Anyone pull off LTR without marriage??

[LiveFreeX]

In the meantime men, enjoy the freedom the women unwillingly gave you, until further laws place a stronger boot upon your neck to support women and their demands for fully optimized hypergamy.

This should read 'In the meantime men waste their time by staying with American women and playing with financial ruin by dating the wh0res of the apocalypse.' What is the male equivalent of a wh0re of the apocalypse? The morally bankrupt, backstabbing male. The decline corrupts and ruins your soul the more you stay with it. Becoming cynical, cautious and hateful of children and women, this is what the enemy of man wants and you are playing right into their hand. Eventually you will become a stone devoid of love and incapable of having or giving it.

Enjoying the decline means participating in it.

Do you not notice how the characters of men are fading away? Participating in this madness, however small, can only lead to more madness. Eventually all you will be left with is glutinous hateful and morally bankrupt blobs who believe their narcissism is right and true. There you have America.

.

 

[VikingKing]

One thing the women who "freed" themselves from the bondage of domestic duties never considered......that they would in turn free men from their duties as well.

Women wanted to be able to have all of the benefits of both sexes, but still have the expectation men would perform the same functions for them.

Many women are now finding out, they were wrong. When one side rejects their portion of the social contract, men too have the power to reject their portion, despite the plethora of "man up and marry" shaming attempts we see daily and even among people on this board.

If women want the benefits of marriage, then they need to push for the restoration of benefits to the men. The first step in this direction is to fix the family courts, but I doubt that will happen for as long as it creates money for the "family court complex".

In the meantime men, enjoy the freedom the women unwillingly gave you, until further laws place a stronger boot upon your neck to support women and their demands for fully optimized hypergamy.

Which is way "independent" "successful" women are the most miserable group of people in society. Especially when they waste all that time until their youth is gone, and realize they are not desired very much or by the type of men they want to attract. In turn they turn to misandry and the hate cult that is feminism.

 

[Tenacity]

LiveFreeX,

Your continued recommendation to marry a foreign chick, again, is a bad solution. The issue with marriage to be honest, isn't really truly THE WOMAN...the issue is that the marriage and divorce laws are outdated.

I think it's human nature for some people to change, go bat shyt, or acquire mental disorders as they go through life because life is not some Disney Fairy Tale. Sometimes, fvcked up things happen to good people, and it will cause you to flip out.

A foreign chick can change in 5 years just as an American chick can. What I'm arguing is that the laws need to reflect the updated society where women are liberated to acquire their own income, assets and career ambitions. The laws reflect pre-women's liberation which makes absolutely NO SENSE. Again, there out to be outrage in the streets.

The new laws need to be as follows:

- You want to get married, go sign up downtown and get married. Included with the Marriage Agreement is an Asset Management breakdown where all assets are separated into pools. His pool, Her pool and Joint pool. There's no confusion, there's no lawyer needed, nothing needed called a pre-nup with its "pseudo" insurance, nothing.

- 5 years from now, you both or one of you believe that you want out of the marriage for ANY reason. If you can't work it out, you go back downtown, sign another piece of paper, and you both leave. The assets in his pool he takes, in her pool she takes, and in the joint account it's split 50/50. That's it, no long drawn out trials, nothing.

For children, this is how it should be whether you marry or not:

- 50/50 joint custody if the mother and father don't live together. That means the child is with the Father 50% of the time and with the Mother 50% of the time. That's 3 days with him, 3 days with her, and on Sunday one gets them for half of the day and the other for the other half.

- 50/50 joint expenses of the child are paid for between both parents. The expenses are limited ONLY to the needs of the child and basic entertainment. If you WANT to provide more you can, but it's not mandated. That should be about $15,000 a year per child in a low cost of living area, in a higher cost of living area like NYC that might be about $30,000. One parent pays 50% and the other pays 50%.

- If one of the parents are NOT paying their 50% share, then we go to Court. The Judge orders them to pay their 50% share or if they don't make enough to pay it, then provide them with assistance to help pay for it or reduce down the expenses of the child.

Why can't the system just be like this? That's all I want. That's fair and balanced. A child is not entitled to 25% - 35% of the gross income of a parent because that parent is the one with the master's, the work experience, the network, etc. It's hogwash and creates a HIGH sense of entitlement within the child rather than a strong character.

Keep in mind, MOST parents would give more to their child anyway in the form of either more entertainment or investment accounts (trust funds, college savings, etc) so this crap does NOT have to be regulated by the Government. All that ends up happening is that instead of the Father sending those excessive payments to the child's COLLEGE FUND....it's going to this Chick and she's spending it either on wigs, purses and casinos....or on some sorry, piece of shyt thug who lays on her couch paying Xbox1 all day. The child grows up with NO damn trust fund and NO damn college fund. It's hogwash!

 

[Colossus]

Funny how one of the biggest names in Game writing has been married 18 years.....yeah I know, n=1, but food for thought.

From his blog:

16) How is married life going for you so far?

18 years on July 20th. I’ve only ever written a couple of direct posts about my marriage, but that’s mostly due to my not wanting men to view it as some model to aspire to. I understand my circumstance aren’t what most guy’s are, personally, family or career-wise, but I don’t for a minute believe I married the elusive unicorn of a woman.

I love Mrs. Tomassi more than anything in this world, we’re a very good match, and red pill awareness has only accented that good match. And for the record, yes, Mrs. Tomassi occasionally reads what I write here and has read my book.

 

[LiveFreeX]

I forgot, Americans know everything.

 

[Tenacity]

Lol, you guys are making these emotional responses. Please with logic and reason debunk some of the points I'm making on how screwed the system is, as well as the lack of forecasting capabilities that a man has today to predict if a woman will "change" after the marriage contract is executed?

 

[Kailex]

The problem with the Rollo's in this world (Not that HE is a problem), is the fact that marriages like his are becoming more of the exception than the norm. And don't we state here that the exception is what proves that the rule exists in the first place?

I've dated women who point blank told me that once they married, they'd cut their hair short.

That they'd stop caring about their weight.

That they'd stop having as much sex.

Etc, etc, etc...

So all of a sudden, I have women blatantly telling me that they are going to decrease their market value and accelerate their depreciation if I sign a legal binding contract? What's in it for me then? I've already got a LOT to lose. I want to lose more?

This is appalling and it just shows that women are beginning to become aware of two things:

(1) They know they have ALL of the advantages in marriage
(2) They know if I won't stand for their "terms and conditions", they'll just log back into Tinder or POF or Match and find some desperate jackass who will.

I love to think that for every one of "me" out there, there's a dent being placed into this whole "marriage" movement, but the reality is that there are 20 more men willing to jump at the chance to bed these women and gamble on their financial, emotional, and sexual lives.

Why play the odds when I can just walk away from the table?

 

[Colossus]

Colossus,




Three points.

1. The above is the key phrase in all of that which you quote. Let us not forget the "observer effect". How many men here would post something potentially damaging to their relationship if they knew their wife were reading the material?
2. Also let us remember, married for 18 years. So the marriage occurred before peak divorce-rape was in motion.
3. Lastly, let us finish with a very recent post by Mr. Tomassi himself.

So what if you buy a cow that has never been milked? Negates that argument. Also divorce rape was alive and well 18 years ago, but I'll grant you not as severe.

Tenacity the "forecasting" point is ridiculous. You may as well cry there's no crystal ball to predict the future. Marriage has inherent risks, always has and always will. I GET that the kicker is divorce-rape culture in the courts, but has a well-crafted pre-nup been addressed? No, just "they don't always work". Helpful.

Like I said I'm no champion for marriage, and we all have differing views here. But the no-marriage crew here is so categorically against a legal union that you guys wont even entertain the possibility of a positive outcome. TLDR for no-marriage crew: "It all could go to sh!t one day. Just trust us."

And beyond our own opinions, I haven't really seen much in the way of legitimate evidence to back up these claims that men have no benefit to gain from a marriage. Where are the studies demonstrating social and emotional benefits of not marrying?? I gave DATA to support my argument; all I got back was opinions. And don't take the easy way out by just saying the "data is bunk or biased", show me your own data to refute it.

 

[Desdinova]

a functioning, cooperative, child-rearing environment being the only evident ‘advantage’ marriage offers men

This isn't even necessarily true...

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/154860588/single-dads-by-choice-more-men-going-it-alone

If I didn't already have a child, this would be my option. Why the fvck should I risk my kid's mom fvcking up his masculinity (or her femininity) and have a chunk of my paycheck removed when I could be the ONLY parent who ensures that the child gets the values he or she needs to become a successful adult?

As a side note, I have a side job transferring videos to DVD. I just received a wedding video sprawled across three tapes. I sat and watched the ceremony and thought to myself that the whole thing seems so ancient. I mean, the vows, the wedding dress, the speech, and signing the legal documents with the feather pen. When I think about it all, it seems completely out-of-place with the rest of society and feminism. The only thing I can understand is the celebration afterwards.

As a second side note, the marriage is failing. They've tried counselling which hasn't worked. I think the entire purpose of transferring the video to DVD, aside from the fact they don't own a VCR, is to watch it again hoping that it will help rekindle the flame.

Fine by me, I'm getting paid to help ignite a dead candle.

 

[Kailex]

The possibility for a positive outcome absolutely exists. The anti-marriage crew does not dispute that.

Bingo.

My sentiment exactly. I know there is a possibility of a positive outcome. The odds are just forever NOT in my favor.

I would love to say that I am going to get married to a wonderful woman who will be there with me, by my side for 30+ years and we'll die together. The chances of that happening are slim.

Just as I would love to say that I am going to work for the same company for 30 years, retire, and have my safety net pension and live out my golden years in a warm and sunny place. That chances of that happening are slim too.

If it WERE to happen with a woman, the bar would be set so high, that I'd absolutely make sure she qualified to be marriage material. That would take quite the time to establish and in a generation of "Now, now, now" due to increased availability of options and reduced attention spans, that almost seems highly unlikely to happen. If it does, it'll be a welcome addition to my life, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

I think you'd find that the non-marriage crew could very well be split into two: Those who would never get married because they simply don't believe marriage is worth it, and those who would never get married because they simply don't believe that the risk is worth it.

The line is pretty slim, but it is two completely different groups.

 

[Tenacity]

Colossus,

I posted stats and data earlier on in this thread, not sure what you meant by the statement of you not having received any opposing data?

You just desperately want to defend the institution of marriage, which is fine, defend away.....what you CAN'T defend is the fact that the system is flawed. Matter of fact, you recognize that it's flawed for the simple reason that you want to amend the standard marriage contract with a pre-nup.

You recognize that it's flawed because you have noted that you are AWARE of the risks. Well, let me ask you Colossus, where do you think those "risks" come from? It's NOT the woman....it's the system. It's NOT that the woman wants to screw you over, it's the fact that the LAW allows her to. A thief wants to take assets from me as well, but the LAW doesn't allow them the ability to do it.

Guys like me are trying to REFORM the system Colossus, as long as guys like you keep OPTING in to this system, then it will never get reformed. All we want (guys like me) is a fair and balanced SYSTEM. That's it. It's quite irrelevant that "not all marriages ends this way," the fact is that I broke down earlier that TOO MANY end this way and the system once they end is horrible. We want damn reform.....

 

[LiveFreeX]

Tenacity: You will fix nothing, you are part of the problem. The system is corrupted and collapsing and the only way to fix it is to get out and reboot. There is no miraculous 'eureka' moment coming, there is no way to patch the leak, there isn't anyone running in to save us. It will continue on its current course until there is absolutely nothing stable left, the nation's demise is at hand.

Reform isn't coming. Find those who hate the west and marry their women, go mercenary. The West is broken, the support is falling out from under us and no amount of MGTOWs are going to fix it, not with all the crying, whining and abstaining. Some nation will be taking over as super power when we are gone, why pledge your remaining time and allegiance to a pleasurable disease that is going to wipe out everything you ever loved and worked for, why when the vaccine is just a stone's throw away?

What man can march in defense of the West when our own women march against us? This isn't a fight you can win, the enemy is a part of you.

 

[Tenacity]

Live Free I'm totally lost on what you are talking about.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Live Free I'm totally lost on what you are talking about.

I know.

 

[Desdinova]

Marriage isn't defined by the love between two people. It is defined by the divorce system. Back when marriages were successful, couples were forced to abide by the vows. Now that we have no-fault divorces, wedding vows are a fart in the wind. Nobody gets punished for fvcking up their vows. Marriage has been deemed useless by the divorce system.

 

[Tenacity]

Social Leper,

Again, I must repeat, there is NO such thing as an iron clad Pre-Nup. It's not insurance against the marriage ending people. Don't take my word on it, go speak with a couple Family Law Attorneys.

It's just an additional amendment to the marriage contract that states how assets "should be divided" at the end of the marriage...but it's up to the JUDGE at the time of the end of the marriage to determine if it will stand up or not. The Pre-Nup could very well be thrown in the garbage by a skilled Attorney arguing that it's too loopsided, unfair to the spouse AT THE TIME of the end of the marriage, etc.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/04/02/five-reasons-your-prenup-might-be-invalid/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stann-givens/when-a-prenup-gets-thrown_b_5542093.html

 

[Augustus_McCrae]

Here are some thoughts on potential liabilities even if you have an ironclad prenup. Bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer, but I painfully learned ($60,000 in
lawyer fees) some of the realities of divorce during the multi-year ordeal I suffered through.

Just by nature of being married, you are placing yourself under the rules regarding marriage in your state. You cannot legally get away from this woman without permission of the state. Think about that for a moment and internalize the reality of that.

Now, imagine that she's pissed off and bitter (a woman being pissed off and bitter? never happens...). And she decides to challenge everything, to
drag out the divorce as long as possible, and on top of that, to make false allegations against you (as my ex did). What type of allegations you may
ask?

The worst one my ex made was "misappropriation of marital funds". Which in layman's terms means this: She said I took $100,000 of marital assets
and used them for something that was not in support of the marriage. There was absolutely no evidence of this (because I didn't do it) but I still had to engage my lawyer about this (understand that every phone call and email with your lawyer costs money. My lawyer charged $250 an hour) so I could defend myself. One of the ways to defend yourself against this is to produce documentation that shows where the money went. One way to do that is to hire a "forensic accountant" to do the work. I don't have any idea how much that costs, but I would imagine it's huge bucks. So, with the guidance of my lawyer (again, the clock is ticking. $$$). I produced the paperwork myself to save money. And trust me, this was hours and hours of pain and grief. The judge ruled that I didn't do it, but it cost me thousands of dollars and hour and hours of agony to defend myself against it.

Here's another potential instance that I don't know if a prenup covers: My ex intentionally unemployed herself during the later years of the marriage so
she could potentially get more alimony. So, guys, how do you prove that your ex has intentionally unemployed herself? You have to consult with your
lawyer (again, $$$). Then You have to hire an employment specialist (again, $$$) to interview your ex and give her a battery of tests. That employment specialist then produces documentation that's used as evidence at Trial (yes, I had to pay to have the employment specialist at trial. again, $$$) to help prove that your ex is capable of earning a certain level of salary. This is known as "Imputed income". The judge ruled that my ex was capable of making 30K a year.

These two instances are only a part of what I endured during the divorce process.

So, how many of you even knew about this and knew that a pissed off ex could do this to you? I had never heard of "misappropriation of marital funds" or "imputed income". How many other weapons of mass destruction are available to a pissed off ex? See, the thing is, You don't even know, you have no idea... And understand, the system has these weapons of mass destruction built in to support this type of reckless, destructive behavior from a woman.

Imagine a scenario like this: You are caught in the steel gears of a massive, brutal money making machine that your ex (who now hates your guts) controls the lever of. She can pull the lever back and forth as many times as she wants and it just keeps grinding you up... That's what it feels like guys.

So again: Marriage anyone???

-Augustus-

 

[Colossus]

Great question. The risks of divorce rape will always be present. however, if she has never been milked, you have increased odds of a successful marriage.



Pre-nups do not address third parties. So she is pretty much guaranteed custody of the children and full monetary benefits as a result. So the one positive to getting married (raising kids), is linked directly to the largest disaster possible. Child-support rape.

Correct, and unfortunately child-support rape is a just as real of a possibility outside of a legal marriage. Just avoiding marriage does not offer you immunity in the event of children.

The possibility for a positive outcome absolutely exists. The anti-marriage crew does not dispute that.

What is in dispute is the return on those risks. In other words, what are the real benefits versus the risks? Not even close to high enough to justify it in my viewpoint.

Fair enough. Matter of opinion.

The data I gave back was not opinions, there were observations that your studies only showed benefits for women and society. The benefits to men were in no way able to show causality, just linkage. And anyone from this site should know that women will select healthier men for marriage, NOT that marriage makes a man healthier.

If you want to see the benefits of NOT marrying, just compare your divorced friends to your never married friends. You will without a doubt see the same general theme of destitution for the divorced and prosperity for the never married. Very, VERY few men get through divorce unscathed.

That's not really a logical comparison. There is no control. A better way to do it would be to look at X number of married vs never married men in the same age group, since we are essentially asking who is happier. Looking at divorced men (poor outcome) vs never married men (null because they never entered the marital equation) doesn't really tell us anything useful, because it's a given that a never married man probably has a higher level of happiness than a man recently divorced.

Your observations that there are no direct benefits to men are, again, a matter of opinion. True that these social studies cant really show direct causality, but I have still yet to see any data that shows correlation OR causality with regards to health and social benefits in never married men.

------------

Tenacity-

I am going to outline for you in simple format one last time why your ARGUMENTS (not your opinions) are weak:

1. The stats you gave us (2 links to CDC/Census Bureau divorce stats) only tell us what we already know---divorce is high and women typically initiate it. They don't bolster your stance that never marrying leads to a superior outcome.

2. You propose that the odds of a negative outcome (divorce and the possibility of divorce rape) are so high that they negate any potential benefits of marriage, and that all said benefits can be attained without marrying.

The first part of your thesis is your OPINION (because first marriages have a <50% divorce rate, meaning greater than 50/50 odds of success, and you cant really prove what percentage of divorces result in divorce "rape", as it were. All you have are anecdotes.)

Here is where the sauce gets really weak:

Your solution, never marrying and enjoying an endless stream of young women, replaceable at the first sign of duress, is incredibly shortsighted because not only is it unrealistic, it does not absolve you of all the risks you hate about marriage.

Allow me to elaborate:

As I stated previously, eventually you are going to meet a girl (or girls) you really, really like. When this happens, human nature takes over and you will naturally start making each other a bigger part of your lives. If you have shared property (whether you own it or you both own it), there can be legal issues. If you have a child together, you are just as much on the hook as if you were married!

So you can come back and say you will never do any such thing with a female---and maybe you wont---but this is incredibly unrealistic. I have yet to meet a female who would remain a permanent gf without an eventual increase in commitment, be it living together, or a pet, or a child, or even just something more meaningful than going over to your house twice a week to bang you. Say you decide to go back to school and she works while you are a student. Or say you help her pay off her car while she has an illness. There are a million different scenarios where your live become intertwined. So while you may not be on the hook as deeply as if you were married, all relationships eventually progress to a point where you will be assuming some of the risks of being a married couple.


Here are the take home messages:

Marriage has risks, there is no way around that. However, so do relationships in general. There are ways to mitigate these risks, but they can never all be eliminated or predicted. That's just life.

If you choose not to marry, totally fine. You do eliminate some risk of a nasty divorce. BUT---unless you manage to go though your entire life managing to never escalate beyond having a simple, entry-level girlfriend (incredibly unrealistic), you will eventually be assuming some, if not many, of the risks you so hate about marriage.

So what are the benefits of marriage then? Well, let's assume that the benefits I listed and substantiated earlier in the thread can all be had by simply cohabitating (at which point you assume marital risks anyways, negating your solution). If that is true, then marriage simply becomes a philosophical choice. There may be religious reasons, perhaps some legal reasons (military service, etc), or you may think like me that when you marry someone, the primary reason is to make them your family. This is purely a viewpoint, not any sort of fact or necessity. It's more of a symbolic commitment, and frankly could be done without a marriage license. But since this thread is about risks and benefits, we should all know by now that by living as if you were married to a woman poses many (and in some cases all) of the risks of actually being married. So, if you want to eliminate all risk, then just never have anything beyond a casual bang relationship (and let us know how that pans out).


Oh, and I'll make one prediction to go on record: I bet you, Tenacity, will be married within 5 years. If not I'll buy you a case of beer.


...and I'm out. :rockon:

 

[LiveFreeX]

that yes marrying raises your health or happiness.

I'll satisfy that for you: If you marry a woman from a 1st world country with a proper healthcare system (Canada, Japan, Australia, Britian, Brazil) etc etc. You get coverage, period. Seeing as you guys are all trapped in that privatized system, I would bet getting access to one of these systems would bring both better health and overall happiness. Marrying into several European countries will allow you or your children to obtain free education and certainly better education that the US can offer.

Finally marrying a woman from a different country offers you opportunities in said country which would not be available to you in your own country. Access to Jobs/ Affordable Real Estate/Better Economy/Superior Quality of Life/Softer attitude towards masculinity/Safer and more orderly country.

All of the above would bring better health and happiness and as an American, you are only privileged to that which is inside the border of the USA (a borderline 3rd world country). Dual Citizenship, try getting it without marriage.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Double post