Those who would stop the joy of the dance.

Hat Tip Vox

A quote from John C. Wright;  a perfect metaphor for how feminists wish to steal the joy out of marriage:

Those who object that men should not lead in the dance, whatever they say, are not friends of women; they just want to stop the joy of the dance.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to Those who would stop the joy of the dance.

  1. sunshinemary says:

    And not just the joy; many of them ultimately wish to stop the dance altogether, though they may not directly say so.

  2. guest says:

    Just yesterday Sunshine made a post explaining that Feminist policy actually makes sex WORSE for women. They don’t have orgasms any more, but they’re SOOOO empowered….

  3. earl says:

    They seem to steal the joy out of everything. That’s what happens whe you are looking to stay perpetually offended.

  4. Boxer says:

    Sunshine Mary sez:

    And not just the joy; many of them ultimately wish to stop the dance altogether, though they may not directly say so.

    Isn’t it interesting to note how many big-name feminists have been and are married? With this in mind, I think they reveal themselves as those who may not wish to stop the dance for themselves, they just want to disadvantage all the other women, so that they can have better pickings.

    Not that it’ll turn out that way in the long run, but I think that selfishness is the average catalyst for the average feminist, rather than destructiveness for its own sake.

    Boxer

  5. sunshinemary says:

    Mr. Boxer:

    Isn’t it interesting to note how many big-name feminists have been and are married? With this in mind, I think they reveal themselves as those who may not wish to stop the dance for themselves, they just want to disadvantage all the other women, so that they can have better pickings.

    Yes, sir, I do believe you’re right.

  6. Feminist Hater says:

    I guess it was fun while it lasted. The dance lost its beat many a year ago. Now, so many toes are being stepped on as to make one ask if it is any dance at all.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nah, they don’t wanna stop the dance. They just want the women to lead, that’s all.

    So if the men would simply do what they are told, all dancing would be the bestest ever!

  8. Feminist Hater says:

    Well earl, I think there is truth to the idea that they just cannot leave anyone in peace. They must upset you, drive the happiness from your heart and drive you to despair. Often to not, I think that is their exact purpose if nothing else.

  9. Josh says:

    I read all of John’s essay, which was fantastic – and it applies to far more than fiction. Sometimes feminism and egalitarianism seem so at odds with reality that I’m speechless when I realize people still hold to them fervently.

    When men are masculine and women are feminine, there is wonder and the world makes sense. The moment anyone tries to do otherwise, they destroy romance, adventure, dance, and the parts of life that make us human. I can’t think of a single area of life that is not annihilated when people pursue things contrary to their sex. And for what? Lifelong bitterness and loneliness? What a great reward…

  10. Dalrock,

    Those who object that men should not lead in the dance, whatever they say, are not friends of women; they just want to stop the joy of the dance.

    True.

    The longer I live, the older I get, the more convinced I am that those seven deadly sins are the “root” causes of pretty much all the problems we find in an ever transparent, well informed, well educated, civilized society. In this case, the problem here I would regard is nothing other than ENVY.

    Of course feminists don’t like that men want to lead in a marriage. That makes perfect sense. It is not that they care (one way or the other) if that married couple across the street, the always happy wife is entirely submissive towards her husband. And it is not that they care what men want. That is not what bothers the feminist. It is instead, that she HAS a husband who chased her, she submitted, submits to him still, and is always happy even in her submission. They are envious. They want that, want the man to pursue them, want a man who wants to marry them but…. they can’t have it because… no man has ever chased them, no man has ever insisted that they submit to them. So, they aren’t happy.

    And if they aren’t happy, they don’t want anyone to be happy. Misery likes company. Best way to get that company is to stop the whole process for people who CAN and DO benefit from it.

    Feminists know they can’t change men. They can’t change the system. So, make the entire system sound so repulsive and prehistoric that ordinary people are tricked into thinking that they should want no part of it.

  11. earl says:

    You know what else does that…demons.

    It’s a spiritual war.

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    Isn’t it interesting to note how many big-name feminists have been and are married?

    Well, for some definition of “married”. Getting hitched to a man in his 80’s with cancer, who probably won’t live more than a few years, is not really what most people think of as “married”, but if I recall correctly that describes Gloria Steinem’s nuptuals.

    Of course, women want fried ice. Surely some feminists want to be “strong, independent women” who come home at the end of the day to Mr. Grey…the husband who cooks better than they do, earns more money, loves them “just as they are” (i.e. regardless of weight gain & bitchiness) and so forth and so on.

  13. Boxer says:

    Dear Sunshine Mary:

    Great article!

    The examples I was thinking of included Hanna Rosin, the old fraud who wrote “the end of men” , Naomi (This is what a feminist looks like) Judd, and Jeanine Garafalo. Judd was quite attractive in her younger years, though she still married up. Hanna Rosin has always been a dog-ugly woman, and in a saner era she never would have suckered her husband into marriage. I just googled Garafalo, and it appears she just filed for divorce (I’m sure you’re as shocked as I am, at this groundbreaking news).

    With this in mind, I think the scam has worked for a few, though it’s destined to be a “short con” at best.

    Boxer

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Nah, they don’t wanna stop the dance. They just want the women to lead, that’s all.

    So if the men would simply do what they are told, all dancing would be the bestest ever!

    This is it. And if men weren’t so weak they would do as they are told and all would be well.

  15. Boxer says:

    Sorry, I meant Ashley Judd (the chick who married the ultra-alpha race car driver).

  16. earl says:

    Here’s how women “lead”.

    They throw a bunch of ideas out hoping one will stick…not knowing which one would work the best or why. Combine that with their emotions getting involved hoping everyone in the herd will still like her.

    Kind of like the underpants gnomes in South Park.
    1) Collect underpants
    2) ?????????????
    3) PROFIT!!!!!!!!!

    Then they come to me and ask. I tell them what I like…that’s the route they go.

    How I lead…I carefully take in the situation, use the knowledge I have to the best of my abilities, perhaps get some feeback from others who are less ignorant than I am, make a decision…and stick with it irregardless if I will be loved, admired, respected, or even noticed for it.

  17. Bradford says:

    Dalrock,

    Sorry to go slightly OT, but would be interested in the commenters reaction to the following linked article concerning a new web app for women to rate men.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/fashion/social-networking-App-allows-women-to-rate-men.html?_r=0

  18. Martian Bachelor says:

    On the bright side, did everyone hear that some 25 y.o. look-alike of one of his victims has scarfed up a now 79 y.o. Charlie Manson?

    That’s some crazy dance.

    On the “lead, follow, or get out of the way” scale, the latter is the best option. Tough luck for the pro-joy contingency. Luxuries have to be sacrificed when living in hard times.

  19. Eidolon says:

    I’ve come to agree with those who say that feminism is women’s nature turned into a political system.

    We’ve probably all experienced women being discontented even when everything is fine. If a woman submits all the time without being asked, then her man never needs to make a display of dominance; this leads to her wondering if he’s still dominant, and then a part of her pushes her to act out of line so that he can put her in her place and she can be assured that he will still do so.

    I think my parents’ relationship is much like society’s relationship to feminism. My dad’s job is hard and leads him to be away a lot of the day, nearly every day. He thus values peace and quiet over all, since he just wants to sit in his chair, read some web sites, and eat dinner at the end of the day. He doesn’t want to fight with mom, so he gives into her various and increasingly crazy requests without much resistance. She, on the other hand, doesn’t even like some of the things he gives her (that she asked for) — what she really wanted was a “no,” not a granted request.

    If you talk to a self-aware woman (as much as they usually get) after one of her fits why she caused so much trouble, knowing what would happen, she will often admit “I don’t know, I just felt like I needed to. I knew it would make you mad but I couldn’t help it.” If you don’t resist they’ll make crazier and crazier demands, subconsciously begging you to say “no” and reassure them that you care and that you’re in control.

    Feminism is a political system of women making increasingly crazy requests while beleaguered men say “fine, fine” because they want peace. They’ll yell and scream that this is what they want, because that’s part of the game. What they really want is for a man to tell them “you’re being crazy. The thing you’re asking for is a bad idea, and you can’t have it. Period.” But they can’t admit it because that gives the game away. It doesn’t count as dominance if he has to be told to do it.

    This is incredibly destructive because there’s no logical endpoint. Of course political ideologies often have this failing as well, that they have no endpoint (see environmentalism). But this is worse, because concessions will mean nothing to them. If you gave them every single thing they want today they’d just ask for something crazier tomorrow. And generally speaking they don’t realize that they do this, so they can’t really stop themselves either. Only men saying “that’s enough” will work, and no one wants to or is able to do it. It’s hard to imagine how far it will go before it finally runs its course.

  20. Martian Bachelor says:

    Eidolon:

    Ask not what your faux marriage can do for you, ask what YOU can do for your woman and state masters.

    As Mencken pointed out long ago, the universe seems to be in a conspiracy to encourage the endless reproduction of peasants and Socialists.

  21. Casey says:

    This ‘Lulu App’ where women can rate men is more utter hypocrisy.

    Where is the App that allows men to critique, grade, and complain about poor women suitors?
    Can you IMAGINE the feminist ‘man-shaming’ rhetoric if such an app made the scene?

    If anything, eligible beta MEN are the ones needing references before dating some thirty-something woman with a dotted track-record. Her inability to keep a marriage or get a marriage proposal puts her in one of four categories:

    1) Crazy Bitch
    2) Selfish Bitch
    3) Cheating Bitch
    4) All of the above

  22. Casey says:

    Oh……….I forgot # 5.

    5) Visually unappealing

  23. Casey says:

    @ Martian Bachelor

    The endless production of peasants & socialists ensure an easily led society by those who wish to control the populace.

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

  24. The_Collapsar says:

    That lulu app blows my mind but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. As a beta male, the part about women “feeling like they have no power in the hookup culture” made me lol most of all. I can’t wait for the male version that rates females. Oh wait, we’re not allowed to have things like that :(.

  25. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    This is incredibly destructive because there’s no logical endpoint.

    Depends on what you mean by logical and endpoint. Something that cannot continue won’t. There will be an endpoint, and it will be because the current system cannot sustain itself.

  26. Eidolon,

    I’ve come to agree with those who say that feminism is women’s nature turned into a political system.

    from the nature aspect, defer to Rush Limbaugh

    …24.Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society….

    from the political system aspect…

    feminism = communism in a dress

    That is really where we are at with feminism.

  27. Feminist Hater says:

    Let them rate on facecunt. I hate Marky fucktard Zuckerberg, so it’s not as if I’m on facecunt anyway.

  28. Eidolon says:

    @Cautiously Pessimistic

    Well, for example Islam, if given complete control of a society, will not endlessly drift in a certain direction. Whether you like the society it creates or not (hard to see how you could), it does have an endpoint (for that society, at least). Men are not constantly taking more power for themselves or restricting women more. There is a point of equilibrium that can more or less function.

    I have no faith that feminism could ever reach an equilibrium point of this kind, if given complete, free reign. It will always be the case that there are things women cannot or will not do, that men can and will do, and which are prestigious. It will always be the case that necessary behaviors by men will create masculine pride which women cannot experience. It will always be the case that men who enact the behavior that women claim to want will disgust women. If feminists ever succeeded in creating the society they say they want they would declare it sexist because women could not find men that they found attractive and men would still do most of the technology jobs.

    The society they want literally cannot exist in reality. At least those who want to build a society centered around religion typically recognize that the perfect society cannot exist; leftists and feminists always end up insisting that the government just isn’t imposing paradise hard enough yet.

  29. Martian Bachelor says:

    Casey,

    It’s actually a bit more problematical than that. Mencken was talking about the reversion to the mean tendency seen in genetics, the difficulty animal breeders have in keeping what he called “a fine strain” going. This is still a fundamental problem for those who believe in linking change/evolution with progress. But I digress.

    There are so many gazillions of apps out there… are you sure somebody hasn’t already made the one you’re thinking of, but it’s languishing in obscurity? I’m not into apps at all, so I wouldn’t even know how to search for such a thing. Perhaps there’s an untapped resource for men just waiting to be found.

    If not, these things can’t be that difficult (for someone, not me) to engineer. If only to test the hypothesis that it would really piss feminists off. If it doesn’t, we have to find better ways!

  30. Envy: the only deadly sin that’s no fun at all.

  31. Bob Wallace says:

    “Isn’t it interesting to note how many big-name feminists have been and are married?”

    The prescriptions that feminists give for other women they never follow in their own lives. Look up the lives of Gloria Steinen and Betty Friedan. They didn’t follow one bit of advice they gave to other women.

  32. FH,

    I hate Marky fucktard Zuckerberg, so it’s not as if I’m on facecunt anyway.

    Why do you hate Mark Zuckerberg? I’m just curious.

  33. Envy: the only deadly sin that’s no fun at all.

    Not a whole lot of fun with PRIDE either.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not Feminist Hater, but I have a growing dislike for Zuckerberg for reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread and this site.

    However, within the scope: Facebook is incredibly effective at magnifying narcissism. It is like an addicting drug for many women, with the added bonus of making social aggression a mere mouse click away. It has many bad effects, and I can’t find any good ones. Zuckerberg is a billionaire as a result of Facebook, leading him to engage in political action that I believe to be extremely harmful, but… see paragraph one.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB, when did you convert to Hinduism?

  36. AR,

    IBB, when did you convert to Hinduism?

    Heh. It was about thes ame time I converted to Wicca. :P

    No the whole Karma aspect, I don’t see any belief in “..what comes around, goes around…” conflicting with what is in the Bible. I’m not saying that it is Biblical (per se) but I am not going to say that believing in Karma is unChristian either.

  37. slwerner says:

    innocentbystanderboston – “Why do you hate Mark Zuckerberg? I’m just curious.”

    I cannot speak for anyone elase, but this is what makes me dislike him:

    Zuckerberg: Immigration ‘one of biggest civil rights’ issues of our time

  38. AR,

    However, within the scope: Facebook is incredibly effective at magnifying narcissism. It is like an addicting drug for many women, with the added bonus of making social aggression a mere mouse click away. It has many bad effects, and I can’t find any good ones.

    My brother-in-law blames Facebook (not his wife) on his wife finding an ex-boyfriend, hooking up with him, and divorcing my brother-in-law. Were it not for Facebook, she wouldn’t have found him. It made it too easy for her to trade him in for another. Honestly, this is not Zuckerberg’s fault. Its HER fault. She did it by using his technology. Her free will.

    I don’t have a Facebook account because I have a series of ex-GFs that I most certainly do NOT want to know where I am or what my life is like. I don’t want to make it any easier on women who are BPD and irrationally vengeful to make my life difficult in anyway.

  39. Feminist Hater says:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/191018-dreamers-code-as-zuckerberg-talks-civil-rights-on

    This and many other reasons, one other one being the creation of facebook, the most disgusting piece of social diarrhea, along with twitter, that has ever been known to man.

  40. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    I have no faith that feminism could ever reach an equilibrium point of this kind, if given complete, free reign.

    So by endpoint you mean equilibrium. This assumes an equilibrium can be reached in these matters. I think it far more likely this stuff is cyclical in nature, with a series of expansions and collapses following each other. We’ve had an astounding expansion over the past few hundred years, but the system seems to be alarmingly unbalanced and increasingly unsustainable. So… I’m sure everything will be fine. :/

    In case it’s not clear, I agree with your point that feminism cannot reach an equilibrium. Pursuing fried ice is not a path towards stability.

  41. Eidolon says:

    @Cautiously Pessimistic

    I’m getting to the point where I figure that America will experience financial collapse due to massive unsustainable debt, and in the aftermath, with most people going through actual hardship, all or most of the obsessive anti-sexism/anti-racism stuff that people waste their time on will evaporate. Women will flock to men because they need someone strong to protect and provide when actual danger and poverty looms with no government to care for their every need.

    I don’t know whether to hope it comes quickly so as to not ruin another generation and return virtue to its rightful place as soon as possible, or hope it waits until my children and their kids are long gone.

  42. tz2026 says:

    The awkward tripping and stumbling is not men leading, but women failing to follow the lead.
    Perhaps that is why there is no more Ballroom dancing, but Disco-nightclub brownian motion of human particles.

  43. feeriker says:

    Inre Facebook, the fact that it’s a proxy for NSA (and other alphabet agency) snooping is yet another reason (if not the biggest) to hate it and avoid it at all costs. Other than that, if people with ZE-RO self-respect and even less common(?) sense want to broadcast the most intimate details of their private lives to millions of complete strangers, then by all means they should be free to do so. The world needs all the humor it can get its mitts on at this stage in humanity’s existence.

  44. Eidolon,

    I’m getting to the point where I figure that America will experience financial collapse due to massive unsustainable debt, and in the aftermath, with most people going through actual hardship, all or most of the obsessive anti-sexism/anti-racism stuff that people waste their time on will evaporate.

    Alot of it is feminism. As feminist, you don’t have to look at the big picture and see why what you are advocating is actually determental to a society where so much freedom is granted. With great freedom comes great responsibility.

    The debt? The problem here (I think) is childlessness among the functioning. The debt is really only a huge problem in a ever aging, ever shrinking nationstate. The older the average age is in this country is (thank goodness, not the oldest average age, that would be Japan), the worse off we will ALL be with respect to the federal debt (elderly citizens consume government services that younger citizens should be contributing.) We need less Paul Krugmans and less Bill Mahers, and more Phillip Rivers and more Bob Duggars.

    Another problem here (I think) is too many children of the non-functioning. Having 4 children with 3 different fathers (not married to any of the fathers of your children at any time of your life) and you get crap like this…

    …this is what happens (more often) among our sons when they are raised without fathers, raised instead by mom and government-check-dad. This is why we need to re-open reform schools immediately before we have to incarerate these same delinquints (later as adults.)

    If the debt kills us, ends our society as we know it (and I believe it will eventually) it will simply be that as people, we have failed to live our lives as responsible adults. Democracy is NOT for all people, only the most responsible should allowed anywhere near the levers of life and death (which is the world in which our government operates every day.) Far FAR too many of our 535 elected Congressmen and Congresswomen have failed to realize that their responsibilities are to making this country a better place, NOT making sure they give whatever they must to their constituents so that they may keep their elected jobs. Remember….

    A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

  45. Eidolon says:

    @IBB

    I think the issue is that feminism, being a political version of typical feminine behavior, does not concern itself with issues of practicality or reality.

    When a wife asks for a bunch of expensive new clothes, or wants to adopt one more animal, or demands that her busy husband take time to do menial chores that she could do and in fact would do better, she doesn’t consider the practical issues. The point of the request, on a subconscious level, is primarily to push her husband to put his foot down and say no, thus reaffirming his dominance and her security beneath his leadership. She will in no way be satisfied if he gives her what she asked for, because the thing she asked for wasn’t what she wanted, and indeed by acquiescing he did the opposite of what she wanted.

    Further, she expects her husband to be the one who considers practical matters and makes rational decisions. This frees her to make demands that are completely nuts, because she knows someone who considers consequences and practicality will stop her bonkers ideas from negatively affecting her. This is win-win for her: she is free to express her wildest, most ridiculous demands, which makes her feel free; she knows she is safe from the consequences that would inevitably follow if her goofy ideas were followed; she gets to have drama as her husband reacts to her crazy ideas; and her husband reaffirms his strength and leadership by telling her no.

    Similarly, feminism is wildly and constitutionally impractical to the point of outright delusion (rape culture, 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted, etc.). This is because feminism isn’t about requesting things that will make the lives of women better or that will improve society as a whole. Much like a wife demanding expensive clothes when the family is on a tight budget, the requests have no real correspondence with reality. Demanding crazy, impractical, useless, counterproductive things is part and parcel with being a woman. What’s changed is that women have the vote, so politicians pander to them, and our society has lost confidence in doing what’s right and can now by swayed by the weakest claims of victimization.

    In the same way that women make crazy requests to elicit a reaction from their man, feminism is an aimless political movement that simply demands things, with no real reason or thought. If 1 in 4 college girls are sexually assaulted why are we also trying to make sure more women go to college? It doesn’t matter. If there should be equality, why make it so women can join the military if they want but men have to join Selective Service? Beside the point. Contradictory goals are irrelevant. The movement’s only real goal, whether those leading it recognize it or not, is to get a reaction from men. Thus we see that men who act in the opposite way of what feminists demand are beloved by them so long as they pretend to agree, like Bill Clinton.

    In a marriage, if a man offers no resistance to a woman and agrees to every request, it will typically lead to the woman divorcing him, as she seeks another man who will dominate her properly. But in a societal context, I’m not sure what, aside from total economic/security collapse, would force feminism to stop.

  46. Eidolon,

    Further, she expects her husband to be the one who considers practical matters and makes rational decisions. This frees her to make demands that are completely nuts, because she knows someone who considers consequences and practicality will stop her bonkers ideas from negatively affecting her.

    This basically dovetails nicely with my belief that women lack moral agency.

    Demanding crazy, impractical, useless, counterproductive things is part and parcel with being a woman. What’s changed is that women have the vote, so politicians pander to them, and our society has lost confidence in doing what’s right and can now by swayed by the weakest claims of victimization.

    And this dovetails with what I said that not all people are entitled to Democracy. Women should not have the vote. They should not have it because they vote with their lady parts and not with their brains.

    The movement’s only real goal, whether those leading it recognize it or not, is to get a reaction from men. Thus we see that men who act in the opposite way of what feminists demand are beloved by them so long as they pretend to agree, like Bill Clinton.

    Errrr, close but not quite. This is more keeping your eyes on the prize of the root of the issue. In that sense, feminism sacrifices something that is important to it if what is gained is something MORE important to it. Remember what Nina Burleigh said about President Clinton?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172776/posts

    “I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”

    Here we have a situation where it makes perfect sense (in feminist theory) to suck off a married man (to disrespect his wife and their marriage) if that man has the power to help ALL feminsts murder their unborn. Because he CAN help women murder their unborn, it is the responsibility fo women to suck his penis. You MUST. Look what he does for you and you KNOW he is going to love it (because he does not love or respect his wife.)

  47. charlie says:

    @tz2026
    “Perhaps that is why there is no more Ballroom dancing, but Disco-nightclub brownian motion of human particles.”

    I’ll bite. You’re wrong. My female dance instructor leads and I follow perfectly. ROTFLMAO!

    Oh, I guess I COULD go to a male dance instructor. Yeah, a real good time grinding loins with one of them to find the right placement. P If I have to grind loins with anyone, it might as well be a woman.

    Sometimes a woman HAS to lead, like when she’s instructing, or do you have an alternative?

    I agree that, on the social dance floor, men should always lead–even if dancing with a female dance instructor. That pretty much goes on for me. My instructor RARELY does any instruction on the social dance floor–and then it is much appreciated because it helps my dancing at no expense! She generally lets me lead and make my own mistakes on the social dance floor.

  48. Ton says:

    Ibb the liberal

  49. Ibb the liberal

    Yes thats right. Because liberals (like me) don’t want women to have the right to vote. :P

  50. Edwin says:

    hehe, as a ballroom dancer I can appreciate this.

    Dalrock, you post a lot, but what would you say as advice to a young man looking for a wife? Regardless of the dangers, I know I want to be a husband/father/family man. Are modern churches a good or bad place to find a wife? Where should I look?

  51. You didn’t ask me Edwin but if I could make a suggestion, on-line. Choose a freebie dating site. And in your profile, write exactly what you wrote here. You want to be a husband/father/family man. And write that you are church going. You will have to beat them off with a stick.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB, that’s not very good advice. While on line services can be useful, the “free” ones so far as I can tell are very bad for a man who wants to marry. Edwin doesn’t need to waste time on carousel riders who have run into the wall, whether they go to a church or not. But that’s what he’s going to find a lot of on the “free” sites.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    My brother-in-law blames Facebook (not his wife) on his wife finding an ex-boyfriend, hooking up with him, and divorcing my brother-in-law. Were it not for Facebook, she wouldn’t have found him. It made it too easy for her to trade him in for another. Honestly, this is not Zuckerberg’s fault. Its HER fault. She did it by using his technology. Her free will.

    It is her fault, not Zuckerberg’s fault, but his tool made it so much easier, didn’t it? And the whole narcissist effect, that’s of no importance?

    I suppose that you don’t have a problem with Ashley Madison, either?

  54. It is her fault, not Zuckerberg’s fault, but his tool made it so much easier, didn’t it? And the whole narcissist effect, that’s of no importance?

    It is not that it is of no importance. It is instead that we are trying to reasign blame. Facebook, (even though I don’t have an account for the reason I stipulated) has been a great utility for people to find each other after decades of being apart. It has been critical for high school reunions, for geneology, even for HR departments to qualify a person’s “character” by looking at their wall before typing up an offer letter. I’ve seen them do that, if you post slutty pics on your wall, no job for you.

    It can also be used for evil.

    I suppose that you don’t have a problem with Ashley Madison, either?

    No I have a problem with that site. That site is truly an “infernal creation.” It desicrates the sacrament of marriage. Unlike Facebook, the site’s entire goal is to violate God’s law. Not all marriages are as strong as others, and for those that are on shaky ground, the last thing the two parties in that marriage need is a portal of that type to make it easier to find what they are aren’t getting from their spouse. Their “market” (although legal according to man’s law) is for all practical purposes, the same thing the “sub prime borrowers” were for lenders, people they preyed upon who weren’t credit worthy and had no business getting mortgages.

    Sure, individual responsibility here. But I can discriminate one from the other.

  55. Peter T says:

    When I was younger and unmarried, I liked to ballroom dance and to hold the women in my arms, which I otherwise could seldom do. Yes, I was a nerd and a beta and still am, but when dancing you had to show some leadership and capability for smalltalk; and the woman had to be graceful and willing to follow for the time of the dance. It was similar to the old relation between man and woman on their search for a good spouse. Because I enjoyed ballroom dancing, I find the description of the feminist view very fitting: by denying any difference between man and woman you destroy the dance and the joy. (When learning a new dance, the woman sometimes leads the man when she can teach him this way, but the goal of the proper dance is the man leading the women and both enjoying it.)

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    Facebook, (even though I don’t have an account for the reason I stipulated) has been a great utility for people to find each other after decades of being apart. It has been critical for high school reunions, for geneology, even for HR departments to qualify a person’s “character” by looking at their wall before typing up an offer letter.

    And none of that was possible before Facebook, or could ever happen without it? Rubbish. Nonsense. You have not shown me anything good about it, and we haven’t even begun to discuss the bad.

    At least we agree about Ashley Madison. I’m surprised.

  57. JDG says:

    If you don’t resist they’ll make crazier and crazier demands, subconsciously begging you to say “no” and reassure them that you care and that you’re in control.

    This is exactly what I have found to be the case in my own marriage as well as other marriages where I know the couple well enough to see some of the inner workings.

    When I tolerate the rebellious behavior of my wife, the next round is worse and usually occurs within one to three days. It’s also important to not let her button pushing manipulate you. One must be as a rock in the storm. For that I need Christ. I find that for me the best results occur when I pray and maintain the frame.

  58. Ton says:

    Put that in you online profile an You be celibate for life. Or a magnate for single moms

  59. TFH says:

    This is all well and good….

    But then where is the small group of women who recognize this, and are working to expose people about the evils of feminism? There are just a couple of women, like Dr. Helen, doing this, despite the fact that ALL women are harmed by it….

    Even worse, where is the SMALL group of paternal grandmothers, who lost their grandchildren because their son lost custody of his kids to his ex-wife (the daughter-in-law)? Keep in mind that default mother custody means that all paternal relatives (cousins, uncles, aunts, and grandparents) are lost. Old women are losing their grandkids if they were through their sons. One would think paternal grandmothers would organize, even if just a few of them, to fight default daughter-in-law custody….

    But no. There is no such organization of paternal-grandmother rights…

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well…..

  60. Ton says:

    They also don’t care

  61. Ned Jackson says:

    “But no. There is no such organization of paternal-grandmother rights…”

    “They also don’t care”

    In Western culture older folk are more into relaxing and enjoying their golden years by golfing, traveling, just generally chilling out. They are satisfied seeing their grandkids a few times a year.

  62. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH:

    But then where is the small group of women who recognize this, and are working to expose people about the evils of feminism? There are just a couple of women, like Dr. Helen, doing this, despite the fact that ALL women are harmed by it….

    On that score I can’t really blame them, as I have enjoyed my life in this feminist society quite a bit, and have used it to my own ends… despite the fact that (objectively, in the Hegelian sense) I’ve been damaged quite a lot by it.

    Women are like men. Most of us are preoccupied with trivial things, and so few people can be crusaders. Those of us who are out here living try to support you guys (I buy books and kick a few bucks in where I can) but we generally can’t stick our necks out too far.

    Even worse, where is the SMALL group of paternal grandmothers, who lost their grandchildren because their son lost custody of his kids to his ex-wife (the daughter-in-law)?

    They threw their sons under the bus along with the ex-wife, to keep in contact with the grandchildren. I remember my own paternal grandparents doing this to my father. WF Price has written about this extensively, and a search of the spearhead will likely turn up a really great article on the phenomenon.

    This has to be the most damaging part of all — how divorce (in its contemporary context) rends families asunder, well beyond the parents and children.

    Regards, Boxer

  63. Oblivion says:

    just google, grandparents rights sons ex wife and watch the aftermath of the family court system. most of these femi’s wont do anything until they dont have access to their grandkids. btw the cat and small dog population will be increasing and grandkids decreasing.

  64. maryweather12 says:

    I found this blog yesterday & have read several of the posts and comments. I have a few questions if you or anyone in your audience wouldn’t mind obliging me with your perspective. A bit about me: I am a 35 year old, married (for 15 years) mother of three. I wasn’t raised in a religious household, though we went to church regularly, we weren’t given a lot of biblical direction. My parents raised my sisters and I to be kind, thoughtful, productive people, and to be independent of the need for anyone else to provide for us. I didn’t date much, but was lucky enough to meet my soulmate at the age of 19. My husband is 9 years older than I am. We soon married and have raised a family & have what we feel, is a wonderful marriage. It would never occur to me to take advantage of my husband financially or emotionally. He is a strong, honorable, truly good man who loves me well, and not because he buys me things. I seldom purchase anything that isn’t necessity & he doesn’t spoil me with material gifts. He is kind, he listens to me, he has taken care of me when I’ve been ill and/or hospitalized. He always makes me feel like I’m the most beautiful & desirable woman in the world in his eyes. In turn, I take care of him, listen to & support him. I am fiercely loyal to him & would defy anyone who tried to come between us, for any reason. I am unendingly attracted to him. He never pressures me for sex. He just makes me feel wanted & desirable. There have been times, maybe 5 in our marriage when I denied him sex. There have been other times when it wasn’t possible because of a medical condition that made it painful or after child birth, but those times were fleeting. And one of the reasons I believe I stay so wanting of sexual interaction with him, is because of his profound love for me. One night many moons ago, we had planned to have sex all day & were waiting on the chance. But he worked late that evening & I was exhausted after a very hard day. He initiated when we got into bed. I told him that I really didn’t feel well & asked if he’d mind if we waited just a little longer? He kissed my cheek & said “I understand, doll. Get some rest.” We went to sleep and before he went to work the next day I gave him a blowjob. When he got home that evening, I pulled him into the bathroom & gave him another one. Not because I felt I owed him, but because of his willingness to sacrifice his wants formy comfort. THAT turned me on. I initiate sex almost as much as he does. I love being with my husband. And it’s my belief that I’ve maintained such a high sex drive throughout the course of our marriage because he makes me feel valued. I would never ask that he sacrifice his desires for me on a regular basis, or even part of the time. And he would never ask me to fulfill his desires if I was not well or feeling able to properly satisfy him. And so I don’t feel either one of us takes advantage of the other. And when he shows me love & patience (not just in the bedroom, but in regards to my flaws) I feel a deep desire to repay that kindness two fold. We don’t live out our marriage with him in headship, or with me. We consult one another about almost everything and really enjoy just being a team. I think he’s the smartest, most talented, exemplary man in the world. He thinks I’m funny, smart, sexy & fun. I trust him with my life. He trusts me with his. We have of course experienced periods of great stress, and we do disagree on some things now and then. But we’ve always been able to talk & to listen to one another. And somehow it’s just always worked out.
    So now that I have revealed this about my own marriage, I’d like to ask a couple of questions. What exactly do you mean when you say a woman is supposed to submit? I know what the word means, but I’d like an answer that can help me to understand what this means in terms of daily life in headship/submissive marriage?
    Also, many people who comment lament that women as a general rule are vindictive users who seek money from their spouses, being naturally defiant & using sex as a weapon. It makes women, as a whole sound like rotten people who are incapable of being decent, loving & moral of their own free will. And so that leads me to my next question: What are the qualities you like about women?

    I really appreciate any answers to help me understand better. When I look at my life and marriage, I don’t see that it is in alignment with the values expressed in this blog. But my husband and I both feel a deep sense of fulfillment in our marriage. I don’t ask that you approve of my life, but I am open to your thoughts about it. Tha k you again for taking the time to read and respond.

  65. Bee says:

    @Edwin,

    “Are modern churches a good or bad place to find a wife? Where should I look?”

    Do not assume that a girl who goes to church is a good bet for a wife.

    Do not assume that a girl whom your priest, pastor, or minister introduces you to is a good bet for a wife.

    Do not assume; any girl needs interviewed and vetted thoroughly. Cry out loud for wisdom, get an abundance of counsel, and choose wisely.

  66. Edwin says:

    Actually, let me ask you guys this, are there any churches that back or at least don’t bar pre-nups? I was asking on a christianity forum (actually it was a topical sub-forum of a larger forum), but of course I was getting the run-around

  67. greyghost says:

    Nobody backs pre-nups. Not even the courts unless it is to “protect” HER. Think about why you even want a wife.

  68. Edwin says:

    Well that’s not true. The most basic element of a pre-nup that isn’t based on any conditions other than “in the case of divorce” is enforceable in courts.
    I’ve heard that judges can override them, but I have my doubts, sounds like a lotta noise from people. What specific legal concept would they use to decide it doesn’t have to be enforced?

  69. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Just yesterday Sunshine made a post explaining that Feminist policy actually makes sex WORSE for women. They don’t have orgasms any more, but they’re SOOOO empowered….” Guest

    Just like sports, the best performance will be when your ‘in-the-zone’. You can’t do that, follow your natural given instincts, if you’re supposed to be reflecting each second, just in case she’s changed her mind between thrusts. And don’t forget to have her breath into the breathalyzer intermittently, so sexy and spontaneous amiright?

  70. greyghost says:

    If the prenup looks like it is too far from the normal take for an ex wife or it looks like you where a traditional fault a judge will most likely over rule it. An empowered woman can play dumb victim at any time and the feminine imperative kicks in for a “fair” out come. No deal or contract with a woman is a sure thing as it is written.

  71. Edwin says:

    greyghost, so you’re saying that a simple pre-nup clause that spells out no alimony can be overruled if at the divorce the man’s income is much higher/without the pre-nup the woman would get a lot more?

    Do you think this could be handled with severability clauses?

    Because the pre-nup I envision would spell out a traditional no-fault system, and contain coveneants and moral statements about being a fit parent includes being a fit spouse, and being an egocentric flake is bad, etc,, followed by a severability clause along the lines of “and should this not be deemed enforceable in court, in recognition that the laws of man may be faulty but still will affect us, then the following should apply” and THEN go to the enforceable, bare-bones pre-nup.
    Based on What you’re saying I’m wondering if bare-bones pre-nup in my hypothetical could itself have more severability clauses for various income differentials that still prevent me/the higher earning party from having to give TOO much away in alimony

  72. maryweather12 says:

    I happened upon this blog yesterday and have read many posts & their comments. I’m curious and would appreciate anyone who’d take the time to answer a cous of questions to help me understand better, what I’m reading.
    I’d like to give you a bit of information about myself to start: I’m 35, married (15 years & going strong) with three children. My husband and I don’t have a headship/submissive marriage, but a strong bond of love, partnering & commitment. Neither of us is materialistic. The best way I know to describe our lives together is “simple”. We believe in doing small tasks with great love & in serving one another. We are not equal because we are different. But we share in equal parts, the responsibilities of the life we’ve purposefully cultivated together. I feel it’s important that you know this about me in an effort to keep anyone who might want to respond from having to speculate about my intentions or my experiences with marriage and family life.
    My first question is: When the blogger and commenters write about wifely submission, what does that mean exactly? I know what the word submit means. I’m just not able to clearly understand what it means in the context it’s being used here. I’d like some examples of how a wife is to be submissive in her daily life, so that I can better understand what I’m reading.
    Also, from what I sense in some of the responses to the posts, many of the commenters here don’t appear to hold a very high opinion of women in general. I see man references to women as a whole, being called unstable, unable to control themselves, naturally defiant, materialistic & greedy, having loose morals, etc… So my second question is: What are the things you like about women? I know that we’re not all alike, but in general, what are some of the more positive attributes of women that you value?

    I really appreciate anyone who’ll take the time to respond with their thoughts.

  73. ballista74 says:

    @Edwin
    See this for details on what marriage is today. Long and short of it is the prenup doesn’t work because a typical marriage is an adhesion contract with three parties involved, the husband, wife, and the State. An adhesion contract is something that is FORCED upon you – if you want to marry within certain legal guidelines, you must agree to the terms.

    This means if a husband and wife willingly agree to marry via a prenup, the prenup can not cross the State’s interests. Basically put, the State can make any clause of a prenup null and void at-will in the time of divorce. Usually anything that has to do with children can not be governed in a prenup. And the State has an interest to look out for “elemental fairness” with the wife, so prenups can be altered based on that. The judge has a huge amount of latitude in this regard.

    TL;DR of it: A prenuptial agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and I wouldn’t make bank on any part of one being enforced.

  74. ballista74 says:

    (hopefully this works, if it does it should be a pictorial representation of what marriage is.)

  75. ballista74 says:

    Guess not. I’ll just hyperlink it.

    Marriage diagram.

  76. Edwin says:

    Sorry ballista but that article is highly inaccurate and largely focusing on religious stuff.

    I know about the child suport-pre-nup relationship (that there can’t be any), but what about pre-nup enforceability? If what you say is true, how often do judges invalidate pre-nup contracts that are even without condition? I might buy what you’re saying about huge leeway, but that might only be in theory; I’ve heard from other sources that pre-nups without conditions, insofar as they deal with alimony, are pretty sure-fire in NY/NJ

    How about getting married in a foreign country? How does that work when you move back into the U.S.? Do America’s marriage laws then apply?

    All this stuff is really important guys. I know you’re all jaded, we all are, but some of us are going to live by our convictions no matter what and that often invloves marriage; I know I need to be a father one day, and I’ll absolutely love it. So for me and guys like me, accurate information on the law is important.
    Aren’t we being lax here? Is nobody here versed in the law? Does no one know a lawyer?

    I myself am at least getting a paralegal degree now (marriage laws and many other kinds of laws need to be reformed in this country, for example we need liability reform)

  77. imnobody00 says:

    @Eidolon

    “”When a wife asks for a bunch of expensive new clothes, or wants to adopt one more animal, or demands that her busy husband take time to do menial chores that she could do and in fact would do better, she doesn’t consider the practical issues. The point of the request, on a subconscious level, is primarily to push her husband to put his foot down and say no, thus reaffirming his dominance and her security beneath his leadership. She will in no way be satisfied if he gives her what she asked for, because the thing she asked for wasn’t what she wanted, and indeed by acquiescing he did the opposite of what she wanted.

    Further, she expects her husband to be the one who considers practical matters and makes rational decisions. This frees her to make demands that are completely nuts, because she knows someone who considers consequences and practicality will stop her bonkers ideas from negatively affecting her. This is win-win for her: she is free to express her wildest, most ridiculous demands, which makes her feel free; she knows she is safe from the consequences that would inevitably follow if her goofy ideas were followed; she gets to have drama as her husband reacts to her crazy ideas; and her husband reaffirms his strength and leadership by telling her no.””

    Gosh, I am so glad I am single. So much peace and quiet. No duty to provide unnecessary drama to a human being with the maturity of a eigth-year-old. Do you think having sex with the same woman compensates for so much crap? I don’t

  78. greyghost says:

    Edwin were asking for advice or affirmation? Just because you are playing the “yeah but ” I’ll give you my honest thoughts without the misogyny. Pre-nups are good to go. I knew a guy that had his ex pay him and he got to keep his kids. There is no way I would get married today with out one.

  79. Boxer says:

    Edwin:

    If you’re getting your paralegal degree, as you say, then you should network with some professional attorneys/barristers in wherever it is you live and practice, who specialize in family law.

    Taking legal advice on the internet is similar to taking advice on brain surgery on the internet, and then performing your own lobotomy.

    Even real, qualified professionals (there is one here, his name is Opus) don’t give legal advice to people in the comments section of blogs, as they don’t know the intimate details of your situation and chances are good they aren’t qualified to do so in the area where you live.

    Aside from seeking legal advice, you should also sit in on some sessions down at the family court. Nothing beats the shock of watching it all go down, in real time. If you do have the balls to do this, keep in mind that damn near every man there once thought he was marrying the most special snowflake ever created, and he would have scoffed at the idea that she’d ever blow his family up.

    A bit of hearsay, since you asked: The most disturbing thing I heard a judge say, once, was “due to the pre-marital agreement, the respondent [the dude] will keep the family home. Respondent is thus ordered to buy a home of comparable value and area for petitioner [the chick] within thirty days.”

    He gets to keep his home, provided he can shell out 300,000 dollars for a second one, within the span of a month, to keep princess happy. Yeah, that pre-marital agreement worked out pretty well. I’m sure yours will be just as iron-clad.

    Regards, Boxer

  80. Edwin says:

    I was asking for details
    I’m surprised no one has written a book on the subject. Hey, maybe I’m the guy.
    the main subjects are
    -how effective are pre-nups? How often do they get over-ruled, and why do they in those circumstances that they do?
    -How about marriages in a foreign jurisdiction? How do those work when in America?
    -How about marriages in other countries? Maybe there are other countries that are just more worth living in on the whole, which might include their mariage laws.
    -How does representation work? Can both people be represented by the same lawyer?

    That’s besides describing the basics. I could also go over getting a pre-nup affordably for poorer couples, and provide open0source prenups (one of the things I want to work on eventually is more open-source, free legal documents), and how can we get marriage reform enacted politically one day, from a strategy point of view?

  81. ballista74 says:

    Sorry ballista but that article is highly inaccurate and largely focusing on religious stuff.

    It’s a “religious” blog, so it’s going to have “religious” stuff. But entertain me, what is “highly inaccurate” about it regarding the legal description of marriage? For my research, it’s been confirmed by several sources both linked in that post, and not linked in that post (I just listened to another today that said the same thing that I just wrote in the comment above). I’ll summarize it without the “religious” stuff.

    Marriage (outside of common law marriage, but states are declaring their contracts to be valid upon those by fiat if they haven’t already been outlawed) is a thing that’s licensed, and that license confers certain privileges to the State. By virtue of making marriage illegal without the license (inherent in the definition as quoted from Black’s Law), the State gets to dictate terms upon the marriage in terms of “the public interest”. In those terms, the marriage “contract” is already set by the State and the other parties must agree to it or else (this is an adhesion contract). In setting those terms, the State becomes a third interested party in the contract and has unilateral rights to enforce its interests. This is how family law court gets its justification to work, along with child protective services and the like. A prenup is an attempt to modify the State’s terms of the agreement, and given the State’s unilateral rights has the right to accept or throw out any term of the prenup at will, which means that terms of a prenup are not necessarily what comes to pass. The terms that the prenup can have which will likely be enforced is generally limited to property as long as it’s deemed “fair” in the eyes of the court, which means even those can be thrown out. Base point is that a prenup agreement modifying the marriage contract can not be negotiated unilaterally by the husband and wife and have any and all terms honored by the State.

    So educate me: What part of all of that is incorrect? There are most certainly no states in the union which do not have their hands all over each and every marriage. All of that is irrelevant anyway to the stated intent of pre-nups in places like Dalrocks, as the major traps that men are ensnared with in the marriage contract are non-pre-nuppable anyway.

  82. ballista74 says:

    A bit of hearsay, since you asked: The most disturbing thing I heard a judge say, once, was “due to the pre-marital agreement, the respondent [the dude] will keep the family home. Respondent is thus ordered to buy a home of comparable value and area for petitioner [the chick] within thirty days.”

    An end-run around a pre-nup in terms of “elemental fairness”. Did the pre-marital agreement really protect this man or was it useless?

  83. Edwin says:

    your guy rather silly-ly cited rather specifically from the law of contracts, in which case the term “license” is being used in its more vague sense; this is not the license like a mechanic’s license or a doctor’s license like we know of. Marriage is not a “three-party contract”, and the state isn’t and has never used this as justification for child support and alimony; the police power of the state is more than enough for the state to do all these things.

    The guy seems to be implying that one should not get a marriage license. This is a bad idea for guys who want to get married AND have kids, as marriage confers a LOT of parental rights to the father. And even without kids (or even with kids but you’re more scared of alimony payments rather than child support because you have a lower income), I think that even if you don’t get married you can still end up paying alimony in certain instances, though I don’t remember the details.

  84. Edwin says:

    Like he said, it was hearsay, and I’m skeptical, of it and what you two are saying.
    I googled “elemental fairness” and couldn’t get a hit for the exact term. That contracts can’t be grossly unfair is a basic element of contract law, that doesn’t mean a prenup is “useless”. Like I said, I;ve heard they’re largely enforced and if the only discretion the judge has is in situations of deep unfairness then they in fact HAVE to be enforced for the most part.

  85. ballista74 says:

    How about marriages in other countries? Maybe there are other countries that are just more worth living in on the whole, which might include their mariage laws.

    From what I read, most of the other countries in the West are just like the US. Basically, the State functionally making the marriage contract into an illusory one with respect to the husband and wife. Of course, as mentioned above, you shouldn’t be looking here if you want real legal advice.

    -How does representation work? Can both people be represented by the same lawyer?

    Read many times, the typical answer to this one is no.

    how can we get marriage reform enacted politically one day, from a strategy point of view?

    Kick the State out of marriage. That’s how it worked until about 1920 or so, and worked very well.

  86. Edwin says:

    Not every Western country. In Israel marriages are dealt with by the relevant religious institution. Unfortunately you have to be a citizen :-(

  87. ballista74 says:

    I’ll say your answer was definitely entertaining, if anything else.

    in which case the term “license” is being used in its more vague sense; this is not the license like a mechanic’s license or a doctor’s license like we know of.

    And consistent with the marriage license. There’s no “sense” of things. You’re telling me Black’s Law Dictionary is wrong? History confirms what I say too – the origin of the marriage license was to specifically allow exemptions to the law of miscegenation (it was illegal to intermarry of different races). In other words, give permission to do something that is otherwise illegal.

    Marriage is not a “three-party contract”

    So Link #1 is wrong? I found similar references for two other states. In fact, this is the only logical way that marriage can end-run around standard contractual agreements.

    the police power of the state is more than enough for the state to do all these things.

    Which has to be held up by the courts…how, considering the forced deprivation of property inherent to Family Court judgments? Why aren’t people suing governments and winning over these things, if it’s just raw police power?

    I googled “elemental fairness” and couldn’t get a hit for the exact term.

    That was my term, so I put it in the quotes. I’ll explain it a bit better from what my reading says. The way I understand it is that civil courts enforce contracts by the words and meanings of the agreement. If I make a contract that I’ll pay $2000 for a vehicle, there is a promise from both parties. If it were to be brought to court (the $2000 or the vehicle wasn’t given), the court takes the contract and interprets it via the letter of the contract. If the contract is consummated, I can’t go sue the other party saying the vehicle isn’t what I thought it was. And the other party can’t come back and sue me for $3000 when they find out that they lowballed the vehicle’s worth and someone else claimed after the fact that they could give $5000 for it. The agreement has to be honored *as written* and the judge will determine a decision by the letter of the contract.

    Now family courts are courts of fairness. One can make a contract regarding marriage, and instead of the decision being made by the letter, it’s made by fairness or “what a reasonable person would consider fair”. In other words, the judge can say “you know, it really wasn’t fair that the vehicle was sold for $2000, so other party, you owe another $3000″. The judge is given a huge amount of latitude in determining what is “fair”. Effectively in that scenario, the letter of the contract was made null and void (and thus illusory). quoted:

    In some states, the prenup must also be fair at the time of enforcement. Unfortunately, the courts and a jury often decide what a reasonable person would consider fair. Fourth, the courts may cancel the prenup if enforcing it would impoverish either party and create a risk of seeking public assistance. Finally, you can’t ever disclaim child support.

    This is the kind of language that exists in most discussions of prenuptial agreements that is causing most that speak against it to do so. Unfortunately, it seems the scale of “fairness” always tips severely in the direction of the woman.

    Now if I’m wrong, I’d definitely entertain resources which explains all of this more adequately than what I find elsewhere.

  88. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of prenuptial agreements, Catholics cannot have one if they want to get married in a Catholic ceremony (“in the Church”). Catholic (and maybe Orthodox?) men must be that much more careful in selecting a spouse – they have no recourse because there isn’t an agreement to even point to.

  89. Eidolon says:

    @imnobody00

    I’m not one of the pessimists here about women and marriage. I find it quite fulfilling. Certainly it has its trying elements, but on the whole it has enriched my life.

    Game is very helpful in creating a happy and stable household. If you’re inclined toward marriage, don’t let this talk scare you off. Women can be difficult, but it really gives a man a big head start to have a handle on their nature and what the things that they say mean.

    Once you understand that the things they say are often untrue (but not intentional lies) a lot of the stuff that was extremely confusing at first becomes more clear. If you learn some game the more difficult elements of handling a woman are far easier. You have to play the game, whether you want to or not; but if she’s feeling attracted to you then she’ll want you to win. Under those conditions it isn’t too difficult to do well.

    Be very cautious in selecting a wife; Dalrock’s advice about marriage is excellent. I don’t think you should give up on the good elements of marriage and family life for fear of the dangers. But my marriage is still young, and my wife and I are practicing Christians. I think that helps a lot.

  90. Feminist Hater says:

    Gosh, I am so glad I am single. So much peace and quiet. No duty to provide unnecessary drama to a human being with the maturity of a eigth-year-old. Do you think having sex with the same woman compensates for so much crap? I don’t

    Was totally thinking the same thing. This must be the dance they’re talking about…

  91. Feminist Hater says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2510542/Britains-white-honour-killing-Teenager-brutally-murdered-Muslim-lover-exposing-relationship-family.html

    Ah yes, the joys of a muslim boyfriend. I believe there was a commentator called ‘princess’ or something who said she loved muslim men. Well, there we go, no better advise need be given to white women. Find a muslim man, get preggers by his friend, and enjoy those consequences.

    Sooooo much better than a white man!

  92. Bee says:

    @Edwin,

    “All this stuff is really important guys. I know you’re all jaded,”

    You want to meet a girl at church but you reject balista74’s information because it is from a “religious blog”. Hint, churches are religious.

    We are jaded because you are hard headed and not seeking our advice, you are just seeking affirmation for your own ideas.

  93. greyghost says:

    Edwin
    Your arguments and points are sound to me. These guys are just haters. I like the term used, jaded. I think it is entirely possible to meet a woman marry. A prenup and a woman with a Christian back ground should be all you need. Just add love and commitment and I see a happy family. Treat her with respect and make sure she knows she is loved and I see no real marital issues. Your comments here have been a breath of fresh air. That fuckin Dalrock needs to moderate some of the misogyny from this otherwise interesting blog.

  94. AmStrat says:

    You’re too cruel, Greyghost.

    However, this is possibly the quickest way for edwin to achieve knowledge, it’s just going to be VERY painful.

  95. Tam the Bam says:

    Bee says:
    @Edwin (“Are modern churches a good or bad place to find a wife? Where should I look?”)

    Do not assume that a girl who goes to church is a good bet for a wife.

    Unless you’re an actual practising Viking, that is ..
    Remember to bring your Zippo.

  96. AmStrat:
    “You’re too cruel, Greyghost.
    However, this is possibly the quickest way for edwin to achieve knowledge, it’s just going to be VERY painful.”

    AND expensive.
    BUT he will learn his lesson! Sadly.

  97. Novaseeker says:

    What specific legal concept would they use to decide it doesn’t have to be enforced?

    Family law courts in most states are courts of equity. They will not enforce a pre-nup if it leads to what the court considers an inequitable result.

  98. Novaseeker says:

    I might buy what you’re saying about huge leeway, but that might only be in theory; I’ve heard from other sources that pre-nups without conditions, insofar as they deal with alimony, are pretty sure-fire in NY/NJ
    When it comes to alimony and property, the main things that can torpedo a pre-nup are (1) lack of disclosure of assets prior to the time the pre-nup was signed, (2) duress arguments (i.e., contract signed to close in time to the marriage date, spouses not represented by separate and competent counsel) and (3) inequitable result of enforcing the contract, taking all the facts and circumstances into account.
    Generally speaking, pre-nups are most useful if you are bringing substantial separate assets into the marriage and want to cordon these off from being distributed as marital property – you will need to disclose the assets in completeness and detail when the contract is signed, and you will also have to have your fiancée represented by a separate lawyer from you who is competent and experienced in negotiating pre-nups. And even then, it’s still dicey due to the fairness argument that she can raise to the family court when you seek to enforce.
    How about getting married in a foreign country? How does that work when you move back into the U.S.? Do America’s marriage laws then apply?
    The law of where you are living when you divorce is the law that applies to your divorce, not the law of where you were married.
    -how effective are pre-nups? How often do they get over-ruled, and why do they in those circumstances that they do?

    See above.

    How about marriages in a foreign jurisdiction? How do those work when in America?

    See above.

    How about marriages in other countries? Maybe there are other countries that are just more worth living in on the whole, which might include their mariage laws.

    Yes, but generally you’re looking at non-Western countries.

    How does representation work? Can both people be represented by the same lawyer?

    See above. If you do that, it’s a reason she can use to attack the pre-nup due to inadequate representation/duress type arguments.

    the law of contracts,

    Isn’t generally where the judicial disposition of these cases lies, because family courts are generally courts of equity – if they don’t like the result, they will look to see if there is an equitable reason they can avoid enforcing the pre-nup. The factors I note above are the most common ones. Also, even if they do enforce it, they may issue additional decrees at their discretion that basically nullify the enforcement of it, such as what Boxer mentioned above (i.e., enforcing the pre-nup on the house, but at the same time issuing a decree ordering the husband to buy her another house – they can do that, they have broad powers as courts of equity to do what they need to do to reach what they considera a fair and equitable result).

    Again, the key to enforcing pre-nups is basically what the result of enforcing them will be. If the court thinks it would lead to a one-sided result, it will either find a reason not to enforce, or it will issue additional decrees that basically mitigate the unfairness of enforcing the contract. The one main thing they are good for is cordoning off pre-marital assets from distribution upon divorce – if you have significant pre-marital assets that you would like to protect from that. However, the court can, while enforcing that, nevertheless issue “equitable” decrees designed to give her the value that she is not getting by having those assets cordoned off by the contract.

    A much better bet than relying on a pre-nup is living in a state that has a more friendly family law regime. The states are all over the map on this, and it is NOT the same everywhere. Texas, for example, has fairly strict alimony limits. Florida has very limited palimony type awards under state law. Massachusetts, on the other extreme, enforces alimony against future spouses of the payor spouse as well!! California’s rule of thumb is that once you get to ten years, there’s automatic lifetime alimony (and anything else violates public policy etc.) You need to know what the law is where you are living, and if you move, what the law is where you are moving. Of course, the laws change, too, over time, but there is already today a great variation in state laws and court practice regarding these issues.

    Yes, I’m a lawyer, although this comment is not legal advice. Any legal advice would need to be obtained from a lawyer who is admitted in the state where you would be living when married.

  99. Boxer says:

    Dear Edwin:

    Like he said, it was hearsay, and I’m skeptical, of it and what you two are saying.

    Good. My greatest hope is that every man here will consider me a liar, and will be subsequently motivated to go down to the courthouse, and sit in on some sessions of “divorce court” in person, to prove Boxer wrong.

    One of the other disturbing things I learned down at the courthouse was that in my area, there is a fixed cap on child support based upon income, but there is no limit to the amount of spousal maintenance that the judge can order. Alimony here customarily kicks in after 10-15 years, and can last in some cases *for ever*. Whether any of these things are likely or possible where you live, I don’t know. Hence my original point. Get a local attorney to spell out the details and go sit in on your local court.

    This should not be construed as me telling you not to get married. I admire dudes who have the discipline to enter into such a one-sided institution, and I know fathers are absolutely necessary for the continuity of civilization. I just hope you make an educated decision with a realistic groundwork of what can go wrong, and prepare accordingly.

    Regards, Boxer

  100. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Edwin says:
    November 22, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    >>I’ve heard that judges can override them, but I have my doubts, sounds like a lotta noise from people. What specific legal concept would they use to decide it doesn’t have to be enforced?

    How insulting The legislated law in almost all states that specifically authorizes a judge to toss a pre-nup if he/she feels it is not in the interest of justice. Which means you take her out of the slums you cannot put her back in the slums. Or, simply stated, if you have a lot of money and she doesn’t, she is going to get part of your money. I remember one case where a man, not well educated, worked at nights and weekends, fixing up old houses, and selling them at a profit. He married in his 50’s, and it was 16 months from the wedding until the divorce was already final. Of his $300,000 he had accumulated in his lifetime, she got 96,000, or $6,000 a month for the time she was married to him, including a lengthy divorce. Note this was only 1/3 of his lifetime savings, for a marriage that only lasted a very few months until she filed.

    The judge used the excuse that he did not list all his marital assets, but did not state what asset was not listed. So, my guess was he forgot to list the green screwdriver with the busted handle. [/sarcasm] This excuse of not listing all assets is asinine. She knows she is signing away everything. Why does it matter what she is signing away? Makes no sense.

    I did legal research for 10 years and encountered many cases where judges threw out prenups.

    Edwin, it is not a good idea to write about things you know absolutely nothing about. It makes you look foolish when you may not be foolish. Men on this board have been at this in some cases for more than 30 years. And, you come busting in and presume to teach about things you know absolutely nothing about.

    >>Do you think this could be handled with severability clauses?

    No. Just no. Prenups aren’t worth the paper they are written on, no matter how they are written. If the woman whines she is getting short-changed it costs the judge nothing to toss the pre-nup and he geos home proud he gave all that money to the poor; poor dearie.

    >>How about getting married in a foreign country? How does that work when you move back into the U.S.? Do America’s marriage laws then apply?

    Please give it up, Edwin. You are pushing and shoving, thinking you have brilliant new ideas we idiots never thought of. The states legislated laws have thought of everything. It is common for newbies in the manosphere to come busting in, thinking they can teach us poor sinners how to handle the system. Not so. They just look foolish.

    I will say, though, that in Mexico, all legal marriages include BINDING pre-nups, and dearies cannot weasel out of it once they sign. Except there will be child support, though that is not at the alimony level. Also, if the woman commits adultery, the man can usually keep the kids if he wants. Few men want. Also, in most states, after ten years, she gets 20% of his assets if he dies.

    >>Is nobody here versed in the law? Does no one know a lawyer?

    I subscribed to Westlaw advance sheets for my region for ten years, and skimmed every case in them. I also read ALR, and everything else I could get my hands on. And, I took various law courses in college as electives, and have read both civil and penal codes in Mexico. There is no way around the judge’s right to suspend a pre-nup in the USA if the judge chooses to do so.

    And, books have been written. You haven’t looked, but are “locked in transmit.”

    A man posted on one of the DGM forums a while back an interview with a marriage registrar in the US, and he admitted that the marriage license gave complete ownership of all aspects of the marriage. The marriage itself; the kids; all the assets past, present and future. If you would STFU and do some real research since you are rejecting the words of those who have, you will quickly learn this for yourself.

    Bee says:
    November 23, 2013 at 7:08 am @Edwin

    >>We are jaded because you are hard headed and not seeking our advice, you are just seeking affirmation for your own ideas.

    Just so.

    Yes, we have people who have studied the law in great detail. But, the minute you see something that does not match your own fictional views you reject it. I agree with Greyghost’s sarcasm. Go for it, little man. You will learn and it will be well deserved.

  101. Anonymous age 71 says:

    For Dalrock: http://www.isidewith.com/poll/292819043

    A poll, no methodology listed, says 13% of peole think if Jesus returned he would be pleased with the current practice of Christianity. 83% said no, he would not.

  102. Opus says:

    Do I detect that Edwin is the latest in a long line of people who have fantasized on manosphere blogs as to the ousting of the jurisdiction of the courts. If so I refer to my previous answer and concur with both Boxer and my learned friend Novaseeker (so it is obviously judgement in favour of the defence but on this occasion and my being of a generous nature with no order as to costs).

    What, I wonder is a para-legal degree?

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    What, I wonder is a para-legal degree?

    Two legal degrees for the price of one?

  104. bluedog says:

    Bluedog votes that Dalrock promote Novaseeker’s and ballista74 November 23, 2013 at 12:49 am to post status. That is all very good content … quality stuff not just commentary chitchat. Folks need to understand the state’s roll in marriage if only to understand what they are getting themselves into.

    Seems like when we get to that point you always hear from the libertarian contingent that would have the solution be that we get the state out of the business. There’s also a geocentric contingent a google search away and an ultraconservative Catholic who wrote a great big book to make geocentrists think they have a rational position.

    If you wish to be successful combating the left listen to a liberal. For one: get your adversary straight: it isn’t just the left or even feminism, often it is pure neglect for the law on the part of the governed. Worse, the adversary can be in the mirror.

    A sleazy salesman exploits a customer’s lack of clarity. He exploits a customer’s lack of commitment. He finds where you want X (i.e.: to save money) but aren’t 100% committed to it, or he finds where you know what you won’t tolerate strategically but when you can’t discriminate that from what you can or can’t tolerate tactically.

    In short … the libertarian route and the “damn leftists” route may feel good but its a poor game of chess.

    To mix metaphors: play poker can call the bet. Commit.

    Our legal system governs paternal rights by a different standard than maternal rights. She is a parent by choice … he is a parent by stated or actual paternity. She can choose to have an abortion, obviously he cannot.

    But importantly: she can choose (in many states) to “surrender” her baby under “safe harbor” laws if she doesn’t feel up to it.

    Guess what: he can’t.

    Do you see how that worked? Mixing metaphors again: while the right was distracted with abortion … the “left” (I only use the term for sake of argument here) checkmated you on the very definition of a family.

    I give you this definition of a family: at least one putative parent, male or female, who asserts full parental rights and full parental responsibility where biological parentage takes primacy.

    You begin there. You allow that she can abort (strategic concession for many) and you allow that she can “surrender” under safe harbor, but you raise the ante: you insist if she surrenders then dad be notified their is a baby so he can either claim his parental rights or severe them in the same manner she does, your raise it even more by insisting that he can “surrender” the child even when she chooses to keep it (meaning no parental rights of any kind for him, but no child support either) and raise the ante still more to say that parental rights … male and female, once affirmed by either party, are unseverable … both parents are 100% financially responsible for the children so neither can extract from the other … if the child has a need, parent pays, that is what it means to be a parent.

    Strategic retreat (abortion and “safe harbor”), flight to higher ground, calling the bluff and draw the adverary out into the (moral) open, then checkmate.

    Or keep fighting your adversary from confused ranks while your armies number 10000 and your enemies’ number 30000, all the while comforting yourselves with the hubris that you understand your adversary better than he and she understands you.

  105. Opus says:

    To the best of my knowledge the state does not force anyone to marry. It may of course be different where you are.

  106. Legion says:

    So is Edwin a troll or is he just trying to show how much smarter he is than all of is?

  107. Tam the Bam says:

    “What, I wonder is a para-legal degree?”
    It’s the armed wing of the Provisional LL.Bs. They haven’t gone away you know.
    You get a black wig and Raybans.

  108. I’ve heard that judges can override [pre-nups], but I have my doubts, sounds like a lotta noise from people. What specific legal concept would they use to decide it doesn’t have to be enforced?

    The same legal concept judges use to decide all sorts of things: “I say so, and I’m the one wearing the robe, and you’re the one who has to stand up when I enter the room.”

    I’m not at all an expert, but even I know that judges routinely throw out pre-nups. If they have a value, it’s probably more in setting a precedent with your bride up front — establishing that if she divorces, you’re going to fight her tooth and nail to keep what’s yours. On the other hand, it also sets the precedent that you’re already considering the possibility of divorce, which seems like it would have to poison the well to some extent, no matter how well-intentioned. And if she does decide to divorce you, it’s not like her signature on some piece of paper from the past is going to mean anything to her.

    From what I’ve read (again, not an expert), pre-nups work best when they’re simply a pre-defined way of dividing up the property that a judge will see as fair. In other words, if you have two homes and you declare in the pre-nup that she gets the family home and you get the cabin at the lake, that might be fine. Defining up front that she gets 55% and what items go into that, in other words, might keep you from having to give her 80%, including your favorite stuff. But if it looks like you’re trying to get out with more than half because you came in with more than half, or if she can convince the judge that she didn’t really understand the numbers up front, or if your financial situation has changed quite a bit since the wedding, you’re probably going to be on shaky ground.

  109. ballista74 says:

    @Novaseeker

    Family law courts in most states are courts of equity.

    Thanks, equity was the word I was searching for in writing that. The word “fair” registers with me more, just for the reason of the usual results of such “equity” – a feminist ball-buster or a white knight as a judge, and suddenly things are a whole lot more “equitable” for the woman than the man.

    I’m not an expert (or a lawyer), but in general, it’s good to be educated about what you’re getting into rather than jumping in head first “in love” and not know of the meat grinder that is awaiting you on the other side.

    @bluedog

    Seems like when we get to that point you always hear from the libertarian contingent that would have the solution be that we get the state out of the business.

    In the case of marriage, all this represents is a functional repeal of the entire slate of “family law” and returns things to the way they were before. George and Martha Washington didn’t need a government license or even a preacher to be married. George got Martha’s father’s permission to marry her, then they simply gathered together in public before witnesses, proclaimed their marriage by an agreement of terms, and that was that. You got the notable historical prohibitions like incest, but other than that, it was the complete business of the parties involved.

  110. Edwin says:

    Yo god damn, would you guys calm down? All I said is I’m skeptical and I’m not gonna take your claims on faith, and details would be nice. Hell, YOU guys said not to take anything said here too seriously.
    Like I said, I get that pre-nups can be thrown out, but, again, what about the actual statistics? Like with normal contracts and other situations, it’s just something that the judge has the right to do in theory, that doesn’t mean they do it all willy nilly.

    Again, I get it, we all don’t like the shitty marriage laws. But you guys seem to be hell bent on making everyone agree that marriage is a losing proposition and no one should ever into it no matter what. How about we be productive and come up with some remedies? Remember that book I was suggesting should be written?

    For god’s sake calm down. And you guys think women can be harridan…

  111. Edwin says:

    family friendly law regime

    OK, but what about a marriage in one state, and then divorced in another state? What is the jurisdiction there? The marriage state’s laws or the divorce state’s laws? Could I live in Texas for a year to get married and come back to NJ?

  112. Edwin says:

    ballista,
    I’m sorry but your link is full of terminological errors. Again, the “license” in the sense it is used for a marriage license is different from that used in contract law.
    Maybe you could say a marriage is LIKE a three-party contract, but legally speaking, it’s totally different if you’re using all the specific legal terms (including the proper legal definition of “contract”)

    Iget it, You don’t like marriage laws. Thank you, we all get it. As I said before, how about you all calm down about it? But the fact of the matter is the stuff that guy wrote in that link is not very accurate froma legal standpoint. These other posters versed in law were more helpful.

    But again, the problem is that a few of them were still just re-iterating that the judge can do whatever he wants. HOW often this actualy happens and WHY is a different story, and would be more useful. For example, Novaseeker describing what specific things can mess with the enforceability of the pre-nup was very helpful. Everyone else perioding and derping all over the place wasn’t.
    I’m just a guy who wants to get married and be a father one day and I suspect that in practice the protections one can place in marriage aren’t as awful as you guys say they are, with the distinct lack of any statistics on when judges throw pre-nups out being a telling clue to this.

  113. MarcusD says:

    The same legal concept judges use to decide all sorts of things: “I say so, and I’m the one wearing the robe, and you’re the one who has to stand up when I enter the room.”

    Sounds like legal positivism.

  114. Micha Elyi says:

    We’ve probably all experienced women being discontented even when everything is fine. If a woman submits all the time without being asked, then her man never needs to make a display of dominance; this leads to her wondering if he’s still dominant, and then a part of her pushes her to act out of line so that he can put her in her place and she can be assured that he will still do so.
    Eidolon

    You’ve made an interesting observation, Eidolon. Substitute “child” for “woman” and “father” for “man” and you’ve got a near-textbook example of a child’s limits-testing behavior.

  115. Anonymous age 71 says:

    The pre-nup most likely to be enforced is where both man and woman have approximately equal assets, and the pre-nup is intended only to protect their assets for their respective heirs. This would normally involve two widows or even two divorced people who marry late in life.

    And, it may only be invoked when one fo them dies. So, its purpose was to keep the property of each out of probate.

    Well, that is not correct. The most likely to be enforced is when the woman has property and the man doesn’t. But, I guess y’all knew that, right?

    Only when one understands that marriage in the governmental sense is solely intended to take the work and assets of men and transfer as much as possible to women, can you understand why pre-nups are designed not to be binding. A binding pre-nup would interfere with the property rights of dearies.

    In my years of legal research in the US I found no element of marriage other than property rights. No sacramental meanings. No protection for the rights of men. No protection of men by prohibiting a wife from testifying against him. No guarantee of sex. No guarantee of rights to his children. Nothing. Marriage in the USA is almost totally a case of female property rights. If you have a different opinion, you are a Dreamer.

  116. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Interesting, Edwin. You admit you know absolutely nothing about the law, though you may not realize that is what you are saying. Yet you perform instant judging of anything we present to you.

    As Greyghost says so well, the only way you are going to learn is to bite the bullet yourself.

    I call what you are doing, navel contemplation. Find your closest law library. Most law schools have one, and let the public use them. I have done so. Yet, you clearly judge my “opinions” as having no merit.

    Also, most county courthouses have a law library. In most states, they are also open to the public. I have used them.

    Go and start reading for yourself. Look in the American Law Review books for pre-nups, which is not really their technical name. Since you won’t listen to anyone who has done this, you will need to do it yourself.

    Why should I spend my time digging up stats which I have read many times over the last 30 years? Am I your servant? Do your own homework, and stop with all the insults. You know nothing about the topic and yet you judge our comments as if you know your head from your nether region, which you do not.

    And, please marry as soon as possible. Pay no attention to anything anyone here says about how to screen women for performance as a wife. Dalrock knows nothing, as Greyghost so ironically has said. Sharks have to eat, too, and when your wife divorces you (as she most certainly will, arrogant, narcissistic dummies do not stay married long) you will feed the sharks. Show us dummies how it should be done.

  117. Micha Elyi says:

    Speaking of prenuptial agreements, Catholics cannot have one if they want to get married in a Catholic ceremony (“in the Church”).
    MarcusD

    Not quite true. A pre-nup cannot contemplate a divorce, else the wedding results in a nullity even before the processional music starts. Otherwise a pre-nup may be permitted to a Catholic Christian couple (but those circumstances probably don’t apply to most readers here). Ask a canon lawyer.

  118. bluedog says:

    ballista
    your opponents know that family law is IT. You are like Napoleon after Moscow to attempt to excise it. It would take me awhile to dig it up and I’m busy but there’s a very illustrative article in the NYT opinion page from roundabouts 2011 by a lawyer who was specifically making her argument based on feminism (I note this because she was upfront with it … her point was feminist advocacy so I’m not arguing with labels here).

    Her argument was to acknowledge those on the left who argue that indeed, the state has no role in the marriage business … the state should bless (or license) civil unions, for anybody, but marriage is a religious affair not a state institution. Understand … it is the left articulating this position.

    Her point was to acknowledge this and to express some measure of support for it while cautioning that it must be implemented in a way that protects the interests of women and children. Her words as I recall them were to call the unions in question “care giving relationships”, and the stated concern was the interests of women and children so fill in the blanks who is to care for whom. But even more importantly, she regarded it as paramount that changes to law be implemented in such a way that the state continue to regulate these relationships.

    So if to make the fight over the roll of the state in marriage (or civil unions) itself … I submit to you that on this one your adversaries are two chess moves ahead. They have this thought through in ways that I see little evidence in the manosphere that equivalent forethought has been brought to bear.

    And these are the straight out adversaries … they are tail ends on the other side of the bellcurve who use power and influence and amplitude to compensate for their lack of number.

    To do the political calculus you need to account for the center bulge where most people are at. On that: (1) marriage or civil unions are baked so far into our law from hospitals to power of attorney to social security, death and retirement that to excise them is to kill the patient … it just isnt going to work … marriage is who we are, libertarians would benefit from recognizing their own tone deafness here and (2) on the basis of nonlibertarian legal traditions that conservatives and liberals both agree upon: marriage is a state institution, not unlike the courts and library and police department. Marriage exists from a state point of view because (a) there will be children (b) the state needs children ( c) the state has no competency to make or raise children.

    Reform family law: yes, for the love of god we’d better. Abolish family law? May as well be colonial rebels invading Canada. Hubris is more ways than I can count.

  119. Bee says:

    @Edwin,

    Here is a mommy babe for you to date:

    http://www.jennyerikson.com/

    I bet she will sign a pre-nup for you.

  120. MarcusD says:

    Not quite true. A pre-nup cannot contemplate a divorce, else the wedding results in a nullity even before the processional music starts. Otherwise a pre-nup may be permitted to a Catholic Christian couple (but those circumstances probably don’t apply to most readers here). Ask a canon lawyer.

    Yes, I was referring to the cases being described here (and the common understanding that was had of “pre-nup”). I should have been more clear that I was dealing with a restricted definition.

  121. Anonymous age 71 says:

    There is such a thing as paralegal degree, though it may be an associate’s degree.

    But, note he seems to believe a paralegal degree will allow him to reform marriage law. Very arrogant and narcissistic.

  122. Mr. Roach says:

    Prenups can be enforceable, but they almost have no impact on child support and child custody issues, and the money and other headaches involved with that are no joke. Real money is on the line, up to a grand per month per kid, plus prenups, like any contract, vary in their enforceability by state, “public policy,” whether they are “unconscionable,” allegedly signed under durress, etc. They’re only really useful to protect large assets inherited premarriage. Everything else is probably up for grabs.

    Yes, I’m a lawyer.

  123. bluedog says:

    Agreeing here with what Mr Roach said although since it regards facts I’m not sure agreement is germane.

    What is germane though is that it’s maybe not clear to all of us who know that it isn’t clear to those who don’t that prenups are of zero value for custody or child support.

    Most states make clear in their law that custody and child support are matters of law that cannot be subordinated to private party agreement.

    States will typically use formulas for child support, no contract can reduce what you owe under the formula.

    I maintain the ends this site usually seems bent towards are best achieved by calling the bluff. Give an enthusiastic “yes!” to safe harbor laws but insist they be crafted to allow any parent regardless of gender the right to surrender parental rights and responsibilities for a specified period after birth while also holding that if either parent affirms his or her rights, he or she is wholly and unseverably
    responsible for the wellbeing of the child. If either parent presents before a court maintaining that the other parent isn’t paying their share the only question to settle is if the parent making the claim has affirmed parental rights. If they have, they have assumed full responsibility for the child, there is no transfer to enforce.

    Start talking in terms of absolute parental responsibility: you do not get to have children if you don’t own up to the responsibility. Needing someone else to pay “child support” isn’t being very responsible for your own children. The attitude that child support is tolerable as a replacement for parenting, let alone moral, is the attitude we need to combat.

    If we get there we can get to a stage where one may argue that a parent whose affirmed parental rights simply isn’t living up to his or her responsibilities, then the discussion should be about abandonment and what to do about it, but financial transfers between private parties regulated by state family courts should be what we try to take off the table. Dalrock’s whole site could just about be summarized as dealing with the resulting moral hazard of just 3-4 decades of this policy.

  124. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Mr. Roach says:
    November 23, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    >>Prenups can be enforceable

    Yes, indeedy. And marriages can be until death do us part. Yet we have a 50% divorce rate in the US.

    >>Real money is on the line, up to a grand per month per kid

    That is one area where I do not know all state laws. But, in many states I do know there is no real limit. Wealthy men have often been ordered to pay tens of thousands of dollars a month in child support. And, in most states, child support is a percentage of income, with no upper limit. (Though I think there was one state in recent years which finally did set a limit, by order of the Appellate courts of that state.

    >>They’re only really useful to protect large assets inherited premarriage. Everything else is probably up for grabs.

    Even that is not guaranteed. I encountered cases where pre-owned property was ‘protected’, but then the judge said, “Well, that inherited money ‘frees up’ his basic income.” And, then ordered very large child support and alimony payments, virtually equal to his full current income, which essentially gave her the inherited money in the long term.

    >>Yes, I’m a lawyer.

    Let me state my opinion very clearly here. No personal disrespect intended, however much occupational disrespect definitely intended. I was a member of a labor union for 31 years. I know labor unions. I can smell their vile odors far away.

    And, ABA and AMA and other ‘professional’ organizations are nothing but labor unions. Except they do not need strikes to enforce their guild protections. They have the political power to simply make it illegal to do their jobs. And, quite frankly, most of them aren’t very good at their jobs.

    People are too afraid of them. I taught over 1,600 divorced/ing men what was involved in the divorce process. And, I did so without practicing law. For example, I can tell anyone that if you drive faster than the law allows, you can be given a summons, or in some cases even arrested. And, I can tell them the probable fine or sentence they might get.

    And, just so, in divorce, I can tell a man, “This and this will happen during most divorces. And, men had better supply their attorneys with this and this. And, they had better not do this and this. And, this and this are decisions you may have to make, and these are the reasons you may choose this and that.”

    Some smart-aleck attorneys try to tell people like me we can’t even talk about court procedures with men. They are wrong. (Except perhaps in Texas, which is a state of braggarts and cowards who let the lawyers own the state.) It is called huffing and puffing, as in the Three Little Pigs. Intimidation, trying to frighten us.

    What we cannot do is hold ourselves out as practicing law. Nor can we make out legal papers for men. Nor can we represent them.

    In my state at the time they even let our officers accompany poor men with no money for attorneys, into the court room, and whisper advice to them. But, our officers could not speak out at all, never. And, usually our officers got better results than the so-called lawyers. Because we knew what we were doing.

    One night a man called me and said he desperately needed some papers made out, but had not a cent to his name for an attorney. I told him I could not do so, he’d have to figure them out for himself. Before we got done talking, he offered me $100 to make out the papers for which he had not a cent to his name. He was either a lawyer who was trying to get us arrested, or a detective hired to try to get us arrested. I am most definitely the Third Little Pig. I knew what he was, in seconds.

    I can see why they wanted us to be arrested. But, to properly show why, I’d have to share the things I said about those scalawags, in op-eds. I was not nice.

  125. Pingback: Linkage: Stadium Love Edition | Patriactionary

  126. bluedog says:

    @Anonymous age 71 November 23, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    It all ends up being about how we fairly distribute capital in a market doesn’t it?

    Well, that and the difference between those who have that not so secret secret figured out and those who squeal “no redistribution!”

    “Braggarts and cowards who let lawyers run the state”.

    Indeed, but a phenom not limited to Texas I’m affraid.

  127. I expected divorce shortly after I got married, so I researched it well, and stayed current on state laws of wherever I was living.

    The fourth time wasn’t haaaaapy and I grew tired of courting her to woo her back, I drew up all the necessary documents and trotted with the wife to the court house.

    Unfortunately, most men I see screw themselves in divorce listen to neither intelligent friends nor their attorney. It’s simply too much to ask a man to tell him to start viewing his wife as a mere legal adversary, as you would an insurer who’s being slow about paying a claim when a tree falls onto your car.

    In short, men these days must choose not to love their wives if they want their marriages (or post-divorce families with children) to have any modicum of success. This is truly the false scriptures we are asked to believe in 2013: “Men, do not love your wives, even as satan hates the church and plots her destruction.” “Husbands, submit to your wives, even as the church wishes Christ would submit to her.” “But I do not permit a man to speak in church.” “Let no divorced men under the age of 60 not be remarried, or else he may be tempted to go his own way.” “It is better to be married than to remain as I.”

  128. @Edwin

    Why do you believe a marriage licence is necessary whatsoever? A good test for a virtuous wife is one who doesn’t require you to sign unfair contracts.

  129. Edwin says:

    @AarontheJust

    I want the parental rights that come with marriage. However, I think it is pretty clear that below a certain income it’s better NOT to get legally married. The only problem in that comes that you also have to not tell people you consider yourself married, less a common-law mariage gets applied to you. What the guy and his wife tell each other is up to them.

    For my case I’m planning on making some money, hopefully more than would qualify me under what I just described as “below a certain income”

  130. Edwin says:

    //But, note he seems to believe a paralegal degree will allow him to reform marriage law. Very arrogant and narcissistic

    what, why? How? It’s just a start to learn the law and learn how to research it. There are no laws that require that the laws be written by lawyers, at least not that I’d ever heard of. For the recent anti-gay marriage propositions, I doubt they really used lawyers to any huge extent for the propositions they wrote.

    //Interesting, Edwin. You admit you know absolutely nothing about the law, though you may not realize that is what you are saying. Yet you perform instant judging of anything we present to you.

    No, I said that what you wrote was very trite and not very helpful without actual statistics on how often pre-nups are overturned. You guys keep screaming hystrionically about the fact that pre-nups can be overruled by any judge at any time in theory, but are not providing data on how often or why this happens. You seem more focused on trying to make everyone agree with you that mariage is a horrible losing proposition than you are on providing actual information.

    And you still haven’t taken my advice to CALM DOWN. You keep attacking me when all I asked for was more details/info, and didn’t take your exploded claims to heart immediately because I wanted said details.
    No wonder marriage hasn’t worked for you two/three guys.

  131. Opus says:

    There is a reason that lawyers – specifically those who practice as Parliamentary Draftsmen (there must be an American equivalent) write laws: they do so for the same type of reason that Composers write music and Artists paint portraits; Composers understand Harmony, Counterpoint, Orchestration and Structure; Artists, Colour, Perspective and Figure; in the case of the lawyers, they have studied law, and understand what is required to make – hopefully – clear, unambiguous, coherent, legislation, pursuant to the instructions of their political masters. John Adams, of Braintree MA a lawyer and for a while Chief Justice in Massachusetts drafted (and with great skill) your declaration of Independence. There is another type of lawyer (Law Reporters) who write the reports that becomes Case Law; they similarly specialise in doing just that so that the decision of the Justices are adequately and clearly reported and cases are only citable in court as precedent if so appropriately reported.

  132. @Edwin, marriage confers zero parental rights whatsoever.

    An unmarried dad is in a much better negotiating position than a husband.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    in the case of the lawyers, they have studied law, and understand what is required to make – hopefully – clear, unambiguous, coherent, legislation, pursuant to the instructions of their political masters.

    Clear, unambiguous, coherent? Oh, my, you’ve never read any US law, have you?

  134. Opus says:

    As it happens Anonymous Reader I have read a certain amount of American Law – hours spent in the Library of Congress on Capitol Hill – especially The Alien Tort Act of 1797 which is a masterpiece of clarity having as it does, if I recall correctly, just two clauses and its preamble. I also used to understand how to use Shepherds (Novaseeker will explain)! – we have nothing like it in England.

  135. TFH says:

    Opus,

    The examples of John Adams and Alien Tort Act are from 200+ years ago. As masterpieces, they enabled American exceptionalism to continue for an unusually long time.

    Today, lawyers are far too powerful in America. They take in 10% of GDP (more than in any other nation), and laws are written in a way that ensures lawyers are needed in matters that previously did not need them. There are many lawyers in America who earn $1M/year, who would not earn more than $200K/year had they chosen any other profession…

    For one thing, the brutal range of ‘feminist’ laws in America are not just in violation of the US Constitution in many cases, but are ideally designed to enrich divorce lawyers, criminal defense lawyers (even a false rape accusation of the flimsiest sort is a huge windfall for a defense attorney), etc. There are 3x more lawyers per capita in the US than in Japan.

    Also, lawyers have a monopoly on politics. About 100% of Democrats (and perhaps 75% of Republicans) are lawyers by training.

  136. sunshinemary says:

    I have written a response to some of Mrs. Erickson’s claims about her divorce being God’s plan. Feel free to quote this essay if it is helpful to you when you encounter faithless Christian women like Mrs. Erickson:

    God never tells a woman to violate His commandments, not even if she is really, really unhappy.

  137. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    As it happens Anonymous Reader I have read a certain amount of American Law – hours spent in the Library of Congress on Capitol Hill – especially The Alien Tort Act of 1797…

    In that case, I commend to your attention the Federal Firearms Act of 1968 (as amended), and if that is still a model of clarity, the Affordable Care Act (it exceeds Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” in length). They don’t write ‘em now like it was 1797.

  138. MarcusD says:

    @TFH

    Not quite.

    This list contains the names of 169 Representatives, 78 Republicans and 91 Democrats, from the 113th Congress who are lawyers [by training – based on CQ Roll Call, probably]:

    http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/113_Lawyers.pdf

    Summary of Congress: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964.pdf

  139. TFH says:

    MarcusD,

    OK, the House is more a representative of the people.

    But at the top, it seems the Dems are lawyers through and through. Both Clintons, both Obamas, John Edwards……how many Dems who are pretty high up in the party are not lawyers?

  140. MarcusD says:

    Yes, I’ll grant you that.

    And overall, most Democrats are/were in the “softer” professions like education, law, social work, community organizing, etc. Republicans are far more likely to be engineers or doctors (“useful professions”).

  141. Opus says:

    Happily we are not so lawyer infested over here and our acts of parliament are shorter (but we cheat by having statutory instruments which no one ever reads). Prime Minister Cameron is not a lawyer and neither was his immediate predecessor. Most of the Cabinet all went to school together (Eton) and then on to Oxford to read PPE, and to give you an idea of the standard of education that entails; on Letterman, Cameron was unable to translate the phrase Magna Carta from Latin into English. Duh

    Brianicus Ejut Domus as you all wrote in 1776.

  142. TFH says:

    Opus,

    For someone who is a lawyer in the UK, you might as well have relocated to the US and gone to law school here.

    Whatever you earn in the UK, I can safely say the US lawyer doing the most comparable work here, earns 3x to 4x as much.

  143. Opus says:

    Money does not bring happiness and neither do hot women (even if they provide momentary pleasure), and so TFH, I was born here and trained here, have no political affiliations or ambitions, or any desire to return to the United States for purposes financial or sensual. Anyway, you don’t get to wear a very fetching Wig plus Gown, Tabs or Wing-collar anywhere in America or dine in a Hall once played in by a certain William Shakespeare and his merry band of thespians or indeed attend the Templar Church utilised as such in The Da Vinci code movie – neither do we stroll around court as if we were taking a constitutional but do enjoy stopping witnesses who inexplicably add ‘so help me God’ at the end of the Oath (we don’t say that). Above the Judge is a shield with the words Dieu et mon droit which I am sure I need not translate and just so you know this is serious, on each side of the shield are two animals a Lion and a Unicorn.

  144. TFH says:

    Anyway, you don’t get to wear a very fetching Wig plus Gown, Tabs or Wing-collar anywhere in America

    Well, that is true..

  145. Edwin says:

    @Aaron the just – “An unmarried dad is in a much better negotiating position than a husband”

    Really? Not for visitation rights, I though. Without a marriage the woman could take your kids and that’s it and you have no right to see them.
    Presumably worst case scenario, there’s a divorce, I’d have to pay child suport, just as I would if we were only personally married but without the license. Either way I gotta pay child support, but having been the husband I get to at least see my kids. Is this not correct? If not I just may not get LEGALLY married, and this would clearly be the better advice across the board

  146. Anonymous Reader says:

    Edwin
    Without a marriage the woman could take your kids and that’s it and you have no right to see them.

    The same is true with marriage, as many sadder but wiser men can attest. Or you could politely ask Anonymous Age 71 if in his decade or so of activism, he ever encountered such a case.

    Presumably worst case scenario, there’s a divorce, I’d have to pay child suport, just as I would if we were only personally married but without the license. Either way I gotta pay child support, but having been the husband I get to at least see my kids.

    While in theory visitation rights are enforced by court order, in practice it seems that is not the case. Many women don’t play too many games with visitation, but that’s personal, not a legal requirement. Thus a child that is always “at the doctor”, “out of town”, or otherwise unavailable on days when they are to see their father is not going to result in any legal sanction. The same is not true if any alimony or support checks are late – men go to prison all the time as “deadbeat dads”.

    And this scenario is the benign one. If a woman decides to take the lower road, where false accusations of DV and other crimes lie (heh), then the father may find that his visitation with his children will be supervised by agents of the state.

    But don’t take anyone’s word for it from here. Find out for yourself.

  147. @Edwin

    I have impregnated a woman I wasn’t married to before. I have lived with girlfriends before. I’ve been married before. I’ve had a child (albeit foster, hence neither my ex-wife nor I still have her) before.

    I have a friend who got his live-in girlfriend pregnant. He is a man of considerable means and is in frequent consultations with his lawyer. His lawyer strongly advised him not to marry, and said the best path is to make sure they continue to cohabit until the baby’s born. If that happens, his legal rights are identical to a husband.

    An unmarried man is in a much better position to game his child’s mother than a husband. I tell all my girlfriends I plan to get them pregnant because I want kids but don’t want to get married and I’d be totally happy raising a kid with an ex-girlfriend. Needless to say, they’re pretty diligent about staying on their birth control.

  148. The same legal concept judges use to decide all sorts of things: “I say so, and I’m the one wearing the robe, and you’re the one who has to stand up when I enter the room.”

    Sounds like legal positivism.

    Whatever the official term for it, it looks like the way law has been settled in our country since at least Roe v. Wade, probably longer.

    The last time I was in a courtroom, the judge clearly misunderstood some of the facts of the case, and I could tell by the confused looks on the faces of both attorneys that they knew it too. But we all kept our mouths shut and let him pontificate for a couple minutes, because they had already worked out the deal that they just needed him to rubber-stamp, and it would have helped no one to contradict him and possibly annoy him into scuttling the deal to remind us who holds the little hammer.

    Prenups can be enforceable, but they almost have no impact on child support and child custody issues, [….] Yes, I’m a lawyer.

    That’s been my impression: they’re enforceable, just not on the things that your average non-multi-millionaire groom would be hoping to enforce.

  149. Opus says:

    @TFH

    One reason for the greater number of and greater importance of lawyers in America occurred to me over night. I don’t propose searching for the exact Volume Book, Book or Chapter but De Tocqueville, if I recall correctly observed that as you have no Aristocracy the legally qualified in America have a significance akin to Aristocracy. Given what you say about the Democrats, indeed both of your main parties, it would seem that De Tocqueville was on to something.

  150. Opus says:

    We of course do have an Aristocracy- but what of the humble commoner: living where I do the Tory Party always parachute their rising stars into the Royal Borough as a prospective Member of Parliament. They always win, indeed have never lost and of the last three M.P.s (my time here) only one (with whom I had the pleasure of crossing legal swords – told him to get lost) was a lawyer, the next was a CEO of a major company who fancied himself as a politician – arrogant bastard I thought the only time I met him – but it transpired that being able to run a major company required different skills to those of a politician and he soon left parliament. The latest is an old Etonian who read PPE at Oxford or it may have just been Economics, I forget. He is a Cabinet Minister – as was the first – and most people seem to think well of him – my friend teaches his children ‘Cello and seems to like them and speaks well enough of his wife – an Accountant and thus part time mother.

  151. Tom H says:

    We have several varieties of aristocracy in the U.S.:

    1) the nomenklatura who are members of govt. employees’ unions,
    2) the police, who receive extra protection under the law and titles
    3) the military, who receive special benefits and titles,
    4) the entitled, who receive free benefits,
    5) members of Congress, who receive benefits and titles, and
    6) the President

    Lawyers are more like vermin. You need to call an exterminator if they multiply.

  152. Anchorman says:

    In my state, there is a clear advantage to not being married if you father a child. If married, you are automatically the legal father and legally/financially responsible for that child even if you discover another man is the biological father. It would take the mother convincing the other man to accept paternity (and financial responsibility) to relieve the husband of his legal and financial obligation.

    Unless you have a compelling religious reason to marry, you gain nothing by marrying a woman.

    As someone who was frivorced, I am not “bitter” about marriage. How can I be? A marriage is meant to glorify God. However, I will never re-enter marriage without a far more vigorous vetting of my bride. That’s if I ever decide to marry.

  153. Tom H says:

    @Anchorman

    Well spoken. Elegant and packed with useful meaning. “Vetting”!

  154. Novaseeker says:

    OK, but what about a marriage in one state, and then divorced in another state? What is the jurisdiction there? The marriage state’s laws or the divorce state’s laws? Could I live in Texas for a year to get married and come back to NJ?

    Again, the court will assert jurisdiction on the basis of where you are when you divorce. If you go back to NJ, it’s an NJ divorce, and TX law is irrelevant.

  155. DEN1 says:

    Some people just want to watch things burn….

  156. Ton says:

    In NC they will put more pressure on the never married mother to follow through on visitation agreements then they will on a divorced mother.

    Apparently divorced fathers pay child support regardless of visitation time while never married fathers payment rates are heavily tied to how often they see the child

    Yes the legal advantage is to have children out of wedlock.

  157. Opus says:

    I concur with Novaseeker at 5.16pm

  158. aaronthejust says:

    The consensus here is that fathers are best off if they aren’t legally married to a child’s mother.

    The question, then, is what should godly men do? My position is that they shouldn’t sign any marriage licences.

    If your bride-to-be freaks out about this, too bad. It doesn’t exactly need to be public knowledge, either. There’s really no utility to a marriage licence other than employer benefit plans (soon to be irrelevant with the Affordable Care Act), the legal right to divorce, and other minor non-issues.

  159. Ton says:

    Why not say your words to God and her and ignore the state contract? Fair certain the Bible never mentions needing a contract with the state government to be married

    Folks confuse our traditions with Bibical morality way to often

  160. Tom H says:

    One word why the state has to be involved in family relationships–probate.

    A second word–incest.

    A third word–divorce (ties into probate).

    Also public health, since it is dependent on healthy social policy about sex.

  161. Ton says:

    How we’re such things resolved before the almighty hand of government…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s