Interesting video about men's disadvantage in dating scene

Post Reply New Topic

The reason I sometimes hear "but I do love him" ...and not "I love his couch ... jewelry....bla bla ...". In both cases the wife would be idiot, but I've never witnessed your scenario, it's too unrealistic and ridiculous.

That's the point Boo I was making fun of Hyperlexian's apparent misogyny. She believes that a woman wouldn't divorce a man for fear of losing a certain standard of living. That is how she justifies alimony. The hypothetical woman, is either INCREDIBLY materialistic or she has no good reason to divorce other than "I'm bored".

no i said nothing of the sort, and i didn't justify alimony in my comments in any way either. you must realise people can actually read what i posted and see that my comments did not say anything of the sort. you can try to twist my words but the truth is in black & green/blue.

and you really don't know enough about women and divorce to comment in that area. you may want to read some books or articles about it if you are interested, instead of just making things up.

you have a certain manner of argument where you do not take responsibility for your words, but instead try to distract people by making new outlandish claims. it is highly amusing.

Ugh, was going to ignore it, but while I have 10 mins, I may as well wade through the willful stupidity.

Taking responsibility would be raising the kids on her own dime, not sitting on her ass relying on ex-husband or government. Related video?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsghfxYq7DU[/youtube]



No, the game changed with the introduction of the pill and the sexual revolution. 50 years ago, definitely, but not now. Having sex is not giving consent to create offspring. Here's a mind twister: teenage pregnancies. By law neither party is able to legally able consent to sex. Yet the young boy in that scenario has legally given his consent to create a kid. I vaguely recall one case where a boy was seduced (scrap that, _raped_) by a 30 something teacher, she became pregnant, yet he was still on the line for child support.



No, I am the one striving for equality.




Once again, Game is learning to be attractive. That's it, some men do use it to "ruin" women. My grand "scheme" would actually ruin the PUA lifestyle.

Let's hear it in your words then. Why does a woman deserve to retain a portion of her husbands income when the contract that led to that arrangement has been broken? It's not like women are kept out of the workplace anymore. They can fend for themselves, which is was the original feminists wanted.

Do divorcing (or divorced) wives in the US get half of their husband's wealth even after a short childless marriage?

right, the same can be said of any deadbeat dads, that they are sitting on their ass relying on the government, as the government pays their child support for them. i would not actually believe that of most cases for either men or women.

you have a peculiarly skewed view that places women as some kind of enemy in every situation. i find that strange, and i do not know anyone in real life who thinks that way. i do not believe the reverse to be true, that men are some kind of enemy - i think in most cases that both men and women tend to be decent human beings.


men can take action to prevent pregnancy should they desire. the responsibility is equally up to them. every time they have sex they are at risk of causing conception, so they can abstain if it is a problem to take that risk. since you believe men should marry a virgin bride when possible, men should follow the same standards and avoid sex as well... in your old-fashioned world-view.


ok, then i expect that you will start standing up for women in the workplace and seeking to raise them up to the same level of earnings as men when they do the same job. i also expect that you will come to the defense of women who are subject to misogynistic viewpoints that seek to render them less powerful than men.

you had pointed out that higher quality women resist PUA and don't allow themselves to become "sluts". you can't have it both ways.


women do fend for themselves, but they continue to earn less for the same job with the same experience and education and they are less likely to be promoted to higher positions than men. you are trying to make it seem like women already have financial equality, and they really don't. work on fixing tht first and you will have a reasonable argument.

i believe that the partner who ends up financially disadvantaged after divorce (husband OR wife) is entitled to support if they wish to seek it. not everyone does.

no. judges look at what each partner contributed over the course of the marriage. if a partner sat on their butt, not raising any kids but had a university degree, and did not even emotionally support their partner who worked full-time, it is unlikely they will get a dime.


there are many combinations of factors, but in a basic sense it often looks something like this:

spouse 1 - earned 30,000 per year
spouse 2 - earned nothing, but is expected to be able to get a minimum wage job that pays 10,000 per year
while married, the earnings are considered split between the 2 spouses, at 15,000 per year

... therefore spouse 1 pays 5,000 per year to bring spouse 2 up to the level they were maintained in the course of the marriage. spouse 1 is left with 25,000. using this formula, spouse 1 often ends up richer after divorce than spouse 2, which is supported by evidence - in some various permutations this is how it generally happens.

spouse 2 generally only gets help for a certain number of years. there may be some kind of higher support for a fixed term until spouse 2 gets a job or something, for example. and the payments usually stop if spouse 2 remarries. nothing happens automatically - a judge has to slog through tons of information.


it also varies by state and country, of course. here is an interesting breakdown i stole from HowStuffWorks:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/divorce6.htm

It's not gonna be some male utopia, I'm not gonna support men who are lazy or who make poor choices any more than I will women. Welfare will be nothing but the basics needed to survive. Food, shelter, that's it. Receiving welfare would also have some severe, but temporary reductions in ones rights. Like the right to vote.



Running, running in circles we are, for a feminist-leaning woman you have a very bizarre understanding of consent. One of those double standards I guess.



Oh my god. The wage gap? I'll make a separate thread about that, that little gem has been thoroughly debunked, over and over again. If it happened in real life, then yes I'd fix it, likewise for "women subject to misogynistic viewpoints that would render them less powerful". Oh by the way, treating women equally is not misogyny.


You've lost me now, what am I trying to have both ways? Learning game does not make one a PUA. I do not condone the PUA lifestyle or the damage it does to women. If I get my way, they won't exist anymore.




See forthcoming thread.



WHY?

thank goodness WrongPlanet makes it quite simple for any individual to search out another member's posts. what that means is that you can explain your ideas here but the evidence of what you have actually stated about women's rights, women's roles, PUA etc. is in your past posts in other threads.

i have done past research about how women earn less than men for the same job with the same level of education and experience (also for comparable jobs). when i see your new thread i can show you the evidence of that. nothing has been debunked, according to actual statistics and academic research.

we got this thread get wayyyyyyy off topic so i would suggest any further discussion that does not relate to the original post should happen on a new thread.

Maybe they are, though very often not. Paternity fraud is epidemic. Paternity tests should be mandatory at any custody hearing, but are not because that would end a good deal of the gravy train.

But, assuming the man in question is the actual father, the only choice he ever had in the process was whether or not to say no to sex when it was offered. Considering the aforementioned inability to resist an unsatisfied sex drive that is such a predominant weakness of the male gender, this decision cannot be said to have been made in his right mind in most cases. But every other choice was hers. Whether sex would be offered. Whether or not the pregnancy is terminated or taken to full term.

He didn't get a say in any of those decisions. Yet if she decides to take the pregnancy to term, thanks to increasingly misandrist family courts, she almost always gets full custody and he gets ordered to pay (through the nose) until the child reaches adulthood. And you actually believe this is fair? Talk about histrionic BS!

The only way to not have children with women who think like along these lines is to not have sex at all. And while it is a choice I am very comfortable with making, sadly a whole lot of men are not able to make such a choice for reasons I have detailed earlier.


As a guy who apparently sees nothing wrong with the financial enslavement of your own gender, I wonder if you would feel the same way if instead it was the man was given full custody 99.9999% of the time... and it was the woman who had to pay through the nose from her paycheck every week, even though she only got to see the children every other weekend, if at all. And he wasn't even required to provide so much as a receipt to prove the money went for the kids.

If this was the case, every feminist in the country would have already taken to the streets. Yet men are supposed to just suck it up and accept that this financial slavery is their "responsibility".

You may not know any guys who have been financially raped by divorce and family courts, but I have known plenty. I've even worked for two of them-- the situation with the first one caused me to lose my job when he was forced to shut down his profitable business because it was not profitable enough to support him, his employee (me), and the increased financial extortion the family court took from his bottom line each month. Because his ex actually convinced the misandrist judge that he was capable of making more money because of his college degree, and thus ordered him to pay a higher percentage of what he was making because of it. Totally destroyed his entrepreneurial endeavor and forced him to hit the road as a truck driver and me to hit the unemployment line.

The second one managed to hold on to his business for awhile, but only after a cost of $75,000 of lawyers and court fees to keep his ex from doing the exact same thing to him. This increased debt load eventually brought about the end of his business, but at least his ex wasn't directly responsible. And even though he ended up a broken man and drug addict, I have to respect his fighting spirit when he stood up to her.

I've known dozens of additional broken men from similar situations. At least their loss was my gain, since I now know what to look out for and it will never ever happen to me.

I will always repeat the same thing : The problem is gendered society. The fact that we are conditioned to fulfill a certain role if we are a men or a women creates a lot of problem.

We always hear about women issues. The issues are real and they exist. But we always forget that men also have a lot of issues. People who are happy with their respective gender roles have no problems but the others have an hard time. It is very frustrating to be a men and not being a a dominant or pursuer. I personally want to have the "women role" or "passive" in dating, I would prefer much that women would be more direct, invite me and take the leading role in a relationship. Even if i had the ability to approach and attract most women with good leading/pursuing skills I would not like it because that is not who I am and my needs would not be fulfilled.

Most men have to approach women while women get more approached by men. I remember a statistical analysis of college students showing the probability distributions of men being approached by women and women being approached by women. The distribution of men being approached by women is not 0 but the curve tends extremely to 0-1 while in in the women case, it is distributed more toward something like 3-4-5 (I don't remember well exactly).

Obviously, the guys in the video are pretty much over-obsessing on these issues. They need to start realizing that nothing is black and white and that there are women that will fulfill their needs. But the dating double standard do exists. Not only it is harder to find women approaching men but often they expect men to invite them and be the ones who first kiss them, who opens her doors, who propose to her, ect.

Nailed it.

Fortunately for women, over a century of feminism and women's lib has given them great leeway in either eschewing that gender role completely, adhering to it entirely, or any position in between. Men have been put on notice that this is the way it is, and after many generations to adapt have pretty much accepted it.

The issue for men is that we have not been granted this leeway. Society still tries to force us to conform to the same old stale, cliche "real man" stereotype role. Women get to have their cake and eat it too, while we don't get any cake at all.

There is a burgeoning men's rights movement trying to do the same thing for us that women's lib did for women decades ago... but in doing so it is running into the same small-minded opposition from women today as their liberation movement did decades ago from men of that generation. Unfortunately, we also have the larger problem of opposition from small-minded men who think siding against their own gender in these matters will endear them to the opposite sex and increase their chances of getting laid. It won't.

Look, forget the other stuff, the only answer I'm marginally interested in at the moment is why you believe:

A question you nimbly avoided like a mountain goat. Why does anyone deserve to maintain a standard of living after a marriage contract is broken? I can't think of a good reason.

Perhaps because during marriage one of the two partners decides to work on his/her (well, his, really) career and the other partner focuses on raising children and working in the household. When they divorce they both worked just as hard but the man usually keeps his income and the wife has to start from scratch.