Interesting video about men's disadvantage in dating scene

Post Reply New Topic

Men are, by and large, subject to the same consequences for divorce/adultery etc no?



Correct. Give people an inch and they'll take a mile. These cultures also tend to be marriage oriented, the legalities aside, a good wife is made not born.



Yeah, but they have different expectations. A marriage in which the husband works to provide, where the husband is good to her and the kids, where the husband does not beat the s**t out of her. Where the husband shows he cares, despite not making her heart leap into her throat at the very sight of him like he did when they were younger. This not a "sucky marriage".

Women in the other hemisphere have BEYOND ridiculous expectations of their marriages, if they even want them at all (Men want to be married, women want to get married as they say). As soon as the butterflies fade (3-7 years ish after the relationship begins - inevitable as death and taxes), people (mostly the wives) head straight for the divorce court. A "good woman" above all else understands what to expect from marriage and is loyal. THAT'S WHAT FOR BETTER OR WORSE MEANS! *Starts frothing at the mouth with rage* No fault divorce is just _pissing_ on what marriage is supposed to be. When I say those vows, I WILL f*****g MEAN IT. EVEN IF MY WIFE IS MAIMED AND CRIPPLED IN SOME TERRIBLE ACCIDENT AND I HAVE TO BECOME HER LIVE IN CARER. BECAUSE MY WORD ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING.

*ahem* It makes sense for a man to choose a wife least likely to leave him.



See above, give people an inch...



Those two things rarely happen, unless a) the man earns less than the wife, women rarely marry down (he's still eligible for child support though - which doesn't necessarily get spent on the kids) and b) the mum has to rape and or stub cigarrettes out on her children before the court hands primary custody over to the father. So yeah its possible, but the odds are not good. I mean really, pretend to be a man for a second, take a quick gander at the average divorce settlement, (lets ignore the emotional turmoil - I forget exactly what the statistic was, but a lot more men than women kill themselves post divorce) would you risk marrying any of your female friends?

1. post divorce, men are overall much wealthier than women, even taking alimony or child support into account. therefore women risk a lot more in a divorce because their standard of living decreases. 2. i don't care if a man is willing to care for me as a paraplegic, if he views me as lower than him and expects me to defer to him, i'd never marry him. thank goodness there are awesome men out there who do not fear women's strength. being an equal partner is the best possible scenario.

Female logic for you. Why should either party have the right to retain a certain standard of living if the marriage is over? That makes no sense. If the marriage pact has to be broken then both parties should expect to lose the benefits of marriage. If the woman would seriously consider not divorcing due to fear of losing that standard of living, then maybe the reason for divorce is frivolous, and she shouldn't be divorcing in the first place.

EDIT: seems like the perfect place for a lilypadfad scenario set in an alternate reality where there is no alimony.

Unhappy wife: "Well, (Girlfriend A), he never says he loves me, he's banging his secretary, he beat me when he's drunk.
GirlfriendA: "Oh my god! why don't you report him to the police? At least divorce him!"
Unhappy wife: ":( but I do so love this couch, this house and my jewelry, I'd lose all that if I left "
GirlfriendA: "BUT HE HITS YOU!"
Unhappy wife: "I'd be destitute "
GirlfriendA: "Good lord woman, there are many shelters out there, you'd never be without help from the government, and once you were back on your feet, you could land a job and pay your own way"
Unhappy wife: "*sniff* but my... my jewelry "

You accuse me of having a low opinion of women...

Last edited by lilypadfad on 12 Oct 2011, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

On the other hand, women tend not to lose their entire immediate families.

Awesome. I approve!

Women just don't understand male loneliness. Lilypad, don't bother trying to reason with them.

There is a gender imbalance in most countries. Males make up around 52% to 55% of the population. Females make up 45% to 48% of the population. Based on those numbers alone there will be men who will always be single/alone.

The rich, more successful and better looking males at the top of the gene pool get snatched up by females. Average females and even unattractive females have a much higher chance of being selected by men than average men of being selected by women. Unattractive men simply have little or no chance unless they have lots of wealth and power.

China it gets a lot worse where males make up 60% of the population. Females make up around 35% to 40% of the population.

The numbers do not lie. Dating sites are a lot worse than reality where men out number females at a bar minimum of 3 to 5+ times to 1.

1. Once again, you can't average in the top 0.0001% of men's incomes, because that is an elite club that owns most of the world's wealth and doesn't share it with men or women from the lower ranks. As they pull the financial strings that control democratic governments, the governments of the world will never ever fix this without revolution.

So remove their substantial wealth from the equation and you will find a very different scenario among the lower classes. Also, alimony is a vehemently sexist holdover from the days when women were limited in the careers they could work and the income they could receive. Any feminist who believed in true equality between the sexes would want alimony laws abolished immediately. If you defend alimony, you can't realistically be considered a feminist at all. You just want to have your cake and eat it too.

Child support is another matter. What we have now amounts to legalized theft. There needs to be some serious accountability. It should only be granted in the case of serious need on her part, and ability to pay on his part. These things should be calculated based on real life salary after taxes and real life cost-of-living data, not outdated skewed IRS tables. If she makes enough to provide the kids a decent home and food to eat and clothes to wear, they don't need the state to steal the money from his pocketbook to supplement her. This is absolutely fair because if she wants sole custody of the kids she should bear the responsibility for caring for them. Likewise, if he doesn't make enough to supplement her income while maintaining a decent standard of living himself, then the state should leave him alone. If the ex-wife and children have a genuine need for supplemental income and he cannot provide it, then the state needs to provide a safety net... wait, they already do. It's called Welfare. Let's call it what it is. But if the need is genuine, and he really can afford it and child support is awarded, then the state should absolutely demand receipts proving that every nickel was spent on the child's behalf.


2. I just described life in a fair and truly equal world. Most men do not want submissive wives. They just want to be treated fairly.

Because this is not the case today, I would never marry any woman who refused to sign a prenup (even though misandrist judges have limited their practical value). Thank goodness there are a few women out there who realize "til death do us part" means her and the man, not her and the man's income.

Ah looks like I have some overnight backup. Just wanted to comment on:

For me it's not fear, I do not fear strong women. I'm just not attracted to them.

What a load of histrionic b.s. They are YOUR children too. Helping to raise them with monetary assistance is the LEAST one would expect. It's the height of self-victimization to try to characterize it as theft. You don't want to be responsible? Then don't have children. Ever. I don't think society, through welfare, should have to pay for YOUR offspring just because you don't want to pay up. Be an adult, and take responsibility.



There is nothing fair, nor equitable, in the world you described. What you described is a juvenile male fantasy in which he takes no responsibility. And as a guy, none of the male friends I know are treated unfairly. There is no objective measure I know of that shows men are treated unfairly either. Quite the contrary, really.

In lilypadfad's imaginary future though (reality if I have anything to say about it), there would be no mandatory child support. It's not really about freeing men from this responsibility, even though they largely take it on voluntarily. It's more about forcing women to make better choices, rather than the current "I'll-do-whatever-the-fuck-I-want-someone-else-will-take-care-me" mentality. Women _desperately_ need to see consequences for their actions.

Equal custody would be default, as in 50:50. If that couldn't be arranged, then the mother gets primary custody when the the kids are ages 0-8 and the father for ages 9-16. This is just a fair law. Do you even know what one looks like these days?

You think men choose to have kids? No, it's women who choose, men ask. As was stated in those wonderful videos I linked a month or so ago, in the age of plentiful contraception, having sex with someone is NOT giving consent to create a child. As male contraception is well, s**t, while women have countless options AND total rights to abort after conception. The responsibility for creating a child should lie solely on women's shoulders. This is another example of "fairness". Man up, ladies, accept responsibility.

How many of the men who don't pay child support do you think really CHOSE to become fathers, rather than being forced into it by conniving females?

they are taking responsibility - as you pointed out, in most cases they are actually raising the kids.


men make the choice by having sex. if they don't want kids they can abstain, just like women can. there is no reason why women should be expected to resist while you are simultaneously encouraging men to develop the skills to manipulate them. if you want women to abstain, encourage men to do the same thing.


you seem to want to create a power disparity by developing men's PUA skills and manipulation techniques, as well as changing laws and policies and aspects of society to put men back in power over women. you are apparently not interested in true equality, or you would also be advocating for women in the areas they are still less powerful, less wealthy, and less free. that is not the case - you seek to push women down and elevate men up above them.

thank goodness you have no power whatsoever, not even on teh interwebz!



Dark_Lord_2008, your point is baseless. most countries have more women than men - you have it reversed!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio




lilypadfad's scheme in summary, is that Game should be used to "ruin" (i used italics as that is such an outmoded idea) less worthy women, and then marry the women who manage to resist. it is a system that works to try to keep as much power as possible in the hands of men and attempts to control women's sexuality.

there is nothing about self-improvement or making oneself more attractive to for a long-term relationship in that. it simply is not designed for that. to explain better what i mean, here is a paragraph from a review of The Game:
http://contemporarylit.about.com/od/mem ... heGame.htm

please note that Strauss has not been able to maintain a long-term relationship since.

Typically by their own choice, over the objection of the father, and at his expense. How is that "taking responsibility"?

can you show me some sort of evidence that it is usually their choice over the objection of the father, or is it just your opinion?

If he is in fact paying child support, then it isn't 'at his expense' because he's contributing his share to the financial upbringing of the children wherein the other contributor is the mother.