization, that is to say, the precursor to Feminist Marriage (Matriarchal Marriage).
Particular points from the book, The Garbage Generation must be mentioned with yes/no COMMITMENTS from such ideologues. Let’s test the objectors to MRAs. Let’s insist that the only valuable and civilized option of a Patriarchal Society must be supported which includes eliminating women’s votes re the state, state employment for women and various rights to harm males.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
4
Excellent post. A useful test for a pastor / preacher as well.
Ask him / her how they feel about most young men under 30 (in general and in their congregation in particular) expating to a 1.0 country to settle and marry and see how they respond.
Actually, come to think of it, not much of a test at all. If one pastor in a thousand would man / woman up and agree to it, my hat would be looking mighty tasty…..
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
2
The logic of this test is indisputable. But the test is also redundant: it grants the “marriage defenders” the premise that somebody gave them the right to tamper with the lives of others; that one cannot decide for himself and must be repeatedly pointed in the right direction by their divine femdom worship wisdom. Make no mistake, those “pimps” would gladly use force as a matter of persuasion if it was possible.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
1
Options 2 and 3 result in death of either culture or race; this is a bitter pill, and it may well be easier for many men to accept option 1 rather than simply give up (which is what the other options represent to them).
I’m not saying that I agree with the pushing of option 1, but I think that this post doesn’t seem to want to admit the very real problem these guys have with the other options.
Because ultimately marriage is not an end in itself; marriage (1.0) represents the most stable way to achieve cultural continuity ever devised, and it’s that continuity that is prized. To believe therefore that these men desire marriage over all else is incorrect; they desire the survival of their culture, and see marriage 2.0 as the sacrifice needed for that.
PMAFT, your last sentence is spot on, but I don’t think its much disputed; most MRAs who push marriage 2.0 probably do know that what they’re suggesting in not in the interests of men. Where we disagree I think is the idea that this necessarily makes their agenda pro-feminist (by intent).
I think they see it as a holding pattern whilst other mechanisms to take down feminism are tried, whereas you see it as support that maintains or strengthens feminism.
Ultimately, I tend to agree that support for marriage 2.0 is delaying the inevitable; however, I’m also clear that a complete breakdown of marriage 2.0 means that all bets are off as to what we’ll be left with after the collapse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
8
This post says what I’ve been thinking for a ling time. There is no value of tradtional marriage in churches today, if the divorce rates are any indication.
Imagine if a church were to organize some kind of trip abroad to churches/outreaches in other countries for men to meet foreign christian women. The home females would go berserk.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
66 
1
@revver,
I suspect that the term “berserk” would be considered mild and understated to what would actually happen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
1
Yeah, that would be the temper tantrum shitstorm of all time.
But is there anything actually stopping that from happening?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
0
Divorce rates in California, a bellwether state for the culture of the USA, have consistently been in the 75-80% range for the past decade.
When you factor in an illegitimacy rate of about 41% in the USA, the probability that a California child’s parents are married and stay married until that child is an adult are about 0.59 * 0.25 = 0.1475, or about 15%.
That’s an 85% *failure* rate for the main societal objective of marriage 1.0, which is to create a stable environment for raising kids.
I assume that marriage 2.0 has a different objective and strongly suspect that it involves turning men into the indentured servants of women and the State.
A man needs to be pretty darn stubborn to insist that marriage 2.0 is a good idea in the USA these days.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
1
Option # 3 sounds like the most logical, as it is unclear how or even if the pendulum will swing back towards marriage 1.0 where there is currently marriage 2.0 and whether marriage 2.0 will gain traction in places where it is currently marriage 1.0.
In Mali, as in much of the rest of Africa, for example, divorce was so pervasively scorned circa 2001 that many people expressed disapproval of a visitor’s divorced aunts and uncles, as well as the aunts and uncles no longer part of the visitor’s family, without having met any of the visitor’s extended family.
If animus towards the marital status “divorced” as well as divorcés, divorcées and their current and former extended families loses traction in African countries, expating to African countries will become a less viable option. Option #3 does not seem to come with legal consequences and if it does, the jurisdiction that imposes them is seriously fucked up.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
I have to admit to being happy about two things: I’m 31, and I already have my replacement value with my 3 year-old daughter, who I have custody of.
Option #4: None of the above.
I realize that this isn’t much of an option for most men, especially those who want children and can’t stomach the idea of marriage 2.0. I choked it down for ten years, and it still didn’t sit well with me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Why I will never marry:
1. The presumption of paternity.
2. No-fault divorce.
All this “man-up” bullshit is feminist shaming crap telling men to be their bitch.
Women don’t want husbands. They want financial slaves. And they want the right to go sperm shopping as they please and make us pay for their infidelities.
Marriage is dead. F*cking bury it and get on with your life.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
106 
1
@Gunn
Yes, I agree with you – you’ve summed it up well.
I consider myself a “defender of traditional marriage 1.0″ but absolutely have no problem with a man choosing options 2 or 3; I’ve chosen option 3 for myself.
I do believe, though, that option 1 is a bit more complicated, with actually three sub-options:
1.a Getting married in a marriage 2.0 country to a woman who wants a 2.0 marriage.
1.b Getting married in a marriage 2.0 country to a woman who wants a 1.0 marriage.
1.c Getting married in a marriage 1.0 country and bringing her back to a marriage 2.0 country.
Option 1.a is typical and maybe, 99% of the marriages in the 2.0 country. Options 1.b and 1.c are very dangerous for men since women always have a way out with the 2.0 marriage laws. I only bring this distinction up because I know some 1.b marriages in my circle of friends. So it’s not 100% impossible.
However, if a young man were to say to me, “You’re full of shit; 1.b and 1.c are too risky. I’m taking 2. or 3″, I’d reply “More power to you, man. If you’re expating, I’ll help you pack.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
It’s a myth that marriage 1.0 was somehow better for men than 2.0.
Its the old grass is greener on the other side effect. For the common man, things were just as bad back then but in a different way. For women marriage 2.0 is a definite step up because now instead of counting on milking one man his entire life, now they can partially depend on the state (other men’s taxes). Its like a diversification of your investment. Now they are free to roam around, but by freeing themselves, they have also freed the men.
Marriage is marriage, you are stuck with someone long after the spark is gone, toiling away providing for others till you get old and die. Marriage was a bad deal for men in any era.
Let’s make the most of the freedom we have now.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
54 
16
I would really appreciate a “world marriage atlas” that graphically showed the key marriage law aspects (fault, child support, conditions of divorce, alimony, certain cultural factors, etc.) of each different country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
1
There an additional sane option. That is to get married to a woman, maybe born in a foreign country and definitely one who’s anti-feminist once you explain stuff to her, with a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce.
That is no alimony, and property is divided according to who has title, who has possession or the account or property, and in other cases who bought it unless it was clearly a gift, and who incurred the debt. Separate bank, investment and credit cards accounts. Yes these are upheld in most states, and property division part is almost everywhere.
Hot debate. What do you think?
12 
18
@Craig Himself
I second that idea, its a great one.
I’ve also imagined a website with firsthand accounts and experiences by men of different women from all parts of the globe. It would make it easier for a man to choose a potential wife, considering things like: personality, interests, cultural values, and views on gender roles.
I for one would love an article tailored to this topic.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Doug1 wrote:
There an additional sane option. That is to get married to a woman, maybe born in a foreign country and definitely one who’s anti-feminist once you explain stuff to her, with a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce.
Prenups are null and void when children come into the picture. So unless you’re planning on having a childless marriage, your advice is BS.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
Gunn wrote:
I think they see it as a holding pattern whilst other mechanisms to take down feminism are tried, whereas you see it as support that maintains or strengthens feminism.
Perhaps he resents their eagerness to throw a generation of young men under the bus for the sake of delaying the inevitable.
I’m also clear that a complete breakdown of marriage 2.0 means that all bets are off as to what we’ll be left with after the collapse.
My money is there won’t be so much a collapse as a hard reset with a new equilibrium. So supporters of Marriage 2.0 can go to hell in a flaming handbasket as far as I’m concerned.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
Doug1, prenups are not upheld in most states. Give it up. Laws in almost all states specifically allow the judges to tear up prenups if they are unjust. Which means the dearie cries a lot.
Let me guess. You are an attorney who wants to charge to write prenups, then charge to fight a losing battle when the judge tears it up.
Or, of course, you could be a woman trying to trick gullible men into marrying with a worthless prenup.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
3
In Mexico, the only ‘legal’ marriage is with the government. Religious marriages are simply a luxurious personal option, of no legal value.
The good news is private marriages. In my rural village, a friend says half the couples she know are private marriages. Of course, the legal folks call it free union, to imply it is not real marriage. No couple is more married than a couple who thinks it is married. And, no couple is more divorced than a couple which thinks it is divorced.
A historian on an MRA board told us that many centuries ago, all marriages were private marriages, except for the very rich and nobility who had property contracts to record. Then, the little piggies of the clergy said, “We represent God, so since marriage is a sacrament, you can’t get married without our permission.” And, they doled out permission only with an iron fist.
Even later, when governments developed large bureaucracies, the governments said, “We are the government. No one can do anything without our permission.” So, the little piggies of the government took over marriage. Most people in government marriage nations actually believe one can only be correctly married by signing government documents which turn over ownership of your children and all your assets, past, present and future, to the stupid bureaucrats, making yourself vulnerable to any future law changes they dream up.
Governments make it easy to marry. And, in some countries they also make it easy to divorce, because the government profits from divorce. If the marriage breaks up they own everything, and there isn’t much left for you.
If you move to Mexico, do not enter a civil marriage. Have a private marriage. Which means you set up housekeeping with her, and tell everyone she is your wife. The only thing I ask is, if you ‘marry’ a good Mexican woman, think of her as your real wife, not a shack-up, because in this culture if you hold her out as your wife, everyone takes her as your wife. Do not ever say, “We are not married. We are only living together.”
She just doesn’t have the protections of the law, in most states. If she turns out to be a bad woman, divorce her in the same manner as you married her, and move on. If she is a bad woman, most folks will know and will understand why you left her. But, do not ‘divorce’ her for any less reason than you would divorce a wife in a government marriage nation. There are provisions for child support for your bio- children, but most women don’t even apply for it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
3
The problem with that, and all other arguments about “culture”, is that the culture they are defending/promoting is not a “traditional culture” but a feminist and feminized culture. A feminized and feminist culture needs to die, and most “traditional cultures” in the West (outside of obvious exceptions like the Amish) are feminized and feminist.
That’s the same strategy that got millions of men killed for no purpose in World War I. Young men did not enlist for their war, and why should they give their lives for it on something that may or may not happen? Plus, these people haven’t tried to take down feminism at all. The only thing they have gone after is abortion, and that has been a complete failure for them.
I agree with this. This gets to my issue with expating in general. Wherever you go could end up as feminist as where you left a few years later, while where you left could become more anti-feminist. I understand why a man may choose to expat. It’s very possible that man could end up being right, while I end up being wrong. However, anti-feminism may get some serious traction in the US and other countries while countries that haven’t experienced the full onslaught of feminism yet get completely taken over by it.
The purpose of the expat test isn’t to suggest that men should expat and get married. It’s purpose is to expose the hypocrisy of people who try to push marriage on to young men and to expose that their rhetoric of being either for or against marriage is fundamentally flawed. They act as if there is only two options in a very George Bush, “You’re either with us or against us” style. The reality is that there is more than two options, and listing them shows what the marriage pushers are trying to do.
I’m not sure where you’ll find a marriage 1.o country apart from the Philippines. Neither Brazil or Russia are marriage 1.o countries, so I can’t think of any others except perhaps Saudi Arabia, and you’ll have to convert to Islam. The Phils is an extremely poor country, so you’re making quite a leap, not to mention you’ll be surrounded by people who are astounded that you left a rich country to be in a place that is quite possibly the poorest country in the world. India is both poor and feminist, so write that one off.
Option 3 is probably your best bet. However, it is best if you wait until you are retired so you can live in an upscale community. Either way you’ll need money – a lot of it. No matter where you travel on this planet, you will find women with cell phones and unrealistically high standards.
Sorry for the bad news.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
2
Sadly I agree that marriage in the west is just too risky for a man to undertake in most cases. No real upside vs. and LTR and the concept of alimony in most cases is just ridiculous. Even the most unethical pimp doesn’t hit a John up years later seeking further compensation.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
OT but excellent news, chaps. This is what happens when you let incompetent feminist bigots overrun your organization:
Telegraph (UK MSM)
‘Guardian to axe supplements and shrink newspaper’
By Katherine Rushton, Media, telecoms and technology editor
5:00PM GMT 16 Dec 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8961537/Guardian-to-axe-supplements-and-shrink-newspaper.html
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
There are more issues under the sun than just personal satisfaction – important as that is. National, Cultural, and Racial concerns are valid – what is wrong is with admitting that? Having a good marriage, getting to stay with your kids in your own home are all important too – I mean how can you have the first three without this most basic right? What’s the answer? There is none per se. It’s a Tragedy in the Ancient Greek sense. We have lost the capacity to see things like this because of our culture of instant fixes, self indulgence, and general superficiality.
So a man must choose in what way he will be crippled in this World. There are long term strategies to fight the Feminists but let’s be honest, it may never change here in our lifetime. It’s a Tragedy. I mean how can having to leave your native land to find something so basic be seen in any other way? And neither I nor anyone else can say boo to any man who has to do this.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
7
The culture that tied people together in the 1.0 days is no more. Continuing your own family line should be the foremost priority. It always has been, the west was merely worth living in in the past.
The best option I have found so far is to move elsewhere to somewhere less hostile to men and start a family there if so inclined. Can always move back if things improve, and if not you have a real world example of how bad things can go when teaching your own kids about life.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
It’s the same problem as white flight – eventually, you run out of places to escape to. Virtually every country on Earth is becoming more feminized. Even the international feminist movement is trying it in Saudi Arabia. Roosh has noted that Brazil is also becoming Americanized and feminized.
MGTOW is the “hope” that feminism will destroy itself. As the black community has shown, we have a long way to fall. Someone, somewhere on Earth will have to deal with feminism. Like everything else, one may run away or one may find a way to resist.
I would go so far as to call MGTOWs draft dodgers. They know the evil, they know the consequences and do nothing about it. They leave the battles for their sons and other men to fight.
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
27
Thanks to The Spearhead, I’ve learned about unconventional ways to 1.0-ize a 2.0 marriage. Some examples:
A: Threaten to destroy all assets and kill oneself if a wife files for divorce.
B: Disowning one’s children and fleeing the country.
(What else?)
Basically, these are about forcefully/illegally insuring that no resources will be remitted in case the man gets dumped. ‘Way i see it, if she understands that those will be the consequence then fine. Pretty frickin’ macho.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
The North East Gender-Raunch establishment is perverting our legal system to where it is now a legal liability for a man to engage in hetero-sexual relations.
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
I’ve rough-drafted a proposal based on the references in W. F. Price’s first “Marriage Reform” post, and some other sources, that Christian churches in most or all of Canada, stop solemnizing civil marriages. Instead, i advocate, churches should draw up the marriage promises in their liturgy, plus perhaps some additional text to take-account of present day law and especially its biases, and translate that into legalese as a cohabitation contract.
Then the church can have a marriage ceremony, with the witnesses taking formal vows to support the promises rather than the civil “marriage” terms, but—and i say this straight, to clergy—the couple should not register as “civil married” unless and until the civil law supports the church’s vows.
(I then point out that the civil “marriage” of this young century constitutes persecution of Christian churches—and of other faiths that demand lifetime marriage commitments.)
I’ve taken it to some clergy—so far, all men—and while one still seemed to have his perceptions in the past, at least three have acknowledged that what i say has some validity. I don’t know how soon the first such church-not-civil marriage will take place, but the idea has been heard, in message as well as in words.
Millions of men entered civil marriage after it became legally biased against us. Social inertia is a real fact; Sumner, some 100 years ago, called a very similar concept “cultural lag”. So i advise my unmarried sons, “don’t ‘civil-marry’ now. I won’t forecast how things may change in the next ten years.”
Labour strikes end in victory when the working conditions offered, improve. Perhaps the “marriage strike” can end the same way, if not as quickly, for those men who want a lifetime covenant (and those women who can appreciate one enough to keep it.) Not all men are the same, not all women are the same.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Who cares?
If you don’t want to get married, don’t. Very simple. I don’t, so I won’t and to hell with the rest of the crowd.
It’s not like you need a wife and kids to make a living. It’s the other way around, and that is the big deception.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
34 
2
Marriage is a three-way contract where the state retains the controlling interest – it is a suckers bet for men. I fell for it, but I tell my son’s to avoid it at all costs . . . Marriage 1.0 isn’t coming back and the wimenz are going to piss & moan about it for generations.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
1
Ryu wrote:
MGTOW is the “hope” that feminism will destroy itself.
So Ryu, what do you think of Fifth Horseman’s Misandry Bubble? It predicts a crash and burn of feminism in the very near future due to a confluence of technological and social factors.
I would go so far as to call MGTOWs draft dodgers.
For refusing to go along with the social milieu? I see them a bit differently – as those who refuse to blindly submit to authority. Even soldiers are technically allowed to refuse orders that they know are wrong or stupid, although in reality they almost always suffer terribly for doing so.
They know the evil, they know the consequences and do nothing about it. They leave the battles for their sons and other men to fight.
Yeah, well your spiritual blood-brother Firepower calls almost everyone here a bunch of wusses, even though he’s given no evidence he’s ever accomplished anything for the men’s movement or even has a clue to go about it. If you think that we’re feckless here, it’s nothing compared to the WN “movement”. Otherwise, why would you be coming here to try and influence us and not the other way around?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
The above URL estimates the nationwide membership of the KKK in 2008 at 6000. Kind of a comedown from the 4 million it had in 1920.
Like or Dislike:
15 
4
Whatever. Women just aren’t worth fighting for. Let them be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
Good article and good information. I look fwd to testing people.
I know your not encouraging people to expat, but i say, why not? Another wothwhile article could be one on actually expat’ing. An article on how to expat, where to expat, who to contact for more info etc, I would find such an article very helpful. Perhaps there are some commentors here who have already expat’ed?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Ryu “MGTOW is the ‘hope’ that feminism will destroy itself.”
Exactly and judging by the economic crisis, we are luckily not so far. The expansion of feminism just corrupt every place on Earth, so preventing them to recover.
“Someone, somewhere on Earth will have to deal with feminism.”
Yes, and you believe marrying a feminist will combat feminism. Sure.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Let me take a somewhat contrarian view on this:
I have no wish to go native, and so far as Asians are concerned I just do not fancy them (any more than I can tell them apart) – I was chased up and down Helvelyn by a Chinese bird when I was nineteen – perhaps she thought my reticence was just a form of Game
.
It seems to me that Marraige 2.0 has two specific advantages to men over Marraige 1.0:
1. Previously women remained virginal until marraige; the men were so desparate for sex, that idolising their future wife, they married and then shortly thereafter realised what a terrible mistake they had made, but unable to do anything about it, were forced to face a lifetime sentance of being married to a shrew. It was worse than that however: Consider a cousin of my mother, who when cited as a co-respondent in a divorce in 1931 was, by reason thereof, forced to resign his commission in the Army – can’t have people like that shooting at Germans. Now that is misandry for you – but happily that sort of thing is long gone – as I am sure Charles Martel will confirm, and from what he writes I would suspect luckily for him.
2. I would agree that there is a lot wrong with Marraige 2, but I will argue that in the long (rather than short) run Marraige 2 is worse for women than men. Take a woman say aged in her thirties, married with children who wakes up one morning with the idea to rush off to her lawyer to divorce. This is not good for the husband or the children, but, consider, – she has baggage, her looks will soon fade, she is unlikely to have a high-powered career. Her MMV is low and her SMV will only make her good for pump and dump. Now consider her unfortunate husband: He can recover financially and say, at age fifty with a good job he will still be attractive to women and I mean to women much younger than himself. In a way, Divorce under Marraige 2 is a Pyrrhic victory for many women.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
17
I’d prefer an option #4.
4) Stay in your country and don’t get married untill marriage 2,0 has been replaced by marriage 1,0.
Fight for it, if necessary.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Calif. prison psychologist accused of faking rape
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – She split her own lip with a pin, scraped her knuckles with sandpaper and had her friend punch her in the face. Investigators say she even ripped open her blouse, then wet her pants to give the appearance she had been knocked unconscious.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9RHABMG0&show_article=1
Replace Marriage 1.0 ? Marriage 2.0 ? Course, NAWALT ! My feckin arse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
3
Expatting is poaching the women of other men.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
26
PMAFT wrote:
The problem with that, and all other arguments about “culture”, is that the culture they are defending/promoting is not a “traditional culture” but a feminist and feminized culture. A feminized and feminist culture needs to die, and most “traditional cultures” in the West (outside of obvious exceptions like the Amish) are feminized and feminist.
[sorry, forgotten how to do quotes properly, been a while since I commented frequently on here]
Is feminisation an inherent part of the western culture, or is it a late cancerous development brought about by hubris and decadence? I would argue the latter of course, and so can hold two concepts in my mind: the west pre-feminisation, and the west as it is today.
There is a strong argument that all cultures eventually devolve in the way we see the west going, that it represents the end of the lifecycle and is unavoidable. If you believe this, then the idea to let the culture die is the correct and rational thing to do, but it comes at a heavy price, as the desire to sustain life tends to be one of the strongest drivers we as animals are subject to.
I think many of the marriage 2.0 protagonists hold the cultural paradigm of what things were like before feminisation; therefore, when they fight for the culture, when they advocate the sacrifice of men to sustain that culture, they are talking about the ‘good old days’.
My question to you (and others) is this: do you believe that the marriage 2.0 protagonists simply refuse to accept that rather than defending the golden age of culture as they see it, they are defending a dying, feminized parody of it?
If they do refuse to concede this point at a visceral level, then I think the shaming via the expat test is completely fair, as rational discussion has ended anyway.
If they do concede the point that what they’re defending is not reality as it is, perhaps that is enough common ground to engage them and make them understand what the real problem is.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I don’t know if anyone brought this up already cause I only read the first few comments. The problem with option 2 is tha it is only a matter of time till the other country shifts to marriage 2.0.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Opus wrote:
I have no wish to go native,
It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. Mastering foreign languages, customs, and laws is a serious undertaking. Still, the more alternatives men have, the better.
and so far as Asians are concerned I just do not fancy them )
Different strokes for different folks. It’s a big world out there, with many different types of women. If you’re blond haired and blue eyed and want a woman close to your racial type, there are plenty in Eastern Europe and even some in parts of Latin America.
(any more than I can tell them apart
There are many different Asian types and cultures, and they certainly aren’t difficult to tell apart by someone who puts any effort into it.
I would agree that there is a lot wrong with Marraige 2, but I will argue that in the long (rather than short) run Marraige 2 is worse for women than men.
The effect on children is the most problematic of all. For men vs. women, I can concede your point. It’s too easy for a divorced woman to hit middle age with no decent employment or romantic prospects. Meanwhile, her kids are grown and the child support has run out.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
@Opus and Raj, and maybe some others:
The key aspect of Marriage 1.0 is that a man’s connection to his children was more acknowledged (i.e. much much harder to break, and certainly not at the whim of the wife), and was more likely to be genetically true. In return for this, men were culturally conditioned to provide for and protect their families (and where shamed for not doing so). This also kept the state small, as ultimately it was man’s responsibility to provide for his own, and the only way he would get help is from others’ voluntary charity.
When comparisons are made to marriage 2.0, and talk of sexual freedom, or who does better after divorce etc are brought up, its clear that the fundamental point is being missed – marriage 1.0 was never about sexual license, it was about genetic legacy.
To argue between marriage 1.0 and 2.0 on the grounds of sexuality or individual freedom is to play directly into the feminist frame. Feminists saw old fashioned marriage as bad, because they understood that women gain nothing from genetic certainty (the fact that you’ve pushed out a child is pretty much a guarantee that it is in fact yours), and that it in fact nullified the age-old ability for women to cheat by having a child with an alpha that was supported by a beta.
Marriage 2.0 is an advance for them because now the woman doesn’t even need to hide or prove paternity; if the guy somehow gets off the hook (and there is a lot of legal machinery in place to ensure he won’t, even at the expense of innocent men who are demonstrably not the father), the state (i.e. men in general) steps up to fill the gap.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
“It’s a myth that marriage 1.0 was somehow better for men than 2.0.”
You’re right, Raj. It was never a good arrangement except for a tiny % of men who were just natural husbands who married that tiny % of females who were natural wives and were content to live with each other.
“Marriage is marriage, you are stuck with someone long after the spark is gone, toiling away providing for others till you get old and die. Marriage was a bad deal for men in any era”
That’s right. Even under the best conditions you have to become bored with a female and that’s under the best conditions that 99% don’t live under. I’d say that the females I know are all in the 8-10 category in looks and I’m not a boy who is easily influenced and has very superficial tastes in what constitutes looks; all are in the 10 category as far a education and also a 10 in personality compared to other females and are not drama queens or always looking to disagree about something just for the sake of disagreeing like most females or have any of them ever tried to wear the pants. Yet, these females who other men may consider near perfect still become uninteresting to me after a month or two. And the reason is quite simple. Men simply aren’t intended by Nature to be monogamous and marriage as we know it is an abberation.The male mating stategy is not to put all f his eggs in one basket. Just remember that the next time yu see a beautiful female who has all of the good qualities that some man is tired of shagging her.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
5
As one who does advocate for traditional marriage (in how it is an evolutionary and/or God-given ideal that we are built for), I’d say I am completely unlike what you said I’d do (typically). I won’t get too into the details, but I will say marriage is a choice in itself, rather than a goal we should all pursue regardless of circumstance. Going to another country is simply another choice also. I’m not sure where you’re getting that we’d be against people moving to other nations to get the marriage that they want, even more so for traditional marriage that we ourselves advocate….
And just to add, I’m personally not for my own marriage, it is simply my own preference not to. Just saying that for all those that automatically think that I’d be a zealot in “forcing it down their throats”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Hetero-marriage has been a protected institution for thousands of years. Both men and women were protected in this relationship.
Over the last 30-40 years Gender, Gender-Raunch feminists have turned dating women into a legal liability (Unless yer a lesbian, then the two women are still “equal” in the eyes of the law).
The new federally funded perversions to our law enforcement amount to this.
A. When law enforcement answer a domestic disturbance call from homosexual males (by the way is a rarity as men are less violent then women), both males are treated equally!!
B. When law enforcement answer a domestic disturbance call from the lesbian community ( which is common, as both women are super-empowered to get their way all the time, and neither has been conditioned to walk away), when law enforcement answer a lesbian violence call, they know they cant leave any lesbian violence tracks, (or statistics), as their federal pervert dollars depend on hiding womens elevated levels of violence from the public.
C. When American law enforcement answer a domestic disturbance call from a hetero-family unit, they know know who they can violate, as Gender-raunch have conditioned American law enforcement (and they got federal funded pervert dollars to back them up), that hetero-males are fair game to beat, violate, and “get their statistic” from.
How long will this hetero-family unit last, from a federally funded pervert attack on it???
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
6
Columnist wrote:
Expatting is poaching the women of other men.
Even in a locale where there aren’t enough men to go around?
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Thanx oddsock for posting that, Its the perversion of American law enforcement that has fostered and enabled a society where women can scratch themselves in the face, call the cops, and say her boyfriend did this to her.
End the violence Break the Gender-Raunch / law enforcement ; federal pork Fueled Alliance!!
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
“I have no wish to go native.”
Not very many British people seem to want to go native anywhere, and wherever they go outside the United Kingdom, most of them act like they own the place where they currently are located.
I am pretty sure with that mentality, few non-British would want people who spent their formative years in the UK in their country for any length of time.
I remember in California about a decade ago a British expat did not seem to understand that while the V sign with the hairy back of my hand facing her and my palm facing me might be derogatory to her in her native UK, it is not offensive anywhere in the US.
This would be like me taking offense to hostility to left-handedness in West Africa or anywhere else it is considered an undesirable trait. I am a southpaw, but I am not bothered by disapproval of left-handedness. Incidentally, about two-thirds of people who are left-handed are male.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I don’t think things in some places will inevitably feminize in the way it has occured first in northern europe and now the anglosphere.
And poach thier women? Really? That has to be a feminist, like women belong to any group, race, whatever….get over it, it’s 2011.
Married women have no problem finding men to “date”, I think as MRA we should be putting a stop to that before we talk about not “allowing” expating.
Men don’t have sex with other mens women, especially not married, and doubly especially not with children.
There is a circle in Hell, right next to the false accusers.
How is it that the US is right next door to Mexico and there is NAFTA and almost no border with constant cross pollonation of ideas yet, they aren’t femized and we have to worry what Sweden will do next for fear of our laws being changed?
I think Asian countries have much older cultures and have seen this before and know just what to do. They don’t worry. This year they cut gold diggers off from the housing market just like that…..
Our culture will be replaced by one in which stable living situations for children exist.
Our top universities are Asian, new businesses appear hispanic or middle eastern.
White men aren’t wanted in school and definitely not in college.
Diversity is moving faster than expected.
And screw any guy here who tries to shame me for any choice I make. I have been a good boy, luckily I’m still alive.
Well, if I feel like dating a new 18 year old every weekend and lie through my teeth and welch on my debts, what then?
I’m MGTOW and you can go jump in a lake.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
OT
IMHO, I think this is one of the heavy wieght thinkers in the MRM today and she’s female. And I think she considers herself a humanitarian, as I do myself.
Excellent, brief and powerful essay on the need for a MRM.
http://www.genderratic.com/
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Gay marriage ‘improves health’
Legalising same-sex marriage may create a healthier environment for gay men, say US researchers.
Researchers from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health surveyed the demand for medical and mental health care from 1,211 gay men registered with a particular health clinic in the 12 months prior to the change, and the 12 months afterwards.
They found a 13% drop in healthcare visits after the law was enacted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203621
————————————–
Maybe they were too busy picking out drapes to make a visit to the doctor.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
29
Marriage 1.0= Unappreciated, screwed, broke, loss of children, divorced male.
Marriage 2.0= Marriage 1.0+ possible prison.
I THINK NOT!!, Try this,
Life By Design 1.0= What ever the hell you want it to be, in any country you want it to be in, with who ever you want it to be with. Life By Design 1.0 never needs updating as it runs optimally at all times. It needs no virus protection because it’s impervious to outside corruptions (Marriage 1. whatever). If a potential infection is identified, Life By Design 1.0 simply redesigns itself. Life By Design 1.0 is a brave new world, one where we are masters of our own universe. Instead of hopping for appreciation while we are slowly bleed (Marriage 1. whatever) , we just opt the f**k out of this societal lie and remake ourselves into what we were born to be, MEN.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Putting aside the issue of whether traditional culture was misandrist before feminism, yes. They think they’re separate from the larger culture, but that is incorrect. For example, divorce happens among them just as much as it happens in the larger culture, and just like in the larger culture it is almost all female initiated. They spend more time worrying about gay marriage, then what the women in their own communities are doing to marriage.
They’re “defending” against non-existent threats, while the real threats have and continue to feminize them.
OT
And just to prove my above posts I’m going to give you younger game guys some advice from my experience.
The easiest time to meet a girl is between thanks giving and new years. They all want a new years date.
Just don’t buy them a christmas present and be ready to break up after they don’t need you in the spring.
Even my phone is ringing, but I”m too busy with music to answer.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Ray Manta December 17, 2011 at 16:55
Including adopted children.
The biological imperative/instinct(s) of men is being used/abused/ exploited. Feminisism and it’s ilk/supporters can never do anything to make up for/compensate for their crimes/sins/perversions. They will be held responsible/accountable for their words/deed/actions/attitudes. Is there even one feminist who can undo the damages feminism/feminists have committied? No. One cannot serve two masters, in reality. Why do they serve so many who DO oppress them? Fear, hate, ignorance, more? Answer this feminists.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Say something!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Let your rationalization hamsters die of coronary arrest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“Men simply aren’t intended by Nature to be monogamous and marriage as we know it is an abberation”.
I believe it was Paul Elham who wrote or said something along the lines of that by design men are a seed dispersal organism and women are an incubation organism. That was probably really paraphrased. OK, I agree and that is the sexual biological part. Yet, humans can be much more than that when human intelligence, emotional maturity, and the spiritual aspect are developed.
I think for some men marriage is an aberration and for others especially those with children it is not only natural, it can lead to further emotional and spiritual growth. HOWEVER, a bad marriage and nightmare divorce can also do the opposite to a man making him jaded, bitter, emotionally and financially broken. Marriage 2.0 can also throw a good man into prison and/or push him to suicide. Buyer beware.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4
Anonymous69—
I am a lawyer but after a few years of practicing at a NYC BigLaw firm, I moved into an area related to the kind of law I was doing. No I don’t write prenups and charge for them. I have looked into them a lot for quite a while, since my no kids divorce some while ago.
They are upheld in all states if certain things are done such as her having her own attorney and it not being sprung on her at the last minute before a marriage which she’s invited a ton of people to. You can’t enforceable agree between the two of you as to what custody of kids arrangements will be, or what the percentage of child support=also stealth alimony will be.
In a FEW states, not most, courts will throw them out or parts of them out if they seem them as unreasonable or unfair. Mass is notorious for this and Conn does it too with respect to alimony. In those states you can’t provide that a non working wife gets neither much property division nor any alimony even for a few years, particularly if you marry her later in both your lives. NY, California, Florida, Texas and most states do not do this.
I know quite a bit about this, have done a good deal of net research on it.
There’s sometimes a what seems to me to be an unhealthy amount of defeatism on some comment threads here.
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 
15
Doug1,
Marriage in this era is still too high of a risk to invest in. Even with bringing over a foreign born woman from a traditional culture that is far from low risk regarding a later divorce. Living here, a foreign women, learns how differently the marriage game is played if she didn’t already know that before moving here. It’s all somewhat sad yet a fact of modern life. Then again, despite the introduction of all the misandry laws and social attitudes against men the past forty-five plus years, men are increasingly happy and fulfilled while women are less happy and fulfilled with every new survey. It’s sorta — no actually it is funny.
Let women, government, and society realize that they need us more than we need them. Men keep on MGTOW and Ghost.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
“I believe it was Paul Elham who wrote or said something along the lines of that by design men are a seed dispersal organism and women are an incubation organism”
And I said it 40 years before he did. And Napolean said females were just baby making machines. And all the way back in time etc etc
“Yet, humans can be much more than that when human intelligence, emotional maturity, and the spiritual aspect are developed”
That doesn’t even make sense. Those things are just human traits. Men have an instinct to protect females and kids and they had this long before they even discoved that sex caused pregnancy and before they figured out that a particular kid was theirs(that’s less than 5% f human history) Men simply become attached t kids whether they’re the man’s or not
There’s no reason we must have this thing called marriage that we invented and really hasn’t even been around very long. The only thing that matters is that the human race survives.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7
Here are some texts that illustrate how Buddhist texts portray women as temptresses:
Why can’t women embark in business/court? Buddha said: Women folk are Uncontrolled, envious, greedy, weak in wisdom, Ananda. (Anguttar Nikaya II.81)
Monks, a woman’s heart is obsessed by form, sound, scent, savor and touch of a Man…Womenfolk end their life unsated and unreplete with two things: sexual Intercourse and childbirth. (AN II.2)
Monks, I see no other single form so enticing, so desirable, so intoxicating, so binding, so distracting, such a hindrance to winning the unsurpassed peace from effort, that is to say, monks, as a woman’s form…Whoever clings to a woman’s form-inflated, greedy, fetter, enslave, enthralled-for many a long day shall he grieve, snared by the chains of a woman’s form. (AN II.67)
Monks, if ever one would rightly say: it is wholly a snare of Mara-verily, Speaking rightly, one may say of womanhood: it is wholly a snare of Mara. (AN III.67)
What to do when faced with the snare of woman?
-As if not seeing them, Ananda.
-But if we should see them, what are we to do?
-No talking, Ananda.
-But, if they should talk to us, Lord, what are we to do?
-Keep wide awake, Ananda. (Mahaparinibbanna Sutra D II. 141)
A favourite of mine. Even the Buddha was well aware of ” team woman”
The concept of numerous lives in samsara makes this more poignant-like Ubbini, a queen who lost her daughter. Buddha asked which of her 84,000 daughters buried in a cemetery was she grieving. (Therigatha v. 51 ff)
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
“Yet, humans can be much more than that when human intelligence, emotional maturity, and the spiritual aspect are developed”
‘That doesn’t even make sense. Those things are just human traits. There’s no reason we must have this thing called marriage that we invented and really hasn’t even been around very long’.
Obviously it doesn’t make sense to you. If marriage doesn’t mesh with you then MGTOW. While I have decided that marriage and kids isn’t my path or destiny, I think in the right context for the right people it is fine and has many positive benefits. These days I think it crazy and dangerous for a man to marry yet that is just my opinion. You’re projecting your own values and personal views for what you want for yourself in a one-sided approach to life that others should do too. That does not make sense. Sounds like feminism.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5
Ray Manta December 18, 2011 at 06:38
Columnist wrote:
Expatting is poaching the women of other men.
Even in a locale where there aren’t enough men to go around?
Like or Dislike: 2 0
It still limits the options of local men.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
The marriage rate in America has dropped quite a bit, see http://echoboombomb.blogspot.com/2011/12/us-marriage-rate-drops-to-51.html. The trend to be with someone a while and then move on seems to be the new thing. Don’t expect divorce attorneys and jewelry companies to be happy about this though.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
If marriage doesn’t mesh with you then MGTOW
Sharon-I’ve always done that and I didn’t have to move into a cave or the wilderness to do it. And I certainly am not telling other people what they should do and really don’t even give a damn what they do.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4
Columnist wrote:
It still limits the options of local men.
A moment’s thought would show that would be true only for polygamous men. The social cost of any such limitation in their options approaches zero. Anyway, don’t tell me that a troll like you gives a rat’s ass about men anywhere.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Robert wrote:
The biological imperative/instinct(s) of men is being used/abused/ exploited.
The unscrupulous always try to sever at the weakest link and exploit at the strongest link. The entire support/child support industry works like this – it undermines women’s loyalty to their husband (it’s far easier to do this than undermine men’s loyalties to their wives and families) and then enslaves men by holding their children hostage. History will show what a contemptible business it is.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
Geography Bee Finalist wrote:
“I have no wish to go native.”
Not very many British people seem to want to go native anywhere, and wherever they go outside the United Kingdom, most of them act like they own the place where they currently are located.
Interesting – and I thought Americans tended to be too provincial (I’m an American BTW). Since the US is a huge country with very few nearby neighbors, the American attitude is a bit more understandable.
My experience with British expats in Asian countries is a bit different from that, since they were willing to do things such as master the language. But that’s likely to be due to selection bias.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
@ Ray Manta
I’m actually a native-born U. S. citizen, made it to the U. S. Geography Bee final in both 1993 and 1995, and I was taking a cheap shot at Opus.
In Mali, I had to reflexively transfer things from my left hand to my right hand as eating anything with the left hand and giving things to a person with the left hand is considered rude.
Although alcohol is available in majority-Muslim Mali (the beer brand is called Flag but pronounced like “flog”), it is only polite to drink alcohol in front of a Muslim Malian if that is no big deal with him or her.
At the time I was there, there were refugees in Mali from the civil war in nearby Sierra Leone (this war ended in 2002). None of the refugees that I came across had had the fate of having a limb hacked off, but it was rude for a visitor to Mali to let one of the refugees follow him or her back to the visitor’s host family’s compound.
There were many blind Malians but as Islam opposes dog ownership, none of them used a seeing eye dog.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
I dunno, going ghost in Canada relatively easy because none of us men can live up to the little princesses and their expectations. In an urban area like Toronto, female snobbery abounds, you’d be lucky if any pay attention to you half the time, much less have a long enough conversation of any meaning to catch your interest.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Nemo December 17, 2011 at 14:48
I would like to see a reference that gives the California divorce rate you quote. Let me state that I believe your statistics are at least close to true. But I have not seen any accurate statistics on this for quite some time.
My understanding is that the state of California stopped collecting divorce data in the late 80′s. The stated reason was that it was too expensive to gather. The assumed reason was that the divorce rate was so astronomic that it was an embarrasement to the state.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076013/Why-young-couples-arent-getting-married–fear-ravages-divorce.html
Is the marriage strike finally heating up?
Let’s hope so.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I would add that several other staes with high divorce rates have also stopped reporting the divorce data with the same stated reason of too expensive. But it is not too expensive in states with lower divorce rates. Strange!
By the way this makes the national 50% statistic very questionable as it does not include data about a significant portion of the population that is much more prone to divorce.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Get a load of this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074283/Steven-Phillips-Innocent-man-spent-25-years-jail-lose-4m-compensation-ex-wife.html
The guy sits in jail for 25 years, wrongfully convicted. Gets awarded a measly 4m $ in compensation of which the state will probably take a big chunk in taxes and now his ex wife who divorced him 3 years into his sentence demands she get a piece of the settlement. Could it get any more unfair?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Find yourself an educated woman from either Morocco or Turkey (and the odds of finding a Caucasian one are high in the upper classes) and marry under either the Maliki (Morocco) or Hanbali (Turkey) school of Sharia. If you don’t mind marrying a non-Euro- you may try an educated Indonesian lady. Paternity and custody issues may be minimal- BUT- interference from in-laws may be more than what one is used to in the “West”. There’s no easy solution- adapting to a new culture may be too much for some.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
@69
“No couple is more married than a couple who thinks it is married. ”
And what if one of them gets it into her head that she was never really married and just a girlfriend?
If you move to Mexico, do not enter a civil marriage. Have a private marriage. Which means you set up housekeeping with her, and tell everyone she is your wife
That may be ok in some village where everyone knws each other and no one has many assets but how would I protect my investment without some sort of legal proof that I’m married to the female? Only a complete fool or nonentity would marry a female with no assets. There would be no reason to marry unless you could benefit from it.Most men are so stupid that they’d even marry a female who has debts and guess who ends up paying those debts.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
Oddsock, thank you for the cite on Buddha’s “Be very careful, Ananda.” I knew I’d seen it somewhere, probably in Huston Smith’s The Religions Of Man … but I wasn’t sure about the whole quote. I’ve copied your citations to a notepad file for my future use.
The “Expat Test” is an interesting take on a difficult situation. The survival imperative to reproduce and have offspring is “hard-wired” into all life – take a look at “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice To All Creation” (www.drtatiana.com), a rollicking send-up of advice-to-the-lovelorn columns, which is actually a compendium of different animals’ adaptations to ensure the survival of the species.
Marriage 1.0, within Civilization 1.0, is just such an adaptation – but a conscious one, not an instinct. Children do survive better if both parents are working for their survival, and it helps even more when one can be “at home” nurturing them while the other is out getting, and thus providing, the needs of survival. It is not required – there are societies that get along OK without it – but it does work better, and that’s why those societies have been pushed to the margins by “patriarchal” civilizations.
But nowadays women have a much more powerful provider and ally in The State. They don’t need to hang on to a man when Big Daddy Gub’mint will provide for their well-being and that of their children. In fact, the State will confiscate their baby-daddy’s assets and income to “redistribute” it to the woman, putting him into wage-slavery to support her, with the threat of debtor’s prison if he slacks off. Even if “Cupcake isn’t like that”, the threat of such treatment hangs over the head of every father. (I was going to say “every married man,” but paternity law provides for the unmarried father to get an equivalent roguring at the hands of Daddy Law.)
My answer has been, “There are too many babies getting born on this world today, anyways. If God really thought it were important that I, personally, get married and have children, he would have provided a woman for me, personally. And He didn’t … so He mustn’t.” (That’s the Deistic form of the answer.)
My own happiness does not revolve around “finding someone to light up my life.” I haven’t been married, but I’ve seen enough sour and broken marriages around me to conclude against it for myself. (My own parents, for example – all of my mother’s siblings, for that matter.) And at my age, the likelihood is small-to-vanishing that any fertile, suitable woman is going to want to start a family with me.
Your situation may be different – I encourage you, therefore, to follow your own heart.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Gee, look how wrong I turned out to be, what with you writing so much
…whenever I don’t.
Firepower say:
“let all be like Ray Ray –
bravely play while the cat’s away”
using Wikipediay
btw
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Firepower aka Firepoodle (but I think Fifi is a much cuter nickname):
Ray Santa
And a Merry Christmas to you too snookums.
Gee, look how wrong I turned out to be,
That’s only because wherever you go, you can just feel the love and affection pouring out.
what with you writing so much …whenever I don’t.
Yeah, well it’s gonna take a bit of time to live down the reputation you worked so hard to earn. Deal with it. I’m still laughing my ass off that you got kicked off the same site that you posted your opinion of The Spearhead readership and have to come here to publish your whiny screeds.
Try not to shit your diapers in your reply to my reply. Flying off the handle to the slightest “diss” may be the thing to do in the urban jungle or in prison, but just gets you pegged as an incontinent fucktard on the Internet.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
“There’s sometimes a what seems to me to be an unhealthy amount of defeatism on some comment threads here.”
You can say that again! And “anonymous aged 69″ is the biggest defeatist of all. Formerly known as “Irlandes” on some boards, another poster once correctly surmized his approach to life as “let’s just cut our nuts off, women have won”.
I prefer to fight. Besides, if Irlandes/Anonymous Aged 69 did cut his balls off, i’m not sure we’d be able to tell the difference. The defeatists on this board must have balls the size of raisins, given how little testosterone they appear to produce.
If we had this attitude in WWII, we’d all be speaking german now!
Make no mistake, i also think marriage is a disaster in the west and have no plans to do so. But that doesn’t mean society can NEVER change: By definition, it changed to where we are now! If it can change for the worse, it can also change for the better. But not if too many of us adopt the defeatist mantra.
I PREFER TO FIGHT THE FEMINISTS, TO MY LAST BREATH.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 2 trackbacks }