patrick.net

YesYNot says

If you want to spell that out, then see a lawyer and get a prenup.

Prenups can and do get tossed. Then there is out sized child support-with some folks shelling out 150k a month. it should be the other way around, where you want something in the event of a divorce, you sign a prenup. Else you get nothing. Child support should be only if one parent cannot take care of the child.

Rin says

Heraclitusstudent says

So you care what people are thinking because you care what people are thinking?

Hello, do you know the difference between being a hermit and having a normal social life? A hermit is a misanthrope who rails against everyone he meets and soon, he's playing computer chess by himself. On the other hand, a social person attends parties, goes to shows, etc, etc. In other words, he's an congenial person, however, on the inside, he doesn't exactly agree with the majority p.o.v. It's like a Buddhist, attending an Anglican mass. If he tells 'em that the concept of J.C. as savior is false, more likely than not, he won't be invited to those masses anymore.

You lost the thread of the discussion. I was certainly not proposing to be a hermit.
In fact, you are more of a hermit now: living alone and without any real human relationship that are not based either on monetary transactions (hoes) or lies (social parties where you lie to people about who you are).

Such "parties" are a parody of being social. Being social is having friends who really know you and appreciate you that way.

Let this go, then you'll be more lucid.

Rin says

So again, in order to have a real relationship, one needs to first, be an ex-pat, and then partially assimilate into a different society, so that one can properly communicate with one's spouse without the relationship being a bunch of American-isms.

Or bring her to the US.
All this to say that the world is opened.
There are more possibilities than you consider in your rants.
You're just mentally stuck in one way of thinking.

lostand confused says

Personal choices. meg Whitman had kids, a career and reached the pinnacle of success and is more successful than the vast majority of men. Step up and take responsibility.

Meg Whitman is hardly representative of what the average woman can do.
You think it's about women (having a vagina, etc...) but this is really about kids: Women are cursed with motherhood, the time spent on this, etc...

lostand confused says

Prenups can and do get tossed. Then there is out sized child support-with some folks shelling out 150k a month.

Yes.

YesYNot says

Even if you are right, you could go find a 25 yr old, or find a 30 yr old who shares many of the same thoughts, hobbies, and goals as you.

For one, I'm planning on retiring in Australia. A big part of that visa process is being financially independent. Thus, I'll be forced to co-sponsor my spouse and then, by law, I owe her.

And finally, I've developed all of my hobbies alone or with male friends. The only thing I do with women are candlelight dinners and dancing.

And then, when I'm in Australia, unless I wanted to turn my retirement visa into a green card, why would I even marry a local Aussie gal? The culture is practically the same as America, minus baseball and American football.

Heraclitusstudent says

Or bring her to the US.

All this to say that the world is opened.

There are more possibilities than you consider in your rants.

You're just mentally stuck in one way of thinking.

Unless you marry a Catholic Filipina, who'll stick with practically anyone & don't believe in divorce, bringing a woman into America is not a great idea. So far, I'm yet to hear of a successful Russian women/American guy success story in my region. The success stories are mainly about ppl with similar backgrounds like both Iranian Shias.

Heraclitusstudent says

Being social is having friends who really know you and appreciate you that way.

This is the part that you don't get ... if you're a Buddhist, you can be friends with Anglicans. And vice versa. But you don't go into an Anglican church and tell ppl that Jesus is not a real savior but some historic character in literature.

Are you really that dense?

Rin says

Heraclitusstudent says

Being social is having friends who really know you and appreciate you that way.

I have friends who're married and miserable. Do I remind 'em of that, every time I meet them? No, I let them talk about their misery, when they feel it's appropriate.

Heraclitusstudent says

Meg Whitman is hardly representative of what the average woman can do.

You think it's about women (having a vagina, etc...) but this is really about kids: Women are cursed with motherhood, the time spent on this, etc...

Excuses, excuse. In every company I worked, I know plenty of women who make more than their male partners, have kids and made it to different levels of management. One thing I noticed in all the success stories-men/women-is that they never give excuses. It is the same with men-you will find a big subset, who don't mount to much-but will have a boatload of excuses. You want some whine with that toast?

Now if a man/woman is dead broke and happy-more power to him/her. But if you think you should be equal to so and so , but xyz-oh well.

Heraclitusstudent is so lame that he thinks that my friends are all fake, if I don't continually trash talk relationships and marriage around them.

For the life of me, why can't you see that the desperate person here is you? You don't understand the meaning of appropriate behavior.

Rin says

I say things like, "Oh yeah, I'm meeting up with someone in Hartford, We'll see how it goes" and so-forth, basically a white lie to blend in.

Rin says

if you're a Buddhist, you can be friends with Anglicans. And vice versa. But you don't go into an Anglican church and tell ppl that Jesus is not a real savior but some historic character in literature.

Sounds like you're more like the Buddhist going into an Anglican church, telling them you're Anglican, and attending service too.
You don't want to go live in the woods wearing nothing but loin cloth and a yellow robe, like a good Buddhist would do.

lostand confused says

Excuses, excuse. In every company I worked, I know plenty of women who make more than their male partners, have kids and made it to different levels of management. One thing I noticed in all the success stories-men/women-is that they never give excuses. It is the same with men-you will find a big subset, who don't mount to much-but will have a boatload of excuses. You want some whine with that toast?

You're suggesting women should be doing the same as men. I don't share this premise. I think they should take the larger share of kids care.
If they do it right, it will make a success story in a corporate environment a lot more rare.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sounds like you're more like the Buddhist going into an Anglican church, telling them you're Anglican, and attending service too.

You don't want to go live in the woods wearing nothing but loin cloth and a yellow robe, like a good Buddhist would do.

Very simple, I don't want 'em trying to set me up with someone, whenever possible. When you show yourself as a needy person, that's how concerned ppl respond, with pity and then, extending their hand. As for Hartford, I did go there but I'd met with a platonic friend from school.

And then, there are ppl, who don't ask about those private matters, as well.

So, you see, that's how one can be a Buddhist and attend Anglican mass, smile, and not get ppl into the whole *conversion* conversation piece. Am I making sense here? Or do you tell everyone ... that you're lonely and will they fix you up with a soulmate, every single time you meet up with them? If so, then you'll go from friend to acquaintance, very fast.

Rin says

Or do you tell everyone ... that you're lonely and will they fix you up with a soulmate, every single time you meet up with them? If so, then you'll go from friend to acquaintance, very fast.

You know these days people are ok with all sorts of things.
Some people say they're gay. You could just say you're not ready for a serious relationship.
If they put you in the acquaintance box based on that, then maybe indeed they should be just acquaintances.
Plus I wasn't suggesting you stay lonely. That was your premise.
I think you're just confusing social pressure (in general mostly from women) and actual human needs.
You're bowing to one but rejecting the other. I think it should be the opposite.
But hey... your life.

If your goal is to go to Australia as a financially independent guy, then I'd agree. That would be a tall order finding someone with the same resources and dream.

If all you want a woman for is candlelight dinners and sex, then I'd agree too. Just pay for the whores.

If you want a meaningful relationship with a woman, the only thing standing in your way is your attitude. You may have some other obstacles, but those are probably surmountable.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're suggesting women should be doing the same as men

But aren't we equal?

Heraclitusstudent says

Plus I wasn't suggesting you stay lonely.

Actually, I was implying that you (Heraclitusstudent) were lonely.

For me, I live alone but I'm not lonely.

And the problem is that some ppl, are simply trying too hard to help others, for that other person's betterment w/o realizing that that person really doesn't need it. This is where the Buddhism/Anglicanism analogy comes into play. The Buddhist likes to be friends and/or acquaintances with the Anglican diocese but doesn't necessarily always want to engage in the *conversion* conversation, since ppl do have other things in common besides the theological status of J.C.

And yes, if you (Heraclitusstudent) were to constantly moan/groan about not having a soulmate, every single time you meet up with ppl, then yes, a number of ppl will mark you as an acquaintance because in general, no one likes being around a negative person for too long.

A purpose of PatNet is that it allows us to spout off aspects of us, which are not politically correct in proper society. Do you really think that AF talks about cannibalism around his friends? And as for Dan, I suspect that in public, he doesn't trash religion as much as he does here. Same goes for a lot of other ppl here on their pet peeves.

YesYNot says

If all you want a woman for is candlelight dinners and sex, then I'd agree too. Just pay for the whores.

Yoga partner, also.

Now im confused. I get the staying single and boning hoes, but paying to take them along for a nice candlelight dinner? I thought we were singing the praises of single life here?

errc says

Now im confused. I get the staying single and boning hoes, but paying to take them along for a nice candlelight dinner? I thought we were singing the praises of single life here?

The dining is for the restaurant, its ambiance and staff, not for the woman's company. Haven't you gone to one of those 5 star restaurants where everyone there is a couple? I sometimes get a platonic female friend to go to one in America.

Call it Crazy says

Carry on!! Just remember, we are going to start charging you for these therapy sessions...

Well, aren't you using this forum to figure out how you want a dominatrix affair with Dan and company?

For me, it's to bash society's ideas and to encourage men like Strategist and Ceffer.

Yes he does...SBH is the only internet freak show that can take it in the ass and spit wooden nickles while on sabbatical...

Call it Crazy says

sbh says

LOL Such mindless hypocrisy.

Dude, you really have some serious mental illness.

Heraclitusstudent says

You seem to have unresolved family issues that basically make you scared:

Scared of actually investing real feelings in someone.

Scared of depending on someone.

Scared of having someone depending of you.

Rin, (EDIT: actually, ALL MEN) note this carefully. This is a typical shaming tactic. It goes like this: Not doing what I (==the writer, in this case Heraclitusstudent) want means that you are SCARED. Big Boys (TM) are not SCARED. So MAN UP and do what **I** want, or else you are not a Big Boy. You don't want people to think that you are not a Big Boy, do you?

Man Up == do what *I* want you to do.

justme says

Rin, note this carefully. This is a typical shaming tactic. It goes like this: Not doing what I (==the writer. in this case Heraclitusstudent) want means that you are SCARED. Big Boys (TM) are not SCARED. So MAN UP and do what **I** want, or else you are not a Big Boy. You don't want people to think that you are not a Big Boy, do you?

Man Up == do what *I* want you to do.

I'm aware of shaming tactics, which is why I don't bring up these topics in mainstream society because in effect, it would be the same as looking for a fight. Over time, it's best to let the indoctrinated ones, have their beliefs and walk away.

Since we're on PatNet, I can drop the facade and simply let loose.

Rin says

I'm aware of shaming tactics,

Of course you are, I edited to make that clear.

By the way, anyone remember the 1990s when men were always shamed as being "afraid of commitment"? Well, actually, it was the women that were unwilling to make a commitment. But that did not stop them from trying to use a cheap shaming to campaign to get all those perceived non-committers(*) to perform their supposed duty. Oh, no Ma'm (miss? Ms?), I'm not afraid, I'm a big committed boy, where do I sign?

(*)There had to be a lot of them, right? because otherwise every woman would be in a committed relationship, right? (sarcasm alert for the impaired)

Heraclitusstudent says

After 10 years she's has spent her youth, reproductive capacity and career options on Rin, then he dumps her for a young chick, and leaves her with kids, no revenues, very few career paths, and even less dating options. I'd say it's fair he pays up.

In contrast: Rin spent his youth, his labor and his intellectual capacity to build a nest egg, with minimal good companionship from women. Now there are many not-so-young-anymore chicks that are interested in his nest egg, of which they will manage to spend or acquire a good chunk through marriage and divorce. I'd say it is fair that he is skeptical of these women.

Oh, and by the way, your tale of women that "spent her youth, reproductive capacity and career options" just to be divorced and left for a young chick has nothing to do with reality. Some 75% of divorces in US are initiated by women, and the tales of being left for a younger woman is mostly just baloney. Of course, this baloney (and the few real cases) gets all the press and is being used politically to skew divorce law and divorce court practices even more against men.

justme says

Some 75% of divorces in US are in initiated by women

Hey ... don't bother Heraclitusstudent with the facts.

In his mind, I'm this *scared guy* who's afraid to talk to his friends about the fact that relationships and marriages in America basically suck for a majority. Yes, a scared guy who can't disregard the real issues and stick his head in the proverbial sand, and get married and have those 2.1 kids.

justme says

Some 75% of divorces in US are initiated by women

Another point, which parallelizes this idea is that in nation-states, which have same sex civil unions, lesbian couples divorced at a rate, significantly higher than gay men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Belgium

So even lesbians, being away from men, can't get their act together.

Rin says

lesbian couples divorced at a rate, significantly higher than gay men.

Of course, two women in a union means two people both with a higher propensity not to honor commitment than the average man, straight or gay. What could possibly go wrong?

By the way, I have a hunch that lesbian marriages often consist of a dyke (the provider object) and a real-or-fake feminine lesbian (the sex object). The latter often is just in it for the money, and will cheat with her preferred man on the way to the sperm bank. This is one type of paternity fraud you never hear about. The dyke finds out, and divorce complete with false accusations of domestic violence ensues. I'm sure the court will have no trouble finding out which half of the couple to treat more favorably.

justme says

Of course, two women in a union means two people both with a higher propensity not to honor commitment than the average man, straight or gay. What could possibly go wrong?

By the way, I have a hunch that lesbian marriages often consist of a dyke (the provider object) and a real-or-fake feminine lesbian (the sex object). The latter often is just in it for the money, and will cheat with her preferred man on the way to the sperm bank. This is one type of paternity fraud you never hear about. The dyke finds out, and divorce complete with false accusations of domestic violence ensues. I'm sure the court will have no trouble finding out which half of the couple to treat more favorably.

Though I can't personally confirm the details (since these tales are kept quiet), but I'd actually heard of butch dykes, who'd stopped dating women, to be with men. In other words, they'd rather have a real partner/friend, than have their lives ruined by women. And then of course, these couples have menage-a-trios for the butch's physical satisfaction (the guy's as well), in place of following her natural orientation. If any of this is corroborated, then what it says that the regular woman is a real mess.

Here's a real life story along that vein, a lesbian married to a straight guy, happily married now for 20 years ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/de-blasio-wife-chirlane-mccray-talks-lesbian-article-1.1339398

Who would have guessed?

Rin says

what it says that the regular woman is a real mess.

Yes we are. But ya'll ain't no gems, either.

Rin says

Though I can't personally confirm the details (since these tales are kept quiet), but I'd actually heard of butch dykes, who'd stopped dating women, to be with men. In other words, they'd rather have a real partner/friend, than have their lives ruined by women. And then of course, these couples have menage-a-trios for the butch's physical satisfaction (the guy's as well), in place of following her natural orientation. If any of this is corroborated, then what it says that the regular woman is a real mess.

Here's your solution: marry a butch dyke, have threesomes with her femme.

justme says

Heraclitusstudent says

After 10 years she's has spent her youth, reproductive capacity and career options on Rin, then he dumps her for a young chick, and leaves her with kids, no revenues, very few career paths, and even less dating options. I'd say it's fair he pays up.

In contrast: Rin spent his youth, his labor and his intellectual capacity to build a nest egg, with minimal good companionship from women. Now there are many not-so-young-anymore chicks that are interested in his nest egg, of which they will manage to spend or acquire a good chunk through marriage and divorce.

humm.... I'm not a specialist of these things, but I think what you had before marriage remains yours.

elliemae says

Yes we are. But ya'll ain't no gems, either.

People have the wrong attitude about finding someone crazy or not crazy.

Everyone has issues. EVERYONE! Hairless primates with cellphones?

What matters is, does their craziness fit with yours.

"Without my family, am just one-armed computer technician the Universe will not miss." - Manny, Moon is a Harsh Mistress

justme says

Heraclitusstudent says

You seem to have unresolved family issues that basically make you scared:


Scared of actually investing real feelings in someone.


Scared of depending on someone.


Scared of having someone depending of you.

Rin, (EDIT: actually, ALL MEN) note this carefully. This is a typical shaming tactic. It goes like this: Not doing what I (==the writer, in this case Heraclitusstudent) want means that you are SCARED. Big Boys (TM) are not SCARED. So MAN UP and do what **I** want, or else you are not a Big Boy. You don't want people to think that you are not a Big Boy, do you?

Normal human beings invest feelings in other people, depend on them, and vice-versa.
It's just the way it works. Sure you can transform all human relationships into business transactions and live like a robot.
If you're not shamed by that, sure, go for that.
But it seems Rin himself is shamed anyway since he is lying about it to his own friends.

Heraclitusstudent says

Normal human beings invest feelings in other people, depend on them, and vice-versa.

It's just the way it works. Sure you can transform all human relationships into business transactions and live like a robot.

You got it backwards. Men invest feelings (and labor and assets) in other people, depend on them, then get treated like a business transaction and a provider robot. Have you not understood what are talking about here?

justme says

Men invest feelings (and labor and assets) in other people, depend on them, then get treated like a business transaction and a provider robot.

Yes, in the every tribe since the dawn of humanity, and every society after that, men had to provide for children, women and old people.
What's new here?
It's not a conspiracy against men.

“The point is, you see," said Ford, "that there is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself going mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later.”

― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Heraclitusstudent says

justme says

Heraclitusstudent says

After 10 years she's has spent her youth, reproductive capacity and career options on Rin, then he dumps her for a young chick, and leaves her with kids, no revenues, very few career paths, and even less dating options. I'd say it's fair he pays up.

In contrast: Rin spent his youth, his labor and his intellectual capacity to build a nest egg, with minimal good companionship from women. Now there are many not-so-young-anymore chicks that are interested in his nest egg, of which they will manage to spend or acquire a good chunk through marriage and divorce.

humm.... I'm not a specialist of these things, but I think what you had before marriage remains yours.

There are lots of ways that a woman can get her hands on her husbands assets and the fruits of his previous labor. One of them is if they buy a house, and he allows her name to be on the title (perhaps under threats and tantrums). Another one is when his previous labor and educational efforts are taken as evidence for earning capacity that should continue to earn and share with her after divorce, through child support (because the kids will give custody to the kids to the woman 90% of the time (in England)) or alimony a.k.a spousal support. Do you know what the legal term "imputed income" means? It means a level of income that a man has previously demonstrated being able to earn, before or during marriage, and that the court will base the child /spousal support on, even if the woman had nothing to do with attaining or maintaining that level of income. So, yeah, a married woman can easily obtain large chunks of what you did and earned before marriage. A third way is to make a false accusation and get a restraining order against the husband, which makes it illegal for the husband to occupy his own house, meaning that the woman can live their for years, literally, rent free while keeping the husband out of his own sole-title house. I personally know of such a case.

Addendum: Income from assets acquired before marriage is considered "marital income", as someone (Rin?) indicated earlier. Meaning that a spouse has a right to half of that income.Yet another way for freevorcing wives to get in on the fruits of a man's premarital labor.

Are you completely unaware of the facts of marriage and "domestic violence" law, or is it, as RIn said, that you do not want to be bothered with facts?

Heraclitusstudent says

justme says

Men invest feelings (and labor and assets) in other people, depend on them, then get treated like a business transaction and a provider robot.

Yes, in the every tribe since the dawn of humanity, and every society after that, men had to provide for children, women and old people.

What's new here?

It's not a conspiracy against men.

You ask: What's new here? You have conveniently ignored the part "then get treated like a business transaction and a provider robot.". In earlier times, it was much more difficult for a woman to get away with treating her husband badly. Yes, men have always been cannon fodder and beasts of burden, and women have had it easier. BUT in earlier times, a woman would most often get shamed, shunned and not given favorable treatment by the legal system. However, since 1960s or so wives have steadily transformed the legal system and law enforcement so that they have pretty much the full weight of the law on their side and the husband can do very little do defend himself.

I guess you are choosing to be ignorant, or you do not care about how men get treated. Either way you are terribly, terribly wrong.

justme says

Do you know what the legal term "imputed income" means?

Demonstrating that you can have an income in the future is not the same as taking the money you earned in the past.
And yes, if you buy a home, make your wife contribute 50% of down-payment, and pay the mortgage with common income.

Look, I'm not here to defend women. Some of these alimony laws that make slave out of men are non-sense. I totally agree with that.
All I'm saying is there is an other side of this: whether you should dump a homemaker on the street without help. This should be considered too.

Instead of bitching on the Internet about how unfair family court are, men should organize against them.

justme says

You are conveniently ignored the part "then get treated like a business transaction and a provider robot.".

That's what I said above: It's the society and the culture that are screwed, not the idea of finding a woman and having children.