Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 Author Thread: Man who has never had a relatonship
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 26 (view)
Man who has never had a relatonship
Posted: 3/30/2015 2:20:52 AM

His penis may have shriveled up and fallen off due to lack of use. No way to recover from something like that. "Use it or lose it" as they say.

I might not mind the never-had-a-relationship thing (all other things being equal), but ain't no way in hell I'd date a grown man who plays video games all day. LOL no.

Is it more about him "wasting" his time (is having fun a waste of time...) or about video games specifically? If it's the latter, why? People have hobbies which are all for fun and generally a waste of time in a practical sense (not going to earn you more money or make you smarter) like golfing/watching TV, etc..

Video games are just another diversion. Do you have no diversions?

As for the OP's question, it seems he has a fear of commitment. The best option for you if you really like him is just be direct, ask him why he withdraws and see what happens. No reason to play games.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 59 (view)
I Want My Date to Pick Me Up. Does That Make Me a Princess?
Posted: 3/30/2015 2:17:12 AM
There is nothing immoral about your desire. But is it something he wants too?

The problem with dating is entitlement. It's simple, ask him. If he can't or doesn't want to, weigh that fact but remember, it's just a small thing. Society has crammed in these expectations that burden men and make it harder for you to find someone you'll connect with. Does it really matter who picks up who? I don't think so.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 30 (view)
“window shopping”
Posted: 3/30/2015 2:13:50 AM
Men do it too, the difference is when they initiate contact, if they really like the girl, they can focus on her without distraction because, unless they are insanely attractive/wealthy, they aren't getting many messages at all. Attractive girls easily (and literally) get hundreds if not thousands more messages than equivalent guys do. It's the whole men are hunters aspect.

I notice this a lot. I message a girl, she replies, we chat for a few days, and then suddenly nothing, dead cold. Almost certainly this happens because someone else messages her who, on paper is better than me. Bit more attractive, better job, etc etc...

Until you meet, nothing is solidified and worse of all, you really don't know who that person is. On paper I'm not at the top, but in person I think I shine much more. Getting to that stage is quite a challenge for both genders.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 578 (view)
Paying for a date
Posted: 3/30/2015 2:00:53 AM
Social standards place more value on women's time than men's, at least when it comes to dating, which is why the man is expected to do the heavy lifting. That is the expectation. I don't agree with it at all, but you have two choices, either live with it and the pressured gender roles, or discuss it first with your date (and risk her losing interest).

It's an unfortunate situation we're in. An age of a hypocritical push for equality.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 318 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/13/2014 11:32:04 AM

What planet are you referring to? I've worked at quite a few places in my life, and I have never worked at any place where there was a two tier pay system-one pay rate for women and one pay rate for men. In every place, people got paid the same rate for doing the same job-regardless if it's a man or woman doing the job. In fact, in some places, I was making less money than the women who were doing the same job because when I was hired, I started off at the newbie rate and the women who were there longer got the incremental pay increases over the years. And I've had a few female supervisors, who I'm sure were making more money than me or any other man under their supervision. So I don't believe any woman who is whining about being underpaid just because she's a woman. In fact, it's against labor laws to discriminate against anyone or any group of people.

I think you misunderstood what I said. On the whole, when you take the salaries of men and the salaries of women, divide by the total of each, women do earn less; but that is because they typically choose jobs that pay less than what men do. They also don't ask for raises as much, don't negotiate starting pay as much, don't pursue degrees that offer better jobs or better salaries, and various reasons such as these. It's all about the choices men and women make, not discrimination.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 310 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/13/2014 7:52:18 AM

Wages gap Men and Woman

Men, it’s $824.
Women, it’s $669, or 81 percent of $824.
Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers over age 16. - Source Bureau of Labor Statistics

Men $897.50
Women $611.50 68%
- Source Bureau of Statistics. But this is for all workers - regardless of hours worked.

Now obviously it depends on the type of work.
The CEO of IBM would earn more than a part time data entry clerk.

If the same job the salary should be the same and if on benefits - if the circumstances are the same then the same benefit is paid.

BUT for the purposes of dating.
We look at the total population.

As a population men earn more than women.
Based on these statistics if a man and a woman went on one date a week to even things up:
In USA he should spend $155 on that date.
In Australia he should spend $286 on that date.

OR many cups of coffee.
OR lots and lots of coffee dates.

I love statistics!!!! :)
I wonder if anyone in either country actually matches these numbers.
I doubt it. lol

I never denied this. Women do earn less than men in the aggregate, but this is based on the kind of jobs they pursue, the kinds of degrees they obtain, how they ask for raises, how hard they work at the job, their skill and so on.

It has nothing to do with discrimination and thus isn't relevant to discuss as some groundbreaking issue. It is literally just the culmination effect of women's decisions.

Why should I pay for you, just because you willingly choose jobs that earn you less money? That is nonsensical. Please stop playing the victim card, it won't work.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 263 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/12/2014 11:14:33 AM
In all honesty, that's going to be a tough sell. I noticed that you put it in your profile, which is good, but most women aren't going to understand? Most women, while we don't care for being panted after like meat on a tray, do want to eventually get down to business. Have you tried to find an asexual woman? Someone who can understand where you're coming from?

I have, but dating sites specifically for asexuals are very barren. I feel I have far more luck finding someone here simply through sheer volume. I'm also not opposed to having sex sometimes, even though I don't really care about it. It's a bit convoluted to be sure, but I think there is hope to find someone eventually. Being in no rush helps. I have no sexual drive so I can relax while I wait. I rarely even masturbate. I can go weeks without thinking about sex. Maybe these dating rituals would make more sense if I had the same drive most men have.

Well, if it made sense or not, I'd probably be more willing to accept it simply because most men (seem to) want it so bad. Hard to blame them, yet I still must because men enable this behavior.

In real life it's the same. I've never met another asexual girl in real life, nor a guy (though this kind of topic wouldn't come up as often).

I went back to school as a single mom, so my needs were larger than the average. If I had to pay back every cent, I would be paying for an eternity. And if I knew that going in, why would I bother? I guess you'd rather people be supplemented by the government to sit on their butt than to actually raise their earning power and contribute back into the pot? In some countries, post secondary education is free.

Not me who initiated this line of conversation but I felt it important to jump in because the same attitude of entitlement can be felt here. No one should be supplementing your life decisions regardless of their effects. It is schooling for your own education. That is your responsibility, no one else's. If you take on huge debt to go, well that was your choice. Face the consequences like an adult, don't act like a victim because it turns out to be more of a burden than you thought it'd be.

^^^^^ Only in Bizarro World could such conclusions be drawn. WTF kinda dope is your unemployed ass smoking? Women are now better off in the US than men, and they've been in control financially for the last half century via alimony and inheritance? Do you have any idea how preposterous this all sounds?

C'mon dude, cite your research that backs your assertion that women in the US are paid more than men.

Honest to God, sometimes you say the most stupid shit.

Women, with the same education, skill, same job and same time worked, earn the same or more as men do. They, on the whole, earn less because of the choices they make regarding employment. Period, end of story. There is no mass discrimination.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 230 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/12/2014 1:16:34 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why an asexual person would go on a dating site. It sounds a lot like Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.

I'm asexual (mostly) not aromantic. Curious you mention Sheldon, since on the show he is in a relationship even though he doesn't appear to like sex. I want a relationship, I just don't care about carnal fornication.


what risk and what responsibilities do men take on with dating? Women have to be far more wary of men than vice versa and the financial "burden" what on Earth is that?? You can whine about things not being fair but you wont ever have to worry about any of it, if you are asexual, right?? Women are not going to want date you or take your money.

If a woman is careful, meets in a public place and doesn't gulp down drinks she left unattended, there's almost no risk at all. There's still a smidgen, and I can understand that apprehension, but that's why you make sure to meet in a public place during the day. I don't see that as being a serious concern if basic precautions are taken.

What do you mean, what is a financial burden? The attitude that the man has to bear the cost of whatever date he brings her on. This is not an issue of stretched resources. A coffee is not expensive.

It's the prevailing notion, the very principle of it, that bothers me so much. Even if the date cost 1 penny, the idea that one is expected to pay for it simply because they are male, it's absurd and has always seemed so to me.

I still want to find a girl to be with. Think of a relationship you've had, just strip out the sex (or most of it). That's what I want. That closeness and mutual involvement in each other's lives. That's not something you get even from close friends. You are right that it's hard to find though, but it's no matter. I am in no rush.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 210 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 5:41:45 PM
Paying taxes to fund critical services that society needs and you use, that is not unfair.

Not being a peeping tom is not unfair, it's respecting people's right to privacy.

I don't know how this relates to unfairness in courting and relationship rituals.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 207 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 5:27:07 PM
This isn't about me specifically. I have my own issues in meeting girls my age due to being mostly asexual, the other filters that I might want to apply are extra. Not even the biggest complication.

It's just about the imposed unfairness and societal acceptance of this unfairness that bothers me so very much.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 203 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 5:06:04 PM

It seems that you bypassed the part about how some men feel emasculated in an environment where they are NOT expected to pay for things like dinners and even more. And that was the meat of my post. Some men, when they aren't looked to for financial support in a relationship.. don't feel 'manly'. Don't feel needed, etc.. and that makes them feel poorly, as though there is no reason for them being there.

And tbh I've never understood that. Like, isn't my wanting them enough? Why do I have to need them for my next meal or roof over my head? So it wouldn't be as easy for me to leave them? I don't get it, so yeah.. I understand where you're coming from on a certain amount of what you're saying. Not entirely however, because you seem a bit angry and that tells a different story than someone merely pointing out a pattern or making an objective observation.

I wasn't talking about someone else providing a sense of excitement to your life, what I was referring to was the sexual tension that arises naturally between the sexes.... based on our differences. Imo that would be lacking in an environment of complete equality.

If some men feel depressed, emasculated or lack a sense of self-worth unless they are providing for another, that is their business. It's not wrong per say, but it's just back to societal gender roles. It rather sucks for the rest of us who don't want to fit into that mold. I don't need to pay for another to feel like I am worth something to them.

I wouldn't say I am angry. I would say I am annoyed or frustrated at the situation though, but definitely not angry. I see a lot of what I'd describe as absurdities in society, but I can't do much to change them and naturally this would lead anyone to go a bit insane.

Being mostly asexual, I don't care about sexual tension either. That's not what I am after.

This would all be so much easier if we were just robots that start from a clean slate. No biological programming that does not sync up with modern technology and resource availability. To be logical in these times, we have to fight against biology, and that's indeed a daunting task.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 191 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 2:18:19 PM
I don't see how that is very relevant, since the same risks are on men too. They can and often are hurt by women just the same.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 187 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 2:11:30 PM
As if women have no risk in the game.
As if women are completely care free while dating, as if they have no responsibilities of their own to handle.
As if women have no financial hurdles of their own in life, and in dating.
As if women are going around saying LA DI DA, all the time.

You've been told, more than once, life is not fair. Get used to it, unfairness will smack you in the face repeatedly throughout your life, in dating, and in relationships, at work, etc.

There is no magic switch somewhere to reset it all to "fair." Ain't gonna happen.

It's not just programming, it's many forces over millennia. You are not going to change it. You don't even understand it. For example most of the men I've met both IRL and OLD, tell me, without my asking or even hinting, what their income is and several added in the amount of money they have in the bank. This is what you're up against. These guys know that part of their attractiveness is financial stability. So they assure me they have that part of their life together.

I am fairly well off compared to most women my age. I always offer to pay my share of the bill. Often I do. Doesn't matter, most men DO NOT WANT ME TO PAY.

It is actually changing, very slowly. Criticizing humankind as being too weak is just showing your own ignorance. Things like this don't change quickly.

Good on you for genuinely offer to pay your share. If whoever you're with really doesn't want you to pay, I don't blame you for for accepting his payment.

Women really don't have any financial risk in the dating game. They can, if they want, coast by in that department effortlessly. What do they have to worry about financially? Nothing besides taking care of their standard day to day affairs not related to the relationship.

What risk do they have? None either, if they want. They sit back and wait for men to approach them, taking that risk of rejection. The man picks the venue, pays, and this can easily be the ongoing arrangement within the entire relationship. No risk, no responsibility.

This is not fair. You're right that life isn't fair, I never claimed it was, only that unfairness caused by human behavior can be corrected and the goal should be to do so.

I don't want to get into some long drawn out and pointless debate, but something has struck me..

While I get what you're saying (to a point), many men thrive in the environment that you consider unfair. They actually seem to derive a sense of masculinity from it. At times, when a woman offers to go dutch, or pay, makes more than him, does things on her own.. the guys feels emasculated. I know, have been told that I inspire such a feeling, lol. And have heard plenty of men complaining about the dreaded 'too independent' woman phenomenon.

Plus, total equality in a relationship is BORING, lol. It lacks polarity which is a good portion of what provides sexual tension and attraction.

Maybe this is a leading reason why I can't understand the dynamics of dating and relationships today. I don't care one bit about excitement from my partner. I want someone to care for because doing things together enhances the experience versus doing them alone; especially when you value that person immensely.

I'm not looking for a woman to be my jester, nor am I out to be anyone's either. I have plenty of excitement in my life, that's not what I want from a relationship.

Finding someone you care about and want to share your experiences with is the spice on the dish of life. It shouldn't be the main course.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 180 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 1:00:32 PM
The point isn't what rules I abide by, I will go about my life my way of course. The point is that the status quo is skewed against men. We take on the risk, responsibility and financial burdens in dating and often in the relationship too if it moves to that.

This is not fair, and it's an unfairness caused by human programming that people can move beyond but apparently are too weak to do so.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 171 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/11/2014 9:28:06 AM

No, it indicates she is willing to go on a date. The interest is not established until you meet in real life.

That's the problem, that "attractiveness" drives men's interest, while it merely peaks a woman's interest. She would accept the date because she wishes to go out on a date, there is no established mutual interest at any equal level yet.

This is highly illogical. A women cares just as much as a man about appearances. Perhaps she cares more about personality and how many resources he has to be extracted for, but the notion that she accepts a date without knowing the guy if she is not attracted to his appearance would make no bloody sense.

The only exception being that she is a direct gold digger and thinks the man asking her out is rich.

No, this is an outright lie, or you truly mean to make me believe you go on dates with guys you do not find attractive?

If we had to, we would. If men completely halted and we finally had time to go through profiles, send messages and such, it might just change. But there are so many others things to do in life, that making such a task is tedious, I rather eat.

We can certainly agree to a point here. I don't necessarily blame women exclusively for the imbalanced dating mess we're in now. Men enable it with their white-knighting and placing on pedestals. Overvaluing other human beings just because you have sexual organs they want. No restraint. No real thought.

Of course you would use a word such as "mechanical" because that's really what it seems to you. You have read in the forums that there are women who practice 50/50 or taking turns, so your goal is to secure one of these ladies in real life. So say something about it on your profile and go on with the process.

I've read it in profiles, and I already know they are not for me, so I just don't message them back, problem solved.

There are very few who accept this in my experience. My criteria for meeting a girl is already high, adding even more essentially makes it impossible to find anyone. Like I said before, it's a mess.

It really just strikes me as hilarious that an apparently independent woman like yourself still wants a man to pay her way through dates. It's comical. I'm strong! I'm independent! Equality! But wait, you still have to pay for my meals, fit into your gender role even though I won't fit into mine.

That is having your cake and eating it too.

Just blame the sensation you get when you're inside of a woman, and call it a day. I assure you, you are getting way more out of it than any woman has gotten out of d*ck her entire life.

Well, no. Girls like sex as much, if not more than men, provided the circumstances are right. They just hide it better, which tilts all the power to them. Men are idiots when it comes to this, they don't see how them throwing themselves at women and giving them everything they want to gain access only drives the cost skyhigh for something both parties want. Absolutely moronic, but here we are.

They are called best friends.

In a sense, yes. A best friend of the opposite sex that you share your life with. That's what I want. But someone who feels the same way, and wants to dedicate to me as much as I to her. The whole relationship package, without the sex (or only a small amount of it). You care more about a romantic partner than a best friend.

Oh goodness gracious, I guess my great grandpa who spoiled me to death was wrong when he gave me money weekly, while choosing only to go with the essentials (for himself). To this day, the fortune remains and grows, try telling him he is financially irresponsible because he provided his great-grandchildren with money weekly. The interest the money accrued monthly was at least 10 times what he gave each of us every week. Get a grip, stop thinking small money.

The type of guy I'm dating will probably f*ck me exactly the way I want it done and have no problem with anything I ask him to do to me or for me. So don't worry about his money, I'm not concerned, I also make money.

Losing his job? You must not know what it takes to become a Network Engineer or work in Sports Management. It is not a job for the dumb, I assure you. If you are good, not only do you not ever lose your job, but get job offers regularly. In the 8.5 years I was with my ex, he was never in any danger to lose his job, on the contrary, he was often wined and dined by other companies trying to hire him. Since his company had first right refusal, they simply matched what the other company was offering him, and called it a day, lol. Not only was he good, he knew he was good and used it to his advantage. Like he used to say "I was not raised on formula, I had the real deal".

I never said giving some money away to your offspring, or anyone else, is wrong or stupid. I am saying that to do so without knowing what the toll is on your finances, to pay for a bill without even looking at it, is financial idiocy.

Everything is about you, I can tell from your attitude and how you write. It's all about what he can do for you or to you, not about what you can do for each other and to each other. It's not uncommon. That is the attitude of most women I encounter now. Me, me me. I am quite sick of it.

You're kidding, right? Yes, being good at a job increases your value, but the notion that you can't ever be fired or lose it by other means just because you're skilled is ludicrous. There are many factors beyond one's control, like the state of the economy in general, office politics and so on. Intelligent, skilled people lose their jobs all the time, and those of them who are reckless with their income and don't plan for such unfortunate circumstances, they wind up on the street faster than they thought possible. Or, more likely, lining themselves up in debt to keep the life they are accustomed to going, even if that makes the situation worse.

[quoto]Don't be naive, people who have money, find ways to make even more, find ways to double or triple what they have. They make smart investments, and reap the benefits. I once dated a wealth manager, his job was to at least triple the amount the client invested. The more money he was able to make for the client (in investments), the more % he was putting into his own pocket. This wealth manager owns a house in one of the most prestigious neighborhoods of one of the boroughs in NYC, not bad.

Don't be mad because they have a larger percentage of disposable income, stop hating dude

You are talking about earning money, not saving what you earn or responsibly spending it. It matters not what you make. That tap can dry up at any moment for any reason. It matters how smart you are in managing what you have earned. That is what is valuable in the long-term.

My attitude, dude, I know that I will eventually expire and I'm living life the only way I know how to live it. We all have choices, you want to be with a bum and struggle or with someone more at your level with whom you can grow? I'm gonna go with the later.

I never, ever said you should date someone of lesser means than you. I merely said that expecting them to still provide for you is ludicrous. Date someone stable and strong, that's great. But don't think they owe you merely for the time you spend with them.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 149 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/10/2014 6:20:33 PM

I got out to dinner with friends all the time and we all pay our share or split everything (like korean BBQ, soup dumplings). That's what friends do, no one owes anything to anyone in an arrangement where none is seeking more than friendship. So let me ask, do you dress the same way when you meet friends, as when you're meeting a woman for a date? If so, why?

Of the few dates I've been on, yes I dress the same as if I am out with a friend. Clean and simple. I'm not trying to impress anyone or change how I naturally am. That is fake, and I don't see the point in putting on a mask that will eventually wear off anyways if it becomes serious.

If I do the same thing I do with friends, on a date, what's the difference? From the onset, he is the one interested in meeting me, and proposing the date and all that. He is in the obligation to show me who he is and what he plans to be in my life (as he's the one approaching me). I have no idea why he wants to meet me, what his intentions are, or anything. Same as when you approach a woman, you just don't get near her and wait for her to notice you, you approach and you strike a conversation. From the very beginning, the interest is not mutual, and nothing else is as a consequence. There will always be someone who is more interested in the other, and that's who pays.[/quote[

Men are required by society to ask women out if they want to go on a date. Women just need to wait. If you accept a man's offer, that would indicate that you are interested as well.

Again, your logic would be absolutely fine if women asked men out too. They don't, barring rare exceptions.

At one of the meetups I went to, one of the women explained it in this way, which makes perfect sense: "We don't know each other nor know if there is mutual interest, therefore we start out 50/50 and when interest in established at some point after some time, then he can start paying". I respect her opinion, I just asked her "how likely are you to buy something if it previously didn't cost you anything, did it all of sudden acquire value or was it always valuable?"

Usually, when something starts out at no cost and then suddenly acquires a price tag, people start considering if it's still valuable enough to pay for it. Like what happened with Whatsapp at some time, it was free, and then they decided to make it $1. People naturally looked for other options which were free, before deciding if paying $1 was worth it after having already experienced it for free. The point I'm trying to make is that you usually start the way you want to end, so choose people who believe in your philosophies.

Here's a novel idea, start out 50/50 and stay 50/50, or take turns paying for each other. That is mechanically fair.

Guess what? Life itself is not fair. Try getting a period every month, lol. But instead of complaining about it, I just keep enough Aleve on me, drink lots of water, and buy tampons in bulk. See? Complaining about something unavoidable is like complaining about having to breathe.

We are all investing in what we consider valuable. We live in a nation that SELLS us bottled water......I'm gonna leave it at that, lol.

Surely you realize that unfairness caused by the random occurrence of nature and unfairness caused by primitive human dating rituals are not the same, nor is the latter unavoidable.

I made it easy. In my profile, I express a liking for cheap eats, by mentioning where I usually eat. I spell it out too, I say it's inexpensive and delicious. If they are under the impression that we have to go somewhere that will be an arm and a leg, that's their problem. I am easily satisfied by a crepe, an amazing slice of pizza, an egg roll, a cup-o-noodle, dirt cheap sushi, beef noodle soup, a fruit salad, and likely anything that is filling and cheap.

Since you are asking for the date, you can propose the venue or activity, so why "you mad bro?" You think anyone who proposes Dinges & Waffles (a cheap but filling waffle with toppings), that I'd say no? No man, that stuff is delicious, lol.

Either you aren't following the point, or you agree with the sentiment. The fundamental issue is that, in dating, society values women more. I do not find that acceptable. Women aren't going out of their way to face rejection, to plan dates, pay for them and all the while tripping over their feet in order to make sure he is entertained.

No, it's the opposite. That's what men do, because women are valued higher for some reason, even though we're supposed to be equal. It's shouted everywhere, but it matters not. It's a fiction. Watch what people do, not what they say, right?

Why do you want to meet her? Why should she meet you? People who do nothing, get nothing.

The only reason I'd want to meet a girl I do not know is because I find her attractive. Likewise, the only reason a girl would accept a date is because she finds the man asking her out attractive as well. This is assuming they don't know each other yet.

know it's gonna sound beyond f*cked up....but it is MY OPINION that women spend more time cultivating their worth (education, skills, parenting, networking, appearance, etc), aside from having a limited window to do certain things (like have children, start a new job with intent to do 20 years, age gracefully, etc). So the limited viability (the elephant in the room) makes it such that women have only a limited number of years (depending how she ages and maintains her appearance) to attract the top % of men available. Due to the fact that there is a limit on the number of years, she then has to select to whom she is giving the best of her years. Like the genie in a bottle, you only get three wishes, so you better make them worthwhile. Wouldn't you agree that since there are only 3 wishes, you cannot afford to squander them? Wouldn't you agree that because there are only 3 wishes, they are extremely valuable versus an offering of 10 wishes?

It's a nice theory, but it falls flat when you consider that even women who don't want kids still behave this way. It's innate programming within us, regardless of what we consciously want.

This social construct is a product of men's forward nature, typically. We go for what we want more, and women tend to be more passive and cautious. So they don't really have to do much but wait, and men come running for what they want willing to trade anything for it regardless of how this imbalances the dating and relationship meta. Again, just programming. I for one am a bit tired of living in society based on urges and conditioning adapted for life thousands of years ago. Our biology is woefully inadequate to our technological, societal and mental status.

You have no obligation to participate in perpetuating the divide, so don't do it. The earth will continue to spin regardless.

I still want to find someone to spend time with, to care for deeply though. But I want this to be genuine and mutual.

Exactly. I think that men who complain about feeling an obligation to pay are likely doing so because they have limited resources, and cannot afford to "squander" their limited number of dollars/pounds/yens/francs for which return is uncertain.

I went on a date last weekend with a Network Engineer who likely makes well over 6 figures (as my ex is also a Network Engineer and makes 6 figures, lol). When the bill arrived, he didn't even look at it, he just placed his credit card in the slot and it was taken away. As my ex used to say "if you have to ask how much it is, you cannot afford it". I'm going on a second date with this gentleman this weekend.

The only thing that anecdote demonstrated is how inept he is with his finances. Earning a lot is not the same as being financially savvy. That adage you stated is painfully depressing. You always ask for the price before buying something. You always inquire and be specific about your decisions, and that absolutely includes finances. The type of guy you're dating is the kind of guy who will likely be broke and homeless after a month if he loses his job.

I have another date this weekend with a gentleman who works in Sports Management and is bi-coastal, so he flies out 2 times a month for work. This gentleman is hot as hell, lol. Why would a gentleman who likely has unlimited opportunities to do whatever he wants with whomever he wants probably with little to no money investment, propose dinner and drinks to lil old me? Would someone in such field even worry about how much anything will cost? come on!

It's not about income for the long-haul, it's about being intelligent for every moment and every decision and being able to restrain yourself when necessary. The millionaires who stay millionaires are the kinds who are frugal and care about what they spend even when they have a lot of resources.

Besides, it's not about how much someone earns or what they have, but about your attitude and many like you. Somehow you feel you are owed something just for going on a date with a guy. That somehow your mere time and presence is a service. It's a pervasive posture among many people in society that I can't seem to escape.

It's such a distorted and imbalanced affair to the point of being comically absurd, and yet it remains.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 135 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/10/2014 2:35:26 PM

^^^ Aren't you the young man who argued in the MGTOW thread - just to argue. I'm thinking you a little more than your admitted asexual, I'm thinking there are other issues as in maybe ADHD or aspergers or something. Not meaning to offend by you seem to lack social skills, certainly social graces. You're like the child that keeps asking "why, why, why". Find someone that thinks the same way you do, but to argue with folks that have a ton of experience, are 20 to 30+ years older than you, far wiser and to them (us) this is the norm. Go find a 24 year old to play with instead of arguing with us old broads. In a perfect world things would be exactly equal, but they're not and won't be any time soon. You're sort of a Sheldon Cooper, you need to find your Amy Farrah Fowler. I love that couple. :)

As to paying, I've always either paid my way or at least offered. And I've treated many times.

In what way do I lack social graces? I do my best to remain civil and polite. I don't insult anyone, I just state my views as plainly as I can. I think the status quo of men being expected to plan dates, ask women out and also pay for them is imbalanced and makes no sense if the goal is equality.

If the goal isn't really equality, fine, but I wish people would stop to harp on about it. At any rate, it really doesn't make much sense to me and never has.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 130 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/10/2014 1:42:00 PM
To assume one is not financially stable, merely because he opposes the standard convention that men have to pay to obtain the company of a woman, that is quite absurd.

Imagine if a man were to expect women to ask him out, plan the date, pick him up and pick up the bill, and if she did not, they were "lesser" women. Can you understand how imbalanced this is?
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 126 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/10/2014 12:50:23 PM
Why should men have to make an initial investment but women do not?

Is a women's time worth more than the man's?

If you want to keep gender roles, that is your business, but they aren't fair or sensible beyond primitive biological programming.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 124 (view)
The Coffee Date
Posted: 12/10/2014 11:11:53 AM
If women generally paid their half on a first date, I'd gladly go somewhere a bit more appetizing, I love to eat so it's a win-win for me. In the current status quo, I don't know you, why would I devote resources just to find out if we're compatible? How is that fair in anyway? It really isn't.

Since they contacted me & they made the suggestion, they paid. No one ever had an issue w/ that, bec. on meets, I did not order 4 gray goose c*ckails. (never did a 1st meet at a bar)***oops, I met one guy at a bar a few years ago, I had a diet soda, it also had a restaurant & a band, I just remembered that one!

That would be a perfectly fair and logical arrangement if women also asked men out around 50% of the time. That % is probably close to 5%, if that. Lower for online dating. So no, that isn't fair at all. We are required to ask you out for dates, there's no getting around that unless the guy is Brad Pitt.

Therefore, a venue whereby the expense is minimal for the party that is always expected to pay makes the most sense. The goal is just to meet and see if you have chemistry in real life.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 192 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/28/2014 4:40:32 AM
I don't know what's going on here, but I think it's safe to say this isn't about MGTOW anymore.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 92 (view)
With the insignificance of humans, does it make you happy or sad?
Posted: 11/27/2014 8:21:46 PM
Beyond all the technical mumbo jumbo, the truth is none of you exist. You're all figments of my imagination.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 169 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/27/2014 2:40:09 AM
I don't agree with anyone insulting each other, doesn't matter what their position is. Why is it so hard to be civil? It's actually kind of comical.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 167 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/26/2014 8:54:47 PM

First they both despise much of what modern 21st century feminism is about. In my son's words much of it is no longer about being and more about being superior. He qualified that with the fact that there are many areas where women are still discriminated against and there are also places where men are discriminated against. He talked about a woman he works with who cannot get promoted because she might take another maternity leave and it is a "waste of money" to train her for the new position. That bother him because a man he works with takes parental leave with each child and had no problem with getting a promotion.

I'm not sure why this bothers or surprises anyone, to be honest. A business, to be successful, has to account for every possible cost. If a woman decides to have another baby and go on maternity leave, this is quite costly. Men can take parental leave, sure, but it's less common.

In the end, the real culprit is the laws that force employers to provide maternity leave/parental leaves, and the laws that prevent employers from asking if there is intent to have a kid down the road. With such requirements and a lack of knowledge, women are artificially propped up in terms of costs and risks to a business.

Now let's move onto financial support and the 50/50 split at the end of the marriage. I already knew my son's stance which was she can have that or more if our marriage end. He logic, it is easier for her start again financially and he loves her and, while he acknowledges that people fall out of love and marriages end, he would hate for them to fight about money at the rather than remembering the good times. My SO stance, on the other hand, surprised me a bit. He has been married twice and paid out the 50/50 split of the marital assets both time, paid child support right through to when his son graduated from university and he had absolutely no issues with the split of the marital assets. Why? Because in his words, marriage is a partnership and we should share equally the good and the bad even if the marriage ends.

I just want to be clear about one thing, I do not think the notion of being a partnership, a single entity in financial and legal terms, as wrong or immoral. If that's what two adults want to do, I would never try to stop them. I do however think it's skewed against men at the moment, because most men earn, through their choices, more than women. And since society and culture highly encourages marriage and kids, it feels like the game is rigged against men.

No problem with paying child support because it is a parent's duty to support their child regardless of their relationship with their ex-spouse.

We certainly do agree on this.

The funny part of the discussion was my daughter-in-law who didn't agree with the 50/50 split. She felt that each should take out what they put in financially (meaning she would get very little). My son's answer was "our house would be dump without the care you give it". So here we have the men (higher earners) saying the 50/50 split is fair and the women (lower earners) feeling a little different about it. The whole world is not black and white and most men aren't bitter about what happens at the end of a marriage and most women aren't out for every penny they can get. Most just want it done as un-acrimoniously as possible for the sake of their sanity and any children involved. God gawd based on what some of you are saying, you would think that women are getting rich off of child support! If only.

I don't think it's fair to use a personal anecdote to represent the majority of cases. Though it does give me hope to know your daughter in law does not support the 50/50 split.

Now let's move to MGTOW, neither man had heard of it so I had to explain it to them. They had a very hard time believing it was a real thing. It the words of my son "Sounds like a bunch of losers who are pissed because they can't get laid" They were both baffled by the thought of opting out.

Ah, modern discussion in a nutshell. If you disagree or do not believe someone or a group, insult them.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 149 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/26/2014 6:17:01 AM
You were talking about me, though. Yamen, in his post, suggested that if I should have a daughter, that I teach her well and so on.


<div class='quote'>Gods help that poor girl....She'll probably end up with some misogynistic creep who'll beat the crap out of her, with a role model like you...

That was your first sentence in your response.

If you were referring to Yamen's existing daughter, never mind.

Artic, I think it's time for you to recognize that you don't actually have any issues with marriage on a personal level. All your issues are imaginary, because you aren't married and you have no skin in the game. You should definitely follow your own advice and avoid marriage, though. That would be best. I'm all in favor of people not getting married and never having kids, especially since so many parents seem unarmed with the knowledge required to interact effectively with their partners, much less teach their kids how to become responsible adults. (*cough*)

As for the state involvement in marriage, it isn't going away because every valid contract has the force of law, and laws cannot be administered without a state authority which is empowered to enforce them. But if you want to play dress-up and have a pretend wedding that does an end-run around the state, ok! This is something that people actually do. I've seen people marry their dogs to each other. Cake and everything. Have a little party. Don't forget to invite the teddy bears.

I have issue with the presumption in society that men are the workhorses and women are the carriers.

We're not a hunter / gatherer society anymore, but our biology and culture hasn't adapted to our current technology.

We can be truly equal, but we choose not to be. We choose to perpetuate gender roles and inequality within these roles.

I do not abide marriage that, legally by default, treats the both people as one entity, therefore necessitating (in disputes) usually an even split of assets (regardless of the unevenness of earnings). It's as much a legal issue as it is a cultural issue that pressures men into quickly becoming married and having kids, tying them down and trapping them.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 145 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/26/2014 3:23:42 AM
The religious ceremony is not a legal contract. The religious ceremony is just an elaborate formal acknowledgement of the marriage, sort of like a funeral is an elaborate formal acknowledgement of a death.

The marriage license is the legal contract.

Can you even have a formal wedding ceremony, with all the bells and whistles, without a marriage license? Without it being official to the state?

If so, that would solve most of the issues I have with it on a personal level. I just hope people in larger quantities decide to move away from state involvement in marriage.


Gods help that poor girl....She'll probably end up with some misogynistic creep who'll beat the crap out of her, with a role model like you...

As for you,well,I think the fact that you're reduced to being abusive as well as misogynistic is really ALL we need to know about you, huh?

VERY good "anti-theft" devise.....BUT....ONLY really effective if it's something that ANYBODY with half a brain would want...and I as well as most of the women I've met, have MORE than half a brain...LMAO

I especially LOOOOVOVVEEE the "has an epidural and pops out a baby", one....

That kind of "insight" is a sure-fire winner with all of those ladies tappity-tapping at your door I'm certain, but then again, I suspect that you purposely choose the "less than half a brain variety",myself...No women with any brains would look at you twice...Nor want to listen to you spout off about all your own prejudices...and hatred towards women....

Have a nice day....

Hey look! More petty jabs and insults!

It's quite hilarious being on a forum with (mostly) older people, yet I'm the only one who seems capable of restraining themselves from hurling insults left and right at people I disagree with. Aren't I supposed to be the immature one?

I don't know what I said that makes you believe a daughter I'd raise would end up with a misogynistic man. Have I advocated for anything less than equality and fairness? I don't think so.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 123 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 10:18:56 AM

And most employers let you go HOME at the end of the day, really don't have to take my word for it, look it up....

Sure, but that's part of the deal. A simple example, live-in maintenance personnel for apartment complexes. They typically are paid very little, but they are given an apartment for free. That's a significant compensation in of itself, not to be tossed aside like it's nothing.

Well, I feed three adults for 4 days a week 3 meals/per day and with shopping the sales and being careful,as well as buying fresh produce and decent food,as in not pre-prepared crap, also including things like , toiletries, toilet paper and paper towels, cleaners, laundry soap, etc...
Yes,my dear it adds up to more than 150$ per week...AND my old folks eat VERY little....
Would you like a screen shot of our last grocery bill as "proof"???
That's ALSO sarcasm, btw..

Oh, you misunderstood what I was calculating. I was only referring to her food costs. His food costs, as well as the kids, weren't part of the issue. aren't "debating calmly"and just disagreeing,you're DISCOUNTING things that MANY people on here have said to you, and considering that THEY are speaking from Life experience while YOU are speaking from your own pet "theories",, yes, that IS a problem...
Also you seem to cherry-pick what you WANT to address, as opposed to taking into account the info that's REALLY there....addressing ONLY what "fits" with your particular world view....

You keep saying that, yet I don't see you mentioning any examples of what I am not addressing. I do my best to respond to everything you say.

That is a DISGUSTING attitude PERIOD, especially in the context of a discussion about marriage....not to mention an ignorant one based on NO experience...

As for the rest of what you wrote, couldn't even be BOTHERED to address that....because yet AGAIN, you ignore the ACTUAL evidence and favour your own,biased views, above all....

Any way...good luck finding that woman who will agree with your views as I said perhaps she'll be able to overlook the misogyny and turn a deaf ear to your uninformed views enough and be smart enough to ensure that HER own assets are protected enough to even DARE to be involved with you....

Wait, I'm confused? I said I do not believe every women is a free loader. I didn't say I do believe they are all free loaders...

You like to capitalize your words to show how serious you are, but you aren't making any specific claims. What evidence are you talking about?
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 121 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 8:30:50 AM
I suppose it comes down to an even more fundamental question, why is the religions ceremony of marriage a legal contract? I never understood that. It shouldn't have anything to do with the government.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 116 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/23/2014 2:48:02 AM

And once again, you have taken pretty much everything that I wrote out of context and used it to shore up your own beliefs...not that I didn't see it

Even to go so far as saying that room and board should be factored into a live-in arrangement for a caregiver...well, now you're trying to tell ME who has been DONG THE JOB for 25 years. how it's "supposed to be"....not tomention the actual LAW....LOL

Right, employers will provide you food and shelter for free. They certainly do not take those costs into account to factor in your salary. That's totally not what employers do.

If you can't tell, that's sarcasm.

I don't know what you think I've twisted. Seems to me like even if I debate with you calmly, if I disagree, somehow I am evil and "twisting what you say".

As far as your estimations for food ALONE,well, that there,more than anything you've said tells me that you really have NO clue as to the real cost of things....never mind the rest of your calculations....unless of course,you plan to live on Ramen noodles and tv

Hmm? The food estimation is by own my costs. I spend $300 a month for myself. I'm an adult. Women probably won't even eat as much as I do, I eat a fair bit.

If you disagree, well that's fine. Let me know what you think the costs ought to me and give your reasoning for them.

I have tried to present a "logical" argument based SOLELY on the cost of a wife's contributions in REAL money and ACTUAL amounts and yet you STILL seem to think that's wildly overestimated...
Just because YOU don't believe the cost of things, doesn't mean that they don't actually, COST that much...LOL

I stick with my original and final statement, I wish you lotsa luck trying to find ANY woman stupid enough to jump on board with that particular thinking. Or as you've said before it's a much wiser choice for you to NOT get married and have kids....

They may just end up being as bad at math as you

I took your estimations into account, I did the math, and after factoring in the man's contribution to the kid (financially) being quite relevant overall (because the wife also wants to have a kid) it mitigates most of her costs. But hey, I'm not saying this "cold" logic has to apply for everyone. I'm not trying to impose my will or thoughts on you or anyone else. I just don't agree with marriage being defaulted to an unfair split for the person who earns more. That's all. What you think is fair and what I think is fair might not be the same, and that's fine. We aren't getting married lol.

I'm done here...this isn't an actual discussion at this point as it's clear from all of your posts that when you don't agree with what others are telling you is their REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE, that you just invalidate it and continue arguing the contrary,yet you have NO experience of your own to support your own beliefs....nor any actual facts...

I have SEVERAL friends who have had pre-nups and there is AN ENTIRE section that pertains to the splitting of assets in the case of children resulting from the marriage, as MOST pre-nups DO and the judge in the case of 2 of those divorces not only honoured those agreements, but is not able to nullify a legal contract as easily as you seem to think...

In Canada, you cannot factor in any assets related to the child, nor custody of the child. The entire prenup may not be cancelled however, just by having a kid, that is exclusively an American issue depending on the state. forums1...said....Why are you HERE if you believe that women are out for a "free ride" and that the Law is out to "get you" if you DO make the mistake of getting involved with a woman, because they "have all of the rights"?

Because I don't believe every single woman is a free loader. There are plenty who are genuinely good people. I also don't care much about sex, so that reduces the desire to couple just for resources to have a kid, because I also don't want that, nor do I want to get married. I'm exposing myself to no risk, so why not try to find someone I really enjoy being around?

One more thought to ponder....thank the gods that women have put up with THOUSANDS of years of inequality and still continued to have children, rather than taking OUR "toys" and going home, otherwise the human race would have died out a long time ago. Guess we really ARE, the "stronger sex", huh???/quote]

I'm not sure I follow? Women enjoy sex as much as men do, and they also want kids as much (if not more) than men. Having kids wasn't a sacrifice in that sense, not in terms of desire. The fact women have been mistreated throughout most of history is a painful fact.

That's okay though,because very soon,men, and all that they can "provide" will soon become obsolete in the child-rearing/marriage game and women will, FINALLY, as has been the "plan" all along, RULE THE WORLD!!!! MUwahahahahaha.....

If you mean that they will start to close the wage gap, earning more and more, and being more independent (even within relationships) well I can only hope you're right. That's exactly what I want.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 114 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 8:02:58 PM
It's not pointless to discuss something if it hones your thoughts further. That's the whole point of a forum, isn't it? Obviously nothing will change from this discussion in real life, but I enjoy it nevertheless.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 111 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 4:50:38 PM

The problem as I see it with all of your gnashing of teeth and "railing against the machine" of marriage, is really pretty simple to me, which is why I stopped talking about this to you...

Very simply you, as most MEN felt for MANY years, just don't value what a woman does in the home as it does not contain an inherent monetary value...and you obviously don't value women, period...Your misogyny is showing...

Not sure why you think this when I've stated several times I think there is a quantifiable value that women offer by staying home, taking care of the house and her family. I merely disagree that this value should be an automatic 50/50 split of all assets. I don't think that should be the default.

You talk about how a woman "deciding" to stay home and raise BOTH of their children as though that were a choice that she is making FOR HERSELF...
Unless there's some guy out there who is capable of getting pregnant and bearing children, that is something that SHE DOES FOR THE BOTH OF THEM....

So,in essence, what you are saying is that, like a GOOD brood mare,she should be content to have a roof over her head, food in her belly,and the occasional trinket doled out by hubby, and be HAPPY to have that...And then, when say, he decides to trade her in for a younger model one day, because her breasts are sagging or her ass is fat after bearing their children, she should just go off quietly and NOT ask for ANY compensation for all of the years that SHE put in...

Not at all. When kids are involved, it becomes an actual job in action. Not necessarily as stressful as a real job (for a boss you have no relationship with) but it's definitely not easy, and the job is never done. There is real value in that. Specifying exactly how much is difficult, and of course it would vary significantly by the nuances of each couple's situation. But here I am, stating in absolute terms that I do believe women who stay home to take care of their kids are doing so for both people in the family (herself and the man) and that she is definitely entitled to compensation for this, beyond the basics provided of food, shelter, clothing and so on.

Again, I just don't think this default 50/50 split is sensible and I think it should be hashed out much more prior to entering marriage/having kids. Another issue is that in many states in the USA and I believe here in Canada too, having a kid automatically nullifies any prenuptial agreement (in some states it nullifies the entire prenup). Thus preventing adults from being adults and carefully planning their actions and weighing their choices.

I work at a "live-in" caregiver position and I'm here to tell you that I would NEVER under ANY circumstances factor in my "roof over my head", the food I eat, or any other expenses incurred from my job as a PART of my salary...that is considered to be the basic requirement for someone who is willing to do a job 24/7, or 24/3 + 8 hrs, in my case...It's like having an alarm don't just pay for that ONCE, but there is ALSO a monthly fee for monitoring. The difference is that an alarm system ISN'T going to pick an elderly person up off of the floor if they fall, or mop up a pool of urine if they have an accident or get them OUT of the apartment if there's a fire...
As a matter of fact,my current employer tried to get me to take the position without wanting to compensate me for the nights that I slept here, to which I did NOT agree, for the following reasons...

The very fact that I am HERE and NOT at home, means that I am technically "on-call" and deserve to be compensated for that. If there's an emergency at 3am I AM going to be the one dragging my ass out of bed and taking care of it,so technically, I am ALWAYS working.
Or say one of my elderly couple is just having a restless/sleepless night, again,I am the one who will then be required to forgo MY sleep and deal with the situation. As well as function normally and perform ALL of my normal tasks the next day, when I'm barely able to form a coherent thought due to a lack of sleep.

If you factor it in or not is irrelevant. Your employer absolutely does factor in food, shelter and whatever else they provide you with as part of your compensation because it is. Just because it's basic doesn't mean it doesn't enter into the equation.

Good on you for not accepting the stress of being on-sight for no pay. That would indeed be absurd.

If someone wants to have a child and they don't have the ability for whatever reason, then they can hire a surrogate...because, for argument's sake, let's say that they want a child who is of their blood.
The cost of that can go well into the 100's of thousands of dollars depending on where you live....
Factoring in medical expenses, diet, clothing, prenatal care, as well as the actual birth, lawyer's fees, and let's not forget compensation to the birth mother for being the "vessel" for nine months...
Multiply that by say, two, which is still, I believe the average number of children that people are having....

A conservative estimate for that would be WELL over a half a million dollars EACH CHILD, right there...
So now let's move on to child care....
To hire a live-in nanny who is competent and trustworthy, again you are looking at a MINIMUM of 450$/week for a 40 HOUR WORK WEEK. Now that doesn't include any care that is required above and beyond those 40 HOURS.
And for minimum wage, trust me when I say, you get what you pay for...

But I digress...

The law states that anything above and beyond that is to be paid at time and a half.

Considering that the average mother's work day is RARELY if EVER finished at 5pm, we're now looking at our 450$ + time and a half for the balance of the waking time that the child needs care,until say they go to bed at 8pm.
So now we're looking at 450$ + 15x15, (5days/week x 3 hours per day time +1/2)= 750$/week...

The cost of a kid is quite expensive, yes. The man will be paying all of the costs associated with the raising of this kid, which given that the women in this situation also wants the kid, is of equal value to her. His contribution to the care of the kid through finances is no small quantity.


We've forgotten the week ends....because much as Dad would like to spend time with the kids, he also "needs" to go and play golf in order to "network", AND, he's also SO tired from HIS work week, so let's say, out of an 8 hour day he's going to actually be caring for his own children 2/3 of that time(BIG overestimation in reality!!)....which equals 2.7 hours that will, again, have to be covered by someone else, who has now already worked their 40 hour week, remember, so , again, at time and a half, that's 120$ for both Saturday and Sunday, for someone else to take care of the child for him until 5 pm...Ooops! I forgot to add in those extra 3 hours AGAIN between 5-8pm....So that makes ANOTHER 6 hours x 1.5 of 10$/hour, which comes to an additional 90$.

Now, let's face it, you can't say that I'm NOT being really generous here, as I've NEVER known a golf game to last ONLY two hours, LOL...but bear with me, I'm not finished...

So NOW, we're back to all of the hours between say 8pm when the wee ones are in bed and anywhere between 6-9am when they awaken, so we have to use SOME flexibility and, AGAIN, for the sake of generosity, I'll say that "Mom"/ Nanny is actually "off the clock" and NOT required to address ANY of the child's needs between say, 8pm-12am...NOT that that EVER happens in REAL life, but again, I'm trying to be generous here...

So now, we're left with all of the hours between 12am and I'll say 7am, as that's the time that school age children are usually we now have an additional 2 hours/day x time and a half= 150$/week NOT including week ends...

As I said earlier, the fact that if anything occurs during the night that it will be "Mom's"/Nanny's job to get up and take care of it, as we ALL know how hard Dad works!!,
I'm going to give a LOT of leeway here, because that doesn't happen EVERY day except of course when they're new borns and need to be fed every2-4 hours, so we'll say how about a reduced hourly rate, of 8$/hour x 8= 64$ x 5=320$ again, adding in the week ends that's an additional 128$....

Now, let's see... I think that covers the actual hourly wages for CHILD CARE ALONE....
So that means by my calculations that to pay for child care for 1 child for a WEEK is going to add up to....A GRAND total of : $1408.00/week...(pretty sure I forgot something there, but that would actually only serve to weaken the argument, on your side, so I won't be

When you factor in the financial support the father brings to the table for the kid, you can easily see this as half of the workload that you obviously resent men for not providing (even though they are out there working for impartial bosses who could fire them at any moment if they screw up or for no reason at all). You realize how huge an investment that is and how the job dynamic is vastly different from a family environment to a cold, competitive private job?

Moving on, a lot of the job aspects a mother will do, will be for the man or the general upkeep of the house. It's bundled together with child care (though I fully concede that early on for the first few years it's hell).

Anyhow, let's just go with your provided numbers for debate's sake, that would clock her salary at $73,216 a year. Minus taxes (the man is robbed every year so I fail to see why she shouldn't be) and you'd be closer to $55,000.

Now lets factor in basic provisions:

Food - $350 a month (Canadian food is so expensive) = $3,600 a year.
Housing - $850 a month (just being generous here and treating it as a roommate situation in a decent house) = $10,200
Clothing - $200 a month = $2,400
Gas - $150 a month = $1,800
Miscellaneous (fun money) $200 a month = $2,400

Total = $20,400, and that's fairly conservative (the values on fun money and clothing can be substantially higher).

But, what happens when you factor in, as mentioned, the man's financial contribution to the kid? Shouldn't that at least match her physical contribution? Remember, he's paying for everything you have and need, as well as the costs of the kid. If that doesn't match her input, how much does it equal?

I honestly don't really know how much it would equal, but it's a significant factor.

I think it's fair that she is both provided for and the kid is provided for, as of course she wants to experience having a kid as much as he does (one would hope anyhow). But I'm entirely willing to accept the notion that even after the man's financial contributions, her effort is still worth a bit more. Maybe as much as $10,000 a year extra, or $180,000 over 18 years. That's acceptable.

But this is all within the context of having a kid. If there's no kid involved, do her contributions to the household even equal his financial input? It's hard to say, depends on the situation, how much she does, how much he is earning and bringing to the table... but it's far more lopsided if she isn't working. And note, I don't see anything morally wrong with that sort of arrangement provided both parties know what they're getting into and know what each other expects.

Then, as someone else ALSO mentioned, sexual gratification will DEFINITELY cost you some BIG bucks, as last I heard an "out call" for a DECENT escort here in Mtl. is around 200-500$/night. We'll say that Dad is "frugal" in this area and only calls an escort every week ONCE/week, (as IF!!! LOL), or,even if he has a g/f, then there's the "cost" of dating, eating out, movies, trips etc. Also, we now have babysitting costs, cheaper than nanny's overtime, 10/hr x4 hours= 40$
Then there's the catering for special occasions as while Nanny may be able to take care of most of the meals during the week, she is certainly NOT going to be throwing a dinner party for 20 at the drop of a hat, so that Dad can impress his boss/clients/partners...

Sorry, what? A wife is not an escort. Are you saying women must be paid to have sex with? It's a mutually beneficial act that supposedly both genders like about equally. If she's having sex when she does not want to, I suppose that's a different story, but if she wants to as much as him, you can't charge for that.

Well, every job has it's perks, and while he may have a company car in order to do his job, so should SHE,as turnabout's fair play and all that...and he would have to provide that for the nanny as well...

Well, no, not at all. Most jobs do not have perks, most physical jobs don't. If he has perks to his job, it's likely at least a middle class job.

When two people enter into a marriage, it is a PARTNERSHIP 50/50 as far as assets AND debts, which you seem to forget...the "debt part" that is. I've know MANY women who ended up not only with NOTHING at the end of a marriage but were also in DEBT due to their partner's bad financial decisions...
If you start picking apart the importance of what each contributes, or try to base that on some fvcked up sense of "value" it's pretty clear to any reasonably intelligent person that NOBODY is going to come out the winner....
As others have said here already, the MAJORITY of women don't take their "husband's to the cleaners" at all and often end up in a worse situation than before from a financial point of view, and as for your views on child support, and custody...well, the majority of the time, I personally, haven't seen too many men clamoring for sole custody in the first place and you obviously have NO CLUE with all due respect, as to what it actually COSTS raise a child...

Marriage does not guarantee kids, and even if it did, it's hardly anywhere near as one-sided as you make it seem to be (by completely neglecting to factor in the man's contribution). The fact that debts are shared is just as absurd that all assets are shared. I don't understand why that is the default. That should be something the couple agrees on before getting married, or it shouldn't even be a factor at all. I've said it many times, just share what you want to share. Why do you need a legal claim to your partner's stuff?

I have to be really honest here and say that every time I read one of your posts, it sounds like the tantrum of a little boy, stomping his foot and claiming" it's NOT fair"!!! Or, "I don't want to SHARE"!!
When you seem to have NO idea about what is required for a true partnership with a woman...
You say that you don't want to get married or have kids and frankly, I think that's the BEST idea for you, because with that pov I really don't see many women really WANTING to be with you...

I only want to share what I feel they deserve, and assessing how much they deserve to have should be a logical and forward process. Why hide it away, only to be discussed when both parties are mad and resentful of each other? It's really strange to me.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 106 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/22/2014 3:11:42 AM

Well, to start I'm gonna say that I agree w/ Hamilton on her daughters example, that's why I said "20yrs" (that was 18 by her dates) for a house to gain that much - discounting the 00's housing bubble where things got a bit insane (I warned a few people I know to think about holding off on buying a few years back in 2006, because I saw it coming - of course none of them listened - although it may work out if they can afford to stay there long enough. That 'experience and wisdom' thing - I'd seen it before where most of them were younger and hadn't. I was looking right at the late-80's housing bubble and waited until '91 to buy, my house (<$200K say) would've been $50K more at the peak of things (although probably $30K cheaper than I paid before the bubble)). I was close to the low, a year later my same home might've been $5K less, but since then has only gained. Housing isn't a "sure thing" in any case, and cases like that are generally the exception not the rule.

Good advice. I feel there's a large bubble in the Canadian Real estate markets now, wouldn't buy into any properties now.

Anyways, given that timeframe for your hypothetical $250K house to increase to $2mil, lets say roughly that 20yrs (give or take a few, mine hasn't grown anywhere near that in 23 years but you picked 'the right location' and it did)... what you are saying with your statement that you "only share what you both agree to share" that for *20yrs* you agreed to "share" the home with her, but as soon as things fell apart or whenever you feel like "not sharing" anymore, she's entitled to nothing. TBH, that sounds more like a roommate than a partner. Are you gonna write up a 'rental agreement' for her before she moves in, defining what she pays in 'rent' and bills, and what any of her other contributions are worth (in $/hr) and deduct that from her 'rent'? You seem to want to define a marriage as if it is a business deal, she's worth $X/hr and no more, and when you or her choose to "end the employment contract" then she leaves with nothing other than the "pay" she has accrued. And, of course, any contribution she made to the "company" while in your "employ" is part of your business and not anything she has any claim to, because all of her efforts during her "employment" were property of "the company" (you).

You're welcome to try and get her to agree to all that in a pre-nup "employment contract", but I'm willing to bet you won't find a lot of takers on that deal because that generally doesn't mesh with the idea of "equal partners" in a marriage. Sounds a lot less like an "equal partnership" than it does an "employer/employee relationship".

About the house, if she paid nothing for it, I really don't see how her living there rent free and helping out with the decorations entitles her to half of it. I just can't place how that makes sense to anyone.

Now, of course, if she helps with the mortgage, utilities, etc... it's a different story. But if she's just living there for free after he bought it? Come on.

You make it sound so cold, but it would solve a whole lot of issues for people in the future if they treated the financial aspects of marriage as just that, cold and to the point.

Or you could try transferring ownership of the house when you buy it at $250K to an offshore Cayman Island anonymously owned LLC, through a couple of on-shore 'shell' companies, and then you pay 'rent' to said LLC for the 20yrs - hoping of course that it'll be worth that $2mil by the end because if it's only gained $100K in that time you've probably lost your shirt in all the legal/accountant fees it's going to involve to set it up... but if you're *really* that concerned that your "potential" $1.75mil gains might be "stolen" from you, that's probably the way to go.)

The fact such accounting tricks can be used is depressing me, it's certainly not something I would try (and not disclosing assets can nullify a prenup anyways).

It's not really about me either. I would never marry someone if my assets and income vastly outstripped them, unless there was a way for a prenup to be written that kept all assets, current and future (for both parties) as sovereign.

Is there something I am missing here? Is there some hidden romance in sharing everything you own and earn, even if you have/will have much more than the other person? If there is, I bet that feels great in the moment, but damn can that blow up in your face down the road.
It's rather annoying to me that it's a legal and societal norm to get married and share everything, oh and don't forget to have kids! Such a structured and rigidly unfair path, I'm sitting here laughing to myself because I really just don't understand it.

BTW, the 50/50 is not "set in stone", it's really the default a court will enforce when the two parties cannot come to an agreement otherwise. A good number of the divorces I've seen weren't anything like 50/50, both parties (or their lawyers) came together and worked out something they could both agree on. A judge might 'comment' that the 40% person in a 60/40 split is "entitled" to a 50/50 split, but if both parties agree they generally won't force anything - in fact I'll bet they're glad to have more 'amicable' agreements rather than bickering in court and having to enforce something on them. Most of the real 'work' in a divorce is not in court, it's between the people/lawyers hammering out something which is acceptable to them, the judge would prefer to be there to just 'rubber stamp' it and make it a legally binding divorce decree. Take ForumFiend's example - he wanted to take 1/2 her house, she countered with going after his retirement (which she didn't really want), he dropped his claim to the house, and they both walked away with what they felt was important to protect (she still lost out overall, but that's what happens sometimes). The judge wasn't there with a gavel pounding saying "she gets 1/2 his retirement and he gets 1/2 the house, 50/50 (BANG!)". The law doesn't really work like that.

Of course, it's not like when a divorce is filed, both the man and women are dragged in front of the judge in chains to have a sentence carried forth. If they can hash out a deal that works for both of them, great. But if the tables are uneven for whoever has more assets/has earned more, he's at an inherent disadvantage because the judge will at least split things 50/50 (or around that). He can't negotiate lower than that unless she allows it. And even with prenups stating that the share from specified income sources or assets will be lower, it can be thrown out for being "unconscionable". Man I really hate when vagaries like that are used in a legal framework. How can you ever feel safe when you can't properly define unconscionable? It's pretty damn stupid if you ask me.

Imagine if ForumFiend had a ironclad prenuptial agreement that had laid out all current (at the time) assets in both hands, and what would be done with all earned income (for both parties). Before even getting married, hashing out all of these details solves the most crucifying moments of divorce. And honestly, none of this would even be much of an issue for me if prenups could not be thrown out (besides being signed under duress). If they were truly ironclad, regardless of whatever some random judge deems to be "unjust" on a whim, then we'd be on a fair level.

Though there is also still this expectation from a lot of women that the man should lead the way/pay the way. I hope that changes too.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 103 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 4:19:19 PM
If she helped to pick out the decorations or amenities/additions to the home, you could say that brings some value to the table, sure. But you can't say it brings half of 1.75 million dollars to the table.

I've no problem with value being injected into what women do around the home, for the home, for kids, but it doesn't seem to be worth a 50/50 split most of the time (really depends on incomes). I mean, are you really saying that being home to keep watch on contractors is worth $875,000?

I understand your point. You feel that women contribute a lot beyond financial assets, though I think the man will still do this too; but that's fine. I don't feel that's an invalid point. Mine is more, again, why does marriage by default have to be a 50/50 split? Why not make that part optional? Again, it makes so much more sense to just keep what both of you earn and only share what both of you agree to share.

and again did you miss the part where you cannot sign away the rights of your present and future children? The law does not allow it, every child has the right to financial support from their parents and as such it cannot be signed away in a prenup.

as for the house, I think forums1 did a great job of explaining that one.

Like I said, if it can be proven that the kid will undergo significant stress and burden by being with the prenuptially agreed upon parent, the state could step in (i.e. that parent has no income at all anymore might be homeless or has become mentally unstable). Besides those extreme circumstances, the kid will be fine, it's none of anyone's business. (Government being the people).

Couple of things wrong with the above statement. The child of a man/woman who earns $100,000 is used to a certain standard of living and why should they be deprived of that if their parents split. Second, 1/1o of his income toward his child, why would he begrudge that? Still more than enough left for one person to live on. 3rd, you have no clue what it costs to raise a child. A single person could live in a bachelor apartment at about $700/month where I live. The law states that a parent and child must live in a 2 bedroom apartment about $1,300/month. We will be cheap on this one and say that the grocery bill is $250/month for the child (while I can live on rice and beans if need be, a child is going have a proper healthy diet which costs money), $150/month for clothing and shoes (not at all unreasonable for a growing child trust me ever look at the price of good running shoes). While I can live without a car, can't get the kid to the extracurricular activities without one. So let's say transportation costs are $100/month (way, way low). Now how about those activities, that is going to be at least another $100. Now the dentist and prescriptions and all those other miscellaneous things. We have $21.00 left! Double that for my share and guess what? Costs more than 921/month to raise a child.

you posted a whole lot of misdirection in relation to the above quote but i answered it anyway,

what I was addressing was this

Rent should not factor into child support. That is her responsibility (to provide for herself). The fact the law forces her to obtain a larger apartment than she needs isn't his fault.

It's not a major percentage of his income, but 10% is still fairly high considering he's likely to be paying alimony too. $250 for food seems a bit high, but okay. $150 for clothes? As a kid, I was lucky if my parents spent $10 a month on clothes. We weren't well off. Now you can say that if the father is well off, that should contribute more to the well-being of his kid. Fine. But $150 is crazy. You don't need new shoes every month. New shoes every year worked fine for me. Transportation, that's fine. Activities at $100 a month? What kind of activities are you doing..

Child support should be for the basics without which the kid would have nothing.

With more conservative estimates, I reach $700 a month, but that's the total cost, which he shouldn't be paying. He should be paying exactly half, or $350. Maybe $400 a month.

Why, just because he's wealthy, should he be forced to pay more? Now, many fathers would likely do so because they love their kids, but I am not into the game of using force to extract wealth from dads beyond the basic provisions the kid requires for survival. The custodial parent should be legally responsible for anything beyond that.

So you haven't shown me the stats, where is all the information about women extracting all the wealth she wants? It is not there, because it does not exist.

Sorry, stats on what?

Women earn less than men on average. Yes?

Marriage is a 50/50 split. Yes?

Pure 1+1=2 logic indicates that women will have a legal claim to the difference in income if you get married. Most of the time. Sometimes the women earns more, and then the man owns the women (though not for kids).

I already provided a source for the imbalance of child custody favoring women (child support payments too).

First that is kids as in plural, and good gawd do you have any idea how patronizing the above was? I get a pat on the back for doing what 99% of woman do? A pat on the back for doing what 99% of custodial parents of all sexes do. You make it sound like most women just sit back and live off of ex's money. Doesn't happen unless the ex is filthy rich.

Now back to the top of your post, I have posted many links, others have posted links on this and other forums, and you have dismissed them because they didn't suit your view.

You get a pat on the back for being a good person. If you think that's patronizing, well that's on you.

What links am I dismissing? What are you talking about?
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 99 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/21/2014 6:55:31 AM
Guy #1, was he foolish in marrying someone he loved? Someone who probably did love him back too? Not really. The main issue in rating intelligence or wisdom in such circumstances, especially when compared to a mechanical and direct task like Machining, is that people in general cannot fully be known. You can completely understand the intricacies of machining though. You make a mistake, you learn from it, but it doesn't necessarily apply to people.

It's more of general blanket safeguards from dangers that may, or may not be there. I suppose you could call that a lack of wisdom and experience but there's always a random factor involved due to lack of information.

Guy #2 would definitely qualify as more intelligent in my book, mainly because, along with his ex-partner, they worked it out well enough not to try and destroy each other. You could just call that being a good person, but I have a feeling that the more vindictive people out there are also typically the less intelligent.

Guy #3 If that's his first marriage, I'd say it was intelligence in picking the right person (but remember you can't ever fully know someone) and some luck. There's always going to be some luck involved in this... if it's good or bad for you, well that's hard to say.

Wisdom is, in my opinion, the application of intellect upon experience to calculate the best choices for your future. In essence, extrapolate from your past (or other's pasts) to plan for the future.

I just want to be clear though, I'm not here to demonize women, I'm not really a part of MGTOW (in a sense I kind of am in action but I don't really follow it). I just recognize that due to the disparity of income between women and men, and women's natural tendency to nest and seek out resources (it's just biology) that marriage can be very scary and risky for men (usually). But, of course, the roles can be reversed and in those cases, I dislike the man just as much.

I really just want things to be truly fair and equal. That's all.

I would describe MGTOW as intelligent and thoughtful. But that's just on the glossary of the philosophy. The idea that men shouldn't devote themselves purely to the pursuit of women and pleasing women, but to focus on themselves more and be wary of getting married or having kids (unless the right precautions are taken and you think you've found a great girl).

Some people take the MGTOW platform to spew hatred and vitriol and I'm not keen on that.

Forum1 and others, i gave up a while ago. While in some ways artic seems like an intelligent young man, he is also like the religious zealot who knows he is right and refuses to even entertain that anything else may be true.

Doesn't really matter what we say, he knows he is right. We provide him links to stats and he says they are wrong, because the law says men and women are equal therefore it must be so. Men are going their own way because in the majority of cases, woman take everything in divorces. Doesn't matter that women and children of divorce are the ones living in poverty, they chose to be there.

Based on one of his early statements, woman chose to be poor because of the career choices they make and he want on to

He has said repeatedly that the only relationship he is interested in is with a woman who thinks like, and that is great for him. Good luck finding that.

Now artic for some of your statements.

No. The only link you provided me espouses the notion that women in legal fields are earning less than their male counterparts, but without deeper facts (how many hours worked, skill level, experience, education and so on) it's really not relevant at all. To prove discrimination is the culprit, you have to eliminate all other factors. When this is done on a broad scale across all fields, there is almost no disparity at all (a potential 2 cents per dollar cannot be explained). I'm sure there is a minor amount of discrimination, like there is still a minor amount of racism.. and this is just talking about Canada and the USA. Outside of here, women are often still treated very poorly and I find that deplorable.

Women do not choose to live in poverty. They choose professions they enjoy but those are typically less paying than the ones men will do. Often men will venture out into more strenuous and physically demanding jobs, or otherwise are just willing to devote more to it. Often, women aren't as serious about a career because they're thinking about family more. That's not wrong, it's just biology, mindset and inevitably individual choice.

Do you want to know why prenups most often get thrown out? There are 2 reasons, the first is that it was signed under duress as in 3-4 days before the marriage the prenup was presented and the (usually) woman was told that the wedding would not move forward unless she signs the prenup as it stands. Deemed duress. The other is when the prenup addresses waiving child support. The law had determined over and over again that no one can sign away the rights of children and yet these prenups till exists. Women sign them because they never anticipate the marriage ending and when the marriage ends and they have been left to care for the children you bet they are getting child support.
Most of the time. There are many cases, however, where the "needs" of the woman outweigh common sense and fairness, and premarital assets are forfeit. Otherwise, prenuptial agreements would be pointless, as they don't have any effect on reducing the split of wealth shared in marriage

Again I will restate what others have said, premarital assets, money inherited etc., are not calculated into the the marital assets unless there is a damn good reason. The income earned and equity built during the marriage, however, is split 50/50 between the partners. So let us say that a couple got married 20 years in Toronto and moved into the house that he bought for 250,000, 20 year later as they are getting divorced, the house is now worth 2 million. In all likelihood, she will get her share of the equity. Is it fair? I would say so because if she hadn't married him, she may well have purchased a home of her own and built equity through those years. There is also the consideration of sweat equity. She probably did 50% or more of the cleaning, painting and house maintenance which made the house worth what it is today. Again that makes he entitled to her share.

And here is where I went to MGTOW forums and pluck quotes from the the first 3 threads and posted them and the response.

I see nothing wrong with prenups being thrown out if signed under duress, with insufficient time, or without legal council present for both parties.

The state shouldn't have authority to decide over basic parental choices unless those parents disagree and need the courts to help resolve the dispute. If they signed a prenup, they agreed beforehand. Unless it can be proven that substantial harm is being done to the child, the state shouldn't be involved.

If the man bought the house for $250,000 in cash, with the women contributing nothing to this, and later on it was worth $2,000,000, no I don't see how it's fair at all that she gets any of that return. It was his money and his investment. Now, if she wants to share, fine. Honestly, the main issue I have is with the default of marriage being a perfect split, it's very imbalanced for most men and some women. Why do we have to split anything? Why not just keep what we earn and share what we want to share?

I am sorry but if MGTOW was not misogynistic at it's core, you wouldn't be seeing this kind of crap on their forums. It makes me sick just as going to to militant feminist sites makes me sick.

There are radical people in every movement or philosophy that exists. That doesn't invalidate the core of the philosophy or movement.

Now you do realize that at the end of that little quote, you just agreed that in the majority of cases, men should pay more child support?

If the women is awarded custody of the child, the man should definitely keep supporting the child, and costs related to that child. Direct costs. Absolutely. It really depends on income though. It should be to support the basic needs of that kid, not related to his income. If that means that poor dads have to pay more, well I don't see anything wrong. I have little empathy for fools having kids when they're broke. You're creating another life, that's your responsibility. Own up to it.

Show me some stats to back this up! Most women get nothing more than basic child support if they are lucky enough to get that. Over and over we hear this the woman walk away with every thing but nowhere do we see anyone producing anything other than: a friend of a friend of a friend had this happen to him. Or I know 10 guys that this happened to. Did 9 of those 10 guys tell you that the couple were so deep in debt that once the assets were sold that there was nothing left for anyone to get? That the while he is now living in a bachelor apartment wifey and the 3 kids are now living in a one or two-bedroom apartment? Did 3 of 10 tell you that they rarely bother to pay the child support? That they don't think they should have to pay because SHE bought herself a new purse last month, proof that she is frittering the child support money away on herself and not the kids. Did they tell you that they have ruined the ex's reputation with all their friends because the unreasonable b^tch took me to the cleaners and continues to demand that I give all my money when all they are paying is the basic government mandated child support that barely covers the cost of food, much less clothing, shelter, medical bills and all that fun stuff.

I never said that child support is on average that high. Child support isn't really the issue unless the man earns a lot of money because it's based on income, which I disagree with. Should be based on the child's needs. For instance, a man in Canada earning $100,000 has to pay $921 a month for child support. Really? There's no way any kid costs that much. Not even close.

Women have been awarded custody more often, and men are less likely to receive child support payments if awarded custody. As the article mentions, the tides are slowly turning, so that's great news. But it's still a problem, not exactly fair. I don't recognize that by default a mother is more suited to raise a kid.

And no before you all get the idea that I am bitter and angry, I am not. I had a bad marriage. Left, got screwed, got over it. While he was busy complaining about having to pay child support, I was busy working full-time and going to university full-time so that I could make a better life for OUR kids. So now I have a good job, healthy well educated adult children with good jobs and someone who appreciates me for who I am.

I am genuinely happy for you and glad you went out and took an active role in supporting your kid.

One last thing before I go. Artic, on this thread and others, every time someone posts a link to something that is against your argument (such as the examples from the MGTOW) forums, you say "that is one person, not what is really happening." No it is what society has apparently deemed acceptable. Go to the MGTOW forums and read the rants about feminist postings on other forums and how terrible they are, yet look at what they are doing. Maybe time the rest of us starting doing that to you?

I have been to the MGTOW forums and also seen some youtube videos on it. Most of the people there just seem bitter to me, only a few are truly vile.

Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 95 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:49:53 PM

You obviously didn't do your research. It is a fact that women make less than men in the same jobs, plain & simple. The gap is closing, but it remains a fact.

If they have the same experience on the job, work the same hours, ask for raises as persistently as men do, have the same education, etc and etc... then yes, they make exactly the same as any man. Again, there isn't this widespread conspiratorial discrimination going on. Just personal choices.

Age doesn't guarantee intelligence, it guarantees experience. You have wisdom all wrong, honey.

That's what I said though. You'll have more experience, but that doesn't mean you're intelligent or wise.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 92 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/20/2014 2:36:50 AM
Wow, it boils my blood that people can be so deceiving. It's all I really care about, warning people to be very cautious and think before they act. Marriage is a binding legal contract and it should not be taken lightly at all, but given it's so often an emotional experience (and rarely graduates to logical) I think that's one of the most crippling issues in our society right now, given the very high divorce rates.

Honestly, it would be so much easier if instead of a 50/50 split being the default, you actually had to legally request and sign for it when you get married. So, those who still want it and are fully aware, they can do it; but those who fear what might happen (you never really know someone until they're mad at you), those people can be safe and married too.

It's also bewildering that debt can be carried into a relationship and legally be your responsibility, without that debt first being declared to you.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 89 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 8:12:29 PM
How is that possible, Forums? That sounds really messed up.

I never said there was mass discrimination. If you really do want to see, it should take you less than 5 minutes (Google it, and steer clear of the feminist websites, my dear)

Not sure what the problem is if that's the case? I fully recognize that there is a wage gap between females and males, but if it's not by discrimination, what is the issue? It's just the choices that men and women typically make that lends itself to this situation.

You could say we as a society should try to encourage women to pursue higher paying jobs. I don't really see anything wrong with that, but it's just not a huge issue. It's personal choices.

Truth is, I find you fairly respectful, or at least mindful enough to appear so. Yet, for one so young your words convey quite an old fashioned display of narrow mindedness & arrogance. Most of us choose to take them much as we accepted that our 13 yr-olds' "knew everything"; don't worry, one day you will realize that you don't, and you will be far better for that. Assumptive statements like your first above are disrespectful in their own way.

With age comes wisdom, borne of experience; never irrelevant.

You are quite incorrect in that a man can not legally screw up a woman's life; of course he can. Clearly, you have no experience with the judicial system.

As for your comment regarding "stay at home" moms, has it ever occurred to you that the decision for one parent to remain at home, to forfeit earnings, to forfeit both future earnings & retirement, is a decision made by TWO people, usually one male & one female. You speak as if it is a decision made in a vacuum, with the resulting "deficit" to fall upon one party alone. Parenting is a very difficult job with very little financial rewards. It would not be incorrect to state that the rewards of same are most often reaped by the child who had a parent available to them. I would venture a guess that were the earnings of those offspring, their "output", attributed to that parenting, you would see things in a very different light.
Never too young to think outside of the box, young man!

Being still fairly young, I find it curious how if I ever disagree with someone older than me, they always throw down the age and wisdom card. As if age guarantees intelligence. Yeah, you probably do have more experience, but wisdom is being able to process that information and apply it sensibly and, even without experience, you can read and learn from other's experiences to reach the same level.

The way you act is as if anyone who is younger than you simply cannot have intelligent opinions. It's forbidden.

I'm sorry if you think I am arrogant. I don't intend to offend anyone, that much is clear to me. I have strong opinions and I'm not particularly afraid to express them. In fact I enjoy serious discussion.

Parenting is one thing, but not what I was referring to. It's fair to be paid for your parenting role ( even beyond the provisions of shelter, food and clothing you're provided with) but I am referring to, you marry someone who earns more than you, never have kids, and keep working yourself. Come divorce time, you get a 50/50 split of both of your assets. That just doesn't seem fair.

Now keep in mind, if a man knowingly accepts this arrangement (or in the rare cases the woman) so be it. I won't ever understand that, but it's not wrong if it's absolutely clear. The problem is that many men just don't think properly when it comes to women. I've seen this so often even at just 24, I know 4 people who are already married and are my age or younger. Is that really going to last all of their lives? His income will likely increase more than hers, and he'll be left in a bad spot if they get divorced.

Ultimately I just want to make sure that people, men and women, are truly and clearly thinking about what they are entering into. Marriage is often an emotional decision.. how many people contemplate the specifics of what would happen if they get divorced? And that's the final point, few people entertain the possibility of a divorce, especially in younger marriages.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 82 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:56:04 PM
I almost spit my coffee out on that one. A 24y/o talking about "pre-marriage assets" who probably doesn't own a home, doesn't really have much in the way of "assets" to speak of in the first place...

First off, in most cases any "pre-marriage assets" are not something that can be taken in a divorce *unless* those assets get "co-mingled" together or you actually sign their name over to them. Maybe not in some states (CA is "community property"), but in a majority of them the assets you had *before* marriage are still yours after. What gets split is what was "gained" during the marriage - so, for instance, if you get married with $50K in a retirement account, you are the sole earner (she's a stay at home mom say), and you divorce 5yrs later and you have $100K in there (lets say you put in $8K/yrs + ~$2K/yr in gains), you have to split the $50K in what the account gained in that time - you will not lose the $50K you came into the marriage with.

Where things can get into a "gray area" is where, for instance, you "own" a home (lets say a $200K home, you put $50K down with a $150K mortgage, and paid off $50K (leaving $100K on the mortgage) before you get married. In general the $100K is your asset, and you won't lose it. That being said, if you put her name on the title & mortgage, then it becomes far more of an issue (technically you've split "ownership" with her), if she pays 1/2 the mortgage for the next few years then she is entitled to 1/2 the gain in the house from your original $100K you'd paid off (and if the house has gained in value that might also figure into that, since the increase in value happened during the marriage).

Of course, at 24, I'm sure women are just dying to get their hands on all those "financial assets" of yours, right?

The vast majority of marriages between people in their early-to-mid 20's neither person really *has* any serious financial assets, and post marriage if you buy a home, etc, those are not "your" (singular) assets they are "yours" plural.

You might want to actually read up on the laws you are purporting to be so "against you", because you seem to be confused. The only assets that get split in a divorce are "marital assets" (those gained during the marriage).

The last woman I dated flat out told me that if we got married (which she was against) *she* would insist on a pre-nup, because she'd been married twice and both times got screwed over (the 2nd she almost lost *her* house that she had bought herself, and had to pay off half *his* credit card debt that he had run up because legally the debt 'belonged' to both of them).

There are many cases where this applies. In essence, the more the property is used within the bounds of marriage (like you mentioned a home or car) and the longer the marriage has lasted, the higher the odds the judge will declare pre-marital assets to be forfeit. Notice the word "her needs" come in. Her needs? Seriously? She doesn't have needs. This is a multi-million dollar divorce. This is about greed, nothing more nothing less, and it happens all the time in community property states which, as I said before, is the main goal of MGTOW. Separate yourself from the insanity and warn others.

I certainly don't insult anyone who disagrees with this, and nor do I isolate myself from the world. I still like people in general and girls as well. The one concession I will make is that many MGTOW members seem to demonize women. I definitely don't go that far. I just look at biology and gender roles and see the scales tilted against men in what is supposed to be an equal relationship.

Of course, at 24, I'm sure women are just dying to get their hands on all those "financial assets" of yours, right?

Do you think this is exclusively about me? I have no intent to get married and even if I did, there wouldn't be much to protect, no. This really isn't about me personally at all.

The vast majority of marriages between people in their early-to-mid 20's neither person really *has* any serious financial assets, and post marriage if you buy a home, etc, those are not "your" (singular) assets they are "yours" plural.

And if you could get married with prenuptial agreements that reduce the split, or eliminate the sharing of wealth altogether, I'd really have no problem. As it stands, such prenups can easily be thrown out. That just isn't right or fair.

You might want to actually read up on the laws you are purporting to be so "against you", because you seem to be confused. The only assets that get split in a divorce are "marital assets" (those gained during the marriage).

Most of the time. There are many cases, however, where the "needs" of the woman outweigh common sense and fairness, and premarital assets are forfeit. Otherwise, prenuptial agreements would be pointless, as they don't have any effect on reducing the split of wealth shared in marriage.

The last woman I dated flat out told me that if we got married (which she was against) *she* would insist on a pre-nup, because she'd been married twice and both times got screwed over (the 2nd she almost lost *her* house that she had bought herself, and had to pay off half *his* credit card debt that he had run up because legally the debt 'belonged' to both of them).

It typically is the male who makes more and has more assets, which is why it's typically the female taking from the male. The very basic design of marriage is part of what irks me. This isn't a mistake. The 50/50 split is the point. Marry a man who has more resources, so you now have a legal claim to those resources. You've won.. you've served your biological function in finding resources for your children.

It doesn't seem right at all. This is a primitive approach to relationships in such modern times.

But it can certainly apply in reverse if the woman has more, and that's just as unsettling.

I see what you did there.

If you can't browbeat someone into giving you a proper stroking, you'll try to turn up the pressure by doing what you falsely accused me of doing, i.e., you'll start engaging in direct or indirect insults. Fuck off then and think whatever you want about my lack of civility. It's not my problem.

Do try to keep up with the actual gist of the thread instead of repeatedly trying to derail it with your personal griping, though. It's becoming very tedious.

Back on topic:

Proper stroking? No. You do not have to compliment me. You merely should be civil and respectful to people you have discourse with, even if you disagree with them. Notice how I disagree with almost everyone here but have not launched a single attack against them personally. That's petty and pointless and not at all civil.

If you insist on being disrespectful, it only serves to diminish your own image. Aren't you supposed to gain maturity as you age?

Sure they want women, but only on their terms, because they're horny and sad and self-absorbed. Meanwhile, there are NO special powers or privileges the state grants to women so they can systematically take advantage of men. Zero. How could that even happen when legislative bodies have always been overwhelmingly dominated by men? Derp. So historically, the laws have been written in a way that has consistently demonstrated the exact opposite of your ridiculous claim. It's only in my lifetime that things have more or less evened out, and yet there are significant portions of this planet where women are still treated like livestock. Think about it.

Only on fair terms.

Marry someone who has more than you, you gain legal rights to their wealth. Marry someone and have kids with them, 1 out of 6 times you gain rights to that kid. Sorry, no legal powers? Really now.

When I say that women are equal now, I am talking about most 1st world countries. There are plenty of countries left where women are still treated horribly, and that's a very real problem, absolutely.

Looks to me like the members of MGTOW are the ones who are most offended at gender roles. As for violence, males always have been -- and still are -- the perpetrators or rape and physical/emotional abuse in overwhelming numbers when compared to females. So cry me a river. Anyhoo.... why would the puerile opinions of bitter misogynists offend me? They're absurd and laughable.

Contrary to popular belief, women abuse men far, far more often than imagined. Men still abuse women slightly more (about 10%) but the most dangerous aspect of this is male shaming in public. If a man reports being abused by a women, he'll be laughed at, disrespected and completely emasculated. It's horrible. You see it all the time in the media, the women bossing around their man or even physically hitting him, and people just laugh at it. That's acceptable? If the man did this, he'd go to jail without question.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 77 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 8:57:06 AM
Oh wow, such a delicate flower. I'm not going to treat you like a child or walk around on egg shells so that you won't go way out on a limb to take offense. It's *very* manipulative. Are you used to guilt-tripping people into getting your way?

No. I generally refrain from insulting a group or individual and expect the same in return. There is no "my way" here. Only general civility which you seem to lack.

There is nothing logical in what MGTOW people say. They are ****y little whiners. If they were actually logical, they would simply stop talking about the women they don't want and go away. Everything they say is based on chronic whingeing, lousy coping skills, latent hostility, and an emotional reaction to their own existential pain and/or miserable relationship patterns, for which THEY have always been the common denominator.

If that resonates with you, then you're dangerously close to being on one sorry assed, delusional path for the very limited time you have on this planet. I'm beginning to see now why your trying to convince me that I insulted you seems so important. Hey good luck with that, cupcake.

Y'all keep hatin' on women now, ya hear??

They do want women, though. They're still men, and biology doesn't go away. The thing is, they want women who honestly believe in equality in all aspects, and not to take advantage of the powers the state grants them, against them.

Since finding girls like these are very rare, they instead focus on other aspects of life, and some elect to spread this ideology, movement, whatever you want to call it. If you think that's whining, I don't think you understand the word.

The only women they're "hating" on are those that abuse the powers of the state to take kids from their fathers, to extract wealth that does not belong to them, falsely accuse men of rape, and still refuse to be equal in relationships (absorbing the financial and rejection burdens equally).

In essence, they don't agree with common gender roles or theft/violence. If this offends you, so be it.

What, that's it... all that anxiety about a bit of money? How about a pre-nup? Or choosing someone who isn't poorer? Or giving the difference to charity? Or accepting it as a reasonable risk vs reward proposition?

There's nothing to be irked at if they knew what they were potentially liable to pay and freely agreed to it. If someone put a gun to their head and made them marry on those terms, then we'd be as irked as you. Maybe even irkeder.

So if your goal is to help people make informed decisions and understand their duties and obligations in partnership, that's very civic-minded of you... but I'm fairly sure the basics are widely known.

If it's to instruct people on what values should guide their decision-making, maybe you need to reconsider the likelihood and merit of that.

Prenups can be thrown out of court if they are deemed unconscionable, and if your prenup does not include a 50/50 split, it can be deemed so. If there was no authority to throw out an agreement between two consenting adults, that would solve a whole lot of issues in one move.

I think a lot of men don't think about it properly. Many still do not get basic prenups to protect their pre-marriage assets. And many think their marriage is special and will last forever, when divorce statistics place the odds on very shaky grounds. The idea is to inform men of the potential dangers involved. That's really just the main goal. Many men then decide the risks aren't worth the reward and GTOW.

Logic says we should all have the same rights regardless of gender. Logic says. But it wasn't always that way and yes, the past does cloud some of the "logic" that you put forth. But to many of us remember fighting for the logical way in careers, work, home life, child rearing, politics, child care, health care, and on and on and hitting walls. Hell, I had to get my husband's written permission to have a tubiligation. WTF. This is the stuff that us older broads went through so don't go all "logical" on a very "logical" as well as "emotional" issue because when you get laughed at and your opinion is discarded like last night's leftovers.

I am quite sorry you had to live through those times and I can see how it can affect your perspective on things even when they're better now.

There is nothing to discard though. The logic is sound when applied to current times. The fact you went through absurd inequality, while terrible, doesn't change the realities of today. I mean, it's something to be happy about now isn't it? Why keep fighting and being angry when the battle is won?

As can ANY WOMAN making more than a man CAN,under those same laws....

Or do you think the LAW only applies to men?

Difference is that women are either smart enough to "go their own way" without joining a movement of ANY kind and/or to get a pre-nup to protect their assets, or NOT get married in the first place....

Yes, it can apply in reverse, but rarely ever does because men don't usually seek such settlements. It still happens, it's just very rare. But that isn't my point. Whatever direction it goes, it's nonsensical and people should be fully aware of it.

As for the lack of "evidence" of wage disparity across gender lines, you REALLY need to do some research before making such a statement...

I've already stated many times that the gender wage gap exists, but it is not about discrimination but the differences in professions, skill, experience, education and hours work that account for it.

I would LOVE to see ANY man come and work with me for a day and tell me that what I do is in ANY way less physically OR mentally exhausting as either of those "male" jobs that I mentioned....
I CAN say that as I HAVE actually put up drywall and filled in for someone on a garbage route....So I speak from experience...
Generally the rule of thumb is SUPPOSED to be the higher the demand, the higher the pay, unfortunately it really doesn't work that way in reality, as here in Canada rather than raise the salaries of those doing those traditionally "female" jobs in accordance with the demand, our government instead just made it easier for women from other countries to come here on a work visa and get paid even LESS than minimum wage, in many cases, which for THEM, is a lot of money compared to what they would be making in their home countries. They only realize how badly they've been SCREWED when they actually become acclimatized to their new country and discover just how difficult or IMPOSSIBLE it IS to never mind get ahead, but to even SURVIVE...on so little money.

I don't particularly want to debate immigration, but I will just say, what you earn has nothing to do with the difficulty of the task, only the output. If you generate more value for society (and what you do requires skill sufficient to make you hard to replace) you will be paid more.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 73 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:19:04 AM

Artic, no disrespect, you have had some good responses from some wise women in this thread. No, I'm not talking about the angry ones. But the poster above you spoke very eloquently and respectfully and you basically "poo pooed" her. She is right, the majority of us don't want to control men, lord over men...we want an equal partnership...heavy on the partnership. Many of us old broads had to fight tooth and nail to get the so-called equality that young women young age have not lifted a finger for but have benefited from. I'm not ****ing, it means the 20 and 30 something's have it a little easier...which in the long run benefits us all.

I respectfully disagreed with her, offering logic to counter hers. How is that "poo pooing" her? Whatever that even means.

I said in an earlier post that your age and experience differ from some of us. It's not a slam, it's not disrespectful, it's the truth. I remember what it was like 35 years ago, you don't. Unless you secretly have a vagina and are over 50 years don't have the same experiences.

Age is irrelevant. Logic and facts are all that matter.

As to men going their own way...just as many women, if not more, are going their own way too. Many women in their late 50's and beyond that are divorced or widowed are returned to school to get the degrees they put on hold while raising families and working full time, many women travelling, taking courses in the arts, stepping outside the box and their comfort zones. They have no desire to be tied to a home, a man or helping to raise grandchildren. It's their time. We also encourage our daughters, grand daughters and the young women we come in contact with to get the best education they can, find a job/career they have passion for and seek adventure as well as joy in their lives. What we AREN'T saying is "don't let a man fvck up your life". Find your joy.

A man cannot legally screw up your life. A woman can. Well, to be fair it's more about income (since men typically still earn more by choice). Any man marrying a woman who is poorer than her can be taken to the cleaners. That is the difference that irks me and has me very anxious. But I think it's wonderful if women also want to break out of these established gender roles. Do what you want, but most importantly, think for yourself and figure out who you even are first.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 71 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 8:28:39 PM
What evidence do you have that women in the same fields, (with the same experience and skill as their male counterparts) earn less? There is none that I have seen. Women who are as skilled, educated and work as long as a man, regardless of the field, will earn the same. The idea that there is this mass discrimination against women is ludicrous, bordering on downright conspiracy.

As for child caring. That's a choice, no? If women want to keep working, they can do so, and the man can stay home. The one concession I will grant you is there's still social stigma towards that kind of relationship (man stays home while the women works). But it applies just as much to the man as the woman, so that's an issue that plagues both genders.

Women don't want to rule men, they just want access to our resources, it's a biological imperative that doesn't shouldn't apply to modern society because women are legally equal to men, and have just as much to value in the marketplace so they can earn their way and truly be independent, if they choose that path.

Now, if you want to be the stay at home mom type, there's nothing wrong with this, but don't act as if this is oppressive to you in some way.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 68 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 5:26:54 PM
A general term of insult is still an insult even if it's directed towards more than just me. But it's okay, hide behind grammar if you want to dismiss what you said. Maybe you also realized how odd it was to say that as (what I assume at any rate) a feminist.

I'm personally not really a MGTOW (at least I don't go on their forums or anything) but I see a lot of logic in some of what they say, and they have thousands of people around. But you don't seem too fond of arguing points and logic, only dishing out one line ad hominems.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 66 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:59:48 AM
I find it rather funny/ironic that in a thread discussing men going their own way, the opposite of feminism, a girl insults me with the term "****".

I don't know, something about that is hilarious.

Obviously a decent amount of people care or there wouldn't be MGTOW.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 63 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 3:14:30 AM
You realize you can have a philosophy of going your own way, off from the common path that society set out for you (take care of a women for marriage and kids) but also tell others why you're doing this, warning them / informing them?

I don't know why you think it's a contradiction.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 59 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/17/2014 8:47:17 AM
MGTOW, at least to some, is only valuable to ward you from most girls who might use the state against you. But if one can find a girl who doesn't want kids or marriage and is genuinely nice, why wouldn't they go for that? It's hard to find, but not impossible. The idea is to help men who aren't thinking clearly, see how much of a trap marriage and kids are if you marry the wrong kind of girl. It's dangerous.

If a woman focuses on work and forgoes relationships or sex, that's great for her in a lot of ways. Though you can certainly still be in a relationship and focus on work. That's where the financial inequality stems from, women's choice to focus more on family, marriage and kids. That's the root of it.

If you want that to change, you need to focus less on the things that distract you from earning more money. Or, accept that your focus on family, marriage and kids will not able you to do the same as men do.

It's all about pros and cons, weighing your options. There's no denying these are tough choices, but let's not blame other people for the consequences of our choices.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 56 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/17/2014 12:28:01 AM
Wage disparity is by choice, not discrimination, therefore it isn't much of a factor. If you want to change it, tell women to choose higher paying professions, work longer hours, more overtime, negotiate their pay more and so on. In the end it comes down to individual choice.

Feminism isn't very relevant in Canada or the USA. There are some countries, say those in the middle east, where women are still treated terribly. It makes a ton of sense over there.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 50 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/16/2014 6:55:57 PM

I think that is quite enough on that considering those were the first 3 thread.

Hmm i wonder what the misogynistic crap is that i am talking about.

Those were comments by people though. It's not what MGTOW is about. The principles of MGTOW aren't misogynistic, even though some people who are part of it are.

So if the couple decided that the woman should stay home and raise the kids, if the marriage ends she should get nothing? Child support is based on income, there are tables that are set out by the federal government outlining how much child support is paid. Trust me it is not all the much, in most cases, it doesn't cover anywhere near half the costs of raising a child. As for your rent comment, a single person can live in a bachelor apartment, can't do that with kids, so even rent is considerably higher.
And by the way, child support should be half of what it costs to raise the child, which includes food, clothing, medical costs, extracurricular activities, dental bills, etc. Not just food and few clothes.

Exactly, it shouldn't be based on the man's income. It's income to support the child, not the wife's accustomed lifestyle. She isn't with him anymore, she shouldn't get the benefits and perks that come with being with him. He doesn't get the perks of being with her. The only thing the man must do, morally, is help to take care of his kid. Not her.

Half of all costs directly related to the child, yes I can agree with that.

Now you are making it all about money and that is not always the case, sure men are often more suited financially to take of the children, however, there is more to raising a child than money.

Of course. I didn't mean to make it sound like money is the only factor, it definitely is not. But it's still a rather important factor. Women typically bring a kind, nurturing hand, and men bring the more strict discipline. Also, who bonds with who is a real question too. I didn't really get along with my mom when I was 12 and my parents split up, I told her that I felt better around my dad (we just had more in common). Fortunately my mom never involved the state. They parted amicably and my desires were considered and weighed.

Wait a minute! You have already stated that there is no wage gap! make up your mind. And when you get married, everything that is acquired during the marriage is deemed to be the labours of both partners. I am willing to bet that while he put more money into things, she probably put a lot more sweat equity into the assets. Again, you live in Canada and there are laws around alimony, doesn't get awarded all that often and only for short periods of time.

And again the arrogance of youth, or as I stated earlier, middle class white privilege. You do not see any issues because you are not a woman and you refuse to look at anything that does not fit into you little idea of how the world works. Step out into the real world for a while and gain a little better understanding.

There is a wage gap in the aggregate. The sum total of all jobs worked by women compared to men, is tilted in favor of men. But that is because of many factors, all of which are the choices that men and women make. It's not discrimination, so there is no real wage gap. If you as a women want to make as much as a man does, do the same things the man would do and you'll earn the same.

You can't be equal in results without putting in equal effort and pursing the higher yielding jobs and ventures.

You want to see the hell of Alimony?

Now, to be fair, that is in the US. It's not as bad here in Canada, so that's wonderful. Let's hope it stays that way.

But yes, men typically earn more (By choice) which is why marriage is a terrible idea. Seriously. If you love someone, be with them. What the hell is the point of signing a legal agreement that instantaneously transfers a portion of your income to her, if you make more than she does?

Here is equal. You keep what you earn, I keep what I earn, we share what we decide is fair. That's equal.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 190 (view)
My ex is on POF!!!
Posted: 11/16/2014 5:24:56 PM
If someone cheats, it's unlikely they will ever stop. I loathe cheaters and I have nothing against telling people about what he's done.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 48 (view)
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/16/2014 4:25:17 PM

Not once did I say that, I said they were the douches that nobody wants, you can call that rude if you want,but as I have written more than once, the MGTOW that I have seen or have any experience are the ones no one else wants. So they announce that they are going there own way. My question is ; how is that any different than now? They are not dating, they have opted out of real jobs to sit in their parents basements and play video games after their part-time shifts flipping burgers at the local fast food joint . So let them go their own way.

That's a gross and inaccurate generalization. People who are unable to obtain women rarely seek out a movement. They isolate themselves, they don't go their own way. MGTOW isn't about isolating yourself or never being with women. Plenty of MGTOW still date girls, they just don't marry them or have kids with them, and usually avoid long-term relationships because they feel the cost to benefit ratio is skewed against them.

I could call feminists just a bunch of ugly girls who can't get men and are bitter about it, but that would be a gross and inaccurate generalization and I know this. It would be nothing more than a petty jab, and I don't do that.

Now you see, this is an incredibly skewed prospective of the world. You and a very few other men have decided that marriage and kids are a trap so therefore it must be so for everyone. Ask a man after he has held his child for the first time if he feels trapped. Ask the dad playing in the yard with his child if he feels trapped. As the man watching his kid walk across the stage at graduation from high school, college or university if he has any regrets. Ask the man walking his daughter down the aisle if he wishes he had never had kids. I think you are going to find out that the vast majority of these men would think you are crazy to suggest that they shouldn't have had kids. Regardless of how the marriage turned out, I don't know of a single man who wishes he hadn't entered that relationship and had the kids.

You misunderstand. The trap is not that you're stuck with the kid, the trap is that through marriage and kids, whatever women you're with now owns you through the state, can extract all the wealth she wants from you, and can almost certainly take the kid from you.

Plenty of MGTOW want kids and have them on their own.

Women in general, probably haven't even given MGTOW a second thought, because, as I keep saying over and over, the ones joining are the ones no one wants anyway. If they do find it offensive, it is because of the misogynistic crap that these groups spout.

You could think of MGTOW as a movement, but it's not really that. It's more about action. Plenty of men are MGTOW, but they don't realize it. They are so merely in their actions of avoiding the traps set for them.

What misogynistic crap are you referring to? The only thing I've hear them say is in referring to gender roles and biology (of both genders) as well as the legal pitfalls that face men.

Sure there are places where men are not getting a fair deal, sure sometimes men do really get screwed in divorce. But so do woman. The men are whining that they have had a share of their income taken by the greedy b^^ches, that the child support is being spent not on the children but on the women themselves. Been there, had those accusations thrown against me. Apparently when you are a woman receiving child support, you not allowed to have or do anything because it was always his money spent on those things not yours. When a marriage ends, it is the custodial parent who most often ends up living in poverty. Why? Because of the time that needs to spent with the children is time that can't be spent on the career. Men want more of a chance at that? Go for it. At that point I am sure we will hear a new round of whining about how it is not fair.

Depends on how much you're getting. Child support should be the required amount for food and some clothing. If the women who obtains the kid can't even afford to rent her own place, she shouldn't be getting custody. Men are often more suited financially to take care of the kid, but they rarely get custody. It's heavily, heavily skewed in favor of women. Same deal with alimony. Men typically make more than women do (kids or not) and thus end up having to divide up their assets in divorce unfairly, and even continue to pay their wife because she was "accustomed" to a certain lifestyle. Such utter absurdity can't be ignored or brushed aside..

Are the courts often in unfair in matters of custody? Absolutely. The courts still see children staying with their mother as in the best interest of the child so men are fighting an uphill battle when they are trying to get custody. But let's also look at the other side of this. If a couple agrees that it is best for dad to have custody, mom immediately becomes an unfit parent in the eyes of society. So that also needs to be addressed.

I'm glad we can agree on this.

Society is not perfect and there are issues that need to be addressed for both men and women, only looking at one side, helps no one. Discounting women's issues as irrelevant doesn't not change what women face in North American society just as discounting what men face does not change them.

So in the end, men's rights group and separation groups etc, want society to acknowledge their struggles as unjust and make changes but they refuse to acknowledge women's struggles in society. Do you see where the problem is?

I am not discounting women's issues. I do not see any. Seriously, what are these issues? There is no wage gap. You can work anywhere you want, do anything you want, drive, vote, you have the same legal rights (with a divorce and family court skewed to your favor)... you have the upper hand in relationships, you're treated "equal" but still have the men do the planning and paying for dinner and initial interaction.

No, life isn't horrible for men, our "issues" are not major. I don't personally think we really need a movement. But I do see that things are tilted against us a bit, and I don't think that's right that somehow when the scales are slightly against us, women are still clamoring on as if the scales are against them.
Joined: 2/25/2010
Msg: 52 (view)
Do some women fantasize of being raped?
Posted: 11/16/2014 4:07:47 PM

Go see a shrink, or google anxiety/schizophrenia. Random thoughts aren't normal.
Thoughts are at will.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, you lack proof...but don't sweat it, because there isn't any. I won't do the work for you, I'm not a shrink, should probably see one, or at least learn something about what you're arguing before posting a series of vehement arguments that make you look...not smart and out of control.

If having idle thoughts is schizophrenia, every single person I've ever known in my entire life, everyone, has it.

Everyone has idle thoughts pop into their head at some point. Again, that's why it's called idle thought. Where do you think the jokes about trying to think of nothing come from? You can't. Not for any serious length of time.

If you had to will every thought that comes into your head, you'd never be able to think of anything new... because you'd have to know of it first. What about Eureka moments! People suddenly understanding something or having a clever idea. Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about.
Show ALL Forums