patrick.net

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.

justme says

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).

yes, exactly.

women demand contradictory things all the time since the advent of feminism, and it's driving men crazy, or driving them to give up on marriage and long-term commitment completely.

the basic contradiction is the one above: how dare you assert you are in any way better than me, and you damn well better be better than me in most ways, or you're not getting any!

most men think: wtf?

justme says

(*)

(*)

heh

the basic contradiction is the one above: how dare you assert you are in any way better than me, and you damn well better be better than me in most ways, or you're not getting any!

+100

that's the more outspoken way of putting it.

most men think: wtf?

Most men think WTF, but I also believe that only a small fraction of them (5% ?) really understand what is going on, and how insane it is. But the percentage is growing, and when it reaches 50% there will be change.

justme says

Most men think WTF, but I also believe that only a small fraction (5% ?) of them really understand what is going on, and how insane it is, But the percentage is growing, and when it reaches 50% there will be change.

That realization may take a couple of generations but during that time period, virtual reality environments and sex androids will come online and even more men may opt out completely, as a result.

Let's face it, a robot with all of one's hobbies/interests programmed in, will outperform any regular person, in addition to the sexual services.

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

If you are blaming feminism for better equality in law, then fine, feminism is to blame, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying. Divorce rose primarily because it was made easier under the law both in terms of the process and financially (and no doubt also because of a decline in the social stigma attached to it). Divorce rates in England and Wales doubled between 1961 and 1969 from 25,000 to 51,000. The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 made divorce easier and rates rose to 120,000 by 1972. Rates then continued to rise until 1994 but have since returned to the 1972 levels even though the population has risen 8 million, there is greater workforce participation, greater expectations of equality, even less stigma....

The slight decline in divorce count in most recent years is due to collapsing marriage rate in the 20-50 age group.

The divorces per thousand are declining, so the decline is both in number and in percent. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for that, but the story certainly isn't all about ball busting feminists. The number of cohabiting couples has risen greatly in the UK, so apparently people are still interested in relationships, but are just less tied to a traditional approach.

The divorces per thousand population are declining primarily because less marriages per thousand;
The divorces per thousand marriages may also be declining because people, especially men, are avoiding getting married to begin with, so only the faithful and idealistic are self-selecting to get married.

Reality says

The divorces per thousand population are declining primarily because less marriages per thousand;

The divorces per thousand marriages may also be declining because people, especially men, are avoiding getting married to begin with, so only the faithful and idealistic are self-selecting to get married.

In recent decades in the West, marriages generally haven't been arranged, aren't a social requirement prior to having children, are less of a financial necessity etc.., so I presume the driving force for many is that general vague idea of a life time commitment. That's been true over the period we've been discussing. Your assertion about the reason for the decline in divorces is just that. How about it being about the fact people are delaying marriage and so are more mature now than a few decades ago - maybe the decision is actually less idealistic than before. Who knows - I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons.

And more to the point, the thrust of the argument on here seems to be about a breakdown in the relationship between men and women (with divorce being the go to manifestation of this), but as I said, you could argue that one form of monogamous relationship has simply been replaced by another for many, cohabitation instead of marriage. The former has risen by 30% over the last decade in the UK.

Bigsby says

you could argue that one form of monogamous relationship has simply been replaced by another for many, cohabitation instead of marriage

sure, as men figure out that there is no longer any benefit to them in marriage, they refuse to enter any legal commitment. perfectly rational.

Fucking hookers is a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

sure, as men figure out that there is no longer any benefit to them in marriage, they refuse to enter any legal commitment. perfectly rational.

Plenty (all?) of the same issues will arise with cohabiting as they do in marriage and more than likely the law will reflect that given time, or else people will make use of cohabitation agreements to fill the gap.

Bigsby says

The former has risen by 30% over the last decade in the UK

There is a reason. You don't have big brother controlling your life down to the last cent. Feminazis of course are trying to make cohabitation the same as marriage and in quite a few places-one owes palimony.

This idea that you owe half for ever is just silly. Take Hulk Hogan-a lifetime of injuries, gym workouts, possible steroids and the ex ends up with 70% of their assets and he is alone. She wa snot asked to do 70% of the household chores for the next 30 yrs. Not that she did any-with their money, she just enjoyed it. Feminazis asked for equality and they got it-now get equality in everything and be treated as an equal. A man is expected to stand on his own and now so should a woman. Enough of the safety net. Woman can run for president, can join the armed forces/police etc etc-well then you are an equal and be responsible for your own life-be responsible for your choices. A small transitory support for a few years is fine-but that is it.

Given the feminazis history, I wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a rule saying if you are not married or not cohabiting, then you have to maintain the hookers in the lifestyle they want to be maintained. They have successfully transformed a woman from mom to the whore.

This place is much better:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Botonica+Angel+Abundia/@29.367757,-98.504005,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xa6095386b0cfcde1

My solution would be to ban No Fault divorces, except by mutual agreement, and only then if there are no children under 18.

You have kids, you shouldn't be able to get divorced unless there is substance abuse, physical abuse, total abandonment, etc.

Think about it, what other agreement/contract in life can one party unilaterally walk away from a contract that includes a total intertwining of financial arrangements (to say nothing of emotional, physical, etc. entangements) and actually get *Rewarded* for it.

I'm really sick of the way the media bullshits about how divorce is important for the parents' mental health, but the kids will get over it. Studies show divorce does a helluva job on children, and effects their ability to form relationships (inc. non-sexual ones) later on in life.

Adults need to suck it up for the kids, and stay married.

An alternative solution to the ban on No Faults would be "Whomever files for the no fault divorce automatically does not get custody of the children." Why reward the person who chose to dissolve the divorce?

Do this and I guarantee a big drop in the divorce rates.