Hot, Fresh Links From the Web

Porn Stars Bare Their March Madness Brackets

Author Disguised as a 10-Year-Old, Writes Celebs

Mountain Man No More -- Hairy Writer Tries Life Bare-Faced

Profile

  • Chris
  • Member Since Nov 23rd, 2008

Are you Chris? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

Happy Divorce Day, Everybody! {Lemondrop}

Jan 12th 2009 4:45PM Thanks but no thanks for the misandrist male-bashing, ms. r above...

Divorce is only a happy day for women, because they get everything. And for this reason, men should not marry, and under no circumstances should they give a woman children.

There is no risk for a woman to marry. If it doesn't work out, she still gets the house, at least half the assets, the kids, and at least half of hubby's future disposable income for the next 20 years. If a man marries and it doesn't work out, he loses it all. So while the feminists keep pounding the same rhetoric of "empowered" females choosing not to marry, what makes considerably more sense is that - given the huge risk of losing it all - men are simply choosing not to enter a one-sided contract that makes no sense. You can find "marriage strike" all over the blogosphere.

Yes, there are 53% of marriage aged males who are only vaguely interested in marriage, but not until at least 32.5, but another 30% (plus another 12% who will not marry American women at all) who are now HARD CORE MARRIAGE AVOIDERS given the raping they get in divorce court. Who can blame them?

The truth is that more than 67% of marriages will end in divorce. 92% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ˝ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn't level unsubstantiated "abuse" claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-50% of his take-home pay. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver's and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable.

If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge?

The men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you. nomarriage.com

Mom Denied Cell Phone - For Being a Mom {ParentDish}

Dec 21st 2008 11:19PM As an American male, and from everything that I read about Australia being similar in this regard - the family money is hers, the kids are hers, the house is hers - and the man just works for it all lest she leaves him and takes it all officially and he goes to jail if he doesn't pay her most of his income. In today's America and Australia it ALL belongs to her. In this regard it is normal and expected for men to be discriminated against, and why it's not only unusual, but people actually freak out if a woman is discriminated against. Double standards, anyone?

January 12 is D-Day for Divorce {Lemondrop}

Dec 12th 2008 4:44PM If you torture any data it will confess almost anything. Please talk about a 50% divorce rate when that's not true. That number doesn't include at least 5 states, all of which have higher divorce rates, most notably California where it's closer to 75%.

But don't get lost in the numbers and miss the point. The point is, even if you had a 30% chance that you could lose everything that you had worked for, your kids and your house, through no fault of your own, never be able to save for retirement, and be automatically at risk for going to jail even though you had comitted no crime, would you make that agreement? Why would you? But it's not even 30%. It's at least 50% minimum.

Part of the reason that the chances of divorce are now actually much higher is that children of divorced parents have a much higher chances of divorcing themselves. It makes sense. They have no pattern for how successful relationships work. So now we have two generations of Americans, most of whom are now products of divorce themselves, who have a much, much higher chance of not making it.

Peope only look at the current divorce rate and generalize that to themselves. Instead, you need to be looking at the odds of "what are my chances of making it to my 20th anniversary"? That's closer to 32%, which is another way of looking at it. And given that, it makes no difference why people don't make it or whose fault it is, the guy always gets screwed.

It's like people saying that "women make .72 of what a man makes". It's distorting the truth, essentially lying through the guise of political correctness, by using one number and implying another. It's a lie. Nearly everyone knows that this is taking what all of the men make together vs all of what th women make together. Men simply work more, more often, harder than women. In part, men can do nothing but work because if the don't work and cannot make ends meet and have kids, they go to jail. (assuming divorced, because most are, and 4/5 are unilaterally divorced against their will). If a woman cannot make ends meet and has kids, the same government sends her a paycheck. And to the point, women who work the same jobs as men, ad the same hours, get the same pay. In fact female engineers get paid 115% that of men. Every time you hear or read this .72 lie, have the courage to speak the truth because Congress passes laws on things like this when it is clearly a lie.

January 12 is D-Day for Divorce {Lemondrop}

Dec 12th 2008 4:22PM rabidcow, yes, you're absolutely right. I never said that all women were like this. There are some that aren't, no question. The problem is, that most of the time it "just doesn'twork out", and nearly all the time the guy gets screwed, loses his family, house, kids, to a woman who poisons his own children against him. It nearly always works out the same way.

So the question is, why in the world would any man in his right mind agree to a one sided contract that held him liable far into the future, and binds her to nothing, even after the end of the partnership, when it's simply not likely to last?

If I said there is a 50/50 chance that if you enter into this agreement, that you will lose everything you have worked for, lose you children, and end up living paycheck to paycheck because no matter how much you earn, she will get more, and in the event of an economic downturn, you could go to jail even though you have committed no crime? It simply doesn't make sense. Why would any guy agree to that? A woman certainly wouldn't. We blather on and on about equality, when there's nothing equal about it - it's completely and totally one sided.

I'm not interested in hearing one-offs about how the guy wa a total loser, yada, yada, yada. That obfuscates the fact that what happens most of the time is that a woman files, and the guy loses everything. Nearly every time.

Until the laws change, men should simply not enter a financial agreement where she is guaranteed all the goodies and he is financially obligated to pay for it long after the marriage ends. It simply makes no sense.

Please don't confuse the concepts that "there are no good women out there" with "the marriage contract is an insane agreement for men". There are some good women out there, but unfortunately, there is no way to tell a good one from a bad one, because they all say the same thing to get you to agree to a committment whereby he is bound and she is not. You simply cannot tell until it's too late.

It's unfortunate for the men and women who really would make good spouses and parents, because in today's western society, both in the US and the UK, it's simply insane for a guy to commit when the laws are so stacked against him. That means that women, too, are the losers, because now the only guys who would marry them are those who are not smart enough to have figured it out. Smart guys who really would make good husbands and fathers simply don't marry at all because they are smart enough to have figured out that the risks are too high and the benefits too few.

January 12 is D-Day for Divorce {Lemondrop}

Dec 12th 2008 3:13PM And this yet another reason why guys should not marry, and under no circumstances give a woman children. Because marriage not forever, it's only until she feels like it.

The truth is that more than 67% (it's not 50% - do your homework) of marriages will end in divorce. Close to 90% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ˝ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn't level unsubstantiated "abuse" claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-70% of his take-home pay. The financial incentives for a woman to divorce are huge. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver's and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable, and then throw him in jail even though he's committed no crime.

If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge?

Until the laws change, the men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you.

nomarriage.com

Study Shows Marriage Staves off Dementia {Asylum}

Dec 7th 2008 10:25PM Dementia is far better than being taken to the cleaners. Marriage today is a raw deal for men. Period.

The truth is that more than 67% of marriages will end in divorce. 92% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ˝ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn't level unsubstantiated "abuse" claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-50% of his take-home pay. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver's and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable.

If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge?

The men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you.

nomarriage.com

Infidelity May Be in Our Genes {Asylum}

Dec 7th 2008 10:22PM Oh please. What sexist, misogynist drivel. The statistics show that women are equally likely to cheat. It's 50/50. Please stop promoting this sexist crud.

Stupid Divorce Mistakes Most Guys Make {Asylum}

Dec 7th 2008 10:17PM Are you kidding? Guys should not marry at all since the deck is so stacked against them. And under no circumstances, married or not, should they father kids.

The truth is that more than 67% of marriages will end in divorce. 92% of the time it will be initiated by the woman for no other reason than she is “unfulfilled” – oh, and because she gets the kids, the house, at least ˝ the assets and most of his future after tax income for the next 18 years. The man will get raked over in family court. He will lose the house. He will see his kids 2 out of 14 days (if the ex doesn't level unsubstantiated "abuse" claims.) He will be forced to hand over 40-50% of his take-home pay. If he loses his job due to illness or downsizing, the State will toss him in jail. While jailed the arrearage will grow and the state will charge interest. The State will revoke his driver's and professional licenses, make him virtually unemployable.

If you were to take up sky-diving, and the instructor informed you that 67% of the parachutes were defective, would you take the plunge?

Until the laws change, the men’s Marriage Strike is alive and well, thank you.

nomarriage.com

Inside The Mind Of A Single Guy {Personal Articles}

Nov 24th 2008 1:09AM Just read Jeanne's comments above, and you will see why any man in America would have to be insane to commit or give any American woman children and his paycheck. She doesn't need your money or want you around. Fine. Get your children from the sperm bank and pay for them yourself. Good luck with that.

You heard it from the horse's mouth herself - do not commit to her, and for God's sake, don't give her children and your money.

The men's Marriage Strike is alive and well, thanks to Jeanne and her ilk.

nomarriage.com

Inside The Mind Of A Single Guy {Personal Articles}

Nov 23rd 2008 10:48PM greg... ummm... why would you suggest that a man should have lots of children? They are never his. He will only be paying for children he does not have, while his ex-wife poisons his own children against him and sues him with his own money. If you want to sponsor children you don't have, just start sending $3,000 a month to some kid in Africa or Guatemala. But then, if you lose your job, at least they won't put you in jail even though you have committed no crime.

The only way I know of for a man in America to have his own kids is by surrogacy or adoption - and then marry if he wants. Then, when the woman leaves, the kids and the house are still his. She still gets a good deal, though, because at least she doesn't have to pay him for the next 18 years as a man does now.

By the way, it's not "child support". There is no requirement that she spends it on the children, nor is it based on child raising expenses. It's based on what he makes. Call it what it is... a female lifestyle support subsidy.

Why would any man in his right mind sign such a one-sided agreement in which he was required to be financially obligated while she has no requirement whatsoever?

That's just whacko...