patrick.net

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?

Bigsby says

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.

Actually, it's you who cares. I only advocate other men to follow my way. You can go screw yourself and live some Ozzy/Harriet lifestyle.

Ask yourself this question, why are you even responding to me, if you really believe that you're 100% correct? A man so certain that he's right, will never engage a troll against relationships.

Rin says

Actually, it's you who cares. I only advocate other men to follow my way. You can go screw yourself and live some Ozzy/Harriet lifestyle.

Ask yourself this question, why are you even responding to me, if you really believe that you're 100% correct? A man so certain that he's right, will never engage a troll against relationships.

It's a forum. People waste time on them. That's why I'm responding. And what has it got to do with being 100% correct? Who's claiming to be 100% correct? You are the one making sweeping generalizations, not me.
And you aren't peddling a new way. You aren't a fucking evangelist, are you? There's nothing remotely special about what you claim to do. Your way is as old as time.

Bigsby says

And you aren't peddling a new way. You aren't a fucking evangelist, are you? There's nothing remotely special about what you claim to do. Your way is as old as time.

Only one difference, between 1985 and 2015, the percentage of men, from ages 35 to 54, not marrying, has gone from 17.9% to 35%, a 95% increase. That's a significant change, sweeping our society. And thus, my way will grow, whereas in the past, we were a distinct minority.

Rin says

Only one difference, between 1985 and 2015, the percentage of men, from ages 35 to 54, not marrying, has gone from 17.9% to 35%, a 95% increase. That's a significant change, sweeping our society. And thus, my way will grow, whereas in the past, we were a distinct minority.

We? They simply aren't getting married or aren't remarrying. That doesn't mean they are all fucking hookers, does it?

Bigsby says

We? They simply aren't getting married or aren't remarrying. That doesn't mean they are all fucking hookers, does it?

However way they can get it. And yes, a certain percentage will be either hookers or friends-with-benes. Ever noticed all those ads on Craigslist for such services? Or Seeking Arrangements/Sugar Babies?

Rin says

However way they can get it. And yes, a certain percentage will be either hookers or friends-with-benes. Ever noticed all those ads on Craigslist for such services? Or Seeking Arrangements/Sugar Babies?

Duh, who's claiming otherwise?

You can't get it. Others can. Such is life.

Bigsby says

Rin says

However way they can get it. And yes, a certain percentage will be either hookers or friends-with-benes. Ever noticed all those ads on Craigslist for such services? Or Seeking Arrangements/Sugar Babies?

Duh, who's claiming otherwise?

The cultural notion of normal dating, and finally, marriage. That's been the bane of this entire rant.

If men in the marrying age bracket of 35 to 54, at an increasing clip of 50% per decade, are not opting for marriage, but instead, decide to simply have hookups... then eventually, the combination of one night stands(adultfriendfinder et al), sugar babies/arrangements, hookers, etc, will be much more normal.

Rin says

The cultural notion of normal dating, and finally, marriage. That's been the bane of this entire rant.

If men in the marrying age bracket of 35 to 54, at an increasing clip of 50% per decade, are not opting for marriage, but instead, decide to simply have hookups... then eventually, the combination of one night stands(adultfriendfinder et al), sugar babies/arrangements, hookers, etc, will be much more normal.

Show me the data where they are simply choosing to have hookups. How many are looking for a relationship and simply use hookers to fill the gap? How many only ever want to be with hookers? Show me those numbers.

Hookers are common place the world over. It isn't something unusual that is suddenly becoming the norm with people foregoing relationships in favour of fucking a hooker a few times a year instead.

Bigsby says

Show me the data where they are simply choosing to have hookups. How many are looking for a relationship and simply use hookers to fill the gap? How many only ever want to be with hookers? Show me those numbers.

So you want me to show you numbers of an underground economy, I guess you really are reaching for straws.

http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1292936/is-the-sugar-daddysugar-baby-phenomenon-a-kind-of-prostitution/

Excerpt: "Seekingarrangement.com claims to have four million members — three million of them “sugar babies” — including nearly 250,000 in Canada. About 50,000 of those are in Toronto, of which all but 7,000 are women."

Ok, so 3 million women in North America, USA & Canada, want to be in an engagement with a man, in exchange for financial favors. Do you realize that that's not a small number. And then, this website isn't the only place where these things are happening so it could easily be, 2 to 3 times that number.

Thanks for supplying data that is utterly irrelevant to what I said. Who has claimed hookers aren't big business? Your bloody example isn't even related to hookers. The point is who is choosing only to go with hookers and forfeit having a relationship instead - the thing you are peddling. Your assertion appears to be that you won't have a relationship with someone you meet even if you really liked them and were attracted to them. That is what you are claiming, isn't it? I suspect that doesn't have a great deal of traction for most people, and I rather suspect that also applies to you.

Bigsby says

Thanks for supplying me data that is utterly irrelevant to what I said. Who has claimed hookers aren't big business? The point is who is choosing only to go with hookers and forfeit having a relationship instead. Your assertion appears to be that you won't have a relationship with someone you meet even if you really liked them and were attracted to them. That is what you are claiming, isn't it? I suspect that doesn't have a great deal of traction for most people, and I rather suspect that also applies to you.

Sorry, ppl had met their best friends during childhood and those formative years.

Afterwards, it's basically a bunch of baloney. Of course, being a cultural conformist, you believe those lies. Do you not think, for one moment, that the average gal at a party can't figure out that I'm a successful white collar professional? No, it's obvious and thus, I'm not interested in her. I would have rather have met her, when I was struggling STEM worker. Today, she's irrelevant.

Rin says

Sorry, ppl had met their best friends during childhood and those formative years.

Afterwards, it's basically a bunch of baloney. Of course, being a cultural conformist, you believe those lies. Do you not think, for one moment, that the average gal at a party can't figure out that I'm a successful white collar professional? No, it's obvious and thus, I'm not interested in her. I would have rather have met her, when I was struggling STEM worker. Today, she's irrelevant.

A cultural conformist? Yeah, I guess that's why I've spent almost my entire adult life working around the world.

People make friends and lose friends throughout their life. Seriously, how socially stunted are you?

And you don't go out with women because they can see how successful you are?!? Ha, fucking, ha. Let me guess, it's the car you drive. Oh, hang on...

Seriously, you're living in your own little fantasyland, aren't you?

Bigsby says

A cultural conformist? Yeah, I guess that's why I've spent almost my entire adult life working around the world.

People make friends and lose friends throughout their life. Seriously, how socially stunted are you?

And you don't go out with women because they can see how successful you are?!? Ha, fucking, ha. You're living in your own little fantasyland, aren't you?

Of course, the sun never sets over the British Empire. You're the new viceroy abroad. I presume you walk around Asia, looking down upon ppl's flat nose and feel more powerful than them.

Actually, I've retained many of my earlier friendships. And yes, it's important to do so.

Plus, I don't date women because I don't give a rat's ass about 'em. Do you get that, Lord Mountbatten?

I know you feel a sense of superiority over me, because of some overseas British Empire nonsense, but in reality, you're just another dickweed ex-pat.

Heraclitusstudent says

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.

Okay, so so you disagree with equality being a goal. You want women to have more and better rights than men. Good you got that off your chest.

justme says

Okay, so so you disagree with equality being a goal. You want women to have more and better rights than men. Good you got that off your chest.

Good to see you here, I was wondering when those with common sense were going to come up.

Rin says

Of course, the sun never sets over the British Empire. You're the new viceroy abroad. I presume you walk around Asia, looking down upon ppl's flat nose and feel more powerful than them.

Got any more cliches you'd like to trot out whilst you're at it?

Rin says

Plus, I don't date women because I don't give a rat's ass about 'em. Do you get that, Lord Mountbatten?

Yeah, I understand you're a misogynist. And apparently all because a woman dumped you 4 years ago. How sad.

Bigsby says

Got any more cliches you'd like to trot out whilst you're at it?

Considering your level of arrogance, I believe it's quite there, Monty.

I've met others like you, who'd live in Asia, and are so proud of their immense popularity among the natives.

:::Oh, I understand you've become a mysogynist. And apparently all because a woman dumped you 4 years ago. You sad man.

OMG, you've just made me cry. Oh ... how I miss that bitchy Canadian. My heart's broken LOL!

You're such an ordinary man if that's the best you can come up with.

Now, get back to making fun of those slanted eye East Asians and dark skinned South Asians. I'm sure you're so proud of the fact that Asian women worship your British Empire member. BTW, thanks to your Empire, I've heard that South Asians living in Britain, use skin bleaching creams to look more Anglo-Saxon. I guess you guys have done a real good job on instilling that colonial mentality among your subjects.

BTW, in one year, I'll never have to work a day in my life again. Tell me, if you've achieved such a thing, Mr White Power/Viceroy, Lord of Asia.

I think we're done with this conversation.

Rin says

Considering your level of arrogance, I believe it's quite there, Monty.

My arrogance? That's a bit rich coming from you.

Rin says

I've met others like you, who'd live in Asia, and are so proud of their immense popularity among the natives... I'm sure you're so proud of the fact that Asian women worship your British Empire member.

Err, I don't live in Asia, and it's YOU who likes to boast/fantasize about fucking whores in Thailand...

Rin says

OMG, you've just made me cry. Oh ... how I miss that bitchy Canadian. My heart's broken LOL!

Sure, you can tell by the way you never bring her up...

Rin says

Now, get back to making fun of those slanted eye East Asians and dark skinned South Asians.

My wife is Japanese. Try again.

Rin says

BTW, thanks to your Empire, I've heard that South Asians living in Britain, use skin bleaching creams to look more Anglo-Saxon. I guess you guys have done a real good job on instilling that colonial mentality among your subjects.

My empire, my subjects? I didn't realize I had an empire. Wow, what shall I do...

Rin says

BTW, in one year, I'll never have to work a day in my life again. Tell me, if you've achieved such a thing, Mr White Power/Viceroy, Lord of Asia.
I think we're done with this conversation.

So you claim. The internet is a wonderful place for people like you.

And you say I'm arrogant. You have to laugh.

Rin,

I can understand and sympathize with some of what you are saying. However, as a fellow numbers guy, I hope you realize that the average child support payment in this country is only $350/mo or so, and you are in a state where the maximum child support cap is $2000/mo (unless you have consistently provided for a higher standards of living to the woman previously, or marriage is involved). Granted, $2000/mo or $24k/yr after tax money is close to $40k pre-tax and is higher than the entire average woman's earning, it is not a huge sum of money, and not much more than what you'd spend on circling the globe impaling hookers. In exchange for the minimal cost inccrease, you get to f*ck the girl bareback, have kids of your own; whether you can manage to keep her looking up to you and stay "devoted" to you after a while is a function of your ability to replace her (yes, most girls are that silly, actually LOGICAL: it's us idealistic men who are silly! it's their biological programming to take you for granted until you threaten to walk away; it's a mechanism to maximize her take from you for her offsprings' benefit, don't hate her for it).

Seems to me, you can have more time for your research projects and banging if you just stay home and cycle through them one after another every few years (if it has to be carried out instead of merely dreading her), instead of travelling and writing about it.

BTW, also agree with you that prostitution should be legal, so that the young boys can have an outlet and building self-confidence instead of chasing their classmates and turning into manginas, while married women can have real / implied competition so that they don't become too complacent.

Rules have to change. otherwise the only people feeling safe to have kids are like that 32 yr old guy in TN who has 30+ kids from several different women. Since he is on minimum wage, he has to give a few cents per kid a month. Good, competent, smart, successful people -and that includes an increasing number of professional women-are foregoing having kids. Then we just have a legion of people who need support from taxpayers having multiple kids and then badmouthing the givers too.

In animals if you breed like to like long enough-you get like soon enough Same thing will happen to us.

Agree, "Lost." There should be laws mandating sterility / implanted contraception for the biological parents of children that have to receive welfare from the state.

Everyone is allowed to make mistake once for producing a child that he/she can not afford, but not a second time. It's a human rights issue for the child! No child deserves to be born into poverty and to irresponsible parents.

Reality says

Seems to me, you can have more time for your research projects and banging if you just stay home and cycle through them one after another every few years (if it has to be carried out instead of merely dreading her), instead of travelling and writing about it.

Here's the thing, perhaps this is the piece which my detractors don't understand but women are boring.

For the most part, they do not share my hobbies, nor did they help me build my career. The reason why that Canadian was the last GF was because during the final year, I could barely stand her. It was one meltdown/crisis after another. And what ppl also don't get is that I first tried to break up with her and she went into a tailspin to keep the already tattered relationship going. And then finally, when she'd walked 4 years ago, I was completely free, to devoted myself 100% to the business. What a relief it was.

And yet, ppl think that it's all natural to be in relationships. I disagree, for a man, it's to follow his passions whether it's work, writing, photography, martial arts, music, etc. Those are the things which bring joy and happiness. I'd say that a crew of Vikings, navigating the seas, are probably a lot happier than most married men in America today. Sure, they may screw a few dames along the road but their true calling is exploration and boating.

Rin says

For the most part, they do not share my hobbies

One could consider sex a hobby.

not that y'all asked, but my current and evolving understanding is that as women "liberated" themselves from their traditional roles as wives and mothers, skewed the legal system to be unfair to men, became more than half of college grads, and moved up in the workforce, they found they still were not happy with the situation.

the reason is unspeakable in public: women want men who are higher status than themselves. they want men who are higher earning, more respected, literally bigger, etc etc. and this is fundamental and biological, not cultural. it evolved that way over a million years because the wives of high-status men tended to have more children, and better protected children.

a high-earning professional woman finds her pool of acceptable men greatly constrained. she just doesn't get turned on by any of those nebbishes who earn less than she does and are less ambitious than she is. and now, having taken the time to work on a career, she is also a bit older, and the younger men probably arent' even looking at her.

men, conversely, want young, beautiful, and feminine women and actually want to commit to and provide for such women in exchange for love and loyalty from them. ambition and a career in women are invisible to men, or are even a turn-off. women think that what they want in a man (manliness, yes) must be what men want in women, and this is completely wrong, pretty much the opposite of reality.

so now we get the situation of zillions of liberated but frustrated career women not able to find a man acceptable to them who is willing to commit to them. the really high status men get their pick of women, and they pick the young feminine ones pretty much every time. and the career women fume and tell each other that men are all assholes.

and zillions of frustrated men like rin wonder what the fuck happened to the traditional deal, which would have been acceptable. i bet that if you could guarantee rin a hot young loyal wife, he'd go for it. he just doesn't want to get ripped off by the feminist movement. and he feels it's definitely a rip-off for men. somehow they are supposed to provide their side of the traditional deal (love, money, protection) but in exchange for nothing instead of the traditional woman's role of loyal wife and mother.

well, you can get crucified these days for honest opinions that don't jibe with feminism, so i should probably stop there.

rin wonder what the fuck happened to the traditional deal, which would have been acceptable. i bet that if you could guarantee rin a hot young loyal wife, he'd go for it. he just doesn't want to get ripped off by the feminist movement. and he feels it's definitely a rip-off for men. somehow they are supposed to provide their side of the traditional deal (love, money, protection) but in exchange for nothing instead of the traditional woman's role of loyal wife and mother.

The problem with the word guarantee, is that it doesn't apply to the current condition in America. The success rate (meaning long term happiness) is actually rather low.

What a guarantee is basically attending a US medical/MD school equals a solid, high paying job provided one does the work or that a Toyota Camry will probably have very few technical problems during its first 100K miles.

Rin says

The problem with the word guarantee, is that it doesn't apply to the current condition in America. The success rate (meaning long term happiness) is actually rather low.

yes, i agree with you.

my argument is that long-term marriage success was destroyed by feminism. both genders were happier in their traditional roles, even if those roles themselves are not optimal for everyone's happiness. the men would prefer to continue to fuck around instead of being limited to one woman, and the women get pretty damn tired of being at home and watching kids, but those were the costs of the old deal and they were acceptable costs to both sides before feminism.

note the excellent correlation of the rise in feminism with the rise in divorce rates.

Patrick is 100% correct on this subject.

@Rin

Female reproduction partners are not there to be your hobby partner or business partner, unless your hobby and business are making and raising a lot of babies. It's just like if you have an accountant or lawyer for business partner, you wouldn't necessarily count on taking him on fishing trips of golf games or hang-gliding!

The idealized life partner in everything theme is BULL SHIT designed to trick women into giving up the goods :-) It conjures up a younger version of her dad!

Female reproduction partners are there to provide babies and steady supply of sex. That's why infertility and sex refusal (abandonment) were both fault grounds for divorce. The product itself is fine so long as you RTFM. Make sure you read the correct manual, not the fantasy in relationship porn written for female audience.

BTW, just in case any female reader think above comment is mysogynistic, no it is not: wife / GF being only expected to provide babies and sex means it is a good idea for the woman to have a successful career of her own after the babies go to school. That means it is a good idea for her to find an established man early, get married early and have the 2.2 babies early, so she can have a long uninterrupted professional career for herself afterwards.

A man should sow wild oats early because his opportunity cost is low at that point because he can't afford to raise any kids anyway;
A woman should find a worthy man and have baby early when her biological opportunity cost is high, then build her professional career and f*ck around later in life when her biological opportunity cost is low.

women want men who are higher status than themselves.

About 10 years ago, when it had fully dawned on me what the problem was, I used to state the above in the following way:

Women demand to be equal(*) to men in public life and work life, but they still also demand that their PRIVATE man must be BETTER than them (and not just equal).

There is no solution to the equation implied by the above demand. The above is the essence of the incredible mess that modern society has become since abut 1960, cf. the divorce rate plot Patrick posted, not to mention the other stats that show that the rate of staying unmarried has sky-rocketed.

Addendum: (*) In practice women are not asking to be treated equally, they are demanding to be treated AS IF EQUAL and equally qualified, whether or not they actually are. There is plenty of evidence of this, from reduced-level firefighter and military fitness tests for women, to run-of-the-mill affirmative action, to corporate boardroom quotas.