patrick.net

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.

Heraclitusstudent says

It's the society and the culture that are screwed

And who did this??

Heraclitusstudent says

Look, I'm not here to defend women.

Heraclitusstudent says

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.

Nice. So now suddenly you agree that men have valid concerns about how society (actually, the law and legal and law-enforcement system) works.

But in the earlier post you denounced and shamed Rin as being "scared" when he said he would avoid marriage with a woman, or a serious relationship?

There is no consistency in your argumentation and (re-)stated positions. I invite anyone to read all of Heraclitusstudent's posts on this thread and see if they can make it into any kind of coherent viewpoint.

And by the way, what strawman said that he was against the "the idea of finding a woman and having children"? Answer: Nobody did!! Men in general are not against the idea, they are against suffering the highly likely detrimental consequences of taking that course of action.

justme says

Nice. So now suddenly you agree that men have valid concerns about how society (actually, the law and legal and law-enforcement system) works.

But in the earlier post you denounced and shamed Rin as being "scared" when he said he would avoid marriage with a woman, or a serious relationship?

There is no consistency in your argumentation and (re-)stated positions. I invite anyone to read all of Heraclitusstudent's posts on this thread and see if they can make it into any kind of coherent viewpoint.

And by the way, what strawman said that he was against the "the idea of finding a woman and having children"? Answer: Nobody did!! Men in general are not against the idea, they are against suffering the highly likely detrimental consequences of taking that course of action.

Had a busy morning, thanks for picking up the slack for me.

Heraclitusstudent is retarded and actually, not even that good at shaming tactics.

In ten years time, when I'll be happily Down Under, many of my friends will be divorced. When that occurs, I'll have lots of visitors and we'll go to Aussie brothels together. So you see, I have what's called an end game where yes, a number of my friends will eventually concur with my lifestyle. But like all discoveries in life, they have to first experience the smackdown in divorce court, before they're awakened.

It's happening but it's time dependent. Many marriages in America will not survive.

Heraclitusstudent says

ll 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.

What nonsense. You are conflating (equating) allowing men the same rights as women, in marriage and otherwise, with "dumping a homemaker on the street without help."

Whether you consider yourself a traditionalist or feminist or "concerned citizen" or something else, I do not care. What matters is that your argumentation is fundamentally dishonest.

justme says

What matters is that your argumentation is fundamentally dishonest.

Until Heraclitusstudent actually moves to the Philippines, has a daughter there but also raises her as a Filipina (over there), so that she doesn't have a complex about not being white enough for mainstream America (if she grew up here), and then, I'll buy some of his scenarios. Otherwise, he's blowing smoke, concocting half-baked scenarios in a society where men are not equal to women, under the court of law.

And a society where even butch dykes, are growing tired of them.

justme says

There is no consistency in your argumentation and (re-)stated positions. I invite anyone to read all of Heraclitusstudent's posts on this thread and see if they can make it into any kind of coherent viewpoint.

You intrude in this thread probably without having read all of the above, which is probably why you don't understand my position.

Rin suffers from neurosis induced by the perverse nature of a society that glorifies at the same time money power independence and feminisms, and belittles the importance of human ties.

If he was perfectly happy he wouldn't feel the need for validation and/or provocation by coming on this board and exposing this private to people who couldn't care less what he does.

justme says

You are conflating (equating) allowing men the same rights as women, in marriage and otherwise, with "dumping a homemaker on the street without help."

If you are arguing for equality then I disagree on that premise first. You would know that if you had read my comments above.

Heraclitusstudent says

Rin suffers from neurosis induced by the perverse nature of a society that glorifies at the same time money power independence and feminisms, and belittles the importance of human ties.

If he was perfectly happy he wouldn't feel the need for validation and/or provocation by coming on this board and exposing this private to people who couldn't care less what he does.

Ok, what about Strategist and Ceffer? Apparently, they're inspired by my posts so it's obvious, this is an influential way of being.

I don't think many are being inspired by your ideas. And yes, the settling down in the Philippines, central Asia, or Brazil for kids isn't actually whipping out a following here.

Hello detractors, sorry, but your lame attempts at shaming and reverse psychology are not going to get me to stop my hobbies in any way, shape, or form.

Now, if you have some tips on maximizing my money during these journeys then I'll take it under consideration.

Heraclitusstudent says

You intrude in this thread probably without having read all of the above, which is probably why you don't understand my position.

Eeeek!! An intruder!! a MALE intruder!! [clutching pearls here] Call-the-au-thor-i-ties !! (credit: Chris Rock for that last one)

Heraclitusstudent says

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

Awareness is the first step of any organization. If people do not know or comprehend what is going on, then the internet is quite helpful to disseminate information.

And, by the way, you are just shaming again, saying that real men will be out demonstrating against family court, rather then "bitching on the internet". Well, you reach more people on the internet. Maybe even more than one person who chose in protest to set himself on fire in front of a courthouse (cf. google James Thomas Ball, who did exactly that, and died as a result). So stop with the "you're just bitching on the internet" shaming.

Heraclitusstudent says

If he was perfectly happy he wouldn't feel the need for validation and/or provocation by coming on this board and exposing this private to people who couldn't care less what he does.

Says the one person that cares a lot what Rin does. Yet another self-contradiction. And by the way, you want men to organize, you say, except just not the way Rin does it. I wonder what you might say if he told his tales in front of a court house? Would it be ok then, would he then suddenly not be just a mentally ill person seeking validation?

You have basically admitted that we are right. Now your last bastion is quibbling about how our form of expression (internet versus demonstration) does not suit your taste, and deeming people who hold different views than you as mental ill. Nice going. If we held a demonstration where you could observe, I think quickly you might be against those as well, for yet another made-up reason.

justme says

ll 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.

What nonsense. You are conflating (equating) allowing men the same rights as women, in marriage and otherwise, with "dumping a homemaker on the street without help."

Whether you consider yourself a traditionalist or feminist or "concerned citizen" or something else, I do not care. What matters is that your argumentation is fundamentally dishonest.

While some on Patnet have a very clear preference for what they "think" the law says, I think you would be presently surprised that the law in terms of alimony has become decidedly "genderless" in the last few decades.

Now to Heraclit's point, yes the Public Policy has long been that if either spouse does not have the means or ability to provide for themselves (either the old days where only 1 spouse worked - or two income households, where one gives up a career to raise kids/maintain the household) when they divorce, the law prefers that the earning spouse (versus the taxpayer) shall pay to "rehabilitate" the non earning spouse.

The public policy idea here is the payments should be enough for the person to live in the lifestyle they were accustomed to while they go out and acquire skills such that they can take care of themselves after a few years. Thus, alimony usually ends after a few years (with exceptions made for older spouses who are well past their earning years). Also, its a sliding scale where payments are much more for long term marriages - the shorter the term, the less you get/pay.

Now granted, in the majority of cases, yes it is the still the woman getting payments but that is because the are the ones doing the primary childrearing and household responsiblities, while more men earn.

That being said, the law in this area truly is genderless. If you wonder how I know, my wife has made quite a name for herself specializing in cases where she represents the husband who stayed home with the kids while the high income wife worked. The men she represents are so happy that nearly all the referrals she gets are "hey, my buddy said that you absolutely crucified his ex-wife and he got a big payday! Can you represent me & do the same for me?

justme says

Says the one person that cares a lot what Rin does. Yet another self-contradiction. And by the way, you want men to organize, you say, except just not the way Rin does it

Speaking of the above, as well as Heraclitusstudent's implication that my friends are all superficial (which BTW, is a part of his & CIC's attempt at some reverse psychology), I'd just gotten back from an early dinner an old friend.

We have a friend in common, whose 7 year marriage is ending, and guess what? He'd spent time in both Kuala Lumpur (work) and Bangkok (comp time) and did some whores. Looks like my gang is forming. Soon, I'll have a little club of punters, who'll travel the world and bang hoes.

justme says

by the way, you want men to organize, you say, except just not the way Rin does it. I wonder what you might say if he told his tales in front of a court house?

Are you saying that refusing to have relationships is a form of protest?
Maybe in the same sense as the guy that immolated himself.
If so, Rin should be proud of it and brag about it at parties.
Apparently not.

justme says

You have basically admitted that we are right. Now your last bastion is quibbling about how our form of expression (internet versus demonstration) does not suit your taste, and deeming people who hold different views than you as mental ill.

Let me return that: you basically admitted that you agree with what I said earlier in the thread and your previous post was unnecessary.
Your only quibbling is whether refusing relationships, banging hoes, and bragging about it on the internet while lying about it to your friends constitute (1) perfect mental health, and (2) a form of protest that can successfully shape public policy.
I'll let your comments on that stand.

Hey Heraclitusstudent, what does my following post mean? It means that little by little, my friends will be divorcing and be joining my society.

I can tell by your posts that you're a desperate man, probably also unsuccessful in relationships but can't deal with it. My hope for you is that you do find someone and your life gets ruined. If so, I want you to remember me at that time.

I'll be laughing my way to the bank. Unlike you, I don't believe in reverse psychology, I believe that you're simply a loser.

Rin says

justme says

Says the one person that cares a lot what Rin does. Yet another self-contradiction. And by the way, you want men to organize, you say, except just not the way Rin does it

Speaking of the above, as well as Heraclitusstudent's implication that my friends are all superficial (which BTW, is a part of his & CIC's attempt at some reverse psychology), I'd just gotten back from an early dinner an old friend.

We have a friend in common, whose 7 year marriage is ending, and guess what? He'd spent time in both Kuala Lumpur (work) and Bangkok (comp time) and did some whores. Looks like my gang is forming. Soon, I'll have a little club of punters, who'll travel the world and bang hoes.

Let me define what a loser is, a loser is a person who excels at Track & Field but when he discovers that in the Shot put, he can only toss the ball a few feet, he continues to keep at the Shot put, neglecting the fact that he could win at the sprint track. He does this because he's conditioned to throw all of the time, and can't fathom why anyone would want to run. In the end, he's a failed thrower and is resentful of sprinters and runners.

From wikipedia on neurosis:

"According to C. George Boeree, professor emeritus at Shippensburg University, the symptoms of neurosis may involve:
[...] behavioral symptoms such as phobic avoidance, ..., habitual fantasizing, negativity and cynicism, etc. ..., schizoid isolation, socio-culturally inappropriate behaviors, etc....

"Jung' Theory: [...] I have frequently seen people become neurotic when they content themselves with inadequate or wrong answers to the questions of life. (Jung [1961] (1989) p. 140)"

"Horney's theory: [...] neurosis is a distorted way of looking at the world and at oneself, which is determined by compulsive needs rather than by a genuine interest in the world as it is."

Anyone else think this applies to Rin?

No reason to pathologize Rin. Psychologists and psychiatrists make their living pathologizing behavior, often with their authoritarian, labelling heads up their asses.

What he is doing is pretty sensible from his point of view. He also gainfully employs women who are more than willing to exchange sex for money. It is a series of short 'win-win' situations as opposed to a lengthy, risky and messy 'lose-lose' relationship scenario. Hookers and their customers have been around forever since women noticed that men liked sex more than they did and they could charge for it.

Women often hate hookers because they package sex in discrete economic units, rather than holding out for maximum extortion value in 'committed' relationships where after a time the women no longer provide value added companionship for the resources they expect to absorb from men. Hookers throw off many womens' concepts of the propriety of this extortion by allowing men to have their cake and eat it, too, in the long run.

Pair bonding is still a powerful evolutionary strategy for combining personal resources between the sexes with efficiency, especially for reproduction, and nature rewards it extensively with hormonal narcosis to induce relationship addictions and dependencies. Just because a few individuals prefer a more practical route isn't going to destroy the overall tendency of men and women to pair bond.

Ceffer says

What he is doing is pretty sensible from his point of view. He also gainfully employs women who are more than willing to exchange sex for money. It is a series of short 'win-win' situations as opposed to a lengthy, risky and messy 'lose-lose' relationship scenario. Hookers and their customers have been around forever since women noticed that men liked sex more than they did and they could charge for it.

I wouldn't worry about Heraclitusstudent and his banal opinions. The fact that he's been vehemently arguing against me, using pop psychology antics, and yet, can't even point to his own individual success in long term relationships as some sort of 100% all encompassing cultural M.O., indicates his real colors. At least YesYNot has that going for him. And finally, even YesYNot realized that romantic relationships and marriage weren't for everybody, but he's happy with his current situation.

Heraclitusstudent has been bouncing around this whole thread, attempting to use legal minutiae, the mail order bride system, the idea of my friendships being false, and all kinds of props, and finally, resorting to using askance, fully out of context quotes by Jung and others, to hold up his lame position.

He's a pathetic and a *neurotic* loser (yes that word, neurotic, is a mirror of his own mental state), who despite having his own shortcomings in relationships, can't accept the fact that someone else, may choose the cold turkey option.

Rin says

He's a pathetic and a *neurotic* loser (yes that word, neurotic, is a mirror of his own mental state), who despite having his own shortcomings in relationships, can't accept the fact that someone else, may choose the cold turkey option.

You didn't exactly choose it though, did you? You got dumped and appear ill equipped to hold the attention of a woman. You now claim to be navigating some kind of enlightened path, a path, by the way, as old as fucking time. There's nothing new or interesting about what you claim you do, claim being the operative word, so as Heraclitusstudent has asked, why do you feel the need to come on here and peddle your lame stories? And ignoring all your money sucking drivel, you do realize that it is not actually required to marry a woman in order to start a relationship with someone. You also have the added benefit of getting sex more than 17 times a year and, more than likely, with women who haven't been fucked by thousands of different men.

Bigsby says

You didn't exactly choose it though, did you? You got dumped and appear ill equipped to hold the attention of a woman. You now claim to be navigating some kind of enlightened path, a path, by the way, as old as fucking time. There's nothing new or interesting about what you claim you do, claim being the operative word, so as Heraclitusstudent has asked, why do you feel the need to come on here and peddle your lame stories? And ignoring all your money sucking drivel, you do realize that it is not actually required to marry a woman in order to start a relationship with someone. You also have the added benefit of getting sex more than 17 times a year and, more than likely, with women who haven't been fucked by thousands of different men.

Oh wow ... I'm so crying over some Canadian bitch and her stupid issues.

You really think I give a damn about women really think? I think Ceffer's response, says it all.

Ceffer says

No reason to pathologize Rin. Psychologists and psychiatrists make their living pathologizing behavior, often with their authoritarian, labelling heads up their asses.

What he is doing is pretty sensible from his point of view. He also gainfully employs women who are more than willing to exchange sex for money. It is a series of short 'win-win' situations as opposed to a lengthy, risky and messy 'lose-lose' relationship scenario. Hookers and their customers have been around forever since women noticed that men liked sex more than they did and they could charge for it.

Women often hate hookers because they package sex in discrete economic units, rather than holding out for maximum extortion value in 'committed' relationships where after a time the women no longer provide value added companionship for the resources they expect to absorb from men. Hookers throw off many womens' concepts of the propriety of this extortion by allowing men to have their cake and eat it, too, in the long run.

Pair bonding is still a powerful evolutionary strategy for combining personal resources between the sexes with efficiency, especially for reproduction, and nature rewards it extensively with hormonal narcosis to induce relationship addictions and dependencies. Just because a few individuals prefer a more practical route isn't going to destroy the overall tendency of men and women to pair bond.

And in fact, divorce rates persist and as you can see by the chart present by CIC, that the percentage of men, ages 35 to 55, are staying single at 95% greater rate than what it was, twenty years ago, says it all.

What I'm doing is what the majority will do, in twenty years.

Rin says

Oh wow ... I'm so crying over some Canadian bitch and her stupid issues.

You really think I give a damn about women really think? I think Ceffer's response, says it all.

Oh, yes, I certainly do. You're a human being, aren't you? We care what others think, and most definitely what the opposite sex thinks about us.
If you didn't care, then why all your bitter comments towards your ex? You just come across as a sad, misogynistic individual, who has poor skills with the opposite sex and so instead comes on here to spin your lame, and more than likely made up, tales.

Rin says

And in fact, divorce rates persist and as you can see by the chart present by CIC, that the percentage of men, ages 35 to 55, are staying single at 95% greater rate than what it was, twenty years ago, says it all.

It doesn't mean those people don't have relationships, does it?

And why are all your posts getting a like immediately after you post them? And I mean immediately. A bit insecure, are you?