If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

smarterthanone

Why not do the obvious... in regards to marriage

50 posts in this topic

If marriage comes with all sorts of legal issues, why not just not get married? I don't mean not have a relationship or even kids. If you don't get married:

1. No alimony

2. No dividing assets

3. No divorce

Once your assets are protected, your girlfriend is less likely to leave you when she is the one who will have to live on her friends couch or stay at a cheap motel instead of your nice house.

What is so special about marriage? It is just a commitment. How is the filing of government papers important?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you create a child, family court will still grant her child support. 

Even if you don't marry and don't have children there is still the protection of common law marriage. 

Marriage helps with joint ownership of homes, hospital visitation, joint custody of children, etc. 

Penn, from Penn & Teller, tried to get his attorney to create all the protections of marriage in legal contracts and the result was "not possible". 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

If you create a child, family court will still grant her child support. 

Child support being the only remaining issue to deal with.

 

Even if you don't marry and don't have children there is still the protection of common law marriage.

Well don't get common law married either. It isn't magic like it just happens. I live in a common law state, there needs to be proof you are married still. You aren't going to get a room mate and you are married the next day.

 

Marriage helps with joint ownership of homes, hospital visitation, joint custody of children, etc. 

Why would you want joint ownership of assets? That's the point, to not have joint ownership. Hospital visitation can be assigned with power of attorney documents. Presumably if you are in a relationship the custody of the children is not an issue.

 

Penn, from Penn & Teller, tried to get his attorney to create all the protections of marriage in legal contracts and the result was "not possible". 

You mean he tried to have a contract instead of being married OR he tried to have a contract to nullify the legal ramifications of being married?

 

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

If I was a valuable woman worth having children with, I would drop your ass if you came to me with a proposal like this.

Say you have a net worth of $2 million, the woman thinks she is worth a $1,000,000 purchase price? Lmfao

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

If I was a valuable woman worth having children with, I would drop your ass if you came to me with a proposal like this.

Why? If the idea is to disarm the coercive powers a woman could wield legally, then it should be understood as a self-preservation move similar to how if a woman keeps a gun hidden in her purse, she's keeping it in case a bad guy tries something. 

You could argue lack of trust, but if I were a woman, while I would be immensely flattered by a man willing to risk everything on my whim, I would also be somewhat frustrated because that tells me he isn't very wise. However I suppose the deciding factor is whether the positive gained from being the recipient of trust outweighs the negatives of being stupid enough to pointlessly risk oneself when precautions could be taken.

I wouldn't want a man who takes pointless risks "as a gesture", because what if he risks something I am not in control of and am negatively affected by it? What if he invests in risky stocks and loses big? Is careless with the kids? Etc. etc. imagine the negative implications of a guy who takes pointless risks. 

I'm not saying not getting legally married is a safeguard from the negatives of divorce, I am saying that mitigating possible negatives is a sign of intelligence and caution from a man that ought to appeal to a wise and empathetic woman. 

After all, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't blame my potential wife if she took all kinds of legal stuff to make sure I don't cast her off in favor of another woman etc. etc. since the legal courts are, as far as I know, very anti-female like the courts are anti-male here in America and Europe. 

So, based on what I figure, and I could be missing your point, why would you be insulted if I rejected legal marriage in favor of de facto marriage with legal shields? 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

So, based on what I figure, and I could be missing your point, why would you be insulted if I rejected legal marriage in favor of de facto marriage with legal shields? 

 

That would be a lot of effort to prove to me that you're not serious about the marriage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RichardY said:

In Saudi Arabia you could buy a wife with camels.

Really? Damn. I know I'm ignorant of Arabian/Muslim culture when I didn't know a guy could literally buy a wife with money or goods....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the British guy who bought a wife in the Philippines. People thought she was worth one cow, but the guy paid six cows for her. She was quiet smitten and happy to marry him. 

Later, people in the town noted, she was so happy and generous towards her husband, she was indeed worth six cows in trade. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Why? If the idea is to disarm the coercive powers a woman could wield legally, then it should be understood as a self-preservation move similar to how if a woman keeps a gun hidden in her purse, she's keeping it in case a bad guy tries something. 

You could argue lack of trust, but if I were a woman, while I would be immensely flattered by a man willing to risk everything on my whim, I would also be somewhat frustrated because that tells me he isn't very wise. However I suppose the deciding factor is whether the positive gained from being the recipient of trust outweighs the negatives of being stupid enough to pointlessly risk oneself when precautions could be taken.

I wouldn't want a man who takes pointless risks "as a gesture", because what if he risks something I am not in control of and am negatively affected by it? What if he invests in risky stocks and loses big? Is careless with the kids? Etc. etc. imagine the negative implications of a guy who takes pointless risks. 

I'm not saying not getting legally married is a safeguard from the negatives of divorce, I am saying that mitigating possible negatives is a sign of intelligence and caution from a man that ought to appeal to a wise and empathetic woman. 

After all, if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't blame my potential wife if she took all kinds of legal stuff to make sure I don't cast her off in favor of another woman etc. etc. since the legal courts are, as far as I know, very anti-female like the courts are anti-male here in America and Europe. 

So, based on what I figure, and I could be missing your point, why would you be insulted if I rejected legal marriage in favor of de facto marriage with legal shields? 

 

I always say the woman worth marrying is the one who refuses to get married due to the involvement of the government in marriage.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 2:19 AM, smarterthanone said:

If marriage comes with all sorts of legal issues, why not just not get married? I don't mean not have a relationship or even kids. If you don't get married:

1. No alimony

2. No dividing assets

3. No divorce

Once your assets are protected, your girlfriend is less likely to leave you when she is the one who will have to live on her friends couch or stay at a cheap motel instead of your nice house.

What is so special about marriage? It is just a commitment. How is the filing of government papers important?

That is what I am doing. I will date but, only SMV top form otherwise, I will remain single.

 

This is why I am not in agreement with Stefan. I know the value of marriage is there for the children as Jordan Peterson says. The problem is that, women dispose and men propose. Women when at their peak of SMV, its like a pinball machine of sex for psychopaths and sociopaths. Similar to the recent video/podcast, I just see the same patterns again and again. She is trying hence her call in but, I just see the pattern and sequence of events. I want no part of it. A woman dedicated to self knowledge goes a long way. Its just so few and far between but, once SMV craters, its always victimhood and clinging to the state.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2017 at 11:32 PM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

That would be a lot of effort to prove to me that you're not serious about the marriage.

...what? How did you draw that conclusion? Nothing in which great cautions are taken isn't serious. I can't imagine how taking a shield when rumors of hidden knife-bearers are prevalent would be a sign of lack of seriousness. If anything, exactly the opposite. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what MGTOW is all about. If you go monk all your problems are solved. 

What many people don't understand is that people (man and women) like to have misery and problems.

So they create trouble for themselves.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man can not live on bread alone though right?(pretty much me, meat popsicle)

In Spain you're not classified as a man unless you're married, chico instead (like in GTA3). Property goes to the wife and is divided among the children.

 

On 7/7/2017 at 4:46 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Really? Damn. I know I'm ignorant of Arabian/Muslim culture when I didn't know a guy could literally buy a wife with money or goods....

Yeah, have heard stories of people offering to buy the daughters and spouses of people on holiday in the Middle East(in broad daylight) don't know if it still goes on. Though could always trade in cows instead, 1 for 1 or something.

Could always do what Eddie Murphy suggested, go out to Africa and find some bush bitch butt naked on a Zebra. Or could trade western girls with princess complexes for hardier eastern European ones.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Meister said:

That's what MGTOW is all about. If you go monk all your problems are solved. 

What many people don't understand is that people (man and women) like to have misery and problems.

So they create trouble for themselves.

Nobody is saying go monk. lol. Just not get married. My parents always say this to me... I say, I don't think I am going to get married. They say, so you don't want a girlfriend? Um yeah a girlfriend, not a piece of paper.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Nobody is saying go monk. lol. Just not get married. My parents always say this to me... I say, I don't think I am going to get married. They say, so you don't want a girlfriend? Um yeah a girlfriend, not a piece of paper.

Wrong. I am saying go monk.

But thank you for proving my point about people desiring trouble.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 4:39 AM, Meister said:

That's what MGTOW is all about. If you go monk all your problems are solved. 

What many people don't understand is that people (man and women) like to have misery and problems.

So they create trouble for themselves.

But, similar to Stefan's 'not an argument,' this is not a solution. Taking your ball and going home is not the answer IMO. Then again, Stefan educates with philosophy but, he seems to think the solution is letting the government fail, for the parade of free money, and the single mom welfare state needing men again. #NOTHANKS!

I would rather be a MGTOW or let my genes get weeded out of existence. This is not a solution.

 

I came here to find one. Its purely a numbers game. I do a lot of cold approach pickup. Its awful seeing what is out there and even more so if you sit by passively dating hoping someone great picks you. The hungry don't get fed. By approaching, you take your dating life by the balls, you go out, you talk to lots of women, you pickup those you have chemistry with, and you proceed forward. Then, you approach more. In the process, I have experienced numerous rejections, flaking, single moms, crazies, liars, psychos, and then, there are a few awesome women. Again, Stefan gets very condescending here as he does when men choose to date younger. Again, this is not an argument.

I agree with Stefan that too young 18+ is obviously quite a gap but, why would I date women pushing 30; more my age? Years of being a pin cushion for alphas. Now seeking beta cuck provider? I am nearing 30. I have a near middle income. Home owner. I don't carry student debt or lines of credit. I am pretty conservative despite pickup. I am just split here.

 

 

I HAVE NO SOLUTION BUT, I AM WORKING ON SELF KNOWLEDGE< EXPLORING MY CONSCIOUSNESS< REASON & EVIDENCE!

 

YOUTH IS THE KEY IMO! A woman dedicates her teens and or early side of her twenties before baby rabies comes into play. Stefan declared youth "creepy" when men date really young. This is BS. I want to better organize my thoughts and call FDR because Stefan has changed my life and I am grateful for this but, I disagree with staking myself in the dating market by approaching and by dating younger. More my age are single moms and beat up hardened. Its gross.

 

The only way I can see a man marrying today is if a woman has a great job, is young, and attractive, having dedicated herself to said male in her youth. Otherwise, she was like most women today, jumping from dong to dong like Tarzan on a vine until SMV craters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

But, similar to Stefan's 'not an argument,' this is not a solution. Taking your ball and going home is not the answer IMO. Then again, Stefan educates with philosophy but, he seems to think the solution is letting the government fail, for the parade of free money, and the single mom welfare state needing men again. #NOTHANKS!

I would rather be a MGTOW or let my genes get weeded out of existence. This is not a solution.

 

I came here to find one. Its purely a numbers game. I do a lot of cold approach pickup. Its awful seeing what is out there and even more so if you sit by passively dating hoping someone great picks you. The hungry don't get fed. By approaching, you take your dating life by the balls, you go out, you talk to lots of women, you pickup those you have chemistry with, and you proceed forward. Then, you approach more. In the process, I have experienced numerous rejections, flaking, single moms, crazies, liars, psychos, and then, there are a few awesome women. Again, Stefan gets very condescending here as he does when men choose to date younger. Again, this is not an argument.

I agree with Stefan that too young 18+ is obviously quite a gap but, why would I date women pushing 30; more my age? Years of being a pin cushion for alphas. Now seeking beta cuck provider? I am nearing 30. I have a near middle income. Home owner. I don't carry student debt or lines of credit. I am pretty conservative despite pickup. I am just split here.

 

 

I HAVE NO SOLUTION BUT, I AM WORKING ON SELF KNOWLEDGE< EXPLORING MY CONSCIOUSNESS< REASON & EVIDENCE!

 

YOUTH IS THE KEY IMO! A woman dedicates her teens and or early side of her twenties before baby rabies comes into play. Stefan declared youth "creepy" when men date really young. This is BS. I want to better organize my thoughts and call FDR because Stefan has changed my life and I am grateful for this but, I disagree with staking myself in the dating market by approaching and by dating younger. More my age are single moms and beat up hardened. Its gross.

 

The only way I can see a man marrying today is if a woman has a great job, is young, and attractive, having dedicated herself to said male in her youth. Otherwise, she was like most women today, jumping from dong to dong like Tarzan on a vine until SMV craters.

If you have an obsession with passing on your genes then good luck with catering to womens moods and whims. (aka "doing pick up)"

This PUA thing is ...

... Dangerous (rape accusations, sperm-jacking, STDs)

... Time consuming

... Weird, since finding random women to have sex with is one of the easiest things ever. There is no art or skill necessary. It's like claiming to be a "getting food artist" and then creating elaborate schemes how to order pizza ...

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Meister said:
Quote

 

If you have an obsession with passing on your genes then good luck with catering to womens moods and whims. (aka "doing pick up)"

This PUA thing is ...

... Dangerous (rape accusations, sperm-jacking, STDs)

... Time consuming

 

Again, someone who has 1) never did an approach in their life 2) has an opinion on a subject they know nothing about.

Firstly, it is a numbers game. What is the better alternative? Be a MGTOW? Take your ball and go home? Let genes weed out of existence? You approach to acquire variety and have choice. You still must 'vet' good women. What you realize is that, you see the little man behind the curtain like in the Wizard of Oz. You see social conditioning, marriage, and chasing the carrot on a string for what it is.You cannot win the game if you don't play. You sound neurotic with the sperm jacking and rapey accusations. You can be in a committed LTR or marriage only to get cucked or an STD. This is female logic and nature in 2017. Does it mean you don't play? No. It means you screen the shit out of a woman and if you suspect she is sly, you next her. This is common sense. I am more concerned about how your perspective will bleed into other areas of your life. Your adversity to competition and lack there of or willingly checking out likely is a sign of how you are doing in the free market. If you wont stake your claim dating, in all likelihood, you will do the same in the free market.

Secondly, everything in life is time consuming if it is worth it. I want to vet a good woman means, I must screen the fuck out of lots of women. Unless you have lots of women, the alternative is cuck central online dating or approaching lots of girls everywhere you go. Ideally, developing 'game' to the point, its not this little pickup gimmick but, a way of life. If you are in starbuck, you are chatting up the girls or random women at the gym. Why wouldn't you unless of course, you have low testosterone or ED? Unless you have something wrong with your testosterone, there is no reason for this lack of, your scarcity, and adversity to competing.

Even more 'dangerous' is doing what you are doing now; NOTHING! You cannot get this time back. Women are cratering their SMV. Some are waking up and unplugging from the Matrix. Most are plugged into it, chasing careers, pursuing bad boys, having children out of wedlock, and then, seeking beta male cuck provider when it all comes falling down. I wont do it.

 

I am nearly 30 in a few years. Do you think this is what I wanted? Pursuing women, going to bars or clubs in my late 20s, and juggling shit tests from girls who have little or no life experience? Again, if not in SMV, I am not interested. If she has children, is a single mom, relies on daddy government, is a slut, is a women's study major or studies social science, I am not interested. Again, you must pursue, approach, and taking the risks or you are your own worst nightmare.

 

The fear of rejection is trumped by the fear of not even approaching. When my days are numbered, I wont reject the blow outs, the flakes or the rejections. I can honestly say, I did the best I could with the cards I was dealt, and I did everything I could to find the best wife/mother of my unborn children I could.

 

17 hours ago, Meister said:

 

... Weird, since finding random women to have sex with is one of the easiest things ever. There is no art or skill necessary. It's like claiming to be a "getting food artist" and then creating elaborate schemes how to order pizza ...

 

The same guys with this mindset thing 1) they can fight 2) get girls. In reality, they are delusional and can do neither. It doesn't matter if its martial arts or pickup. Everything requires practice. Most males have a couple of mates in there life. The alternative being, the male who won the genetic lottery. Your post reeks of scarcity and adversity to competition. It makes sense given your place in the genetic lottery and havenots. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

Firstly, it is a numbers game. What is the better alternative? Be a MGTOW? Take your ball and go home? Let genes weed out of existence? You approach to acquire variety and have choice. You still must 'vet' good women. What you realize is that, you see the little man behind the curtain like in the Wizard of Oz. You see social conditioning, marriage, and chasing the carrot on a string for what it is.You cannot win the game if you don't play. You sound neurotic with the sperm jacking and rapey accusations. You can be in a committed LTR or marriage only to get cucked or an STD. This is female logic and nature in 2017. Does it mean you don't play? No. It means you screen the shit out of a woman and if you suspect she is sly, you next her. This is common sense. I am more concerned about how your perspective will bleed into other areas of your life. Your adversity to competition and lack there of or willingly checking out likely is a sign of how you are doing in the free market. If you wont stake your claim dating, in all likelihood, you will do the same in the free market.

Secondly, everything in life is time consuming if it is worth it. I want to vet a good woman means, I must screen the fuck out of lots of women. Unless you have lots of women, the alternative is cuck central online dating or approaching lots of girls everywhere you go. Ideally, developing 'game' to the point, its not this little pickup gimmick but, a way of life. If you are in starbuck, you are chatting up the girls or random women at the gym. Why wouldn't you unless of course, you have low testosterone or ED? Unless you have something wrong with your testosterone, there is no reason for this lack of, your scarcity, and adversity to competing.

Even more 'dangerous' is doing what you are doing now; NOTHING! You cannot get this time back. Women are cratering their SMV. Some are waking up and unplugging from the Matrix. Most are plugged into it, chasing careers, pursuing bad boys, having children out of wedlock, and then, seeking beta male cuck provider when it all comes falling down. I wont do it.

 

I am nearly 30 in a few years. Do you think this is what I wanted? Pursuing women, going to bars or clubs in my late 20s, and juggling shit tests from girls who have little or no life experience? Again, if not in SMV, I am not interested. If she has children, is a single mom, relies on daddy government, is a slut, is a women's study major or studies social science, I am not interested. Again, you must pursue, approach, and taking the risks or you are your own worst nightmare.

 

The fear of rejection is trumped by the fear of not even approaching. When my days are numbered, I wont reject the blow outs, the flakes or the rejections. I can honestly say, I did the best I could with the cards I was dealt, and I did everything I could to find the best wife/mother of my unborn children I could.

 

The same guys with this mindset thing 1) they can fight 2) get girls. In reality, they are delusional and can do neither. It doesn't matter if its martial arts or pickup. Everything requires practice. Most males have a couple of mates in there life. The alternative being, the male who won the genetic lottery. Your post reeks of scarcity and adversity to competition. It makes sense given your place in the genetic lottery and havenots. 

Your post is seems incoherent and not connected to what I wrote.

Just to name one example: What does "cold approach" have to do with being sperm jacked?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

Man can not live on bread alone though right?(pretty much me, meat popsicle)

In Spain you're not classified as a man unless you're married, chico instead (like in GTA3). Property goes to the wife and is divided among the children.

I'd say the same thing, really. I can't call a man a man unless he's married with children. And there is some truth to that biologically as having kids changes men, generally for the better. 

On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

 

Yeah, have heard stories of people offering to buy the daughters and spouses of people on holiday in the Middle East(in broad daylight) don't know if it still goes on. Though could always trade in cows instead, 1 for 1 or something.

Ay yiy yiy. Glad I'm not a Muslim. I hate feminism but I doubt Islam would be much better, even for me the man because the poor kids would be abused and the cycle of insanity would continue. 

On 7/8/2017 at 7:21 AM, RichardY said:

Could always do what Eddie Murphy suggested, go out to Africa and find some bush bitch butt naked on a Zebra. Or could trade western girls with princess complexes for hardier eastern European ones.

Lol and I just saw that skit, like, a couple days ago...

I'd rather just improve my own individual quality and aim to both attract and acquire the top 1% of females by being the top 1% of males. It's not hard to predict most people based on their history and character; we as men aren't really taking a chance by fishing for women--so long as we stay away from blenders and black holes, neither of which are hard to spot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 0:46 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

...what? How did you draw that conclusion? Nothing in which great cautions are taken isn't serious. I can't imagine how taking a shield when rumors of hidden knife-bearers are prevalent would be a sign of lack of seriousness. If anything, exactly the opposite. 

I'm not saying don't take great cautions. I'm also not saying that the divorce situation/family court system isn't fucked. What I'm saying is good luck finding a good woman who will take you seriously if you offer her this sort of stuff. In this situation, what recourse would the woman have if the man decided to bail in the relationship?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

I'm not saying don't take great cautions. I'm also not saying that the divorce situation/family court system isn't fucked. What I'm saying is good luck finding a good woman who will take you seriously if you offer her this sort of stuff. In this situation, what recourse would the woman have if the man decided to bail in the relationship?

Is legal marriage the only way to ensure commitment for a man? Wouldn't a "good woman" understand how the family court system is extremely biased against men when you present the evidence to her? 

 

On 7/7/2017 at 0:32 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

That would be a lot of effort to prove to me that you're not serious about the marriage.

I'm gonna compare this to a fictional scenario I just made up. Let me know if this applies at all or not:

 

You go to a job interview. The job seems great, and you want to work there. Right before hiring you the employer wants you to sign a certain contract. You read it and it says that the company can fire you at any time, and is entitled to 40% of your earnings for 20 years after they fire you, if it is in any way dissatisfied with your job performance. They also might have the State seize your guns or lock you up if someone in the company perceives you as "dangerous".  If you don't comply, you go to jail. After you tell the employer that you refuse to sign it, he says "Well, that proves to me that you're not serious about the job".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twinklingwinter said:

Is legal marriage the only way to ensure commitment for a man? Wouldn't a "good woman" understand how the family court system is extremely biased against men when you present the evidence to her? 

I'm gonna compare this to a fictional scenario I just made up. Let me know if this applies at all or not:

You go to a job interview. The job seems great, and you want to work there. Right before hiring you the employer wants you to sign a certain contract. You read it and it says that the company can fire you at any time, and is entitled to 40% of your earnings for 20 years after they fire you, if it is in any way dissatisfied with your job performance. They also might have the State seize your guns or lock you up if someone in the company perceives you as "dangerous".  If you don't comply, you go to jail. After you tell the employer that you refuse to sign it, he says "Well, that proves to me that you're not serious about the job".

Let me flip the scenario on you.

Here, do a bunch of work for me (like building a house) and I promise to pay you when you're finished. We don't need to have anything in writing. You can trust me on this one.

Again, I'm not saying the system isn't fucked up, I'm just saying good luck having a good woman go along with it. Regardless of your intentions, a woman is going to be smart enough to see that the thing is set up that you can bail on her at any time without much recourse for her. Whether or not that's fair isn't the issue. It's the woman who really needs the commitment to ensure that she will have the aid to take care of her kids. There needs to be some sort of consequence to you waking up one day and deciding another woman is a more attractive partner.

To put it in the words of one of my entrepreneur coaches regarding partnerships: "When I partner with friends I always get everything down in writing--not because I don't trust them, I just don't want them to have a bad memory."

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Let me flip the scenario on you.

Here, do a bunch of work for me (like building a house) and I promise to pay you when you're finished. We don't need to have anything in writing. You can trust me on this one.

Again, I'm not saying the system isn't fucked up, I'm just saying good luck having a good woman go along with it. Regardless of your intentions, a woman is going to be smart enough to see that the thing is set up that you can bail on her at any time without much recourse for her. Whether or not that's fair isn't the issue. It's the woman who really needs the commitment to ensure that she will have the aid to take care of her kids. There needs to be some sort of consequence to you waking up one day and deciding another woman is a more attractive partner.

To put it in the words of one of my entrepreneur coaches regarding partnerships: "When I partner with friends I always get everything down in writing--not because I don't trust them, I just don't want them to have a bad memory."

 

Your line of thinking makes no sense. If you buy a house together, both your names would be on it. Therefore she would be entitled to some of it. There is government child support for kids. So she is already covered. What she isn't covered on is all the assets you saved on your own, and future earnings that go towards her lifestyle. Only a gold digger would feel entitled to that. They aren't suitable partners by most men's standards.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Your line of thinking makes no sense. If you buy a house together, both your names would be on it. Therefore she would be entitled to some of it. There is government child support for kids. So she is already covered. What she isn't covered on is all the assets you saved on your own, and future earnings that go towards her lifestyle. Only a gold digger would feel entitled to that. They aren't suitable partners by most men's standards.

So what's to stop me from bailing on her at that point whenever I want?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commitment? That she is an awesome person? <- This is what its supposed to be about.

Why not make it the death penalty if a man leaves. Then you will really have an incentive to stay. I mean, what is your point. A is entitled to A and B is entitled to B. Seems fair to me. How is that not fair?

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 11:09 PM, Meister said:

Your post is seems incoherent and not connected to what I wrote.

Just to name one example: What does "cold approach" have to do with being sperm jacked?

You mad that point not me. Your comments were about sperm jacking and stds. You sound like chicken little; the sky is falling. You sound extremely adverse to competition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Commitment? That she is an awesome person? <- This is what its supposed to be about.

Why not make it the death penalty if a man leaves. Then you will really have an incentive to stay. I mean, what is your point. A is entitled to A and B is entitled to B. Seems fair to me. How is that not fair?

We've spoke in the past. Not sure what your experience if any with online dating is. Given what you said and your experiences with girls. Many of the bios are hideous. Just absolutely lunatics. Bios that read, "proud single mom." Many of the pics are basically, just ass hanging out of thong, and its hard to imagine how she could ever get the ring.

Have you ever read, "The mating mind," by Geoffry Miller? In the studies, neither sex cares much for IQ with respect to a one night stand whereas, both males and females place significant value on IQ for long term mating strategies, children, marriage etc. Commitment is a much bigger deal so, values are important, looks, genetics, resources, life style and decision making skills (indication of intelligence). I cannot stress the last part enough; poor life style choices as in absurd kill count is a red flag as Molyneux pointed out in Truth about sex. If youth was dedicated to being a sperm receptacle, the risk for promiscuity, divorce, and poor decision making is amplified.

 

Why not make it a death penalty if a woman leaves? They leave 80% of the time, take the children, and house while placing their hand out for more resources. This isn't the middle east. Neither should be tied to a marriage. More people need to really think about it. I agree with Stefan. It is a ideal solution to get married but, I can only see this option IF I find a woman young, thin, attractive during SMV not at the tail end or as SMV craters. When baby rabies kicks off. Women rarely think about this until the complexity of the dating pool changes, when their market value begins to dwindle, and options become scarce.

 

We agree on the subject of youth as a key. If a woman is not dedicated during her best days, she is not the sort of woman you allocated, and swear away half your resources as well as incoming resources for the coming decades. This is a subject I would like to discuss with Stefan one day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, meetjoeblack said:

You mad that point not me. Your comments were about sperm jacking and stds. You sound like chicken little; the sky is falling. You sound extremely adverse to competition.

"Adverse to competition" ...??? ...

Are you sober?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 0:35 PM, Meister said:

"Adverse to competition" ...??? ...

Are you sober?

There was a wall of text and your response portrayed your inability to compete both in the free market and dating market. I blame low testosterone.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 9:11 PM, smarterthanone said:

Commitment? That she is an awesome person? <- This is what its supposed to be about.

Why not make it the death penalty if a man leaves. Then you will really have an incentive to stay. I mean, what is your point. A is entitled to A and B is entitled to B. Seems fair to me. How is that not fair?

My point, as I mentioned before, is that a woman worth marrying won't take you seriously.

Again I'll make a business analogy to emphasize the point. If someone ever says, "You can trust me to pay you, we don't need a contract", run away. If a woman worth marrying hears, "You can trust me to stay with you, we don't need to get married", she'll probably be smart enough to run away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now