One of the best anti-marriage papers Ive read

[hanselthecaretaker]

Wow, velvett's cleaning up this thread. Are your fingers tired yet from all this typing?

Whew.....

You go girl.

 

[velvett]

Wow, velvett's cleaning up this thread. Are your fingers tired yet from all this typing?

Whew.....

You go girl.

HAHHAHAHAHA

I'm gonna shut up now.







...uh, I guess I lied.

 

[wutangnomo]

God this thread is a mess now. It's no wonder you agreed with Yasmina lol.

Your original premise was that the guy is only 21, which you repeatedly mentioned. I'm still wondering what the heck your point of bringing that up was because the author is not trying to show that he knows it all (which is what you insinuated and the reason for your mention of his age repeatedly). The author is merely writing an article based on a lot of facts and data of a study conducted by others. That whole spiel about his age, career, etc is insignificant and has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand.

"...I have to demand not to held dammed as a female..."

Yeah I did read all your posts and yes this comment was not warranted because NOBODY is bashing/damning women, which is what you're implying here. Not Weeks in his article, not myself, not anybody. The "tone" of your posts indicated that this was a female bashing thread when in fact it never was.

From there it went downhill. Anyhow good thread.

Editing because I saw your edited post.... I never bashed you, nor twisted your words around. You clearly imply that because of Weeks' age his article lacks any relevancy since you assume he doesn't have the necessary life experience. You don't understand the dude wrote an article that has much truth to it for goodness sakes. Who the freak cares if he used data from a study? If it's true it's true. That's the point. Sheesh.

 

[velvett]

Yeah I did read all your posts and yes this comment was not warranted because NOBODY is bashing/damning women, which is what you're implying here. Not Weeks in his article, not myself, not anybody. The "tone" of your posts indicated that this was a female bashing thread when in fact it never was.

Is that all you have to say?

The entire article and some of the reactions on this very thread presents men as pathetic victims and women as the blood money sucking vampires even though it can be justifiable in some cases.

From the board:

After two marriages and seeign countless friends get raped.. this guy is right on the money.

I will never get married and he pointed out the very reasons why. I'm 28 years old, I've worked my ass off to buy 2 houses (1 will be paid off in 7 years, on a 10 year loan, currently being rented out. Other paid off in 12 years, on a 15 year loan, I currently reside in this house). I have no debt beyond my home mortgages, even my vehicle (Lexus SC400 Sports Coup) is paid in full. Most women I met have nothing but debt debt and more debt. Credit cards maxed out etc. Now, why the hell would I want to get married to a girl, have a few kids, then lose everything I've worked for because she decides she doesn't want to play family anymore? Or the reason my mother told my father, "I'm just not in love anymore" (aka- I found somebody else). Fuck that!

I just bought my first home last year (a much nicer one than your typical starter home I'm happy to say), and my car is now paid off. And I'll be damned if I let a woman use marriage to snatch what I've worked so hard for out from under me.

Im never going to get married.
What are the benefits for a man?
Women have all the power once you are married and they know it. Probably why there are so many pussy whipped husbands these days.

Typical female responce.

Oh, it would take one hell of a girl to sucker me into marriage at this point. Beyond the tax break, I don't see any benefits in being married. About the only way I can get screwed over now is if I end up getting a g/f pregnant. Once a girl has your kid, you're done for, throw in the towel.

Wouldn't trust you to take out the garbage let alone hold power over my entire life's work and assets, as well as my children.

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

From the article:

Heaven forbid a man have to pay child support, the horror - if he stayed married he would still have to find a way to pay for his kids - as if he could only lose his job after getting divorce and as if he could have had no part in the failing of the marriage.

He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off.

So ladies, if you have a problem with this, speak to your feminist brethren. This is the legacy which they have left behind. By erasing the stigma of premarital sex and encouraging physical liberation, they have eliminated one of the most powerful incentives in history for men to tie the knot. By advocating government as a surrogate husband in the case of single motherhood, they have eliminated the disincentive for women to file for divorce. And through decades of litigious activism, they have given rise to the bloated and intrusive family court system and stacked it so egregiously against the men of this country that it now appears they are subconsciously engaging in what could be called a "marriage strike", preferring to play the odds rather than assume a massively disproportionate amount of risk

This is just assinine.


HAHAHH

Typical male response.

As for the men, make no mistake, they are slowly beginning to realize that the power is now in their favor

Preach on brother!!! The POWER is now with in YOU!

Given a choice between not marrying one's lady friend -- assuming no risk whatsoever and still having the historical benefits of marriage (sex, companionship, etc.) available to them, or marrying the woman and having a 50-50 chance of their lives being utterly destroyed should the woman so much as be "unhappy" with the marriage, the decision is a no-brainer.

Got a vagina?
You now have a 50/50 chance of completely destroying a man's life.
DAMN those pussies!

My advice to them would be simple: offer to sign a prenuptial agreement that outlines the exact terms of a possible divorce: how assets would be divided, how any alimony and child support would be handled, and other vital elements that may be causing apprehension.

Best piece of writing in the whole article - might actually be the only part he actually wrote.


Have a nice night!




Hey so does all this cutting, pasting and quoting make me a kick ass writer like Weeks? Or must I be a male from Jersey to be that talented?

 

[velvett]

"...I have to demand not to held dammed as a female..."

Yeah I did read all your posts and yes this comment was not warranted because NOBODY is bashing/damning women, which is what you're implying here .

Actually - I meant that in general and in everyday life not just this thread but that was my mistake for not finding a better way to make that MORE CLEAR.

 

[wutangnomo]

You're the one bringing the sex card into this whole argument. This is NOT a male/female sex bashing article. Geez. Your last reply clearly shows you perceive it as such. Sorry but you're wrong. At least the guys you quote MAKE SENSE.

Would you like me to quote Yasmina again????

Anyhow, this has been fun. Sorry Milo, didn't mean for this thread to go awol lol. I'm out.

 

[velvett]

This is NOT a male/female sex bashing article..

The whole article is about how men are apprehensive to get married because they witness their peers having been "destroyed" by women.

("An ex-wife will take you for all you've got" and "men have more to lose financially than women" were common
refrains, the study reports.)

Please explain how that is NOT about sex and male vs. female?

If the article were about both sides it would have documentation on women's experiences after divorce and women's apprehension on getting married in today's world.

 

[big4life]

The entire premise of the article is biased against women.

1) It states that the median age for men to marry is 27, the oldest in our nations history. It doesn't address the fact that women are waiting until later to get married, nor does it address their reasons.

2) He talks about the lost income resulting from court imposed penalties, yet nothing is mentioned of the income that a single mother loses because of being a single parent.

3) The sample size is way to small to draw any scientific data from it. To interview 60 young men out of a population of over 250 million and to draw conclussions from their answers is laughable.

As for the lies that go on in divorces, that goes on with both sides. Most seek to cause the most damage to the other spouce without regard to any children involved.

 

[unclebully]

As for the lies that go on in divorces, that goes on with both sides. Most seek to cause the most damage to the other spouce without regard to any children involved.

Sure but that doesn't change the fact that the courts are heavily biased in favour of the women. The man nearly always ends up getting raped in these situations.

Got a vagina?
You now have a 50/50 chance of completely destroying a man's life.
DAMN those pussies!

The point is it's not 50/50 when things go to court. The judges heavily favour the women most of the time.

Marriage is an unfair legal agreement. Hence why you suggest a pre-nup. Thats what this thread is about for me.

 

[AristotleBC]

The entire premise of the article is biased against women.

1) It states that the median age for men to marry is 27, the oldest in our nations history. It doesn't address the fact that women are waiting until later to get married, nor does it address their reasons.

2) He talks about the lost income resulting from court imposed penalties, yet nothing is mentioned of the income that a single mother loses because of being a single parent.

3) The sample size is way to small to draw any scientific data from it. To interview 60 young men out of a population of over 250 million and to draw conclussions from their answers is laughable.

As for the lies that go on in divorces, that goes on with both sides. Most seek to cause the most damage to the other spouce without regard to any children involved.

It's not biased against women.

It's not an argument against women.

It's an argument against marriage in its current form, with reasons given.

The fact that women experience difficulties changes nothing.