Two Marriages, Two Postmortems

by Elusive Wapiti on April 1, 2013

The holidays, and the weeks immediately afterward, seem to be the time for marital dissolution.  Something about all that feel-good Christmas music, free-flowing libation, and talk of family and relationships, must put dissatisfied spouses in the mood to head for the door.

For instance, Athol Kay reported in late January that five fellows running his Male Action Plan had their wives leave them–for other men.  And in my immediate social circle, three friends had their wives bail on them in January as well, to include this guy. Well, it turns out that this last couple, whom I’ve known a long time, were having quite a bit of trouble behind their smiling public facades.

Apparently, after several near-sexless years of emotional turmoil and lots of arguing and fighting, he caught her in an affair with a physician from the office, an affair that thus far she has refused to stop. Consequently, they are well on their way to Splitsville, he a 42 yo father, emotionally devastated and financially stressed, she an attractive-for-her-years 39 yo mother who is likely happy to be rid of a fellow she doesn’t love anymore.  In a pattern that many readers will readily recognize, conveniently, she’s still keeping his three middle school-aged boys, a nice 5 bedroom Colonial in the country, and a fat monthly chalimony check that, frankly, an entire family could live on in most areas of the country. All secured with an emergency ex parte TRO strategically obtained to forcibly separate a legally unimpeachable man from his children and his property–all on the mere word of a vested-interest adulteress.* This while his standard of living has taken a sharp turn for the worse in a tiny rental house in a far less tony, much more vibrant neighborhood. To my friends’ woes, I’ll add my own unhappy experience, for it was ten years ago in early February that my former wife, the woman I loved and implicitly trusted, my confidante and effectively my only close friend, absconded with my kids across the continent in a pre-emptive nuclear divorce strike.

I learned about the divorce via a phone call from her father. She didn’t have the sac or the decency to tell me herself. And for the next year, she busied herself regaling mutual friends, her family, the Archdiocese of Washington, and her attorney with fancifully horrific tales of psychological abuse, physical abuse, child abuse, and, or course, rape, at the hands of big, bad, old me.

Yet that is not the point of this post–to pen yet another testimony regarding those flightly flesh-controlled people who choose to wreak intergenerational pain and suffering, who lie and perjure and kidnap, because they are unhaaapy.  Rather, my objective is to provide the opportunities for readers to acquire the second best sort of wisdom there is: Wisdom and judgement one doesn’t have to acquire for him- or herself the hard way, through direct experience.  In aviation, there’s a saying, usually in response to a completely avoidable fatal mishap: “It may be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others”.  A bit harsh, yes, but it alludes to the opportunity to pick through the wreckage of mine and other divorced dudes’ previous marriages for hints and clues of what not to do. For although marriage rates are declining, and divorce is now apparently on the upswing again, most men will formally marry or common-law marry-by-default at least once. And it is with those fellows (and gals) in mind, that this post is written.

So, if you will permit me, reader, I will now share with you some of the common threads that contributed to the failures of two marriages, one having lasted 7 years, the other 14. Free lessons learned below, for those so inclined:

First one up is one that I’ve already touched on here at EW…that of being unequally yoked to one’s spouse. Both myself and my friend were nominal Protestants, Baptists actually, wedded to nominal Catholics. No problem, right? Both Christians, right?  Well no, not really, for both faith traditions contain enough conflicting tenets–Luther didn’t nail his 99 theses to the Wittenburg Church door for nothing, after all–to make them starkly incompatible for even moderately fervent believers. Both my friend and I unwisely thought, in our youthful exuberance, that love (as we knew it then) was enough, unaware of how seemingly minor questions of where we would church would become significant, thorny issues down the line, particularly as the arrival of children made seemingly trivial issues as dissimilar religions between two consenting adults suddenly intractable.

Second…and this lesson is for teh menz (sorry gals), the woman you are seeking as a wife must, must, be accountable to something more authoritative than her rationalization hamster.  And yes, I’m talking God here…for if she’s not accountable to God, and her hamster-gonads (e.g., “follows her heart”) and/or the State is the utmost authority in her life, run, not walk the other direction.  And even then, being accountable to God is not as foolproof as it sounds, for the hamster is wily, marriage has been largely reframed in Christianity to make the woman the de facto head of the marriage, and my anecdotal experience has been that even clergy will recommend a divorce if a woman claims abuse or rape.**  A fervent love for God–expressed through adherence to His Commandments–needs to come first in her life. Not there? Don’t consider marrying her. A good (but not foolproof) proxy for accountability to a higher Being is religious attendance…which the data suggests results in much lower divorce rates.  Again, not foolproof–remember the hamster is a very flexible, adaptive, and creative foe–but the odds are much, much better.

Next, both of us married someone for whom we weren’t all that passionate. Both of us married a close female friend for whom we had affection, and thought at the time that was simply how it was done…the natural progression of things. How wrong we were. Having the experience of intentionally seeking and courting Mrs. Wapiti, and being passionately in love with her, gives me a much different perspective now, a perspective I didn’t have at the tender young age of 22.  I met and married Mrs. Wapiti as a 33-yo divorcee with two young boys, and what a difference a decade’s worth of hard experience, a reignited faith, and a Biblically informed (yet quite short) spouse shopping list makes. While I have no doubt that “sliding” into marriage, letting the momentum of friendship carry one to the altar and beyond, can succeed for some, for myself and my broken friend, we took a then-unknown risk that came back to haunt us. Lesson learned: be intentional when searching for a wife.

The fourth lesson learned is related to the third one above, and that neither my friend nor I really cherished our wives. Sure we loved them, and were committed to them, but we didn’t really value them as the priceless mates set apart for us by God.*** In effect, we took our spouses for granted, assuming that our  masculine expressions of love for them would translate correctly through the female perception filters of our wives and be received/perceived as “love”. It was only after I was divorced, and after reading books like “The Five Love Languages” or “His Needs, Her Needs“, that I began to see things differently. The light came on for me after reading those books in ways that didn’t before…and the latter book (really a red-pill stealth bomber in many ways) is the one Mrs. Wapiti and I loan out to couples when we discover they are courting.

Fifth, both of us ignored warnings from disinterested third parties.  Both of us had family and / or friends warn us off about the woman we were fixing to marry. For me, a woman who was effectively my adopted mother during my college years attempted to warn me about the coed I had brought with me to visit one day. Call it women’s intuition, call it what you will, after five minutes with her, she concluded that the 21 yo young woman I had brought into her home was bad news, was all about herself, and was all about scoring the trophy husband.  She (adopted mom) tried to tell me but I wasn’t hearing it (see young, ‘in love’, frankly stupid, in Paragraph 1 above).  Similarly, my friends’ wife’s own family (ouch) tried to warn him as well, with words like “watch out”, “she’ll be a handful, etc”. Moreover, my friend’s now ex wife had been previously married, had chucked her starter husband to the curb a year or so prior to their meeting, and had a reputation for being driven, goal-oriented, and emotionally turbulent and difficult. All red flags that, viewed through the goggles of experience and wisdom, should have been sufficient “don’t go here” warning signs. Lesson learned: gain the counsel of others, particularly your elders, even going as far as screening your mates through your parents or parent substitutes for their assay, and, unlike financial investments, past performance really does predict future returns when it comes to people. As for me, S1 and S2 notwithstanding, oh, how I wish I had listened to that prescient warning that day in 1994…and I bet my friend is regretting the ignored warnings too.

Sixth, we both married talented and intelligent women who over-valued career and work…and who later resented both the career impact of children and a less-than-egalitarian division of childcare responsibilities subsequent to children. Unbeknownst to our youthful selves, feminism sets a trap for unwary women and men, one which (generalizing greatly here) sets the average woman’s innate desire for home and family and children in opposition to the secular values of career and materialism…and then tells them they can and should have it all. Frustration and unhaaapiness usually follow in short order, testing the mores and values of women with the promise of more of that elusive happiness, underwritten of course by a soon-to-be-ex-husband about to be person-trafficked for financial gain. Lesson learned: Michael Noer was right: don’t marry career women, who generally tend to be less happy in marriage than their more traditional counterparts.

Continuing this hit parade of lessons learned, neither my friend nor I at the time followed the Biblical model of marriage, which for my secular readers roughly boils down to Athol Kay’s captain-first officer model, with God as the captain’s (and first officer’s one-degree-removed) Fleet Admiral. Instead, we both permitted our wives to wear far bigger pants than they should have, but then again, “permitted” may be too freighted a word. For I didn’t really have the choice to “permit” or “refuse”; that is, after I made the poor choice of selecting my wife in the first place. For my lack of discernment and refusal to seek the wisdom of others, divine or otherwise, cast that die for me the moment I married. The permission in Marriage 2.0 was hers to give, not the other way around. For my former wife, a nominal Catholic whose mother wore the pants in the family and high-achieving young woman high on the feminist “have it all” lie, had neither the experience nor tolerance for traditional gender roles. Egalitarianism, maybe, “50/50″, as she defined it, maybe. But Biblical roles of male headship and female followership, no way Jose. Mind you, this wasn’t a problem early on in my first marriage, when my former spouse and I were dinks making good money and saw each other for a couple hours after work and before nightschool to share a meal. Gender roles weren’t an issue; we were roommates with benefits (see Lesson #4, above). However, as time went on, S1 was born, and I felt the Call to return to the Church, I found out how receptive my former spouse would be to a more Biblical reordering of gender roles in the home. She literally recoiled at the thought. No, she was happy with her “equality plus” situation, and I was stuck in Marriage 2.0, where, as we all know, husbands follow the wife, or else.  And if he fails to please or gets too uppity, he’ll be stripped of his assets and children and sold into fractional servitude  (see “trafficked”, #6, above) if it pleases her to do so. And for both of us, it greatly pleased our former wives to do so.

Eighth, we both, secure in the commitment we thought we had with our wives, made the mistake of assuming our wives’ commitment, love, and loyalty to us matched our own to them. So safe we felt that we missed the warning signs: contempt, emotional distance…and one big one we both missed was a tail-off in sex. We both endured the dearth in our sex lives, and didn’t see the lack of sex–when it used to be more or less plentiful–as the canary in the coal mine that it was.  I recall going for months without sex, and frequently, when it was supplied, it was grudgingly so, a wifely duty. For our parts, while my friend and I were both miserable and unhappy, “divorce” never ever crossed our minds, for we had made a commitment. For life. I know better now, of course, that the word “commitment” means different things to men and women, and the sex that has difficulty with staying committed isn’t the male one. The lesson here is that assumptions kill, projecting your thoughts and feelings and values onto your wife is a mistake (she is, after all, human), and unwarranted comfort goeth before a fall.

After the sex asymptotically approached zero, and both partners in both marriages acted to fill the void left behind by the lack of physical bonding, something else happened in both my and my friend’s marriages: all four parents compensated for their marital dissatisfaction by over-investing in their children. It goes back to that old saying that the best thing parents can do for their children is to love each other…and sadly, I didn’t learn that lesson until it was too late. Instead, my boys became my world, and my then wife took a back seat on my priority list. This struck me as right and proper at the time, for I had been displaced by the child(ren) since before they were born, and resented greatly how my then wife had long since demoted me from husband and mate to helper / enabler, or, in Marriage 2.0 terms, from First Officer to yeoman. Instead of confronting the issue head on and make my needs and dissatisfaction known, I took the gamma route and passive-aggressively “got back” at her by attributively cutting off my emotional support.  Result: a self-reinforcing death spiral of dissatisfaction, resentment, and unhaaaapiness.  I would have done better to respond actively to my former wife’s common (and hormonally driven) mistake of over-focusing on the children and leaving hubby in the cold, addressed the issue head-on, and restored the proper balance of my marriage. What was she going to do, divorce me? Heck, that happened anyway, so I didn’t have much to lose.

The tenth and last lesson-learned was the impact of in-laws. While the in-law effect happened to me and not my friend, I write about it here as a warning to others that the support (or enemy action) of parents-in-law can reinforce your marriage or torpedo it.  The latter is what my former wife’s parents, specifically MIL, did. My ex wife’s parents opposed the marriage (uh oh) and alienated themselves from their daughter in the process. However, when she became unhaaaaappy (uh oh again), she emotionally ran back to mom and dad…who then took a hammer and chisel to our union, one chip at a time, day over day, week over week, for months on end. It would be difficult for anyone to resist that kind of pressure, and my ex wife chose to listen to her parent’s (mostly her mother’s) poisonous words over recalling her vows to me. In the end, MIL and the woman I loved–and thought loved–me hatched a plot to abscond with my children across the country, with me none the wiser until the boom had already fallen.

In sum, my friend and I made several mistakes in the run-up to our marriages and in the years after we were married, mistakes that eventually proved fatal to our marriages.  From being unequally yoked, to following the wrong marriage model, to marrying a woman with the wrong values, to not cherishing our wives, to over-investing in kiddos, to not cleaving from one’s parents and cleaving to each other, the aggregated weight of mistakes my friend and I made helped set us up for divorce several years later. Thus for those fellows inclined toward marriage–and I posit that only religious men marry in today’s legal and social climate, yet most of us will take the plunge at some point in our lives–I pray that you will heed the experience of others.

*  The TRO was revoked a week and a half later at the follow-up hearing, for lack of evidence. Quelle suprise, no?

** Where in the Bible are abuse and rape listed as permissible justifications for divorce, again? I must’ve missed them.

*** Can’t speak for my friend on this one, but choosing my first mate was all me…just out of college, naive despite (heh, or even because of) my education and special-snowflake achievements, and no one could tell me anything, really.  I didn’t bother with seeking His guidance, a mistake that I didn’t make the second time around.


About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti.

{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }

DCM April 1, 2013 at 11:49

Broads wait till the holidays are over so they get all their presents first.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 1
Jaego April 1, 2013 at 12:07

A most instructive article. One caveat: Vatican Two Catholicism is an abberation of the Ancient Faith. It is just a system of heresies or as Pope Pius the 10th put it, Modernism “the Summation of all Errors”. See this page for what Catholicism really believes on these issues.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/husband_headship.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
TFH April 1, 2013 at 12:58

Elusive Wapiti,

So…. among the men that you know, be sure to recruit them to the Androsphere. Show them the right articles and ease them in.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
TFH April 1, 2013 at 13:02

Elusive Wapiti,

While I don’t have the time to dig through Athol’s archives for the back history… if two of the five men (40%) who were following his plan, had their wives leave them….

Doesn’t that mean is plan is not working that well?

Or is there more to the story than that?

Please summarize, if you would.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
geographybeefinalisthimself April 1, 2013 at 13:14

I would say that males should just continue with a marriage strike and go their own way.

There is no sense in getting married anymore if (probably over) fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. It’s like a casino; you may come out ahead, but the house always wins and you don’t have to go to the casino anyway.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
TFH April 1, 2013 at 13:42

GeoBee,

but the house always wins and you don’t have to go to the casino anyway.

But you can GAME a lot of sluts at a casino….. another way marriage 2.0 is similar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
keyster April 1, 2013 at 13:45

The female has a plan. She’s very sober and cunning.
The male is idealistic. He’s pussy drunk and naive.
Her agenda is that if she becomes unhappy or bored or he cheats on her she’ll simply divorce him – he’s expendable and easily replaced. Besides divorce is fashionable and life’s too short to be stuck with a doltish inanttentive lout moping around the house. She’s heriocally reclaiming her independence from patriarchy.

It’s important that the male always stay a step ahead in the relationship. Do a background check on a female you might be getting serious about – make sure she isn’t “creative” about her past. Track her whereabouts on her smartphone, so she’s always where she says she is. Leave a voice activated digital recorder around. Yes, I know it seems creepy and “controlling”, but you don’t really know her. You believe that she’s open and honest and would never hurt anyone. Trust but verify young man – you’d be surprised what you find out. She’s more than likely no angel.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 5
deti April 1, 2013 at 13:46

“For my former wife, a nominal Catholic whose mother wore the pants in the family and high-achieving young woman high on the feminist “have it all” lie, had neither the experience nor tolerance for traditional gender roles. Egalitarianism, maybe, “50/50″, as she defined it, maybe.”

Behold deti’s Second Law: Wherever two persons have a relationship with each other, within the relationship one partner is dominant within the relationship and the other is submissive. This law applies to all relationships between any two people, regardless of the nature of the relationship.

First Corollary to deti’s Second Law: In any marriage described as “egalitarian”, the wife is the dominant partner in the marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Tom Smith April 1, 2013 at 14:07

Maybe I missed something from the point of this article. I think it can be summed up as follows:

“If you’re smart, do not get married at all. The legal system in the U.S. is skewed to meet the needs and wants of women- NOT men. If you get on the soon to be “ex-wife’s” bad side, you will be evicted from your own home, have to pay shedloads of child support and alimony (known in most states as spousal support), and live the rest of your life as a pauper (or a wage slave to your ex-wife). When your marriage becomes sexless, have a personal investigator keep a watch on your wife. This is particularly true before the holidays- she is likely to start an affair before them and to initiate divorce proceedings after them.”

While we appreciate the personal examples, I expect most guys on this website are too busy working to want to read extensive “real life” examples. This is because most of us have already lived it- most of us have miserable stories to tell about what happened when we committed to one woman and were later “punished” by society for it.

(My one example for those who are interested: I have a mid-aged female friend who is a CPA. Her husband- 2nd marriages for both- filed for divorce, after he sold his business for 1M. She now wants 1/2 of the sale price. She made no contribution to the business and did not work for it- not even perform CPA services. How she is “entitled” to 500K for simply being married to him is beyond me!!!)

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 3
Bizzman662 April 1, 2013 at 14:15

It’s important that the male always stay a step ahead in the relationship. Do a background check on a female you might be getting serious about – make sure she isn’t “creative” about her past. Track her whereabouts on her smartphone, so she’s always where she says she is. Leave a voice activated digital recorder around. Yes, I know it seems creepy and “controlling”, but you don’t really know her. You believe that she’s open and honest and would never hurt anyone. Trust but verify young man – you’d be surprised what you find out. She’s more than likely no angel……..

KEYSTER……

If EVERY SINGLE man ready to “commit” read what you just wrote…….

Ah,

Never mind. Guys these days are too busy wearing skinny jeans, chasing dirty pussy and watching GLEE.

I remember when men could be men……(not that long ago either)…..now if you throw out one of those “Angry Stares” or point your finger at the ol lady while raising your voice…………the VAWA will come and stick it in your ass so hard you’ll feel it until the day you die……..In your tiny apartment, with no casa, cash or kids since her “friends” in family court took care of business…….and the more men they “take care of”………….the bigger paychecks come along to make it even bigger.

Now the next generation of boys are being indoctrinated in school to be a bunch of spinless, ball-less, boot licking fags.

Told you…….being a STRAIGHT man in America just aint cool anymore.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2
Poiuyt April 1, 2013 at 14:22

But the structures and overarching features of this filth ridden land are indeed designed to promote, surborne, delude and encourage dog-mindedness amongst its enprostituted parasites and sex agents. That is, independent dependent females pedalling sex illusions for rent.

For the record, i have no problem with females acting acording to their nature. What I do detest, is that the male is not permited to adjust his own side and nature accordingly. The female is permitted to play and come to stay away, but the male is forced at gun-point to pay, and pay and pay. HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ADJUST DOWN HIS OWN COMMITMENTS NOR REALISE HIS OWN SEXUAL FREEDOMS.

But what does anyone really expect, when in fact it is not the females themselves but the army of rent-seeking radicals/bureaucrats calling the shots for their own continued survival, pay and career benefits.

Many people dont realise that the elite hustlers and crooks atop Planned Parenthood inc., Rape Crises inc., Divorce Partners inc., NOW.org and many others are wealthy parasitic millionaires. All the while however, the pathetic, bedragled women they pump full of sexual liberation, bastardy, silicone, contraception, abortion pills, divorce remedies, false allegations, false legal advise and other revolutionary wet dreams end up in squalour, disease, poverty, miserey, madness and suicidal.

I don’t feel sympathy though ’cause karma is a b**** … well … you know.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader April 1, 2013 at 14:42

TFH, the MAP plan of Ahtol is intended to make a man more attractive, period. It could be that he adopts MAP too late to save his current LTR / marriage, because the woman in that case is too far gone down the road of no-attraction. No plan is fool proof – even Sun Tzu, Liddell Hart, Clauswitz, etc. admit that. That is where flexibility, and alternate plans come into play – as all the above and more teachers of strategy clearly state.

Note that in at least one case reported to Athol, a man who ran MAP and was left by his wife anyway, found within just a few weeks he was also nearly swimming in poon. The MAP wored, it just did not work with his ex-wife. Win-win-win: woman who has betrayed him is gone, lots of other women are DTF, and ex-wife is doing the slow burn because when a woman dumps a man, he’s supposed to kill himself or at least be in a blue funk for the rest of his life. Swimming in poon == he was a better man than she realized, but oh, so sorry, too late now to apologize.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
GS Jockey April 1, 2013 at 15:11

E.W.,

Amen Brother–my own experience is virtually identical to yours, and at the end of the day, I have to hold myself responsible. After all, I was the successful professional who married her, and I was a fool. All the warning signs were there, but I ignored them, and then I compounded my error by not crafting my marriage in a biblical framework. I thought my committment was sufficient. LMAO. One-way committments don’t work.

I had no chance. She ran me over like a dog in the street.

My current marriage is 180-degrees different and this time there is no question it will last. Too bad I had to waste ten years of my life in order to learn my lesson.

GS Jockey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
joeb April 1, 2013 at 15:16

The truth is The Catholic Church is the best friend of the MRM but , We keep shunning the church .There are serious benefits that can come from aligning with religious organizations No matter what they are .
The Catholic Church believes the same things we MRM do , Why would we need to go anywhere else for support .
If we apply some simple truths to are life’s when we are young we can avoid some mistakes .
I agree if she doesn’t believe in God above asking her to be true to a Marriage is like asking a child not to take some cookies .
If she wants permission from a Judge to Marry her then what she is saying is the judge will also divorce her with all the befits of a civil religion .
And the obvious if she’s a thief then she will always be a thief careful investigation is needed .
although most of the time feminists practice proselytism . My Ex wife was inducted into the order by false promises and drugs . They actually seek out wife’s of Traditional families . Using any all means to Turn out the whore . Any fault or character defect will be exploited .Most often using drugs and sex as lures to attract the Traditional women to the sisterhood .
The Government turns a blind eye to this cult proselytizing because its beneficial to the states bottom line .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14
epoche* April 1, 2013 at 15:24

here is a quote from james taranto in the wall street journal

from
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

if that is sexist, then Mother Nature is sexist. (Or, if you prefer, God is sexist, or natural selection if you don’t go in for anthropomorphism.) If you think it unjust that our social institutions tilt the sexual playing field even further to the advantage of high-status men and the detriment of everyone else, then your quarrel is with those who espouse the ideologies that have produced that result: feminism and sexual liberationism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Lysander_Spooner April 1, 2013 at 15:25

A wife, is just too risky and expensive in today’s legal climate.

“You have your place, I have mine” is about as far as I am willing to expose myself to in this culture.

I am in a different place than some having experienced(false accusations of abuse, falsified restraining orders, loss of visitation, expulsion from my children’s school property, financial ruin, homelessness, loss of social status,etc.) all the glories(sarcasm) of the Family Court “Star Chamber”. I did, miraculously get custody of my twin sons when they were 15, now 23, still with me, taking STEM courses at the local University.

For my sons, my advice, has been steer clear of women, they tell me the field is very thin with most grrrrrls their age opting for the drunk sluuut carousel. If I were in their shoes, marriage or cohabitation would be out of the question. If children are to be considered, I would obtain a written contract with the woman that states I would get sole custody, she would get visitation. Additionally, any transfer payments in any form, ie. alimony/palimony/child support /property/savings/IRA/etc. are not on the table. The low value, high risk wimmin in today’s culture deserve being kicked to the curb if they make or expect greater demands than I have outlined.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
Athol Kay April 1, 2013 at 15:37

While I don’t have the time to dig through Athol’s archives for the back history… if two of the five men (40%) who were following his plan, had their wives leave them….

Doesn’t that mean is plan is not working that well?

Or is there more to the story than that?

Relationships come to a head in December and there are a spike in divorce filings in Janurary. I reported on the five guys that I knew of running the MAP that had it all fall apart in Dec/Jan and basically ended up getting seriously hit on as soon as the wife was out of the picture.

It’s not like there were only five guys running the MAP total… over 1400 on the forum now… it’s not that big because it doesn’t work.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12
Brigadon April 1, 2013 at 15:52

Get a bdsm slave instead. A woman that orgasms when you beat her with a whip, begs you to let her sleep on the bed, and considers a spanking a reward for good behavior is better than a wife any day. Has worked for me for nearly twenty years, even if I cannot trust her to boil an egg.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 8
Charles Martel April 1, 2013 at 17:03

Strikes me you’re too hard on yourself, EW. In marriage 2.0 the woman ultimately calls the shots. There’s only so much you can do.

And just to show there’s more than one way to skin a cat, I married my wife partly because she’s an atheist, as am I. Marrying a religious woman was not an option for me. We’re still married because neither of us is a solipsistic bitch, because she’s never really had a better option, because I run dread game and because when I wavered divorce would have been too expensive – financially and emotionally. It has not all been fun and games but we’ve managed to raise our kids in a functional family.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6
Bradely April 1, 2013 at 17:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 29
Canadian April 1, 2013 at 18:12

Sometimes reading Salon is enlightening…

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/01/gop_gets_even_more_clueless_on_guns/

And these people believe the other side to be the clueless ones?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Uncle Silas April 1, 2013 at 18:21

Several weeks ago my wife told me she wanted a divorce. I suppose it is a relief, as she’s put me through hell for the past eight years. Over the course of our marriage, we had sex approximately 12 to 15 times. Her passive-aggressive nature, frigid personality, happy-clappy churchianity, and over-indulgence of our daughter rankled me for years. What is most frustrating is that these personality flaws didn’t appear until after the marriage. Before, everything was wonderful with plenty of sex. Once I realized I married a mannequin with a heart beat, I felt I had to suck it up because of the marriage vow. I further thought the birth of our daughter would normalize my wife, but that turned into a pipe-dream. Well, the joke is on me, and I should have cut the cord years ago. I wasted nearly a decade of my life on a malignant, entitled woman. To any man who is thinking of marrying, I have a little advice: DON’T. If you have options (read: game, employment, and wealth), you won’t need to marry to have access to a woman. If you don’t have options, no woman will want you anyway, or she will soon drop you when she inevitably finds herself unhappy. If, however, you stupidly do what I have done, make sure of a few things. First, demand that your wife still work after your first child is born (I wanted my wife to leave her job after our daughter was born; thank God she didn’t, as I now won’t have to pay spousal support). Second, have only one child. Third, reside in a state where alimony is prohibited. These factors are making my divorce easier. As I make far more than my wife and my wife squandered much of our income over the years, I’ll be better off financially after the divorce is finalized.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
patriarch April 1, 2013 at 18:55

@joeb; I wish what you said about the Catholic Church being good for marriage, but it really no longer is. Engagement encounter is all about conflict resolution at the same time that it is against the man having a seat at the head of the table. In other words, the church encourages conflict and then try’s to tell us how to end the conflict. Bitterness, unhappiness is the result. Same with marriage encounter, Sunday morning in church, you name it. The church has simply became another organ of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Ron April 1, 2013 at 19:00

Great article, very helpful. Except for this line:

“Where in the Bible are abuse and rape listed as permissible justifications for divorce, again? I must’ve missed them.”

Thats just nutty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13
Norm April 1, 2013 at 20:30

The “church” today is the equivalent of the Apostles sleeping while Jesus was praying in the garden. He told them to stay awake, but we know they slept when the Romans showed up. The modern day Romans, are the govt, feminists, lame stream media, public education. etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Christina April 1, 2013 at 20:38

“Where in the Bible are abuse and rape listed as permissible justifications for divorce, again? I must’ve missed them.”

The Bible couches marriage in terms expressly for the purpose of raising children among biological parents that have an invested interest in the lives of those children. So no, those were not reasons to divorce in the Bible. There were actually no good reasons for divorce in the Bible – specifically because it wasn’t about the adults.

Oh – and rape would imply one didn’t give in willingly – which is specifically against the rules of marriage outright.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 12
Dale April 1, 2013 at 21:05

Not saying you are wrong EW, but I found your article depressing. The #1 issue you list, being submitted to God, is (almost?) impossible to find among women in churches — at least in my Canadian city.
Deut 22:5 says women must not wear men’s clothing; 1 Cor 11:1-16 talks about long hair being a woman’s glory.
I challenge you to do a count next Sunday at “church”: How many women do you see over the age of 25, married or not, who are wearing women’s clothing such as a dress/skirt/skort instead of pants like a man, AND who also have hair long enough that it could be considered her glory. (For me, that means her hair-length is at least long enough to cover her breasts, but assess that for yourself.)
At my church of about 300 adults, so assume about 150 women, I count ZERO. I admit that each person has their own view of “women’s clothing” and “long hair”. Surely however, if most of these church women were trying to submit to God, at least a few would have a similar view of those verses as I. ZERO. So who do I pursue for marriage? Well, out of those zero women, I have chosen… no one.
Not by choice. Not because I do not want a wife. But because I want to see she is willing to submit to the Bible instead of to lesbian/feminist principles/values, and because I am not sexually attracted to a female who tries to look like a man.

You are not wrong, but your words are not complete. To be complete, you need to add: “and therefore you probably cannot marry anyone.”

Sorry for being despondent. But we do not set ourselves up for success by starting with a lie, or by choosing to ignore the full truth.

Do you have any articles on how you found your Christian ForeignBride? My biggest concern with the solution you found is how do you assess the sincerity (religious or otherwise) of someone you see in person for only a month?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
WomBats April 1, 2013 at 21:10

While I respect that as a christian man marriage is important to you and admire your ability to see your own culpability in the situation I disagree that you are at fault and that marriage 2.0 or common law marriage are anything but a death sentence for men.

Imagine for a second that after you married you could discard your wife and take a mistress BUT your wife would still have to cook, clean and take care of you. This is effectively the deal that women get but even more tempting. They can discard hubby but keep him as hubby in that he has to pay her an income AND they can extort money from a shiny new lover.

Now I think if men were offered those sorts of incentives possibly they would be the ones asking for 66-75% of resources and why wouldnt they? Its a damn good deal!

The only answer is to not enter into the one sided and unequal contract in any way shape or form. Marriage or the new fangled common law marriage (defacto) Basically I believe that defacto marriage only exists because feminist groups and attorneys were no longer getting enough blood money as men were waking up to the fact that marriage was fundamentally a one sided and broken contract. Any live in situation is like playing a game a of poker where all the aces in the deck will be dealt to the other player. You would never ever play that game of poker because it is a game rigged for you to lose from the start. This is the way that all men need to view marriage and defacto relationships. Also having children which is much the same boat. From the fact that she legally holds all the power, to the fact that she is incentivized to leave you as she can keep all the perks of marriage (your income) and get a shiny new lover who she can demand spoil her as well.

To put it in reverse its like the wife trusting a hubby where legally she will be responsible to him for life AND he can sleep with a swedish netball team. I doubt many, if any women would sign up for this deal and this is what men need to realize. I’m sure many men would say “you beauty!” and be netball teaming if this was the case.

Cupcake will be the one to pressure to marry you. Cupcake will also most likely be the one to end said marriage she bullied you into. There is a very clear reason for this. Its totally in her best interest all the way. From putting the yoke of marriage on you to throwing you away whilst still keeping the best parts of that yoke on you after she has disposed of you.

Its great that you are analyzing things but if you come up with anything but “I played a rigged game and of course due to that reason I lost.” You need to analyze further. The game is rigged and you are the prize and bounty gentlemen. DON’T play the game! If she pressures you kick her to the curb. Do not crumble, do not fold. If you do crumble she WILL kick you to the curb and its completely in her best interest to do so. THAT’S why she pressures you in the first place!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
WomBats April 1, 2013 at 21:12

errr 66-75% of resources should be 66-75% of divorces. Wish there was an edit post here =)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
TFH April 1, 2013 at 21:25

Athol and AR,

OK, thanks.

Athol has clearly saved many men from suicide, and many children from loss of their fathers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5
Rmaxd April 1, 2013 at 23:14

What idiot gets married today …

Marriage has always been a pipe dream for men, & the biggest con perpetrated by women

To get men to transfer resources & pay for their spawn …

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd April 1, 2013 at 23:17

@Brigadon

“Get a bdsm slave instead. A woman that orgasms when you beat her with a whip, begs you to let her sleep on the bed, and considers a spanking a reward for good behavior is better than a wife any day”

This is what most women want anyway, theyre need for alpha assholes. is just a cover for a need for bdsm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
bruno April 2, 2013 at 02:06

As more and more men realise that marriage is nothing less than a trap set up against them, more men will choose for cohabitation.

The feminist and chivalrous reaction is already in full force: equalling cohabitation to marriage, and give cohabiting women all the privileges and legal powers that used to belong only to married women.

Now that more men will choose for a LAT relationship (not living together, just visit the girlfriend’s place regularly), the feminist reaction WILL BE: equalling this LAT relationship to a “family situation” and again give the women all legal powers that used to belong to marriage.

All she has to do is prove that you had a relationship with her, before family court, with pictures and testimonials from her friends.

That’s the future guys, get ready to pay alimony.

Feminists can change the laws faster than men can change their behaviour.

And feminists can, and do, make retroactive laws, but men cannot go back in time and undo their actions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4
bruno April 2, 2013 at 02:50

Example from the feminazi paradise called Belgium, of how feminists make retroactive laws specially to screw men over:

Self declared Radical Feminist Justice Minister Annemie Turtelboom is preparing a new law that states that if somebody has lived a number of years with children that are not his, these children MUST inherit from him, just as if they were his real children.

The law is formulated gender neutral, but we all know who lives with children who are not his own: men do that, women are more clever, they will very rarely live with children who are not their own.

So, if you are a Belgian man, and when you were young and foolish, you have lived a number of years with a woman who had a child, guess what, that child will inherit from you, just as if it was your own child.

It works retroactive, because you cannot go back in time, and undo the fact that you lived there with the mother and that child.

After you die, the ex and the child can start procedure before the court, and you, nor your real children, can do anything about it.

So if a child lives whit his real father all his life, that child will inherit form that real father.

But the child from a single mother, will inherit from his real father, PLUS from all the guys that she has lived with.

Another big incentive for women to choose the welfare queen single mother lifestyle.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4
bruno April 2, 2013 at 03:04

Now even the child will say to his mother:

“Mum, kick out dad, OK?
I already have the right for his inheritance.
When he’s gone, maybe a rich guy can come live with us.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Elusive Wapiti April 2, 2013 at 03:11

Thanks Athol for weighing in and clarifying.

@ TFH,

“…among the men that you know, be sure to recruit them to the Androsphere”

In some ways, the System is already taking care of that for me. Nothing like having the scales torn away from your eyes via being sold off as chattel in divorce court to wake a fellow up. But yes, in counseling my friend, an introduction to the androsphere is underway.

The part that sucks is that it generally takes divorce-court-rape or some similar event to administer the red pill to men. And the ignorance isn’t limited to men, either. One of my female coworkers was aghast at how he was treated by the family court system.

There’s a lot of ignorance out there…quite the mission field for us to evangelize.

@ Dale,

“To be complete, you need to add: “and therefore you probably cannot marry anyone.””

That is, unfortunately, the conclusion that I’ve come to. The data suggests that only religious men should marry given the lower success rate of irreligious marriages (Bradely and Charles Martel’s experiences demonstrate that the odds are just that…odds…and their success shows that the odds can be beat).

One can always marry, just that the risks are higher for certain populations than others.

And of course, for Christians, one *must* marry if one is to enjoy sexuality with a woman.

Avenger April 2, 2013 at 03:20

@Bruno
Now that more men will choose for a LAT relationship (not living together, just visit the girlfriend’s place regularly), the feminist reaction WILL BE: equalling this LAT relationship to a “family situation” and again give the women all legal powers that used to belong to marriage.

Just say that she was a prostitute you visited :o ) Family matters are Civil so I wouldn’t be worried about doing this. And no one is going to prosecute you because they’d have to prosecute her too and since it’s in a different court your don’t have to testify if you are charged (this would never happen anyway since there were no cops like in an entrapment case to testify and you’re protected by the 5th amendment) and I’m sure she’s not going to say she’s a whore and possibly be charged too. So the whole criminal thing would be a bizarre scenario and never happen in real life.
But you can beat her in any civil matter this way and no “family relationship” could be established.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Avenger April 2, 2013 at 04:30

So, if you are a Belgian man, and when you were young and foolish, you have lived a number of years with a woman who had a child, guess what, that child will inherit from you, just as if it was your own child.

In the US the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

JFK had a claim made on his estate by 2 children after his death. But under Mass. law bastards were barred from doing this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Avenger April 2, 2013 at 04:50

@Bruno
“When he’s gone, maybe a rich guy can come live with us.”

I doubt if any rich guy is going to be living with some welfare queen who tend to be fat and fugly. And the type she attracts don’t have any estates to leave behind to anyone. They just have to worry about her getting knocked up and draining them with CS.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Observer April 2, 2013 at 05:40

EW, some tragic stuff for these guys I’m sorry to hear their efforts were foiled by the imperious egos that have come to typify modern wives.

Athol Kay has some tremendous insight on that website of his, thank you for the links! Especially the plan and structure aspect he’s derived from his experience with the autistic. Great stuff. I also agree with the need for “Alpha” attraction along with “Beta” comfort gestures to help stabilize a relationship.

It’s almost impossible to gauge how women will take to the commited life, but if you’re the man, it’s essential to retain the guiding vision of what homelife should be. Let there be essential routines with room for a certain amount of variation so you don’t turn into a robot. Even then, you don’t know. We have all been made victims in the glut of “better” choices.

Religous guys you’d have thought had it easier, but as we’ve seen in sects like Catholicism, the women have already been used to chase the men out. The priests have little alternative but to grant them increasing autonomy and authority since there’s fewer and fewer men around to do it. So men who genuinely want to participate in a religious life have to confront not only the intellectually incapacitated neocomms from without, but also the emotionally-saturated spongecakes within most congregations.

Not impossible, but a challenge to be met with spears raised.

Here’s a target for you:
http://youtu.be/Y0S2WlvNTU8
I hope this never comes to pass for Catholics. What an abomination.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater April 2, 2013 at 06:35

Damn it feels good to be single.

The only winning move is not to play.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Dale April 2, 2013 at 08:41

@Elusive Wapiti

Re: probably cannot marry anyone
“That is, unfortunately, the conclusion that I’ve come to.”
An undesirable answer of course, but I really do appreciate the honesty :)

“The data suggests that only religious men should marry”
I would be considered “religious”, although I dislike the term. I think of myself as an imperfect servant of God instead. But regardless, my problem of finding a woman who also strives to submit to God’s principles remains. I did read your article about church attendance negatively relating to divorce rates. I want not merely to avoid divorce, but to have a marriage where both are obedient to God. Given to two obvious signs I mentioned (wearing men’s clothing and showing rebellion through masculine/short hair), it appears few if any church-going women are serious about surrendering their rights to God. Any suggestions? I would be happy to read any advice on this; I probably am not the first guy to ask :) Feel free to e-mail me instead if appropriate.

>And of course, for Christians, one *must* marry if one is to enjoy sexuality with a woman.
Agreed. Which is why I live in a desert, with no water at all. (aka Prov 5) :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
keyster April 2, 2013 at 09:10

I would obtain a written contract with the woman that states I would get sole custody, she would get visitation. Additionally, any transfer payments in any form, ie. alimony/palimony/child support /property/savings/IRA/etc. are not on the table.

You’ve just removed all the reasons for her to marry in the first place…the SECURITY of knowing if things don’t work out (you’re not a compliant and willing co-equal partner), she has a safety net brought to her by the court system. Women marry KNOWING they have a lucrative escape. And you’re supposed to be THE MAN and risk it all for her. There is not a woman alive that would accept such terms. If you want to see a delicate flower turn into a vicious shrew, present her with such a pre-nup.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
WomBats April 2, 2013 at 09:58

@observer. The language in that video too. “MALE priests” “ordain a LADY” straight into the dehumanising man language. Yep church or cult of feminism, different name, same stench. Think I just threw up in my mouth a little….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
WomBats April 2, 2013 at 10:12

“Forgive me mother for I have sinned.”
“No my child you are gods chosen child. The demon of patriarchy is responsible for this. You must cast your devilish husband out so you may truly bask in gods light.”

Cue the stack of disposed of christian husbands…..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Bill Williams April 2, 2013 at 14:25

With all due respect to the Elusive Wapiti, who I am sure has a lot of useful things to say. His use of run-on sentences is very tiring to read and his excessive verbiage made me skip a lot of his article. One of the marks of good writing is not like filling a garbage container to the brim. It is saying things with an economy of words. Most of the tenets of the “green” environmental movement can be applied to good writing. All except recycling. Words should not be constantly recycled, they should be used sparingly in paragraphs and not repeated excessively.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
Bradely April 2, 2013 at 16:21

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 20
Dale April 2, 2013 at 16:52

@ Lysander_Spooner

“I would obtain a written contract with the woman that states I would get sole custody, she would get visitation. Additionally, any transfer payments in any form, ie. alimony/palimony/child support /property/savings/IRA/etc. are not on the table.”

At least in Canada, your pre-nup would be worthless, and she most likely would know it. I am not a lawyer, so I admit I am not the expert; however, from what I have been told:
a) A Canadian pre-nup cannot determine child support. This is “in the best interests of the child”, thus the judge can and will assign whatever amount they want. This amount will have absolutely no relation to the actual cost of raising a child; it is a percentage of the former husband’s salary.
b) Similar to a, the judge will ignore any child custody agreement and do what they claim is “in the best interests of the child”.
c) A Canadian pre-nup can consider alimony, however, if the judge decides the amount is “unconscionable”, they can and will ignore it, and set whatever amount they want. Do a search in the January articles here on the Spearhead for one I wrote called “Encouraging Divorce”. It is based on the (unfortunately true) story of the McCain couple. They had agreed in writing, although not in a pre-nup, that she would be entitled to two homes and seven million dollars. The judge decided that while this might have been “fair” when signed, over time the agreement had become unconscionable, so the judge drastically increased the costs.

Two possibilities that may work however:
1) Before you marry AND before you get engaged, give your home, car, business, RRSPs, and whatever else you can to a trust. Then you do not legally own the assets. It may be necessary to also not be a trustee yourself, as that would demonstrate direct control of the assets; not sure on that part. Because you do not own (and possibly do not control) the assets, the judge cannot steal it.
2) Work as a contractor not an employee, even if it is for less money. The earnings go NOT to you, but to a business that is in the trust, or maybe instead it is owned by a friend/relative you trust not to steal from you. You then only draw whatever salary you need to live on. Leave the rest (e.g. savings for retirement) in the company. When the judge looks at your income to determine what they should steal from you each month, the amount will then be somewhat lower. Probably would be necessary to have a standard salary and not change the amount every month, so budgeting will be required.

@ Uncle Silas

>Third, reside in a state where alimony is prohibited.

I was not aware such a thing existed. In Canada, I am pretty sure you are in trouble no matter which province you live in.

Do any states prohibit child support too? My thought is that the child should only go to a parent that can afford them, thus removing any financial incentive either to divorce, or to try to take the child. A parent should have the child because they care for the child, not because the child is a meal ticket for the irresponsible parent. Yeah, so I’m a bit arrogant… :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4
Lysander_Spooner April 2, 2013 at 20:36

@ Keyster

“There is not a woman alive that would accept such terms. ”

Thank the Good Lord, for a moment there I was actually visualizing ‘her’ acceptance speech…..lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Lysander_Spooner April 2, 2013 at 20:42

@ Bradely

“Not at all realistic. Women can just go to sperm banks, and live with other women (sexuality not relevant) to pool resources and help one another out with raising kids. Because plenty already are. No men needed, and no need to give up full custody either.”

I have no problem with that choice, although I am skeptical that this situation would produce a culture that I would be interested in living in.
Single Moms and bastard sperm bank children, sounds like a thug factory, not too many Einstein’s.

A positive aspect of your assertion is that men will be free of Alimony, Child Support, splitting of assets, costs associated with raising children and time spent ‘visiting’ your own children. Good luck with that deal Grrrrrrrrrrrls ;) You will be liberated and fweeeee to fall into the ditch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Lysander_Spooner April 2, 2013 at 20:59

@Dale
“January articles here on the Spearhead for one I wrote called “Encouraging Divorce”. It is based on the (unfortunately true) story of the McCain couple. They had agreed in writing, although not in a pre-nup, that she would be entitled to two homes and seven million dollars. The judge decided that while this might have been “fair” when signed, over time the agreement had become unconscionable, so the judge drastically increased the costs.”

I’m not a Liar either, but not surprised by the Liar Judge robbing the MAN. I would consider a common law contract between individuals, not a pre-nup, and certainly not State sanctioned marriage. It may likely not hold up in a Liars Den, aka: Family Court Star Chamber. However, it is legal in every sense of the word in common law. My hope is future generations of men may be able to utilize this to avoid my experience. I realize I am shooting from the hip a bit, but my terms are not far off and much less harsh than from times past when women could not own property or vote, men were given custody of the children regularly as they had to run the farm, women divorced rarely, and those who did were kicked to the curb. Today, they would be free to be employed, to own property to vote, etc. I realize I am reaching and searching for the answers, mostly to avoid my experience again and attempt to protect my sons. The idea is to not let women have free reign to kidnap one’s children, rob one of assets and future earnings, etc. for which they have no right and never have in any civilization that existed before the abomination before us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
bruno April 3, 2013 at 03:29

” If children are to be considered, I would obtain a written contract with the woman that states I would get sole custody, she would get visitation. Additionally, any transfer payments in any form, ie. alimony/palimony/child support /property/savings/IRA/etc. are not on the table. ”

That’s never going to work.
The court will say: The woman cannot sign away the “rights of the children”.
And then force you to pay a ton of money to her, for the next 25 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Bradely April 3, 2013 at 13:46

@Lysander_Spooner
“I have no problem with that choice, although I am skeptical that this situation would produce a culture that I would be interested in living in.
Single Moms and bastard sperm bank children, sounds like a thug factory, not too many Einstein’s.”

Only because living with other single women is only now becoming a thing. Before, the single women either had to try doing it all on their own or hope extended family could help. But because of the recession, they’re looking at other options.

The thing is, it’s actually traditional that women get together to raise kids and pool resources (before the rise of agriculture around 10k years ago) and the women hunted and gathered just as the men did. But when agriculture came about, the men ended up being the ones in control of those resources, and so women had to employ hypergamy to survive.

But now we’re seeing a shift in going back to before agriculture. And what I mean is, because of the rise of financial independence that more and more women are able to achieve, they don’t have to rely on men as they had to for centuries. They once again have their own resources (hell, with the help of modern technology, people can grow a large portion of their own food right in their own homes) they’re getting together again and relying on one another.

Men, like wise.

“A positive aspect of your assertion is that men will be free of Alimony, Child Support, splitting of assets, costs associated with raising children and time spent ‘visiting’ your own children. Good luck with that deal Grrrrrrrrrrrls You will be liberated and fweeeee to fall into the ditch.”

The thing is though, if a man wants any part in the life of his offspring (and isn’t just a donor) he’ll have to accept that it means paying for that offspring as well. There are states that allow men to give up all rights to their offpsring, in exchange they have no part in said offpsrings life. But if you want to have a role, you need to pay for said role. Children are not free.

As for that deal; it works out for both men and women. What ditch?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13
bruno April 3, 2013 at 15:39

” Before you marry AND before you get engaged, give your home, car, business, RRSPs, and whatever else you can to a trust. Then you do not legally own the assets. ”

She will argue, that you specially set up this construction, to avoid paying alimony and child support.

The court will of course follow her in this, treat you as the worst criminal in the world, and twist and turn and break and rape every law possible, just to get at your money.

You just can’t win.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Anonymous April 4, 2013 at 05:52

Agree with these great posts. Divorced twice. Thank Christ no kids…. My comment: it’s all fine and good to “cherish” your wife but if she does not do the same and treat you like the salt of the earth then get out fast. You can spot this pretty early on, even the best cons can hide their true qualities for long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Observer April 5, 2013 at 08:58

@WomBats

Yeah, my favorite verses:

“Don’t listen to St. Paul cause I can lead the way…”

“…but I refuse to kneel to patriarchy’s way”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: