Marriage Reform

I’ve decided to dedicate a page to marriage reform so that this site can do something positive for young men and women and future generations. Marriage has come to be a sham in the West, and its attendant vows meaningless. As soon as one party gets bored, they can easily opt out and are often rewarded for infidelity and betrayal. This is why marriage is declining: it’s a terrible risk with no guarantees whatsoever. Young men ask themselves “what’s the point?” and pursue a hedonistic lifestyle rather than expose themselves to the devastation of divorce. Older men opt out and “go their own way,” having either been burned themselves or seen their friends’ and brothers’ lives destroyed.

Yes, we adults have choices, but the children who are victims of feminism and the casual divorce culture do not. Divorce harms children. It is an epic tragedy that rips them away from their parents – usually their fathers – and robs them of the security of an intact family.

This is why I, personally, care about this issue. My marriage is behind me – a flaming wreck in the rear-view mirror – but I still deal with its consequences, and so do my kids. I don’t think men and women will ever stop shacking up and having kids, so I want to do what I can to improve and secure relationships between mothers and fathers. Maybe it’s but a dream, but I’m going to try nonetheless.

I’ve come to the conclusion that, given the legalistic and free nature of American society, contractual marriage is the best means to improve the institution of marriage. Prenuptial agreements have become routine amongst the wealthy, and are increasingly popular amongst the upper middle class. They are a requirement for religious Jews, who have been writing them since the Babylonian captivity. They should probably be so as well for practicing Christians, as civil marriage as it exists in the US is a very anti-Christian contract that can only be mitigated through an alternative agreement.

So, for now I’ll link some material explaining what contractual marriage is about. The end goal should be the abolition of civil marriage, which is increasingly irrelevant as more and more people procreate and cohabitate out of wedlock.

First, I would suggest reading the Cardozo Law Review, VOLUME 27 JANUARY 2006 NUMBER 3.

Edward Zelinsky and Daniel Crane, both of the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University, NY, both argue for the abolition of civil marriage. Zelinsky suggests “deregulating” marriage, while Crane calls it “privatization.” Both come from a civil as well as religious perspective, the former Jewish and the latter Christian. This is entirely appropriate in the West, as marriage was, until fairly recently, governed by canon/ecclesiatical law, which was supplanted by civil law in the 19th century. Therefore, the evolution of law regarding marriage is best understood by starting with a solid understanding of religious law and a background in civil law.

Although I am fully on board with Crane and Zelinsky, I think there will likely be an evolution toward a dual standard of marriage, with one being the default civil marriage that exists today, and the other being a contract marriage of one sort or another. According to Zelinsky, standard form contracts developed by churches and other organizations will likely be the most popular contracts under a deregulated marriage environment.

Some have taken the concept of removing the state from marriage to an extreme, and suggested writing contracts for cohabitation but refusing to sign a marriage license.

Commenter Peter The Great posted a link to Edward Devries’ book on Christian marriage, which recommends this course of action. For US citizens, Devries may have the best solution yet, as divorce courts have no jurisdiction over non-married parties. Domestic violence law is still an issue, but a woman cannot seize a house, car or any other property through a false restraining order if she does not own it as communal property. This removes a huge incentive to make false allegations of abuse, which are often simply tactical accusations designed to gain an advantage in future disputes (e.g. who gets to keep the house, and therefore the kids).

For now, I’ll leave the comments on this page open for other suggestions as it develops and takes on more substance as a resource for those looking to reform marriage, or perhaps to have a contractual marriage themselves.

{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }

Fourmyle of Ceres July 30, 2011 at 12:15

I heartily endorse this plan.

It won’t be enough to draft contracts though. The laws must change too. Currently the laws of marriage (including common law spouses) trump any signed contract. If you and your spouse agree prior to marriage that a no-fault divorce results in automatic custody of any children to the non-filing parent, that contract will be unenforceable.

Drafting these contracts is a good mission. But MRAs who want to make a difference will also have to move the politics of the country at least far enough so that Courts will honor the contracts.

MobilePT July 30, 2011 at 13:46

“a woman cannot seize a house, car or any other property through a false restraining order if she does not own it as communal property.”

The courts have a neat work-around for this if the woman has so much as a toothbrush, pair of socks, or panties lost in the bedsheets at your house. She just claims it’s her residence- so you’re kicked out of your home on the restraining order and she gets to live there while you keep making payments, since you still own it. She can steal or sell your stuff and good luck trying to prove it. In one instance, a woman that a man had met and brought home the night before called the police while he was in the shower the next morning. The police showed up and arrested him for IPV based solely on her word, like the good little blue-suited thugs that they are, and while he was cooling his heels in jail, she cleaned out his apartment and disappeared. It just never ends, does it?

Khangray July 30, 2011 at 14:35

I couldn’t get to the Cardoza Law Review. Too many folks reading it I suppose. I like the idea of contract marriage. A good contract (business deal) generally benefits all parties concerned. They agree to it because they feel that they get something out of it that is of greater value than what they put in.

But, and here is an important issue, for a contract to be enforceable in a court of law, all elements must be legal. A contract to murder someone cannot be legal (cannot be enforced in a court of law) because murder is not legal. Let’s keep away from the abortion debate for now. A contract that requires a woman to provide sex is not legal in most states. Thus, for contract marriage arrangements to work, prostitution must be decriminalized. Good luck with that.

But, the idea of contract marriage is basically sound provided that we can change some basic laws to allow it. We’d probably have to modify common law marriage in most states as well.

Do you believe that free markets work? If so, try to imagine what the landscape would look like if men and women were able to enter into contracts with each other. Contracts that involved sex, children, healthcare, living conditions, bonuses, fidelity, and even expiration dates. Maybe even a salary. Imagine a 9 or 10 trying to negotiate such a contract with an alpha. She will quickly learn that solid, dependable betas offer a better deal. Will she be logical enough to act on that realization?

Marriage 2.0 isn’t really a contract. It is a one size fits all institution where the house rules have been greatly changed to benefit women. When it is the only game in town, sometimes you have to play with the house rules knowing that that is the only way to win although the odds are that you will lose big time. That is why contract marriage or any alternative other than Marriage 2.0 is so important to the MRM. But not just the MRM, civilization depends on betas having skin in the game and working hard to raise their children. MGTOW is perhaps the best strategy for a young beta male but it is also the road to the collapse of our civilization. We need to change the game.

Codeazure July 30, 2011 at 17:11

The Shi’ite moslems have an interesting idea of a fixed term marriage contract.

This gives men and women equal power, everything is negotiated up front before the marriage is started. Both sides have to live up to their contractual obligations or the contract is terminated.

Something like this, without the Islamic overtones might be workable in the West

David R. Usher July 30, 2011 at 21:14

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

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) July 31, 2011 at 07:46

the book proposes the solution to “marriage”.

1. Rescind marriage to the guvment.
2. Rescind consent to be governed.
3. Create a common law marriage agreement between the two parties as a binding contract.
4. Disputes in the marriage to be brought to the arbitration panel and the arbitration panel to be paid for by both parties equally until such time as the panel issues it’s decision.

The Marriage Agreement binds both parties to the findings of the Arbitration Panel.

Given that the guvments are OPENLY trying to destroy marriage why would anyone want “reform”? Would women ask for “rape reform”? And that is all marriage has become.

Legalised raping and pillaging of men.

If women are not willing to rescind consent to be married to the guvment and rescind consent to be governed? Well? The man knows what sort of woman he has on his hands, doesn’t he?

Men have been gifted the remedy. That they reject it in favour of being governed (and just look up the meaning of being governed…it means being controlled)? That is their choice. Men are free to beg to be governed or choosing to be free.

A wise english man told me in December 09 when I got back from Australia words to the effect.

“I admire your efforts and you are doing what I believe is right…but in the end I think you will find that men want to be governed. They want to be told what to do. To be responsible for themselves is their worst nightmare. I think you will find that as long as they get their daily rations, a roof over their head, and their big screen TVs they will be quite willing slaves.”

I listened hard to him at the time. I have the greatest of respect for this man. He is brilliant at what he does and is many years my senior. I told him I certainly hoped he was wrong in the main. He commented that the funny thing was he hoped he was wrong too but knew himself to be right after a lifetime of observation.

From my experiences in the last 18 months. I would have to declare this man correct. The vast masses of men want to be governed and they will attack you if you try to free them. Being responsible for themselves is their worst nightmare.

We are, unfortunately, talking to a small minority of men who wish to be free. Who wish to pursue their own lives free of government control. I believe I had to come to this conclusion before I could write the book. This is why the book is aimed at only individual men and not ‘the collective’. The collective WANT to be slaves in return for “perceived security” because it is only perceived.

Now…men can do what they like about “reforming” the rape that is the family law system today. Or they can turn their backs and refuse to be subject to it. I have blazed the trail. Other men can use the trail or not.

It really does not affect me that much except I am spending a lot of time telling men about it only to have them ignore me.

Anonymous July 31, 2011 at 09:56

We could sure use marriage reform. In the mean time the MGTOW strategy is the only option unless you are diagnosed with untreatable cancer with 5 years to live. Basically, in that latter case you become a “suicide husband” and avoid divorce due to death. If you have a self-imposed cancer (a smoker with lung cancer or a race changer with skin cancer) your DNA is still perfectly good. With the clock ticking you could go on a mission to generate as many kids as possible before you self-destruct by serially shacking up.

Douglas Tooley July 31, 2011 at 10:53

I’ve come to almost exactly the same conclusions by participating in the Gay Marriage debate. “Marriage”, in my opinion, should be a contract matter for the individuals as per the above, with churches being a provider of such contracts – including gays or not as per the perogatives of the particular church.

As per the above, we do need basic protections and standards for all contracts, and, IMO the rights negotiated for gay civil unions are pretty close to what all of us deserve from our government.

This is a bit different from the standard gay male political agenda, but I’ve personally found many gay men to be open and interested in discussing the idea – a way of broadening the MRA tent and perhaps also blunting some of the unnecessary divisiveness between some churches and gays.

Royce Geist July 31, 2011 at 12:50

This is a great first step, more people need to read these resources so we can finally change things for the better.

Cole July 31, 2011 at 13:48

If there is any contract, I’d love for there to be a section on testing paternity for new-born children. It’s resolve a lot of future conflict if that question was solved right off the bat when the kid was born.

serpentus August 1, 2011 at 18:45

Feminism and easy sex go hand in hand. Why do you want to change that? As much as I sympathize with you guys over how women have mistreated ment, the solution is simple: don’t get married…period.

Chevy Chase August 1, 2011 at 21:38

Marriage reform? Don’t get married FULL STOP

Doug1 August 2, 2011 at 16:11

Get the right kind of prenup. That’s the best you can do other than living together without marrying in a non common law marriage state. (Only ten states create common law marriages and there you have to hold yourself out as being married. All Canadian provinces do though after 2 to 3 years of cohabiting. A simple agreement that you don’t wish to be considered legally married should work in those states though.)

All middle class men on up should require a prenup as a condition to marrying a girl. No American guy should get married unless he wants children imminently. The prenup should basically mimic the financial effects of living together in the event of a divorce, though I think be a little more generous to her than that. It will be much easier to get such a prenup if you are in fact living together when she tries with increasing pressure to get you to “take the next step”.

Say: “what’s wrong with what we have now? Marriage makes people esp. wives complaisant with too much security and everyone says sex usually goes way down a year or two into marriage, if not immediately.” Finally say: “no way in hell without a prenup that mimics living together in the event of a divorce. “ Be completely unapologetic. Learn how unfair divorce typically is to men who make any money, and tell her about it. Extensively.

All states honor prenups to somewhat varying degrees, provided they’re done properly. You both need lawyers, you can’t spring one on her at the last minute, and you have to fully disclose your existing assets and income.

No prenup can effectively determine who gets custody of children, whether there’s true equally shared joint physical custody, or what the amount of child support=also stealth alimony will be. That’s always up to the biased against men family court. Since men are nearly always screwed out of custody or joint custody, rarely get any child support even in the rare cases they do get custody, and since the beginning of the nineties have to pay child support=also stealth alimony at sky high percentages of their after tax income, the two areas that prenups can vary in men’s favor should be skewed very much in that direction to try to move in the direction of overall fairness. Also they should be as a disincentive to divorce, since women file for it 2.5x as often as men do in America, and many divorce attorneys say that in the case of college educated couples with children, women are behind divorce something more like 90% of the time. Women need to be financially disincented from divorce. I’m not so much trying to discourage divorce in short marriages without children, but none of the prenup provisions will cut very deeply in the case of short marriages.

As part of mimicking the financial effects of living together in the event of divorce, the prenup should waive all alimony. Alimony and even lifetime alimony has been coming back now in many states in the case of long marriages, e.g. of 10 years or more. Women can work at all levels of the workforce now just as men can. If she hypergamously married a man who makes a lot more money that’s fine while she’s married to him but she shouldn’t benefit when she no fault divorces him because she wants to go out and find new alpha love (she hopes), or has her love feelings for him dissolve while she falls in love with another in an affair. It’s simply unfair to ask men to go on supporting ex wives when they aren’t doing anything for their ex husbands in return. In 2007 96% of alimony was paid by men to women. Why the hell should she be supported at or close to the style of life to which she became accustomed, when she’s no longer giving him the sex and wifely companionship and services to which he became accustomed?

Note in a very few states like Mass. a prenup may be modified or worse throw out if it provides for zero alimony in a long marriage and the woman never worked in the relationship. Alimony can be reduced greatly though and maybe time limited. But note this doesn’t apply to the great majority of states, e.g. it doesn’t to NY, California, Florida, Texas, etc. Consult a lawyer.

The prenup should divide property as is done in cohabiting situations. The property, wealth and debt each brought into the marriage should remain separate property and obligations. Wealth earned and indebtedness incurred during the marriage should be divided according to who has title e.g. to a car, or the separate investment, retirement or bank account, or credit card or other loan obligation. Yeah I’d keep credit cards and bank accounts separate. Possibly both might contribute into a joint account to pay household utility, grocery and other expenses from. Real estate equity and debt should be divided also by who has title and signatory obligation. If it’s held jointly it could either be divided in half, both equity and debt, or it could be divided according to who paid what percentage of the down payment and ongoing mortgage payments, or by the proportionate aggregate income of the two spouses. Furniture and appliances should be treated similarly.

I might during negotiations with her lawyer modify the property split somewhat in her favor. I might go for a fifty fifty split of joint assets like the family home or maybe all marital assets pro rata for the period of time from the birth of the first child to the entry into kindergarden or nursery school of the last one, if the mother did in fact stay home or only work part time during that period. So in a 12 year marriage, 6 years of which one of two children was not yet in kindergarden and the wife was a stay at home mom, she’d get an equal split of assets accumulated by the husband in excess of those accumulated by her during that period, but not for the other six years. Myself, I wouldn’t so subsidize longer periods of a wife staying at home and not working, but that’s an individual decision. Lots of times wives want to not return to work even when husbands want them to. That shouldn’t be incented, but should rather be disincented. If you are a very high earning guy I wouldn’t do this equal split for six years on all the man’s income, but rather up to some cutoff.

Oh, I’d also have the prenup give her consent to having the paternity of each child tested through DNA samples shortly after birth and before you sign the birth certificate. Nothing in the prenup can be changed without a subsequent written agreement to such change.

Doug1 August 2, 2011 at 16:16

Note alimony is usually not assessed on top of child support=also stealth alimony because basically the guy is already being wrung near dry. But it is in many states if it was a more than 10 year (or sometimes less) long marriage and he isn’t paying child support because there are no kids or they’ve aged out.

fmz August 2, 2011 at 16:40

Dont Get Married.

This is my idea for marriage reform.

Joeb August 3, 2011 at 10:44

Being a man that has lost 3 houses ,I agree. They plan on keeping me in the system for the rest of my life I hope the younger men wake up to the problem.

Amy August 3, 2011 at 13:53

“Some have taken the concept of removing the state from marriage…”

I have a quick question: how would this work in terms of immigration? Or, is this marriage reform completely aimed at people marrying people already holding the same citizenship? Just curious! :)

It seems to me that the state would need to be involved in all cases involving marriage between two persons of different citizenship and also just for tax purposes (if the couple in question is planning on filing jointly).

Thanks for your time!

W.F. Price August 3, 2011 at 16:13

I have a quick question: how would this work in terms of immigration? Or, is this marriage reform completely aimed at people marrying people already holding the same citizenship? Just curious!

It seems to me that the state would need to be involved in all cases involving marriage between two persons of different citizenship and also just for tax purposes (if the couple in question is planning on filing jointly).

Thanks for your time!


I don’t think it should be too difficult for immigration purposes, as the main issue in Western countries is whether or not the immigrant spouse will become a social welfare burden. In fact, all that would need to be done is continue to require the promise to reimburse the govt. if the sponsored spouse becomes a social liability as is the custom today. In fact, in the US there are no rules about whether one can or cannot marry a foreigner — the rules only apply to whether or not the foreign spouse will be admitted to the US. It seems to me that a contract would make it easier for the feds to make a determination than under the standard civil marriage, as there would be more disclosure.

Watertiger August 7, 2011 at 02:55

I think marriage should be like other “religious ceremonies” such as baptism & comfirmation. A nice excuse for a party & nothing more. If 2 people want to be together for life, then they have to go to lawyers & hammer out a binding contract, like a pair of merging corporations.
*Alimony is made to disappear.
*Child support is set up as a trust-fund type account where the mother has to produce reciepts to get paid back.
*You leave with what you came in with. (No more kicking the guy out of his house that HE paid for.)
…and other more logical things.

Denis August 18, 2011 at 12:46

There is absolutely no reason to get married. None.

Reform assures another con in the back room.

Lerianis August 20, 2011 at 08:30

Here’s a better idea: get rid of marriage period, realize that it is a HUMAN MADE invention with severe problems, and simply start looking at men and women EQUALLY and insisting that they have EQUAL rights to children. property, etc. under the law.

Problem solved.

Gavrick September 1, 2011 at 01:45

Just a couple of my experiences:

1) After my first wife’s affair resulted in the birth of a (obviously not my) female mulatto, the “sperm donor” (as is the case with most black males) disappeared, leaving her to face me and our three other children. I kept the family together on the condition that she gave up the “child.” I did this only for the sake of my kids, and after the last one left the nest, we divorced (as she had found future husband number two).
2) During the divorce, I fled with most of my things overseas. I owed her nothing, but I was awarded all debts. I got off cheap, in my opinion.
3) I’ve been remarried for 12 years now, and have two more children. I do everything in my power to strengthen the marriage. My Russian wife is a very passionate lover, even now, and stays home with the kids. I best please her when she sees how much time and effort I give to our babies, and by being a good provider. It is also clear to her that I will not tolerate infidelity and have resources to leave her high ynd dry should she deviate from acceptable behavior. I also keep a private safety deposit box that she cannot access with my “escape plan,” should it ever become necessary.

It is sad that a man and a woman cannot unconditionally trust one another, but that is the state in which we find ourselves.

Aoirthoir An Broc September 3, 2011 at 23:10

“Forget the father’s rights talk and get ready to push for what everybody needs”

Absolutely not. Pushing the agenda of men back again will only give us hundreds of years more of hatred of males. We were fodder for centuries in their wars, fields, factories. And you want us to move forward with them, and no consideration of men.

Moving forward after men are respected as inherently valuable, that is the best and only option.

Marriage Education September 5, 2011 at 12:56

Fellow Men,

I’m posting to introduce the marriage education institute. We are an MRA organization dedicated to warning young men about the risks of marriage.

Our goal is to ensure that no men get married without being fully warned of the risks involved. We want to ensure that men are warned of the risks of family court and that they know the risks they are facing. Some men may still choose to marry, that is ok as at least they know what may happen.

We also hope that full information will serve as a catalyst for reform as something as corrupt as the current family court system is unlikely to survive once its abuses are brought to light.

Our plan is to start warning young men at a young age before they can be trapped by the feminist establishment. We intend to start with universities because that’s where the most prized feminist husbands/slaves are. If we can open the eyes of the “best” slaves, woemn will panic and the day will be ours.

Please help us by sending links to good family court material. We want to build out our side with links to sites like wedded abyss. Once that is complete we will start sending mailings and emails to target lists of college students. We intend to use the fraternity system as our distribution system. The surviving fraternities contain those men that are most resistent to feminism and naturally inclined to our cause so we will start with them. Please help by emailing material to [email protected]. You can also help by emailing and or mailing our letter to any young men you know.

We are still writing the letter but will post it when it is ready.

It is time for action. Please spread the word. We hope our movement will be the next step after the internet campaign. Don’t let them trap any more young men.

Khangray September 6, 2011 at 14:29

I had an interesting talk with a coworker the other day. He is originally from India. He came to the US on a scholarship and dreamed of becoming a doctor. His father, a very traditional Indian man, allowed him to leave his village only on the condition that he marry. It was an arranged marriage, the bride was picked by the father, the son agreed only because he wanted to come to the US. He married a stranger only weeks before coming to the US.

To make a long story short, they have been married for other 40 years, have numerous children and grandchildren and are as happy together as any couple I know.

If we’re talking about the reform of marriage then perhaps we need to consider the idea of arranged marriages. Older people who have been paying attention know things that younger folks don’t. Young men and women (in their teens and twenties) aren’t rational and perhaps aren’t quite sane when it comes to the the urge to screw. But their parents have been through that experience and have some knowledge of how it all works. When I was in my 20s I wanted to make my own decisions. I was probably as intelligent as my parents but I lacked their perspective and experience. And I made some really poor choices.

Feminists don’t like the idea of arranged marriages, which might be an indication that it is something to consider. We can’t get there today with our current legal and cultural systems but still, my coworker is disturbingly happy and joyful, and married.

Brandy O October 18, 2011 at 13:19

I totally agree divorce harms children. I find it shameful that so many women consider divorce an easy way out of a marriage especially when children are involved. But I find it sad that contractually planning for marriage failure is the answer to the number plague of our society.

But then again maybe women will have less financial incentive to divorce. Then maybe they will reconsider divorce, actually star making an attempt to repair a waning marriage of considering there isn’t any severe emotional abuse or any physical abuse. I think infidelity issues should can be through given there isn’t a chronic perpetrating of audultry.

MK October 25, 2011 at 17:32

Great stuff I agree 100%. Marriage is in most case a raw deal for men of this day and age and not something that is gonna end well for many.

Turbo the Drycleaner November 2, 2011 at 22:57

Before any discussion of marriage reform can take place, we must first dispel this ridiculous notion that men are better off not returning to patriarchal monogamy.A popular MRA argument is that “patriarchy makes men work hard so we shouldn’t go back to it”. its usually couched with pretty words (wage slave, cubicle drone, etc.) but regardless of how you say it, youre saying, “lets devolve back into the stone age”. Almost ALL technological advances that have ever been made in the history of man were made under this system. MGTOW as a permanent solution to marriage 2.0 is just “Reverse Feminism”: women got to shrug off all their responsibilities, so now so do men. Although in anarchy men would certainly once again hold most of the power, it would be a shame to pretend like the last several thousand years of progress never happened and start from square 1.

im not telling you to “man up” and go get married right this second: the odds are more favorable in russan roulette, if youre a betting man. Im saying we need to set marriage back to the 1.0 model, and -then- marry.

MGTOW doesnt work except in the short term because it says, “no one has responsibility”. Patriarchy works because it says, “we both have responsibilities”.

? November 18, 2011 at 13:54

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

The Big Daddy C-Master November 20, 2011 at 14:15

The laws aren’t just unfair to men “some of the time” they’re unfair to men *all* across the board. There is no section of the law that is beneficial to men, they’re ALL beneficial to women.

Women don’t have to fight in wars.

Women get to retire sooner.

Women get more funding in healthcare, college, and jobs.

Women have affirmative action.

Women get money transferred directly from men to them in so many ways possible it’s unbelievable. Men have no reproductive rights. Get screwed over in divorce, and pay 80% of taxes. For what? Money and laws that go to paying for women and imprisoning them at the benefit of women. Women have always been carried by men, through society. All the bs claims of oppression won’t override that. Every single law out there is skewed to a woman’s favor to the point where women can kill their husbands and children and walk off, while men get sent the prison at the false accusation of a woman, while the woman gets nothing but a slap on the wrist.

You’re talking about “men” leaving “women”? No dear, women leave men most of the time because they’ll be subsidized by Big Daddy Government. Go back a few generations ago, to your father or great-grandfather’s time. There was VERY little divorce and single motherhood. You know why? Because it was discouraged and looked down upon, but most importantly there were no things like alimony, child support, welfare, etc, that give women a free ride through life at the expense of the family. Look at the single motherhood rates in some communities it’s 70%! Women simply open their legs for any man that’s irresponsible, and then (even though they have complete control over reproduction with numerous forms of free birth control) keep the kid, because they know they’ll get subsidized.

Women initiate the majority of divorces and proceed to steal everything from men because that’s what society encourages them to do, but most importantly it’s in their nature. Women are hypergamous and always look for the next best deal. This is why women are only attracted to a small percentage of men, while men are attracted to a far larger percentage of women. Marriage was to circumvent this and give every man a woman to reproduce with, and the woman was taken care of. This was good for family and society.

But now, those times have changed, with women destroying the family and costing society so much money while producing next to nothing, they’re going to see what Russia sees, bunches of women who are alone because men aren’t interested in them. The numbers don’t lie. Women marry up, and encourage marriage, and divorce first for a reason. It’s no accident.

I might have wasted my time saying this to you, but I want other men to see this. I’m not ugly and poor guy who “can’t get laid”. Quite the opposite. I have my own company and keep myself up well and in shape. Marriage is just a bad prospect. Better to just expat to a more male friendly society and marry there, where the tax rate is also lower and doesn’t fund loser do-nothing women who leech off of men and the system as always.

Turbo the Drycleaner November 22, 2011 at 09:19

“Yes, of course, woman aren’t people!! They are all money grubbing whores (that is until after they’re married, am I right guys?). Men never do anything wrong. It all makes sense now!! Men never cheat, abuse, steal or rape!! ”

This is what we like to call a “strawman”. when faced with an idea that conflicts with your beliefs, it is easier to take a reasoned, rational argument and turn it into an absolute (note how many times words like all or never are used) that was not drawn in the original idea, and then attack said absolute in place of the rational idea.

It is much easier to say that we all hate women and think only they can do evil than to admit that power corrupts, and women hold all the power right now.

fschmidt January 11, 2012 at 00:18

I am shocked, a solution being proposed on The Spearhead? I thought The Spearhead was just for complaining and rationalizing hedonism.

Allin January 11, 2012 at 10:55

Women that *gasp* earn more money than their spouses are responsible for alimony.
I understand you all have been taken for a horrible ride by some horrible women but it is so infantile and unconstructive to lump blame for all your worldly woes on women. every above issue happens in reverse.

woggy January 25, 2012 at 15:33

“Women that *gasp* earn more money than their spouses are responsible for alimony.”
Yes, and they’re grumbling about it too.
Don’t be surprised if they get some laws changed.

” every above issue happens in reverse.”
-to one woman for three men; and they have society’s shoulder to cry on and pockets to pick.

K Taylor January 25, 2012 at 15:56

I found this site and read it with great interest. I always smile when I stumble across men who want to get rid of this stupid one sided fiasco called marriage, family court, and domestic violence. Pity a crazy feminist found this page and tried to turn it into a men=bad debate. Zealots are everywhere.

There is a total solution which is much simpler than you are proposing. Bring back the requirement for “fault” in divorce.

It was the advent of the no-fault divorce that screwed everything up for men and made ditching a marriage easier for women than buying a car (even though so often one leads to the funds to enable the other).

This no-fault attitude has become so prevalent that it even bleeds into cohabiting commonlaw relationships, so if common law gives people the same rights as thought they are married, force them to dissolve this relationship “with fault” as well. The way to avoid a battle in a “fault divorce” is simply for both parties to agree to irreconcilable differences and make out their own agreement. Which is really the way that grown up people should do things, talk it through and work it out, if not to save the marriage, to ensure a limitation of hard feelings.

The case where the wife decides that she’d rather be free to bonk someone else, or in the case of a child sired by a man other than the husband, would in a “fault divorce” make it exceedingly difficult for the guilty party to retain the house, the kids, or obtain any alimony. If the father was a deadbeat cheater, he gets screwed. If the woman just is bored and wants something else to do, she can’t prove fault and therefore gets nothing.

In the most hopeless of cases with “fault” divorce, the person doing the walking on the person who doesn’t want the relationship to end, where there is no “fault” keeps on the legal paperwork as their lawfully wedded husband or wife. Making a clean new marriage or relationship sticky for the walker. Try telling the NEXT love of your life that you can’t get married until your three year separated husband agrees to your divorce and have that not be a red flag.

The feminist industry just LOVES no-fault divorce. It plays right out along the lines that a woman gets the right to choose. If she gets pregnant she can choose to keep it, choose to adopt it, or choose to abort it. The man gets to choose nothing, she can abort it even if he desperately wants the child even without her help; or as is so common in visa versa, where she decides she wants to keep it but doesnt want to keep the man, he is on the hook for support. No fault divorce means that a woman can decide to leave her husband for any reason she chooses; and not be judged infavorably in the courts for dissolving a marriage for no good reason or for bad reasons.

The advent of no-fault divorce is what has brought on this onslaught of divorces. The “Im bored with my married life” type as espoused in that horrible book “Eat, Love, Pray”, the “wow this guy is way better than my husband” type when a married woman meets another guy and wants to swap out mates, and even the “I decided I want to be a lesbian” type of divorces. Now starter marriages are symptomatic of no-fault divorce, rather than the other way around. The very concept of a “starter marriage” wouldnt even make sense with fault-required divorce, as both parties would need to go into the marriage knowing precisely what it was, and I’d wager a guess that 99% of “starter marriages” have one person who looks at it as a starter marriage and a partner who thinks it’s the bona fide real thing.

I dont know how MRAs could effectively lobby for it. Perhaps the angle that good dads and husbands are being lumped in with deadbeat dads and poor husbands and are unfairly being covered by the same legislation?

I mean, the above is certainly true enough. There are crappy husbands and deadbeat dad who dont look after their kids nor pay any child support for them. But a guy who gets married to the woman definitely knows he’s on the hook through both lips when he gets involved. The problem of course is that with no-fault divorce there is no consideration given to why the matrimonial partnership is being dissolved, therefore things merely default to the “man did wrong” scenario and he gets kicked out of his house so she gets the kids and a variety of legal triggers automatically kick in. Of course this dovetails with the domestic violence industry, she accuses him of violence and the boys in blue beleive her and take the man away in silver bracelets.

The different with “fault” divorce is that the man would actually have to be convicted of assault in order for it to matter in court. No self respecting judge could make a judgement because of an accusation of violence, while in right mind also requiring evidence that the woman cheated, for example, although I’m sure that some judges that disconnected from reality exist.

Of course, it can be difficult to prove that the woman was sleeping around if there are no children produced. However it is also quite embarrassing for the woman should the other man or men receive a subpoena to appear in court. Just the very fact that a process server came to his door would probably be enough to make the guy spill the beans, “Yeah, I nailed her a few times. She didn’t tell me she was married though.”, even if twas just in anger at the betrayal or the annoyance of being forced to come appear in court.

The loss of “fault” in divorce makes the entire marriage contract worthless. Ironically, the original reason for fault being included in divorce was to protect the woman in the case of a philandering, abusive, cheating man, in the olden days, the man would keep his assets and the woman would be out on her ass, regardless of who was at fault. “Fault” in divorce was put in to protect the woman and give her a chance to get the children and house if the man wasnt doing a good job as a husband. Then feminists got it removed and went after the entire family court system instead, making it a complete disaster.

Ironically, family court, while very disconnected from reality itself, is much more fair than divorce court. If a man is on top of his game, he can argue for at least 50% custody of the children, and the woman has to really prove that somehow this man is not fit to be a parent and that his rights to his children should be restricted. While women use domestic violence allegations in leui of evidence, the man can be forceful by moving to have the police records brought into the court case as evidence, and the most important line of those records is where the police say that they do not intend to persue charges, which invalidates the entire argument.

Divorce court, however, is way more kangaroo when it is no-fault. A woman can cheat on her husband for years, sire children of other men, then when the man realizes the betrayal and wants divorce, she gets to take half the family assets. Talk about punishing the victim.

I say bring back Fault, it would be much easier than what is being proposed above. The laws are already written and peer reviewed, too. Just be careful about any amendments put forward by the feminist chattering classes – things like “not happy” and “growing apart” – cop outs that just mean she was bored.

You marry someone for life, thats why they say “till death do us part”. If you screwed up, lady, well I guess the grave couldnt come soon enough for ya!

Anonymous January 26, 2012 at 19:47

Quite possibly, what we all want is to be respected. Man and woman. Until our differences are seen as something good and not evil, there will be no resolution. How can a woman respond to anything said here without anger? I am married to a wonderful man, and I respect him and appreciate his differences from myself, and he does the same for me-that is why we work. The Church is not to blame. Have you ever read “Wild at Heart”? Very Christian and very relevant to men- their fears and plight. When women understand this concept, they soften.

woggy January 30, 2012 at 17:49

“The Church is not to blame.”
The Church may not have invented feminism, but feminism has a very comfortable featherbed inside the four walls of almost every church, and inside the bedroom of almost every married clergyman- not to mention the out-of- their- place female clergy.
Feminism’s first widely recognized political initiative, other than sufferage itself, was Prohibition- and the bulk of mainline churches were right there beside them. They managed to distort and misuse scripture, casting the Devil into a bottle, when scripture says no such thing.
As if that weren’t bad enough, the churches, in a self serving quest to keep the coffers full and the pews warm, filled women’s hearts with the prideful notion that they were and are morally and spiritually superior to men- and therefore a woman’s rants and accusations against a man are wholly acceptable and enforceable, without further fact finding needed.

‘ Have you ever read “Wild at Heart”? Very Christian and very relevant to men- their fears and plight.”
Funny madam, I read some reviews, and it would seem the author of this book (a Mr Eldredge?) lays certain blame on the church.
Maybe you didn’t read the book.

” When women understand this concept, they soften.”
Again, maybe you didn’t read the book, since all you’ve done here is criticize and shame men for expressing themselves a bit too harshly and with accuracy not flattering to modern women, they having become used to being puffed up by the clergy for the last century or so.

“How can a woman respond to anything said here without anger?”
My question: what difference does it make?
Those women who actually brought into being the horrible circumstance faced by many men are not concerned or less angry at what any man thinks.
Those women who stood and watched while this happened, ever proclaiming that “I’m not like that” don’t REALLY care all that much either- they’re just into a little contrition lately because the pound of flesh that’s coming due might just come out of their hides, rather the hideous idealogues who poisoned the well so long ago, having died of old age, tucked in the arms of a lesbian lover.

Furthermore, how dare you ask such a question; how dare you make such an implied demand of civility- lest the women be further angered- unless you too believe the fawning preachers when they coo in your ears, polishing your halo?

Marriage reform is about, at long last, women being equally responsible in a marriage, and being equally responsible when one fails.

That’s why your Church will never get behind it.

Worthless Bitch April 11, 2012 at 13:21

@ woggy any criticism of a man is viewed as “shaming.” Yet calling him a Mangina because he chooses to live with a woman instead if towing the MGTOW line is justified? I thought only feminists resorted to shaming? The hypocrisy of some MRAs is astonishing. You rail against feminists yet mirror their own attitudes, just in opposite form. I agree with another poster that MGTOW will lead to societal collapse. And I wonder to what abuse and shaming will my husband be subjected, for standing by my side as my lover, protector, and friend?

woggy April 14, 2012 at 04:21


It’s unclear to me why you’ve singled me out, since my post above is laden with nothing but truth.
Would I call another man a “mangina” just for being married?
If I did, I’d have to look in a mirror while saying it; I’ve been married a LONG time.
That doesn’t prevent my seeing the truth. I just know that I’m walking a tightrope without a net, in terms of how the law would treat me, should she wake up “unfulfilled” one morning.

Perhaps my ire with nominal Christianity has roused your contempt.
I only feel that way because mainstream Christianity has done a marvelous job of keeping young men in their sphere of influence vulnerable, in the dark and guilty of being born male.
I spent thirty years in such churches, and many of my friends and loved ones are still involved with them.
I know what I’m talking about.

MGTOW will cause societal collapse? Let’s just agree that there’s some degree of truth in that; however, what has caused MGTOW to become worthy of its own acronym? Why is it gaining ground?
It’s because of feminism and the inherent misandry that comes with feminism.
Laying blame on MEN ( for society’s imminent collapse) for making a personal, informed decision to avoid marriage is SHAMING language, with a hefty dose of objectification thrown in for good measure.

I’d imagine that every guy on here has a slightly different definition of “mangina”, but mine is simply this:
A mangina is a male (not a man) who unfailingly defers to women as being more moral, more spiritual and, therefore, more deserving of the good things in life than men.
This often morphs into stages of white knighting when the mangina actively postures against other men who stand up for their rights, furthering when they interfere in these men’s lives.
And it’s all done for one reason:
The favor of women and the sex that comes with it.

Real men don’t have to apologize for being men or for having manly desires. Sooner or later real men will find women who don’t want a man to disparage himself just to get laid.

greyghost April 24, 2012 at 20:12

Listen here you Worthless Bitch
If you are married then take care of your man and make sure he gets the good sex, and the emotional support. Also MRA’s when discussing ideas on policy don’t explain themselves to the satifaction of women,especially not some worthless bitch. Nothing men do to survive misandry is the reason for societies collapse the damn misandry used to please a bunch of worthless bitches is the cause.
Men are talking and they aren’t talking to you.

JamesE May 4, 2012 at 08:45

(Since I don’t think this will be read because it’s at the BOTTOM, I’ll write it anyway. You’ll get more replies if you reverse the order.

By reversing the order, like does and they are one of the top 3 sites in the world, you will be able to see the most recent.)

I’ve thought the same thing a long time.

This brings in the perspective of truth, that there is a possibility of a divorce. The problem with divorces is that the men usually ends up with the short end of the stick. Having an “out clause”, will make the man feel safer and bring reality into the picture.

If a woman is not happy with the agreement, then she can just walk away.

A strong relationship foundation is built on trust and love, with a huge dose of integrity. Men should not be entering into a permanent type of relationship unless he understands what he is getting into. Men, too often end up being used.

The Saying I have heard from men, but never women, “What’s mine is her’s and what’s her’s is her’s”, is a feminist and controlling female controlled.

Slap that on top of a woman can have a 25% change in the way their brain functions during the month. This is part of their cycles. If one tries to have a relationship with a woman who is like this and moody, it would be good to look at her diet and what she intakes, including anti-depressants. All the serial killers have been on anti-depressants

To many of today’s women are messed up. Too many are still playing 7 year old dress-up and looking for Prince Charming. Be afraid, be very afraid of those types of women and RUN.

There are good women, but usually they are hard to find. It takes 2 good parents to raise a child. Balanced team work has a higher chance of producing people who are more loving and kind, at the same time, less demanding.

When “daddy” isn’t around, little girls can grow up with illusions about men.

When so many women have ended up being entrapped and with the children by having sole custody, they get resentful and many times vomit their hateful feelings about men on anyone, including their children, on them.

There needs to be in place shared custody. Limited Alimony, like 4 years, enough time to get training.

These two things would stop many gold diggers from having cash-cow children to suck a person of money dry. Such mothers shouldn’t exist. What if men did the same at enslaving men?

Also, there needs to be a clause of “no circumcision” (castration) of any male children and that decision will be left up the child after he is 18.

Brigadon May 16, 2012 at 23:51

I cannot support any sort of marriage reforms until child support amnesty (REAL amnesty, not these crappy bullshit ‘amnesty’ programs that require that you rob a bank and only forgive ‘interest’) is passed.

Will Never Marry or Have Kids June 10, 2012 at 19:55

It’s been a while since the last post, but no one pointed out the years of work experience a woman DOESN’T get because she’s staying at home taking care of kids. Honestly, if you plan to get married, tell your your wife-to-be to get a job and find some good daycare. That way alimony might not be so much of a problem. I mean, professionals are probably better at raising children than either of the two of you would be.

orecret June 19, 2012 at 12:57

Remember The Children. All ways remember the children.

My Parents were married a total of six times between the two of them, to each other and to others, in the eighteen year period of my childhood.

I cannot even begin to tell you the level of abuse that I suffered at the hands of the extra-familial spouses… thinly veiled contempt for the offspring that came before from another mate.

Those years and the “God, I hate men” feminism that I encountered in the coming years left an undeniable and indelible impression on me… not one bit of it good nor contributing to the formation of healthy relationships in my life…


Remember The Children. That is always the first thing I say to people contemplating divorce.

It’s just a shame, a total shame.

Rebel June 22, 2012 at 16:19

Wouldn’t it be so much better and simpler to abolish marriage altogether?

Let people do what they want with their lives.

Jennifer Thieme August 10, 2012 at 23:15

I’m glad to see you are thinking about this! That’s really great. However, I don’t agree with your point about privitizing marriages. It made sense when there was one church to impose a stated definition of marriage, but with the culture as it is, I don’t think it makes sense. Some churches will keep 1m/1w marriages, and the liberal churches will not. We cannot predict the shift in incentives that will occur with having variable definitions of marriage within the same culture.

Also, disputes/dissolutions will be handled by the government… and disputes arising from the marriages from liberal churches will set precedents for everybody. As I’ve already demonstrated elsewhere here this evening, disputes in gay custody cases can set very dangerous precedents for straight people. Privitizing marriage does not address this very real problem.

Who handles birth certificates and passports under this plan? Probably the state. Yet changes to those documents will have an effect on the entire family culture. Remember the passport issue regarding replacing the terms Mother and Father with Parent 1 and Parent 2 that the LGBT crowd was pushing? Thankfully that was stopped… for now.

There needs to be a singular authority to define the marriage, perform it, and handle dissolutions. It used to be the church. Now it’s the state. Yes there are issues, no doubt. But the issues have arisen not because there was a problem inherit with the state handling marriages. Issues arose because we’ve tinkered with the definition of marriage.

What’s to stop churches from tinkering? Obviously some churches will never cave, but I predict that most will. Haveing a variable option for the definition of marriage shifts incentives for all and create precedents for all, not just those in those churches.

There is no easy way through this problem. But again I’m glad you’re thinking about it. Maybe I’m wrong in all this. Actually, I hope I am.

woggy August 16, 2012 at 16:04

I know it’s rewarding (and safe within Churchianity) to make as though the homosexuals are THE grave danger facing marriage.
Get off your hobby horse and see how much dung is actually in the grass where your horsey is eating.

Homosexual “marriage” – wrong as it is – is not THE problem. It’s not even the BIGGEST problem for marriage.
All of that has been capably outlined above, so I’ll not do it again, but to your point that churches can’t oversee marriage:

Not only CAN they, they should be the ONLY entities doing it.

Let government handle the legal contract side of it – if they want to say a man and a dog are civilly united and have a legal status now normally associated with marriage , then it’s on them.

This concession AND responsibility should be taken by the churches because I GUARANTEE YOU that sooner or later, this tactic – taken by well meaning folks – of wrangling government to enforce spiritual dogma where marriage is concerned, is going to BACKFIRE in a big way.
Then a homosexual couple will not only demand to be married by the clergy of their choice, they’ll be able to demand voting membership in any church and they’ll dictate what is preached – and that will be the law of the land.
You don’t get credit for being a martyr where no martyr is needed.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater August 19, 2012 at 06:30

Cohabitation and marriage are like global thermonuclear war: the only winning move is not to play.

Lila Rajiva August 21, 2012 at 17:08


Arranged marriages might not survive the onslaught of the neo-liberalization and the whole-sale importation of Western cultural mores.

There is now a burgeoning Indian porn industry, witness the rise of the comic character Savita bhabhi.

I agree that the women’s movement in many of its incarnations has become nothing more than corrupt.
But this corrupt feminism is only one change among many whose source isn’t culture at all, but economics.

We have a patronage system, not a free market, and in such a system the first recipients of government largesse are always going to keep voting in the patronage that puts them where they are.

Hilary White September 4, 2012 at 21:17

I see I have come to this conversation quite late in the day. Nevertheless, I hope for a response. I have spent the last several years making a living writing from a Christian perspective on all matters pertaining to the new socio-sexual dispensation visited upon us by the Sexual Revolution of my parents’ time. I have long maintained, contrary to the views of many of my colleagues, that it was not legalising contraception (pioneered by the Anglicans in 1930) but the loosening of divorce laws much earlier, that started the snowball bouncing down the hill. My parents were among the first to take up the call to “emancipate” themselves from marriage, and I was among the earliest kids of my generation to have divorced parents – by the time I was four. But because I lived on the West Coast of Canada and it was the ’70s, we were at Ground Zero for the Revolution so the plague had spread to nearly everyone I knew by the time I was finished with elementary school at 12. At that time, there were no such things as Provincial Family Responsibility Offices (yes, I kid you not!) that would chase and harrass men, taking their entire income from them. At that time, it really was true that the easy divorce law (brought in by the darling of the left Pierre Eliot Trudeau) did not account for the large number of women who would be left to raise a child without an income. My father was ordered by a judge to pay $50 a month child support, which he did a few times but then quit. My mother did not have the means to take him to court, so that was the end of it. I give this background to establish that I am not talking merely as a theorist.

I do not believe that the feminist/sexual revolutionary solution, of the state taking the place of a husband, and pauperising men (yes, I’ve known some good men who have been totally destroyed by this iniquitous system.) I think the only solution to the whole mess is the one thing that our despicable societies will never do, and that is to abolish the laws that have devalued marriage in law. The entire mess, men being destroyed, women being abandoned, children being raised by the state, can only be addressed by going back to the root cause. But our society is so addicted to sexual excess that we will never do that.

Your solution, of binding civil legal contracts in marriage is one that I think needs to be explored, since the state will no longer support genuine marriage. However, there is one voice against it that I think should be taken into account. As usual, it is the Catholic Church (the one bastion left in the world, it seems, who is advocating a wholesale return to sexual sanity as a wholistic proposal) that says such contracts would automatically invalidate a marriage. Pre-nuptial agreements are forbidden to Catholics because to contract a sacramental (that is, “valid”) marriage, the two parties must both be fully intending to enter into the bond for life. A pre-nuptial agreement automatically assumes that the marriage is open to legal dissolution. If either or both of the parties can be shown to have the intention to quit the arrangement, then the Church holds that there has never been a marriage to begin with (since there must be correct intention to confect the sacrament) and it is annuled (which means declared never to have existed.)

But I think you are correct in thinking that the existing rules for marriage fail to take into account the drastically changed circumstances of the post-revolutionary world. I am not a canonist (merely a lowly observer and journalist) so I do not know if there is anything on this subject being discussed in Catholic circles, but I would be interested in hearing your take on this Catholic connundrum.

Respond by email if you wish.

ChewyBees September 21, 2012 at 22:06

Are we still missing the point? All of this talk of contract is a good step forward, as it does take away the direct wording of the marriage license which binds the State (although fraudulently) to the union. No matter the means of agreement, under this current system of equity, the state is going to worm its way into the lives of people and take their life force energy no matter what.

As long as people are not true to their word they will be in hell. No matter the outcome of the divorce, fair terms, or one person steals everything from the other, both parties are in hell. How can you not be in hell if your entire waking thought process is bent on harming others? Oh, you can put on airs, but hell is hell and those that purposely harm others are in hell, no matter the financial conditions or any other bullshit they put forward as their superior lifestyle.

The whole idea behind marriage and divorce is twisted and wrong. People claim to love others yet do nothing but try to encapsulate and control another’s every action to suit their own comfort zone. This is why marriage (and any other relationship) fails. One person decides that the life the other is living just isn’t good enough, and therefore gives themselves permission to shit all over everything. In the end, they are only smearing the excrement on themselves. A stinky hell to live in.

Evie October 12, 2012 at 22:32

I am a young woman commenting. Some of you may find that weird but I firmly believe that feminism has made men scared of asking women out, which is usually a healthy first step towards finding out if someone is right for you for marriage. At my university, the professors would always frame men as bad and they constantly bash traditional families and anything heterosexual and normal, especially male sexuality as misconduct or harrassment which is ridiculous because its not harrassment 100% of the time, maybe like 16%. I think this creates a culture where guys think twice about asking a woman out. It takes enough courage and guts as it is without all the hyped up negativity. I think that people in higher places want to create a world of homosexuality and single parenthood and get rid of the traditional family. And yes, divorce is really sad. I lived through it.

A female commenter October 13, 2012 at 13:01

Back up a bit in the comments, someone mentioned the issue being the advent of “no-fault” divorce. I absolutely agree. I will presently be divorced twice. No one got screwed royally (I have always worked, and there are no children), but I actually do believe that the at fault party should be penalized. Be it the man or the woman. Being the innocent party in both, it is shameful that things are treated just as, oh well, it just didn’t work out. No fault divorce has made a sham of marriage, and effectively abolished it as anything meaningful in the eyes of the State. The only reason I marry is for deeply held religious reason, but if I should do it again, I think there will be some sort of contractual arrangement for fault. And I don’t know whether it was on this site or one linked to from here, I didn’t demand some extravagant wedding or honeymoon. I got, but didn’t demand, a very expensive diamond, but even though the law doesn’t require this, I am giving it back at the finalization of the divorce.

The advice not to marry may be sound for some, but for those who are conservative in their faith of the major world religions, that is not an option— though most people who “claim” to be Christian (using that as an example as that is what I am), have sex before marriage. Well actions speak louder than words. For the few of us who still do believe that our faith dictates chastity before marriage, not getting married is not an option, but what the state offers is a sham.

A female commenter October 13, 2012 at 14:52

Oh I wanted to add, that I do sympathize with men in community property states. To automatically just say 50/50 is judicial and governmental cowardice. (I sympathize with women in those states as well that perhaps are in a role reversal and are the primary breadwinners and bought the house etc, but generally, let’s be honest, it is the man). My best advice to everyone, is to follow strict non-marital division of assets. That is what I did in my present marriage. My house in is my name only, and he never paid anything towards its maintenance nor the mortgage. We had totally separate bank accounts and never intermingled funds. You choose to ignore this to your peril. (We both owned our own homes btw, and I seek nothing that was his prior to marriage, and he seeks nothing of mine prior to marriage— and I am giving back for ethical reasons the ring, which the law should require, but doesn’t).

Anyways, I disagree heavily with some of the anti-women comments made, but I do find common ground on the resonance of the need for marriage reform, and would not have commented but for the one comment I saw on no-fault marriage. I do not believe homosexual marriage should be recognized by the state, but for those who oppose it for religious reasons, but say nothing about the abomination that is no-fault divorce, which goes against every major world religion tradition and scripture (of which I am aware), well that is hypocrisy. If we don’t care about how much the state has screwed up heterosexual marriage, we shouldn’t open our mouths on homosexual marriage…. in my opinion. I have considered getting a law degree simply to assist in campaigning for the repeal of no-fault divorce. I think New York is the only state which still has a track for fault divorce. I would love to hear if other states do as well. I also saw comments here about common-law marriage. Is that still in practice in the US? I was under the impression that it was abolished. I know it is in my state (not a community property, but an equitable distribution state—– but what is “equitable” is highly subjective, don’t trust your finances to the fickle court system!)

Sarah November 3, 2012 at 13:11

Here in the UK, we might as well not get married at all. It doesn’t come with any protections or different laws to a cohabiting partnership, and it has become nothing but a product of consumerism. It’s all about the pretty dress, the party, the cake, the honeymoon and the couple’s momentary feelings of infatuation. The husband and wife are not given any written obligations to one another and as you said, can opt out at any time. When one party decides to opt out, it causes pain and suffering to other and of course to the children and it often causes at least one party and the children financial hardship. People need to realise we cannot have a ‘free’ totally individualist society. We need boundaries, rules and morals and we need to work together and be for each other as well as ourselves. Community spirit went down the toilet with feminism. Now it’s all ‘me, me, me, I am such an individual’. I don’t want my children making some of the same poor choices I made as a very young woman because society feeds them the wrong messages. Parents now have little control over what their children are exposed to and with our nanny state child abuse has no definition anymore. You can have your children taken into care for putting them in odd socks these days. The family unit has gone down the drain and feminism has let off a huge set of chain reactions.

jonesy November 3, 2012 at 19:49

as i get older i start to realise that the old ways might have been best. ladies were courted by gentlemen and protected by their families. i believe both parties were able to make good decisions because they knew no sex was coming until marriage; therefore, they actually got to know one another first and families had a say in the decision. i’m sure they weren’t all perfect but seems to me that under the binding social contract, most were content with their lives and put their families first instead of themselves.

i bought into the feminist myth in my youth but reality has shown me that it really turned out to be detrimental for women instead of empowering. i’m also really sad for the men that have been screwed over; please know that we are not all like that.

Allie November 6, 2012 at 14:06

I don’t think that reforming marriage is the answer. I think that when deciding to marry, both parties should treat it as the serious decision it is.

Before I got married my husband and I both discussed our plans for the future, what was a “deal breaker” for us, and other various issues.

We both went into our marrige with the understanding that this is permanant. Neither him or myself went into it with the ” oh, if it doesn’t work we will just get a divorce” mentality.

That’s the real problem. If you are not sure, then don’t do it. If the idea of divorce is anywhere in your mind, don’t do it.

Marriage should be a show of love and commitment to each other.

Mark January 10, 2013 at 05:37

Here’s a liitle story for you;

It should be noted that here in the UK our “family courts” are “non-discriminatory” of genda. Ha.

My parents split when I was 22, but my mother was foolish enough to marry again some years later, when she had just turned 50, to man 5 years younger, who almost literally didn’t have a pot to p*ss in when he moved into her flat (he was immediately sued for rent arrears by his former landlord)..

He turned out to be a gambler (the horses), rarely earned enough to pay income tax (self-employed “cabaret artist” – a wannabe “star”), became physically abusive within a couple of years (caused a detached retina in her left eye with a savage open-handed slap at one point), was insolvent twice and finally bankrupted (my mother bailed him out the first time, after 5 years of marriage by mortgaging the flat for 10 years), but nevertheless he remained esconsed like a sitting tenant for nearly 19 years before he was removed (for a second time) by the police and an exclusion order imposed on him.

For several years prior to that he had baldly stated that if my mother coughed up ÂŁ20K he would leave.

That was in 2007. He has subsequently pursued a successful action in the “family courts” (after being granted ‘legal aid’ for the purpose) for his “share” of the “marital assets”, which means the “marital home” – my mother’s flat – in which he made precisely ZERO financial or material investment.

In the first instance this iniquitous institution awarded him ÂŁ50K (more money than he’s EVER seen), to be raised by ‘equity release’ from my mother’s decrepit property which is worth no more than ÂŁ135K .

Bear in mind that my mother has no income other than her state pension.

The judge simply listened to both their “stories”, which included the little sh*t’s assertion that he had “kept the property to a high standard” during the marriage and that it is a “desirable property” worth “ÂŁ180K” (it’s nowhere NEAR that), never deigning to ask for ANY documentary evidence, from either party.

After several more hearings the court accepted that there is no way my mother could raise 50K (without selling up), and the award was reduced to 35K, which still hasn’t been paid and has grown to ÂŁ42K courtesy of the mandatory interest accrued over nearly 4 years.

The ex is currently trying to get an “amendment to the Proprietership Register” at the Land Registry – i.e. to have his name put on the deeds -with a view to having her removed (evicted) and overseeing the sale of flat.

It’s just unbelievable, and I sometimes feel as if a fire-bombing campaign might be the only answer.

Kurt July 28, 2014 at 03:26

Discussions like this is makes it crystal clear to me why Im a MGTOW and not an MRA. Archaic institutions like marriage is FAR beyond “reform”.
The only winning move is to refuse to play the game.


Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }