One of the best anti-marriage papers Ive read

[Kroliczek]

It's refreshing to see this response from a woman (or so I think lol). Unfortunately not every woman thinks this way.

Yasmina clearly insinuated that it's okay for a woman to take a man for all he's worth as a form of revenge should the marriage fail and she feels the man did not live up to his expectations.

Velvett you agreed with Yasmina's post, which means you agree with women taking men to the cleaners should they fail in some aspect of the marriage? Is this correct? If so, what is the basis for your decision?

lol. I am definitely a woman. Don't ask me for proof.

For me it's not about being a man or a woman, it's about being a decent human being. Revenge is evil. You get what you deserve and I believe in fairness.

 

[wutangnomo]

Then as a man with a penis don't fucking breed - then you won't "get screwed".

So you would screw a man over because you can? I see.

 

[velvett]

Velvett you agreed with Yasmina's post, which means you agree with women taking men to the cleaners should they fail in some aspect of the marriage? Is this correct? If so, what is the basis for your decision?

I agree with parts of it.

This article is smudging women’s reputation. It is no news that men do not want to get married early on or at all for that matter (they want to play around find the right women blah blah blah). BUT SO DO MANY WOMEN - (we need to have fun and find the right guy too). I have met a lot of men who do not want to get married and a lot more women who do not either, for various reasons. Women who don’t want to get married (or form a commitment) is because they are very stable, have all they need to survive –career, money, house great family and friend support. And do not need some anyone’s riches – so guys relax. We do not have a hidden agenda to get you or your hard earned cash, house, cars etc – women are capable to have that stuff too deriving from their honest occupation.

SNIP...........
”The odds are nearly 40 to 1 of the wife winning physical custody.””

It has the potential for unfairness but it is not stable for a child to move back and forth from one residence to another while they are young plus women are the primary care givers. And visiting rights will be interfered with if the man will speak badly of the mother to his children destroying her reputation, is a molester, is abusive, he is a drunk, if he has no time to look after them because he works to pay for their alimony. Alimony will be paid because the man contributed in making that child anyway – so take responsibility people and do not winged. Plus life is not cheap these days. In addition if you made a child then provide enough so he/she does not have to become a bum and become a burden on society because daddy had no cash (or was unwilling to provide enough) to send him to school. So the scope of the legislation wants to reach some foreseeable possible future situations here, hence alimony is imposed so high.

If you have noticed MW does not in any shape or form admit in the article to any wrong done by the men in the relationship. Is he saying they are faultless?? Hard to believe. It is all blamed on the woman. If you have any logic then you would question the validity of this article.

By the way pre-nup agreements should be signed by both women and men.

Just to make it clear lots of guys are fantastic and I am not against them I am just against people who point the finger at others, do not think logically and do not present the facts from both sides.

*********************************************************

My parents have been married for 38 years, my father forbid my mother to work because he didn't want to look like he could not provide and in doing so he ended up resenting her for it (clearly anyone would, this man has been working 16 hours days for nearly 40 years). They have been toying with divorce for years and from 98-2003 they tried, 4 sets (maybe 5 I lost count) of lawyers between them they could not come to a deciding ground. I'm the only child so there are no custody issues as I'm 35 years old.

Suffolk County judge already decided that all their properties here and abroad are to be sold and the value of all their paper assets are to be split 50/50. My father would rather die miserable than give half to my mother and my mother - I assume she's waiting for him to die.

Because of their situation - she should get half of everything. I wish they would divorce and try and enjoy the rest of their lives - it's really quite sad.

You certainly can not compare that to a working couple that has been married for 7 years, with 2/3 kids and can't stand sight of each other anymore, have irreconcilable differences or adultery problems.


And since YOU missed it:

You can’t lump all divorces into a single category, there are different states of marriage and different factors that would changes the possible progression and outcome of a divorce. While I must admit I don’t envy the position of a man that’s the bread winner in a marriage turning to divorce with children involved I have to demand not to held dammed as a female for someone else’s sour outcome just because I have a vagina and not a penis.

I understand the apprehension that these men state that they feel but not all women are out to destroy the man and it would be nice if a man look beyond his own sex to realize that they are women out there just as “apprehensive”. There has been a change a rather large change from the generation prior to mine to the current one and it is not a good one.

The concept of family, respect, devotion and compassion has become damaged

 

[geminitwins]

while i dont agree that a woman has the right to her husbands property merely because she was married to him, there are certain situations where she is entitled to alimony.
I believe that if she has custody of the children, she should get financial support for them. In addition, a marriage sometimes is a partnership where without one party, the other may not have achieved financial success. Is it fair then that after helping someone to attain this one should get nothing merely because your name is not on the property or whatnot?

If the woman is a professional in her own right and making okay money, the only thing she should get as far as I'm concerned should be support for the kids should she get custody. The fact that she had a certain standard of living while married doesnt mean her ex should support it.

If she was a housewife during the marriage, and she has custody of the children is where it becomes tricky. On the one hand, she was entirely dependent on the man and if he was okay with it, its not fair for him to expect her to support herself immediately after the divorce. On the other hand, it is also not fair for her to expect the man to support her forever. The kids yes, her no.

 

[velvett]

So you would screw a man over because you can? I see.

WTF are you talking about?
You misunderstood what I said.


Try again.

YOU SAID:

Originally Posted by wutangnomo
It is also a no-brainer (and I don't need statistical evidence to prove this) that the woman has a MUCH HIGHER chance then the man of retaining custody of the children simply because she has a vagina. In this case, having a penis gets us screwed, wouldn't you agree?

I SAID:

Then as a man with a penis don't fucking breed - then you won't "get screwed".

Which means - if you don't want to marry and have kids make sure you wear a condom so you don't have an accident and have to lose you "hard earned money" paying child support.



Don't drag me into your female hate because YOUR EX-FIANCE screwed you over and take out your anger on me instead of her.

 

[wutangnomo]

My parents have been married for 38 years, my father forbid my mother to work because he didn't want to look like he could not provide and in doing so he ended up resenting her for it (clearly anyone would, this man has been working 16 hours days for nearly 40 years). They have been toying with divorce for years and from 98-2003 they tried, 4 sets (maybe 5 I lost count) of lawyers between them they could not come to a deciding ground. I'm the only child so there are no custody issues as I'm 35 years old.

Suffolk County judge already decided that all their properties here and abroad are to be sold and the value of all their paper assets are to be split 50/50. My father would rather die miserable than give half to my mother and my mother - I assume she's waiting for him to die.

Because of their situation - she should get half of everything. I wish they would divorce and try and enjoy the rest of their lives - it's really quite sad.

You certainly can not compare that to a working couple that has been married for 7 years, with 2/3 kids and can't stand sight of each other anymore, have irreconcilable differences or adultery problems.

And since YOU missed it:

You're right it is sad. I'm sorry for your situation. I'm lucky because my parents just celebrated last week their 43rd anniversary. Your case is different though because the article Weeks is writing about pertains moreso to couple in this generation (not older couples) though I am assuming.

 

[wutangnomo]

WTF are you talking about?
You misunderstood what I said.

Try again.

YOU SAID:

I SAID:

Which means - if you don't want to marry and have kids make sure you wear a condom so you don't have an accident and have to lose you "hard earned money" paying child support.

I know what you said and I know what I said. You clearly don't understand my point and have not done anything to refute Weeks' article. That is, after all, the point of this thread is WEEKS' article.

I'll try one last time. If a man falls in love with a woman, they get married and have kids (like good ole' couples do), then should they divorce (for whatever reasons) it is more likely that the MAN will lose custody of his children even if he is a GOOD/GREAT father. Weeks is talking about the apprehension of men to marry and this is one of the reasons why.

Who the hell is talking about having kids while not married??? Whatever you are rambling about is going off on a tangent and not doing anything to REFUTE Weeks' article.

Don't drag me into your female hate because YOUR EX-FIANCE screwed you over and take out your anger on me instead of her.

You're right I did get screwed over by her, but I do not hate women. I may be in a fiery say-what's-on-my-mind attitude lately, but I do not hate anyone. If there is something I agree with then I'll say it. Just look at Mattskywalker's thread in which everyone was crucifying the woman he dated, but I defended her. Moreover, I am not taking anything out on you, I'm merely debating as this is an interesting thread and I do enjoy a good exchange of intellect (keeps me thinking ya know). If you feel I'm taking something out on you I sincerely apologize.

ps... That was a cheap shot, but I was expecting you to use it sooner or later.

 

[puddlemonkey]

Then as a man with a penis don't fucking breed - then you won't "get screwed".

I have no plans on having kids, but that statement reminded me of this girl I work with. For starters, I know this because she told a close friend of hers, who happens to be a close friend of mine. This girl was dating a guy she'd met through another co-worker. They were sexually active, and as they agreed she was on the pill. Well, this girl is nearly 30, and somewhat fearful she'll never get married. So one night she was talking with her boyfriend and asked, "what would you do if I ever got pregnant?". She played it off as just a hypothetical question. He replied with, "I'd do the right thing, I'd marry you". Hhhhmmm, odd that a few months later she got pregnant. She confessed to our friend that she stopped taking the pill shortly after he said he'd marry her if she got pregnant. He still doesn't know that she stopped taking the pill, he just thinks they fell into that one percent or whatever the odds are. They're married now, both appear to be very unhappy (not to mention broke), and my co-workers are taking bets on how long it will last before they are divorced.

 

[velvett]

I have no plans on having kids, but that statement reminded me of this girl I work with. For starters, I know this because she told a close friend of hers, who happens to be a close friend of mine. This girl was dating a guy she'd met through another co-worker. They were sexually active, and as they agreed she was on the pill. Well, this girl is nearly 30, and somewhat fearful she'll never get married. So one night she was talking with her boyfriend and asked, "what would you do if I ever got pregnant?". She played it off as just a hypothetical question. He replied with, "I'd do the right thing, I'd marry you". Hhhhmmm, odd that a few months later she got pregnant. She confessed to our friend that she stopped taking the pill shortly after he said he'd marry her if she got pregnant. He still doesn't know that she stopped taking the pill, he just thinks they fell into that one percent or whatever the odds are. They're married now, both appear to be very unhappy (not to mention broke), and my co-workers are taking bets on how long it will last before they are divorced.

If I were a man I would never trust a girl about birth control - unfortunate but true - birth control has to be two way.

I know quite a few men that have been suckered that way.

 

[velvett]

Who the hell is talking about having kids while not married??? Whatever you are rambling about is going off on a tangent and not doing anything to REFUTE Weeks' article.

It certainly does. But my comment about that stemmed from this:

Originally Posted by wutangnomo
It is also a no-brainer (and I don't need statistical evidence to prove this) that the woman has a MUCH HIGHER chance then the man of retaining custody of the children simply because she has a vagina. In this case, having a penis gets us screwed, wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps we should count up the amount of men right here on EF that are getting married or have gotten married just this year because of pregnancy? (no offense guys)

ps... That was a cheap shot, but I was expecting you to use it sooner or later.

Yah, you bet it was and I'm sorry to hurt your feelings with it but it sure did get your attention, no? And what you thought happened - shows no record of that I could find.