Now we are haggling about the price.

The Washington Post has an opinion piece up by a law professor named Irina D. Manta. The title of the piece is The case for cracking down on Tinder lies, and her thesis is:

There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.

This is an interesting claim, since the basis of our sexual morality is that no one should be expected to do anything they don’t want to do.  Our moral paradigm is that sex is for pleasure, and nothing should get in the way of women and men having sex when and with whom they want to, and nothing should compel a man or woman to have sex if they don’t desire it.

Manta isn’t arguing that women are coerced into sex they didn’t want (at the time).  She is arguing that women of a certain age stop engaging in sex for pleasure and start trading sex for the hope of obtaining financial security.  This is why she is calling it fraud and not rape, not unlike a prostitute willingly trading sex for money only to find out later that her John’s check bounced.

New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact. Lies related to physical appearance would thus typically not be punishable, while ones about marital status, fertility circumstances (say, existing children or the ability to have future children) or employment may lead to sanctions.

Not surprisingly, all of the examples she offers of sexual fraud involve older women having sex with men they were mislead into believing were attractive as potential future husbands.  As Manta notes, she understands this situation well.  She points to her own wedding announcement at the NY Times.  The announcement explains that she met her husband in 2017 via online dating, and was 37 when they married in May of 2018.  While I’m confident that Ms. Manta didn’t hit her late 30s and set out to use sex with men she wasn’t attracted to and barely knew as an enticement to bag a husband, no doubt she encountered many women who were doing just that.  I can only assume that her empathy for women who chose a different sexual strategy than she did has lead her to nobly fight to enshrine the Alpha F***s and Beta Bucks (AF/BB) strategy into law on their behalf.

…we punish low-level shoplifting, or false claims in commercial advertising, more harshly than we punish most forms of sexual deception, despite the suffering and harm to one’s dignity the latter brings. For a woman in her late 30s or early 40s who wants to marry and have children, the opportunity cost of a fraudulent relationship can add another dimension to the pain in the form of diminished fertility.

Manta argues that such a law is needed to make it safe for women to have transactional sex with men they know next to nothing about, men who are well outside their own social circles:

There have always been people who tell lies to get sex, but apps make it easy to deceive victims on an unprecedented scale, and in relative anonymity, well outside the perpetrators’ social circles.

Ironically, her complaint is that men making themselves appear more attractive for marriage (vs men making themselves appear more sexually attractive) increases women’s search costs for a husband.  Yet the very women she claims are being victimized will (as a group) have spent a decade and a half raising men’s search costs for wives.

A carouseller returning to spawn.

The male sexual strategy she wants to criminalize is what I dubbed Revenge of the Nerds back in 2010, and is a rational response to women’s AF/BB strategy:

But salmon face a unique problem.  Their route and timing are known in advance, and this makes them easy prey.

If I were a bitter beta I might decide I had a different choice other than “Take it or leave it”.  He knows women of a certain age and a history of promiscuity are going to be looking for a sucker nice guy like him to marry and settle down with.  What if he decides to con the conwoman?  All he has to do is what comes naturally to him.  He may want to learn a little game to make him seem more interesting, but he doesn’t have to move to full alpha status.

All he has to do is put himself out there in places where these women are looking for marks, and look like a better mark than the others.  Since some of the remaining betas will be manning the picket line and the alphas are busy with the new crop of carousel riders, this probably won’t be too hard.  Then he just strings her along for a while, or maybe strings several along all the while talking the provider talk and enjoying the ride.  And since she is in full blown (pardon the pun) bag a husband mode, she’s going to be giving him the best sex she can to seal the deal.  After a while she’s bound to get wise to the jig, but then another salmon carouseler should be jumping into his mouth bed to fill the void.

Novaseeker noted that Manta is getting eviscerated in the comments section, and this isn’t surprising.  To start with, she is trying to formalize the AF/BB strategy into law, but the strategy relies on denial.  Key to the AF/BB strategy is pretending that the woman didn’t shift sexual strategies once her youth and fertility were all but gone.  Such women can’t come out and say they are shifting from having sex with the kind of men they are sexually attracted to (sex for pleasure) into a strategy of having sex with men they don’t want to have sex with but think would make a good husband.  Otherwise, the man who mans up and marries a woman in her late thirties after she tires of having sex with other men looks like a chump and his bride looks like a whore!

Imagine if Bumble and Tinder created checkboxes for women to indicate that they only will have sex with men they hope to entice into marriage, and they have a strict one penis at a time policy.  This would make enforcing Manta’s law much easier, but none of the “victims” would want to check such a box.

Even worse, Manta is saying that a man’s marriage vow has substantial financial value to a woman.  Otherwise, why would she argue that a woman should be able to sue a man for $10,000 for giving her the false impression that he would be a good man to use sex to extract such a vow?  And if a fertile successful man’s potential marriage vow is worth $10,000 in sexual favors, imagine what his actual vows are worth, especially once his fertility is converted into children!  In the unimaginable event that Manta has children with her new husband and then decides to divorce him and take his assets, children and part of his income, this logic would mean that she has defrauded him and owes him a phenomenal amount of money!  He after all gave her something of great value, something she would pay $10,000 just to hope to create the opportunity for him to make such a vow.  In that case she would have defrauded him of what he hoped to receive in exchange for his vows, and she would have used her own formal vow to do so.

Related: 

H/T Novaseeker.

Bear photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Dmitry Azovtsev.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cracks in the narrative, Death of courtship, New York Times, The Washington Post, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to Now we are haggling about the price.

  1. earl says:

    I tell you what at the rate this road of widespread sexual immorality is going when it comes to women trying to get all the want (pleasure and money…marriage/morality/children optional)…being chaste is the only sane option anymore.

  2. Simple – All men need to do is chase the younger women who just want sex while avoiding all women who want to trap them – No chasing any woman over 32. (arbitrary number).

  3. feministhater says:

    M…. G…. T…. O…. W

  4. Novaseeker says:

    New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact.

    This is the part of her argument which is the most nonsensical, in my view.

    The only reason lies concerning things like financial or marital status are not “easily discoverable before sex takes place” is because the woman wants to have sex, or deploy it, very quickly, before she gets to know the person better and can vet him. In other words, she’s happy to accept that there is a need for her to vet the physical attractiveness of a person, because this is quickly and easily done when the person is met, but the rest of what the person says about himself, well she can only vet that by getting to know him better and digging around a little, doing her due diligence, before she decides to have sex. She doesn’t want women to have to do that — she wants women to be able to have sex with men they barely know at all and then sue the guy if he isn’t who he said he was. But this is completely unnecessary — the woman can choose to not have sex immediately and do some due diligence on the guy, or she can choose to have sex immediately and take her chances, but it’s totally unnecessary to give a woman a legal claim against the man for fraud in the latter case. Her comparisons to product liability and advertising laws are inapposite, because there it really *is* the case that you can’t tell the falsehood until you have bought the product … in the case of a human relationship, you don’t have to have sex in order to learn whether or not he’s actually married, actually a millionaire or what have you, in fact having sex isn’t how you will learn those things in any case — it’s totally unrelated. That is, women don’t have to pay the “currency” of sex in order to discover the lie (that’s the basis of the merchant fraud laws) — the lie is discovered in other ways, meaning that the payment of the “currency” of sex is purely voluntary and unrelated to the “fraud”.

    You’re completely right that this is an issue for older women. The 23 year olds on Tinder don’t care what the guy says about who he is, they care about his looks and how he acts when he meets them. The 37 year olds like Manta care a lot about those things, but that’s precisely why they shouldn’t be relying on what men say about themselves on hookup apps like Tinder and Bumble to base their decision to have sex with them. If they don’t want to assume the risk that he’s lying, then just slow down and do some diligence and vetting. If you don’t want to do that because you think the target will move on to the next girl, then find a different way to meet men. Either way, a draconian civil fraud regime is totally unneeded. It really is, in the truest sense of the word, a way to make the inherently risky act of hooking up safe for women (men won’t be suing women for fraud because men evaluate primarily on the basis of appearance).

  5. Jack says:

    All women who ride the carousel and postpone marriage until the end of their fertility window have already defrauded their future husbands (if any), even before exchanging vows. What’s the cash value of that?

    Should they be surprised when “what goes around, comes around”?

    In addition to her proposed fines on men for “husband fraud”, true “equality” should also demand fines for post-wall riders who saddle up a husband. Pay in cash at the altar. Better yet, let’s reinstate the dowry system.

  6. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    Once again, “no consequences for women’s own bad behavior”.

    Typical Leftist rationalizations from the WaPo and its NPCs.

  7. Joe2 says:

    New laws in the dating area are needed, but should focus on dating web sites making outrageous promises for marketing purposes.

    As an example, a California company (who will remain nameless) claims to have a huge database of men and women looking for just about anything – dating, friends, sex, fetishes, etc. Access to the database is through different web site portals which focus on specific areas of interest. The problem is that the profiles can be bogus or fake. The company even admits in small print on some of the portals that the profiles (how many?) may be for illustrative purposes and not of actual members.

    Unsuspecting and trusting individuals can be duped by the advertising to part with their hard earned dollars.

  8. Jim says:

    feministhater says:
    November 17, 2018 at 1:42 pm

    M…. G…. T…. O…. W

    You got it. It’s not rocket science.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Either way, a draconian civil fraud regime is totally unneeded. It really is, in the truest sense of the word, a way to make the inherently risky act of hooking up safe for women (men won’t be suing women for fraud because men evaluate primarily on the basis of appearance).

    It’s a way for a woman to eat cake in her 20’s and still have it in her 30’s. Thus it is completely and totally needed because reality is “not fair”, and “someone should do something”. The article is one long series of frustrated foot-stamps; she wants what she wants when she wants it and it’s the job of “men” to deliver that fried ice on time and piping hot.

    If someone wanted to kill off Tinder as a functioning social platform while pushing more men into the MGTOW camp, this old girl’s proposal is surely one way to do it.

  10. Opus says:

    Irina D.Manta

    Romanian?

    Very long nose

    Age 37

    Single (no hint of a husband)

    Wishes everyone a Happy Hannukkah.

    I predict she had an unhappy Tinder sexperience.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bill Burr. NSFW. Extremely On Topic.

    Epidemic of Gold Digging Whores

  12. JoeBob_Walker says:

    Haha, Jack stole my thunder, but Dalrock, you demonstrated how dowrys came to be!

  13. Wood Chipper says:

    Is she ok with a financial penalty on fraud against men when she turns into a dead fish after marriage?

  14. Lexet Blog says:

    Funny how close she is to some biblical truths: it is wrong to defraud someone sexually. The Old Testament made it a crime to have sex with a maid, and not marry her. It also made it a crime to marry off a non virgin daughter (while promising she was).

    In the NT, husbands, as well as wives, are commanded to not sexually defraud one another.

  15. Jean says:

    Gee, if casual sex with essentially random, unknown people were a good thing, there wouldn’t be all these problems.

  16. Jacob Smith says:

    She’s already been through one mariage and divorce payout:

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hey, she’s not just a law professor, she’s a member of the Federalist Society.

    Legally and culturally conservative woman on Tinder who wants to lock down Beta Bucks, with lawfare if required.

    How Traditional of her…maybe she can pair up with a celebrity pastor like Matt Chandler or John Piper or Doug Wilson to write a book on the topic. Or make a video with Dennis Prager on how irresponsible the men of Tinder are to the Good Women of Tinder. Not like Ward Cleaver at all!

    There is some definite money to be made here. Some gold to be dug up…

  18. S. Chan says:

    “In the unimaginable event that Manta has children with her new husband and then decides to divorce him and take his assets, children and part of his income….”

    Dalrock, you are one of the great satirists of our time! I consider myself fortunate to be able to read your blog.

  19. Dalrock says:

    Thank you S. Chan.

  20. Fiddlesticks says:

    Hilarious that Manta starts out by declaring that she’s not out to prosecute men who lie about their looks, then the very first example she links to involves a UK woman who got duped by a man who used a MOVIE ACTOR’s picture as his avi!

    Brb lads, I’m chatting with a girl who looks JUST like Emily Ratajkowski…

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Jacob Smith

    Incredible. That wedding announcement is dated May 6 of this year. Six months ago she got married to her Beta Bucks. Now she’s bitching about men’s behavior on Tinder? What, her divorce payout wasn’t enough, or she’s still married but running on Tinder? Something else? But oh, “Mah Rule Of Law!” Federalist Society!

    We may have the poster girl for conservative feminism right here.

  22. Fiddlesticks says:

    As Steve Sailer says, “pay attention to the dogs that DON’T bark.”

    Note that she does NOT raise a peep of protest about men concealing criminal background or arrest. She’s so worked up over the idea that a man might be exaggerating his salary or sperm count, that she forgets to worry about whether he is a drunk driver, or a violent bully.

    The below article was published long before Manta met her current studmuffin, but even back in 2007 the Washington Post was wise to this problem. At the time, there was a dating site called True that claimed to perform marital-status and criminal-background checks. (Spoiler alert: True went bust in 2013.)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/27/AR2007012701210.html

  23. Novaseeker says:

    What, her divorce payout wasn’t enough, or she’s still married but running on Tinder?

    She’s on marriage 2. The last line of the NYT wedding notice says she was divorced before she married this guy (as was he). Says they met on Bumble. So clearly when she was lookkng for Husband 2, she was using hookup apps to find him, and probably she ran into some guys who sold her tales, which is why she is writing stuff like this — that’s my educated guess.

  24. Hugh Mann says:

    “I’m confident that Ms. Manta didn’t hit her late 30s and set out to use sex with men she wasn’t attracted to and barely knew as an enticement to bag a husband” – are you being overly gallant or overly sarcastic?

    @Jacob Smith – where does it say she’s already been divorced once? I must say that poor guy has the eyes of a fish that’s got a very large remora attached to it, while she looks like the predator with her prey.

  25. Novaseeker says:

    where does it say she’s already been divorced once?

    It’s at the very end of the NYT wedding announcement. You have to keep scrolling … I think most miss it at first because of how that article is laid out at the NYT. Both have been previously married, and they met on Bumble. I am guessing she was looking for Hub 2 on hookup apps and got burned a couple times which resulted in her becoming infuriated that she couldn’t rely on what people say on the internet without independent verification.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, I’m guessing that she doesn’t realize anything put up on Al Gore’s internet is forever. If she ever is nominated for a Federal judgeship the confirmation hearing could be comedy gold…

  27. Jonathan Castle says:

    Can the beta who marries a late-thirties woman sue her if she turns out to be barren? He would have been cheated out of children.

    Like a get out of marriage free card?

    Can he sue her if she has hidden her addiction to alcohol or opioids as is more and more common. Or to anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds? He would have been defrauded from a healthy, emotionally-satisfying relationship.

  28. Pingback: Now we are haggling about the price. | Reaction Times

  29. Jonathan Castle says:

    Another manosphere blogger says the Left is trying to criminalize sex. At first I thought that was extreme…but isn’t that what sexual ‘harassment’ laws, actual #metoo harassment and false accusations essentially do?

    And the divide between men and women turns into a chasm. And the fertility rate declines. And marriage 2.0 dies a slow death…

  30. PokeSalad says:

    have transnational sex with men they know next to nothing about,

    Dal, I think you mean transactional, not transnational.

  31. earl says:

    Another manosphere blogger says the Left is trying to criminalize sex.

    Funny how the left brought about the sexual revolution is also the same entity who is trying to criminalize sexual immorality.

    Well I’m not going to cry myself to sleep because wimminz thought fornication and adultery would bring them the perfect life of their dreams but instead it didn’t.

  32. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This search of Manta’s name turns up some interesting images on the first row: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Irina+D.Manta+&t=ffab&atb=v120-3__&iax=images&ia=images&iai=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2008%2F06%2F15%2Ffashion%2F15MANTA.190.jpg

    One images shows just a woman’s body (head cut off) in a sexually enticing manner. Another image shows what appears to be a much younger Manta with a more Alpha looking man.

    I don’t know who to just embed images.

  33. earl says:

    Yeah me thinks this is the lady protesting too much because her own experiences reflect what she is lamenting about.

    Here’s the younger pic of her.

  34. PokeSalad says:

    Younger or older, she’s got a face for radio. That schnozz…… *shudder*

  35. PokeSalad says:

    Funny how the left brought about the sexual revolution is also the same entity who is trying to criminalize sexual immorality.

    The (feminist) Left’s goal is to destroy men’s place in this society and place themselves at the top, by whatever means. The sexual revolution destroyed the old system, and the new ‘Puritanism” is intended to rebuild a new system on their terms. Only men can be “immoral” in this new order of things.

  36. feeriker says:

    She’s on marriage 2.

    Difficult to imagine how she hooked a husband #1. One look at her photo spells B-I-T-C-H (bold emphasized). And a lawyer to boot?! (taking a vomit break here …).

    I hope for his own sake that hubby #2 is also a lawyer. If not, then the schlub deserves all the hell on earth that he has coming to him. A non-lawyer male marrying a female of that species represents one thousand of the stupidest things any human being could possibly ever do (imagina male snake trying to pair up romantically with a female hawk).

  37. feeriker says:

    The (feminist) Left’s goal is to destroy men’s place in this society and place themselves at the top, by whatever means. The sexual revolution destroyed the old system, and the new ‘Puritanism” is intended to rebuild a new system on their terms.

    As obvious as this is, it is astounding how many otherwise intelligent people fail to even see it, much less fight back.

  38. Novaseeker says:

    Difficult to imagine how she hooked a husband #1. One look at her photo spells B-I-T-C-H (bold emphasized). And a lawyer to boot?! (taking a vomit break here …).

    Yep, but we here are in the small minority. Most guys are thirsty. Women who want to marry can easily get married provided they (1) aren’t overly picky and (2) don’t wait too long. She isn’t either — she’s already on marriage 2 at 37 means she didn’t wait long for marriage 1, and she also isn’t that picky … picky ones are on marriage zero at 37.

    Most women marry because most men are thirsty. The ones who don’t are outliers, just as we are outliers among men.

  39. info says:

    @earl

    left is the twin heresies of promiscuity and fridigity

  40. Fiddlesticks says:

    Hey, she’s not just a law professor, she’s a member of the Federalist Society.

    Great find @Anonymous Reader. Her proposal is typical “sherpa conservative” – helping leftists build a legal and bureaucratic framework to do crazy stuff, but giving them a firm lecture that they should resist all such temptations!

    So leftists say things like “any sex without ‘affirmative consent’ should be illegal, and raising your voice to your partner should be criminal domestic abuse.” Sherpa conservatives respond with, “well, we wouldn’t go THAT far, but how about making SOME kinds of lies between intimate partners punishable in civil court? As long as us FedSoc types are in power forever, this legal framework will NEVER be used irresponsibly!”

  41. earl says:

    Seems like male thirst is the biggest danger to men…even more than communism or nuclear weapons.

    The sexual revolution destroyed the old system, and the new ‘Puritanism” is intended to rebuild a new system on their terms. Only men can be “immoral” in this new order of things.

    Can’t disagree…and the more women either don’t think they are immoral or continue to get worse morally…the worse their tyranny will become. MGTOW will also grow because outside of thirsty men I don’t know any rational male who wants to be under the tyranny of the feminist bitch.

  42. earl says:

    left is the twin heresies of promiscuity and fridigity

    Well only the left would take something as great as sex and ruin it.

  43. greenlander says:

    I don’t really even get how women even think like this. The cognitive dissonance of women who get to the age of thirty-five and decide it’s time to settle down, marry their beta and have their 1.5 children still blows my mind.

    Or, better said, I actually do understand how women think like this. It took a lot of beating my head against the wall around the age of thirty and stumbling into blogs like this, but I finally figured it out. There’s no real contradiction once you ‘grok’ female psychology and the incentives in Western culture.

    At one point before I had fully swallowed the red pill, I thought it was the men who had checked out of marriage. Now it’s clear to me that the women are really the ones who have checked out. It might be summarized like this: “Women of marriageable age have no interest in marriage, and only become interested once they are past marriageable age.”

    I spent a number of years in Silicon Valley seducing women like Ms. Manta. I started quite a discussion in the comments section seven years ago on this blog:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/supply-and-demand-in-the-marriage-market/#comment-5834

    One of the things I noticed, though, when I read this post and thought about my old comments is that I made a point out of not lying to any of the women. I could of been an ideal husband for many of these early thirtysomething women I was sleeping with left and right: I had my act together, wasn’t overweight, went to the gym, was making a ton of money managing a group of engineers at a semiconductor company in Silicon Valley, had a group of cool friends that I enjoyed, and I had finally gotten quite a bit of confidence. I checked all the boxes on their lists.

    The catch was that I had no intent of marring a thirty-two year-old woman to start a family. There’s no point: it’s just too much cumulative risk (fertility problems, genetic problems, divorce risk, post-carousel loss of pair-bonding ability, etc.) Actually, in my case the divorce risk was particularly high, because I was becoming quite wealthy through my career success. They were fun to go out with and date and screw. Women know that asking about marriage too early scares men off, so they never asked my intent before I slept with them: I just played the role they wanted to see. I never ever had to actually lie to seduce these women. I don’t think I’d even be guilty under Ms. Manta’s proposed Orwellian legal system.

    It was interesting to see Bill Burr’s “Epidemic of Gold Digging Whores” linked by Anonymous Reader above. I knew plenty guys like that in Silicon Valley: who busted their ass in early-stage startups, make millions. Some made tens of millions. I saw so many of them just get *destroyed* in divorce court: they lost millions and many lost their children too. I saw it with my own eyes many times and it scared the crap out of me.

    Dalrock, I tip my hat to you. It’s hard for me to believe that you’ve been blogging for so long, and after all this time you’re still at it like a wild bull. Keep it up!

  44. freebird says:

    PokeSalad says:
    November 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm
    have transnational sex with men they know next to nothing about,

    Dal, I think you mean transactional, not transnational.

    Good catch I was stumped

  45. Fiddlesticks says:

    have transnational sex with men they know next to nothing about,

    Dal, I think you mean transactional, not transnational.

    Good catch I was stumped

    “Transnational” actually does work as well, since Manta’s new techie hubby is from Brazil, and the catfished lady in the UK thought she had enamored a man of Indian descent.

  46. Novaseeker says:

    Seems like male thirst is the biggest danger to men…even more than communism or nuclear weapons.

    The power of the male sex drive is such that it works best when it is sublimated. When it is not sublimated and remains focused, like the veritable Eye of Sauron, on sex itself, then women prevail, because in that scenario women can easily lead almost all men around by their penises. We live in a culture where there isn’t much sublimation of the male sex drive, rather the culture is inundated with things (porn, pop culture, TV, films, ambient women’s attire and behavior etc.) that work to keep the male sex drive un-sublimated and squarely focused on sex. In that scenario, women win, other than for a small percentage of men. That’s why we have the system we do — it works well to subordinate most men to women (not all .. that’s the key, because it is the men who belong to the not-subordinated group who are the ones arranging the system).

    —-

    On the substance of lying to people to get sex, of course that’s a dumb thing to do, and a weak thing to do as well. If you have to lie to get sex, you’re pretty weak, imo. However that doesn’t mean that it should create legal liability — that’s an insane idea. There is no tangible harm to the woman. Note how in her article (and she spells this out more in her law review article), she is talking about the woman “losing dignity” if she discovers she had sex with a man who was 55 instead of 45 — that’s a very intangible, iffy “harm”. It should not be the basis of legal liability — what it should be the basis for is a woman coming to grips with the basic idea that if she has sex with people she really doesn’t know well at all, they may not be what they said they were, and she has to live with that possibility if she chooses to proceed to sex under those circumstances.

  47. Jonathan Castle says:

    Earl: Funny how the left brought about the sexual revolution is also the same entity who is trying to criminalize sexual immorality.

    Well, they love immorality. Leftism is consistently just an inversion of God’s design.

    God says he made them ‘male and female’….ok, then we’ll invent 64 new genders. God said husbands are the head of the wife? Fine, we’ll establish wives as the heads of the house.

    So often the Left tells us exactly what they intend to do, and we just don’t believe them.

    When feminists say that ‘all sex is rape’, that’s actually their plan…and they’re progressing!

  48. honeycomb says:

    and the more women either don’t think they are immoral or continue to get worse morally…the worse their tyranny will become. MGTOW will also grow because outside of thirsty men I don’t know any rational male who wants to be under the tyranny of the feminist bitch.

    “Men learn from their mistakes .. th wimminz double down on theirs”

    If th wimminz want to go after fraud .. believe me .. they are the ones that should be concerned.

  49. Pingback: The Federalist Society Is Controlled Opposition | Gunner Q

  50. adam says:

    from the wedding announcement:

    Ms. Manta, 37, is a law professor at Hofstra University, where she is also the founding director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law. She graduated magna cum laude from Yale, from which she also received a law degree.

    Mr. Farini, 35, works in Manhattan as an independent mobile software developer.

    Something tells me this won’t last.

  51. greenlander says:

    Something tells me this won’t last.

    Yeah. But look at the good side: at her age, she’s unlikely to have a child. And she probably makes money than him.

    So, when they split up Mr. Farini will have neither alimony nor child support to pay, and he can just get on with his life.

  52. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    greenlander: I don’t think I’d even be guilty under Ms. Manta’s proposed Orwellian legal system.

    You would, sooner or later. Laws have a way of expanding past their original scope. Also, the law recognizes implications, innuendos, and legal constructions.

    For instance, agreement in a contract can be implied by actions or behavior. Agreement needn’t always be written or oral. (Although there are exceptions — contracts transferring real or intellectual property must be written). Courts can thus declare a “constructive contract” though one was never written.

    Libel can be by innuendo. It needn’t always be clearly stated.

    I can see a future in which Ms. Manta’s code of law, if enacted, would be expanded to include men who implied they were wealthy and intent on marriage.

    “Defendant Greenlander wore expensive suits and an ostentatious Rolex, and drove an expensive car, in a conspicuous and showy manner, calculated to catch the attention of Plaintiff Mantis, so as to give the false impression of wealth beyond his means, and thus draw the Plaintiff into an extended sexual relationship with him.

    Furthermore, Defendant spoke to Plaintiff in kind and loving tones, and sent her flowers on her birthday, which actions were calculated to give the false impression of his serious intent in forming a lasting bond in marriage.

    These fraudulent actions on Defendant’s part resulted in loss of valuable time to Plaintiff, to her financial and emotional detriment.”

  53. Novaseeker says:

    You would, sooner or later. Laws have a way of expanding past their original scope. Also, the law recognizes implications, innuendos, and legal constructions.

    Yes, that’s the expanded version — as you have laid out there, it’s like a reversion of palimony, which has largely gone by the wayside.

    But the core she is looking for now is an action if a man simply has sex and lied about, say, his age, or whether he had children (neither of which is financial), she would a legal claim for up to $10k. That’s simply insane, and it has nothing to do with gold-digging, per se. It’s just silliness and should be called out for being silly, regardless of fears about whether such a regime would morph into a renewed version of palimony. The whole idea that you have been harmed by having sex with a man who has kids as compared with one who does not is ludicrous, and should be roundly ridiculed (as it has been pretty much at the WaPo, which isn’t really a part of the sphere).

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Note how in her article (and she spells this out more in her law review article), she is talking about the woman “losing dignity” if she discovers she had sex with a man who was 55 instead of 45 — that’s a very intangible, iffy “harm”. It should not be the basis of legal liability —

    Well….the problem here is, you’re thinking like a rational human being.

    Think instead like a lawyer: visualize all the billable hours possible for Acela corridor, Chicago and West Coast white-shoe firms if UMC women could actually file a tort over “losing dignity”. Why, it makes the breach-of-promise cases of Victorian 19th century fiction pale to insignificance by comparison.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    RPL
    Plaintiff Mantis,

    Let’s all recall how the mating of the Mantis concludes…

  56. Novaseeker says:

    Think instead like a lawyer:

    Remember, I am one — many of the people lambasting her in the comments at the WaPo are as well, given how lawyer-flooded we are here. The point remains that the argument she makes is laughable legally. I do not doubt that there are some lawyers who would love to see more actions and more litigation, but most of us see this kind of thing as completely frivolous BS because most of us aren’t involved in ambulance chasing type garbage like that.

  57. Dalrock says:

    Thank you PokeSalad. Great catch! It is fixed now.

  58. Anon says:

    Make no mistake – this sort of legislation is exactly what cuckservatives will pull all-nighters to enact. It is ideally suited for them to engage in the cartoonish whiteknight grandstanding that they crave. Any and all other cuckservative ‘principles’ (from personal responsibility to small government to low tax rates) will be tossed out the window in a nanosecond.

    It is yet again appropriate to link to the Jim Gay-ratty video, where he insists that being BB is glamorous, that women are attracted to BB, and that there should be standards imposed on women at all :

    Remember that Jim Gay-ratty himself married a single mother (who might be older than him), despite already being famous. How blue-pill can a person be? Then again, a large number multiplied by zero is still zero.

  59. Dalrock says:

    @Greenlander

    Dalrock, I tip my hat to you. It’s hard for me to believe that you’ve been blogging for so long, and after all this time you’re still at it like a wild bull. Keep it up!

    Thank you. It is good to see you around and know things are working well for you.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    Think instead like a lawyer:

    Novaseeker
    Remember, I am one

    I do remember. In fact, I had that in mind when I wrote.

    — many of the people lambasting her in the comments at the WaPo are as well, given how lawyer-flooded we are here. The point remains that the argument she makes is laughable legally.

    20 years ago the idea of two men suing to be treated as “married” by some B&B was laughable, right?
    10 years ago the idea of a tranny suing for access to the women’s bathroom in a store was laughable, right?
    Shall I go on, or can we consider that what is “laughable legally” tends to…shift…over time?

    I do not doubt that there are some lawyers who would love to see more actions and more litigation,

    Yep. Billable hours. Remember Cantor & Seigel?

    It’s impossible to “lower the bar” too low for some of its members. IMSHO.

    but most of us see this kind of thing as completely frivolous BS because most of us aren’t involved in ambulance chasing type garbage like that.

    LOL! So now Not All Lawyers Are Like That is supposed to be a credible argument? Srsly?

    Am not saying she’s got anything more than law-review-stinky-bait-trolling here, but the demand for access to men by post-Wall women is only going to get worse, so….who knows?

  61. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Just discovered next year’s Oscar favorite: Boy Erased.

    From the marketing description: The son of a Baptist preacher is forced to participate in a church-supported gay conversion program after being forcibly outed to his parents.

  62. Robert What? says:

    Let’s face it: modern American marriage and divorce is very frequently the husband being defrauded by the wife in so many ways. Whenever I read about a marrying a 37 year old woman I shake my head in disbelief.

  63. Anon says:

    One thing relatively few commenters are bringing up is that this Irina D. Yenta is demanding legislation to assist the marriage/BB prospects of women on Tinder.

    She obviously does not even know what Tinder is. It is not a site meant for even medium-term relationships, let alone marriage.

    Since EVERY woman wears makeup, push up bras, leggings, etc. and this is deceiving men about her natural genetic fitness, women are bigger frauds than men, according to her.

  64. toocrazy2yoo says:

    So, Nova, Dalrock? I’m torn. A guy, having been in a target-rich environment his entire career and bagged a lot of girls one after another, implying loneliness, projecting marriage eligibility, having his way for awhile, but always tiring of her and moving on to the next woman, is this guy a fraud? Do I now owe a debt to those women who wound up only with cats?

  65. earl says:

    When feminists say that ‘all sex is rape’, that’s actually their plan…and they’re progressing!

    And if all sex is rape…all men are rapists.

    Just goes to show the hookup culture does have an expiration date.

    But like honeycomb said…wimminz don’t learn from their mistakes, they double down. Rather than realize sex is meant for marriage with your husband only with the possibility of procreation and not a means to receive pleasure/funds from strange men you meet on an app. Now they doubling down…by trying to change the meanings of terms to fit their inverted worldview.

  66. feeriker says:

    The point remains that the argument she makes is laughable legally.

    AR stole my thunder, but yeah, that’s exactly what members of the legal profession were saying not-so-many years ago about “legal arguments” that have since become law of the land. If there is one firm belief that anyone not terminally naive has abandoned, it’s the idea that anything can be so “legally laughable” as to not be made law by fiat from some politicized black-robed criminal tyrant with (what is for all practical purposes) unlimited power.

  67. Hmm says:

    Am I the only one here who sees a weird convergence between neo-Puritanism and Old Testament moral codes?

    Follow me here:

    1. All men are rapists and all sex (involving a male) is rape.

    2. If an unmarried woman was raped under OT law, the rapist had to pay her father and marry her: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” (Deut. 22:28-29)

    There’s another passage in Exodus 22:16-17 that gives the father the choice: “If a man seduces a virgin5 who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price6 for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

    So the idea is that if a man has sex with a woman, he creates an implied contract of marriage if she desires it. This contract would also stipulate his “marriageabilty” – that there would be no impediment. Otherwise, he can be forced to pay a penalty.

    (BTW, I remember when I was assigned to my Navy base in Idaho in the mid-70s, one of the first things they told us was to never claim to others that we were married to any of the local women we dated, because that would create a common-law marriage contract.)

  68. Opus says:

    It has been my experience that (for some reason) women who are the most insanely promiscuous are the ones who want to know that you are the most marriagable – perhaps so as not to trip their anti-slut defence mechanism. In that line I recall reading of an Israeli case where a Jewish woman was keen to have sex with a handsome man that she had just met but needed to be assured that her pick-up was also Jewish. Naturally, he said he was. He wasn’t; he was Arab (I can’t tell them apart either) and this was enough for him to be convicted of Rape. I confess to having done the equivalent. Believe me if a young lady keen to bed me first demanded my assent to the notion that the moon was made of cream cheese I would agree and probably add that it was also especially runny.

    We should not forget that it was not so long ago that it was possible for a woman to receive damages by way of compensation should her fiancee terminate the engagement – the unspoken rationale of course being that by that time he had sampled the goods as it were and had thought better of it. It reminds me of a tale that my Father used to tell me of an acquaintance of his who was so sued for breach of promise. The presiding Judge had awarded to the ex-fiance by way of compensation a large sum such that my Father commiserating with his friend as to the size of the award received the response ‘it was cheap at the price’ – which is why prostitutes always insist on payment up-front..

    Professor Irina (who lives in New York) is a self-professed specialist In Intellectual Property Law (what, when I was young, we modestly called Passing-Off – at that time seen as one of the less important Torts indeed the view then was that eventually there would be only one Tort – Negligence. That, as it turned out was about as spectacularly a wrong prediction as could be!). I wonder what is so attractive to the Lady Professor about Intellectual Property – no the sort of thing girls usually go in for. I also wonder whether she had an account at Tinder. I think we should be told.

  69. Rusty Shackleford says:

    There already exist dating sites that verify income levels and marital status. Anyone truly concerned about being duped already has this option available.

    Thanks to litigious nags like Irina, dating apps will inevitably have to adopt a Status Verified✔️
    Premium option.

    Which of course will be as appealing as the “healthy choice” menu at McDonald’s. Most people still go there for the greasy french fries and fake milkshakes and don’t complain to the Washington Post when they get fat.

  70. So, BLUF (at the bottom of the comments section!) is that this efficient and enterprising dame wants to codify a way to skip the altar and go straight to alimony.

    That’s not how this works, ma’am.

  71. Bee says:

    Manta is working to expand the bounds of our existing Matriarchy.

    A society can either have a Matriarchy or a Patriarchy. Complementarianism is just a middle of the road compromise which is unstable, and also short lived.

  72. Scott says:

    AR stole my thunder, but yeah, that’s exactly what members of the legal profession were saying not-so-many years ago about “legal arguments” that have since become law of the land. If there is one firm belief that anyone not terminally naive has abandoned, it’s the idea that anything can be so “legally laughable” as to not be made law by fiat from some politicized black-robed criminal tyrant with (what is for all practical purposes) unlimited power.

    This is ultimately why I think peak subjectivity will collapse us. In the movie “Bruce Almighty,” Bruce, acting as God, gets tired of all the prayer requests and simply answers “yes” to save time and hassle.

    Lawmakers and their accomplices in black robes will continue to create policies that are internally inconsistent and totally incompatible with reality until it all grinds to a halt.

  73. Otto Lamp says:

    This has already been legislated (and rejected by the courts) by the “stolen valor” law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

    “The Act was passed to address the issue of persons claiming to have been awarded military awards to which they were not entitled and EXPLOITING THEIR DECEPTION FOR PERSONAL GAIN. …the Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional…the majority held that the Stolen Valor Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”

    Lying for personal gain is protected under the first amendment, according to the courts.

  74. Otto Lamp says:

    “New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact.”

    Would they have these laws go both ways?

    How many men have you slept with?
    Do you have a venereal disease?
    Do you have fertility problems?
    What is your debt (including student debt)?
    Do your parents subsidize you (cell phone, car insurance, streaming services)?

  75. Mad_Kalak says:

    There already has been at least one case I heard about on the radio where case a man was prosecuted for lying to obtain sex, but it involved a guy filming his encounters and telling the women it was porn work, and it was a trial run. He paid for it, of course, but it didn’t lead to a career, it was just this guy running a scam on sluts.

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: I recall reading of an Israeli case where a Jewish woman was keen to have sex with a handsome man that she had just met but needed to be assured that her pick-up was also Jewish. Naturally, he said he was. He wasn’t; he was Arab (I can’t tell them apart either) and this was enough for him to be convicted of Rape.

    I suspect that legal outcome was based not on feminism, but on racism (i.e., to protect “Jewish womanhood’s racial purity”). Had a Jewish man lied to an Arab woman so as to bed her, I doubt he would have been convicted of rape.

    If you think otherwise, view this extended lecture on racism in Israel:

  77. Fiddlesticks says:

    @Otto Lamp
    Lying for personal gain is protected under the first amendment, according to the courts.

    Great catch and great point, one that even and especially FedSoc types can’t squirm out of. And the same concept applies.

    Just as the Stolen Valor ruling delineates between personal lies and lies on gov forms, it’s ALREADY illegal to lie about your marital status when applying for a marriage license. It’s ALREADY illegal to lie about your salary on your tax forms.

  78. John James R. says:

    “If th wimminz want to go after fraud .. believe me .. they are the ones that should be concerned.”

    Laughable. The second this movement/law even seems like it could target females in any way, it will be dropped.

  79. Let’s look at the next phase of fourth-generation feminism.

    WaPo: “Rachel Hollis has wooed millions of women with her book. What’s her message?”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/how-rachel-hollis–a-texas-mom-of-four–ended-up-writing-one-of-the-years-biggest-books/2018/11/10/59d3e89e-d9e1-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story.html

    Her mega-best-seller is “Girl, Wash Your Face”, a book for our time. It sells self-love to Red State women. It tells them to focus on “me, me, me.” Just what a generation of women raised as Disney Princesses wants to hear.

    I wonder if the flattening of divorce rates is just the eye of the storm. Fourth-wave feminism has penetrated some demographic segments, then consolidated. Now it might be expanding into new groups. That might be what Dalrock has been documenting. If so, soon we will see its fruits.

  80. Bart says:

    This post is right in Dalrock’s wheelhouse — perfect topic and dissected so scrupulously to expose the intent and trend behind the complaint.

    Of course if we were faithful societally to Marriage 1.0, there would be no problem because families would vet each other and there would be no opportunity for defrauding. But then women would have to corral their intrepid ovaries, and we can’t have that. For the umpteenth time, they want the deregulated sexual marketplace but with built-in protections for their side: not just a stepladder off the carousel butt a powered chairlift, with slip-and-fall torts awaiting anyone who fails to safeguard their passage.

  81. Pingback: Men who don’t commit to slavery, may go to prison in the future by user_miki – Just another WordPress site

  82. Big20s says:

    She wants to criminalize male catfishing (lying about intent, job/money/status) and normalize female catfishing (lying about age, “experience”, using misleading photos), LOL.
    I lie all the time about my mid 30s age to bag early 20s chicks, so I guess I’m off the hook by her logic hahaha.
    Good on you Dalrock for calling out the biggest fraud of all, the “till death do us part” one committed by females most of the time.
    We need revolution like the Atacama needs rain.

  83. rugby11 says:

    Tune in

  84. Fnu Mnu Lnu says:

    I wish this were in effect right now. My Ex lied to me about having been involved with a married man. I wonder how to calculate the fraud in dollars she stole from me.

  85. Opus says:

    I was both shocked and surprised to learn that the 1st Amendment covers the claiming of stolen valour: I believe however that I have the solution. When sued by a Tinder pick-up who complains that whereas one had led her to believe that one was a secret Billionaire handyman the response on her discovering that one had not a cent to ones name must of course be that one nevertheless identifies as a Billionaire – the same principle seems to have worked for Senator Warren who became the first female minority Law Professor at Harvard, Rachel Dalzel (pretty much ditto) and that Irish (sorry African) actor who gained 400k of Euro money for his theatre because he was an oppressed negro (from Dublin).

    I, in the same spirit, identify as the true and lawful King of England and my personal pronoun which all (especially Canadians) must now use when addressing me is Your Majesty.

  86. Novaseeker says:

    She wants to criminalize male catfishing (lying about intent, job/money/status) and normalize female catfishing (lying about age, “experience”, using misleading photos), LOL.
    I lie all the time about my mid 30s age to bag early 20s chicks, so I guess I’m off the hook by her logic hahaha.

    As Coach Lee Corso would say: “Not so fast!”

    Her upcoming Law review article (and law review articles are always the first step in advocacy of legal changes) specifically talks about a case where the man lied about his age, and how she things that should make him liable to a civil fine.

    Basically the things that women do (pics, weight, N) are not actionable under her proposal (of course!), but the things men do are. That’s the basic principle, because from her perspective the “loss” is that the woman spent her currency of sex without getting what she was told she was getting in exchange (a man of a certain means/age/status). It would never be applied the other way around.

  87. Lost Patrol says:

    I, in the same spirit, identify as the true and lawful King of England and my personal pronoun which all (especially Canadians) must now use when addressing me is Your Majesty.

    Very well, My Majesty.

  88. Taco says:

    Think instead like a lawyer: visualize all the billable hours possible for Acela corridor, Chicago and West Coast white-shoe firms if UMC women could actually file a tort over “losing dignity”. Why, it makes the breach-of-promise cases of Victorian 19th century fiction pale to insignificance by comparison.

    It is possible that there is a segment of lawyers who could make money on this type of case, but white-shoe law firms would not take these cases. Associates’ time gets billed out at $400/hr. Partners get billed out at $2000/hr. At $10,000 a pop, there simply isn’t enough money for these love-scorned women to take their cases to biglaw litigators.

  89. earl says:

    Would they have these laws go both ways?

    Of course it wouldn’t…it would only be to punish men. It’s the whole concept that wimminz never lie and even if they do they either get a slap on the wrist or nothing from the courts about it. Tyranny of the female.

    If their injustice ever made it to full fruition it would be illegal to be a man.

  90. Spike says:

    Perhaps the good Professor would like to examine marriage as a contract: Take marriage out of civil law and put the marital contract into corporate law. The following would cause women’s being sued for Breach of Contract:
    -Infertility
    -STIs
    -Adultery
    -Frigidity in marriage
    -Poor housekeeping
    -Addiction
    -Abandonment (also called ”no fault” divorce)
    -Looking ugly when the makeup comes off, short when the high heels are off and flat when the push-up bra comes off. They are All forms of dishonesty.

    Men who want to be married can flick the proverbial switch and live up to these. It’s women who can’t.
    And Jack (Jack November 17, 2018 at 1:44 pm) Bringing back the Dowry is a GREAT idea.

  91. Paul says:

    “New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact.”

    So finally we will be able to legally prosecute self-proclaimed virgins who turns out to be sluts!

    Cf. Dt 22:

    If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

    Purge the evil from among you… How far have we descended!

  92. John Q. Public says:

    Hmm, I wonder what legal penalty she would advocate for women who lie about their sexual history – specifically, the number of past sexual relationships. Strangely enough, I couldn’t seem to find any mention of that in her rather long thinkpiece.

  93. Paul says:

    @Spike : nice!

    – Looking ugly when the makeup comes off

    as in… ?

  94. feeriker says:

    This is ultimately why I think peak subjectivity will collapse us. In the movie “Bruce Almighty,” Bruce, acting as God, gets tired of all the prayer requests and simply answers “yes” to save time and hassle.

    Lawmakers and their accomplices in black robes will continue to create policies that are internally inconsistent and totally incompatible with reality until it all grinds to a halt.

    Ultimately all of this is an illustration of the fact that there are simply far, far too many statutes on the books at all levels of government, 95-plus percent of which are some combination of unconstitutional, unenforceable, or unnecessary.

  95. BillyS says:

    Modern law is meant to find ways to make people guilty so they can be charged when that is convenient. It serves no other true purpose, whatever people claim.

  96. Veritas says:

    There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.
    ==
    That would mean, if the laws were applied fairly, most women would be imprisoned for the deceit they routinely use and employ, most often to get men way out of her league.

  97. RobJ says:

    The courts already allow men to declare themselves to be women, and vice-versa. Let’s just extend that legal principle, so that from now on, sluts like Ms. Manta can go to court and declare themselves to be virgins.

    Because when they had sex all those other times, it didn’t really *mean* anything.

  98. RobJ says:

    By the way, why in the world would anyone mention their previous divorce in a marriage announcement?

  99. Veritas says:

    Heartiste knows the score with the lying, deceitful ways of today’s White “women”

    The Reward Of Giving Women What They Want

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/11/16/the-reward-of-giving-women-what-they-want/

  100. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    John James R.: The second this movement/law even seems like it could target females in any way, it will be dropped.

    No, it won’t. It will continue to be enforced, but only against men.

    Child custody laws, as written, usually grant equal rights to mothers and fathers. But its various components (e.g., “best interest of the child”), as interpreted, routinely grant full custody to mothers.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Interesting take down of the “all female workplace”: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1118/worldwithoutmen.html

    As Forbes wrote in 2012 on inter-employee harassment, “Women make much nastier office bullies than men, says psychologist Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the [Workplace Bullying] Institute.” This behavior is “particularly vicious among working women,” informs Forbes, and ranges “from playing favourites to badmouthing colleagues” to undermining other women’s careers (and men’s, too).

  102. Gary Eden says:

    It seems that if women had their druthers, they’d make it law that a woman could legally compel a man to marry her.

    But ya, bring back dowry and enforceable marriage contracts.

  103. info says:

    @Gary Eden

    Thoughts on the bride price system of the Old Testament?

  104. Pingback: We need more government regulation of dating! - Fabius Maximus website

  105. Paul says:

    “Women make much nastier office bullies than men”

    That’s why even some of my FEMALE colleagues hate to have a female boss, and actually prefer to work in an environment where the majority are men, or at least their boss is a man. They recognize that females can be really nasty.

  106. feeriker says:

    By the way, why in the world would anyone mention their previous divorce in a marriage announcement?

    Given how corrupt and ultimately valueless marriage is under Module 2.0, why wouldn’t anyone mention their previous divorce? It certainly doesn’t appear to attach any stigma.

  107. Scott says:

    This is just another example of how “strong” women want to weaponise the courts against men (lets you and him fight). This all began with female suffrage and it won’t end until men are confined to ghettos waiting for their callup for “Universal Sexual Service”. Or just maybe we will get smart and take our power back but I doubt it.

  108. Scott says:

    What precludes all of us from legally declaring ourselves “women”? Don’t we then receive the equal protection we deserve under the current laws? I don’t necessarily have to wear a skirt and have sex with men in order to legally change my gender, do I? Or does the system have some way of punishing such a cynical move?

  109. Paul says:

    @Scott

    Who says you can’t be a lesbian woman?

  110. Paul says:

    @Scott

    Once you can change legally race too, make that black lesbian woman to fully cash in on all “unprivileged” benefits.

  111. Bruce says:

    Off topic but Dalrock I think you and your readers will find this article useful:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-criminalization-of-masculinity/

  112. earl says:

    This quote fits well in the feminist tyranny.

  113. Lost Patrol says:

    RPL

    Interesting take down of the “all female workplace”:

    At least the Forbes article was able to include the perennial concept that men make women worse than they would be. This is actually a religious doctrine of sorts (see Complementarian) making its way into the secular culture. Or is it the other way ’round?

  114. Paul says:

    @Bruce

    Interesting article:

    “It is well established that men and women commit violent acts in the home in roughly equal numbers, [..]. Such facts have not prevented feminists from whipping up public hysteria over “domestic violence,” for which men are presumed to be exclusively responsible. [..] Here again we see the quasi-Marxist assignment of criminal guilt to categories of people rather than the individuals who commit particular illegal acts. [..] Such violence need not be violent: criticizing, name calling and denying money are now officially listed as forms of domestic violence..”

    Criticizing, name calling, denying money are domestic violence (by men only of course). Wow!

  115. Robert What? says:

    Many here, including our beloved Dalrock have observed that in fact it is the husband who is most often the defrauded one. Unfortunately the law in general requires consideration in the marriage contract only from the husband. The idea that a wife has any obligations or responsibilities toward the husband – despite the marriage “contract” would be considered null and void by most divorce judges.

  116. Vortigern says:

    I think that the Dean’s reasoning is muddling the issue of sex with the issue of wasted time.

    Suppose that a married man deceptively strung along a marriage-seeking woman without ever having sex with her (set aside for now why he’d do such a thing–maybe he just didn’t get to that part yet). Would the Dean still argue that the defrauded woman was due some damages? If not, why not? It seems that the supposed injury to the woman would still exist, regardless of whether sex was involved in the transaction.

  117. ChristianCool says:

    If you want to be legalistic and technical about it, lying on Tinder or directly to another person to obtain something (cash, trust, sex, etc) can be cause for a civil action for “fraud in the inducement”.

    Let’s say a printing company lies to a potential client about having machines that can print 10,000 ads per day for the client, which is a marketing firm that needs 10,000 new printed ads made daily. The marketing firm hires the printer and later finds out that the printer can only print 5,000 ads per day. The Marketing firm can sue the printer for “fraud in the inducement” for using deception to induce the marketing firm to hire them knowing they could not deliver in promise.

    An argument CAN be made in civil court for lying to get a benefit from a man or a woman. The potential for suing another person goes both ways, men and women alike could be sued for saying, writing, or making promises and assertions about oneself to gain something of value.

    For example, a 400lbs woman posting fake pictures of a thin girl on Tinder to induce the man to come meet her on an expensive date where man prepaid for reservations, for instance. The man wasted time, gas, energy, and mental anguish (I know, I know) 🙄 and sue the fat woman for “fraud in the inducement”.

    What are the REAL damages? None really that would make sense litigating, but FemiNazis are called FemiNAZIs that for a reason. ❗ They want to hurt men and destroy them using any tools available. These are mentally deranged people.

    Finally, in many States, like Florida, oral (verbal) contracts can be enforced by the courts. It is problematic and no sane civil litigation lawyer would take the case unless paid upfront by client to file a lawsuit in such matters, but a woman could theoretically sue a man for “promising marriage” if they have sex X number of times and so forth based on “verbal promises”.

    There can be no end of litigation, depending on the Plaintiff’s resources and ability to pay an attorney to file lawsuits against the Defendant. The sky is the limit when it comes to filing harassing frivolous lawsuits to hurt people and cost them money to defend such lawsuits (like the Church of Scientology often does).

    There is a reason America has more active practicing lawyers then the rest of the world combined. Lawyers do not “find work”. They CREATE work to benefit themselves all the time. That is why we have the legal system that we have and the flurry of frivolous lawsuits as you all very well know about.

    My legal hat is off now. 😉

  118. ChristianCool says:

    @ Robert What?

    Men are defrauded by women ALL the freakin’ time. Think about her vows at marriage; they are a verbal contract with witnesses present at ceremony. If she knowingly marry a man with every intent to divorcing him (heck, she may be cheating already during engagement and throughout marriage). That is fraud in the inducement as I explained in my post above.

    How about paternity fraud, tricking a man to sign a child’s birth certificate knowing the child is someone else’s child or being almost certain is some other man’s child? That is also fraud. These women trick some fool to sign the birth cert for child, effectively punishing the man with legal liability of child support for 18-26 years. That is fraud, but almost never litigation because the defrauded man (victim) cannot afford a civil lawyer to sue in civil court, separate from family law court. He has been cleaned out in the divorce in Family court.

    I am attending law school because I intend to run a man’s legal clinic on the side to sue women in civil court for all sorts of things. I believe in turning the weapons of the enemy against them. 99.999999% of civil lawyers would not touch such cases (men suing women for all sorts of things in civil court) because the chance lawyer has to get some money under a “no recovery, no fee” (contingency fee case) is very low. So civil lawyers will only use an “hourly fee” (meaning the man has to put a substantial cash retainer up front for case to go forward) and most men cannot afford to do so, so they never sue and never have justice. I will work weekdays and run my “side firm” on side, knowing my chances of collecting from woman are low, but do it with goal to change women’s behavior and fighting back against this corrupt system. If men had access to a “contingency lawyer” to sue in civil court, it could change the legal equation in men’s favor or at least bring some semblance of justice to men again.

    I believe if men could sue women for “paternity fraud”, whether married to woman or not, and to demand cash damages from woman for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” would be useful, even if hard to litigate. One issue I will need to overcome is that many divorce settlements have a clause stating that “family court retains jurisdiction regarding all matters arising from the marriage, partnership, divorce, etc etc”.

    But I am willing and ready to fight for men in court. I may very well start a legal trend here (just as past lawyers started trend of collecting nuisance settlements for fender bender auto injuries using contingency fee system) and hopefully effective positive change, since our legislators are a buncha cowering pansies.

  119. EPP says:

    @Christian Cool

    I think you are probably correct in the belief that this mess of lawfare can only be peaceably resolved through reverse lawfare.

    In general, I’d be willing to donate some of my spare time to that sort of effort. Put myself through school as a legal secretary, might as well dust that skillset off for something of value.

  120. Novaseeker says:

    I think you’d have a hard time making a “fraud in the inducement” claim where the underlying contract into which one is alleging one was induced is a contract for the provision of sex (which is what Manta is talking about by comparing the situation to the Lanham Act) — that’s an illegal contract, and therefore the contract itself is not enforceable due to illegality. That makes a fraud in the inducement claim likely problematic, unless there is an actual pecuniary (financial) loss involved — in which case one would characterize the underlying contract as not a contract for sex, where the woman was defrauded out of “spending her sex” on the man, but as a contract where the woman was defrauded out of spending that sum of money, which she is trying to claim back. In other words, the courts won’t look kindly on the idea that the provision of sex is “something of value” in a fraud in the inducement case, because that’s basically enforcing a contract that was illegal to begin with (the exchange of sex for something of value is prostitution and illegal) and therefore unenforceable as a matter of law. It’s like hiring someone to kill your spouse, but then suing them for fraud in the inducement when it turns out they aren’t actually hit-men, and lied about that to get your money. I mean you can try, but I don’t think that suit will get very far.

    In any case, what Manta is arguing is for is civil penalties so that if a woman has sex with a man and it turns out he lied about his age or financial status he has to pay a civil fine of 10k, because her “dignity” was damaged.

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    In any case, what Manta is arguing is for is civil penalties so that if a woman has sex with a man and it turns out he lied about his age or financial status he has to pay a civil fine of 10k, because her “dignity” was damaged.

    Remember, that’s her maximum….at least for now. It could be that not every woman’s dignity checks in at $10,000, some might only be $5,000 or even less. Quantifying this should be interesting, what’s the unit? Are there such things ad micro dignities that are damaged by micro aggressions? Enquiring minds want to know.

    Definitely there should be public hearings on this , the more public the better. CSPAN 3 for sure. Or at least a law skool moot court could be used to explore how to monetize any given woman’s “dignity” to at least a first approximation / order of magnitude.

    Or the whole “dignity” issue could be defined up front in the Terms Of Service (TOS) for online matchmaking apps. Even better, some enterprising man could write up his own TOS with a variation of the usual “By clicking on this you accept the TOS in total” boilerplate language, and include that in his online profile. Could legal hijinks ensue? I dunno.

    But what if….Some player’s TOS vs. a gold digger’s civil complaint, get your popcorn…

  122. Damn Crackers says:

    With all the debauchery that has been made a virtue today, how the hell is prostitution still illegal?
    Paying $20 for a hand-job is downright quaint nowadays.

    Seriously, the chat above asks how the left can be both promiscuous and aesthetic. Remember, the Gnostics were of both of those thoughts too. You had schools that forbade marriage and all sex (and meat) and others into free-love, all sorts of sex, etc.

    Likewise, all the occult knowledge morality following the “left-hand path” usually means pederasty and getting boned in the *ss.

  123. DR Smith says:

    Meanwhile, it looks as if younger men may soon be getting a reprieve from the guilty until proven innocent “rape” culture that was in vogue on college campuses the last few years:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/devos-keeps-her-promise-on-campus-due-process-1542577788

  124. Nick Mgtow says:

    Damn Crackers says:
    November 19, 2018 at 12:20 pm
    With all the debauchery that has been made a virtue today, how the hell is prostitution still illegal?

    If it happens on the women’s terms, good:
    marriage, good; breaking her marriage vows, good.

    Online dating like Match.com or Tinder, short term or long term sex, good!

    If it happens on the man’s terms, which means he gets laid when he wants, without being sneated on for free drinks or free meals, if he doesn’t suffer a marriage then a divorce, it’s NOT good!

    There always must be a pimp of the man’s money (Match.com, the state through the woman who marries and divorces him), and his results must NOT be guaranteed.

    The man has to take a blind bet! The women can do as they feel!

  125. Ray6777 says:

    A 47 year old woman in the UK with 3 kids won a lawsuit against a dating agency for not getting her the very rich man of her dreams. She’s a real prize. I would assume there are services like that in the US though I don’t think most wealthy men are looking for older women.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/15/not-enough-fish-woman-successfully-sues-dating-agency-seventy-thirty

  126. Mountain Man says:

    Damn Crackers,

    Please forgive my correction. Not trying to be the grammar police (at least not much), but in your second paragraph above, I think you meant to use ascetic, rather than aesthetic.

  127. Spike says:

    Paul says:
    November 18, 2018 at 8:07 pm
    @Spike : nice!
    – Looking ugly when the makeup comes off
    as in… ?
    Paul: WHAT THE HELL is that rubber peel thing? I’ve never seen that before.
    My advice to all young men is: take her swimming at least once before escalating your relationship, so that you can see her without fake prosthetics….

  128. Paul says:

    @Spike

    Well, implants don’t come off with swimming

  129. Damn Crackers says:

    @Mountain Man – Yes. Thank you Mountain Man. And curse my reliance on spell correct.

  130. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Nick Mgtow, I love those women’s “advice” on what lunches to make for a husband:

    ‘Our advice is to stop making his lunches,’ one wrote.

    ‘Whatever he could be bothered to make himself, which is nothing, so he doesn’t eat lunch. All is fair in love and war,’ another said.

    Marriage is “love and war”? These women assume that when they marry, they go to war against their husband? I thought a married couple were supposed to be fighting on the same side?

    ‘I was married for twenty years and my favourite packed lunch for my husband was called a Get it Yourself with a side order of I’m not your mother,’ another posted.

    Another chimed in: ‘He was a grown single self sufficient independent man before we met… why does he get lucky (aka get a slave) and I don’t?!?! It’s enough with our children, don’t need another child, need a husband!’

    One said: ‘I think this post could have gone a totally different way if the word ‘Hubbie’ wasn’t used – lunch ideas are always welcome and people have lots of great suggestions. No need to mention who the lunch is for because that shouldn’t really be relevant.’

    And another wrote: ‘Imagine how many men post FB threads asking for tips on ironing their “wifey’s” blouse?’

  131. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    AI is sexist and racist: https://nypost.com/2018/11/19/artificial-intelligence-is-racist-sexist-because-of-data-its-fed/

    Artificial intelligence is “shockingly” racist and sexist, a study has revealed. … However, the team was able to adjust the system to make sure it was less biased.

    So much for AI being the end of feminism. AI can be “adjusted” to be more feminist.

  132. Paul says:

    Artificial Intelligence is the next big leftist totalitarian scam we’re being fed.

    A.I. is nothing more than wading through tons of data and making selections based on algorithms. Guess who designs these algorithms, and guess what happens when feeding these algorithms biased data? These are developed by well-known ultra-left companies like Google. Governments will hide their undemocratic decisions behind the label of “expert AI has determined that…”

    Watch how this is already being pushed like some inevitable future. They hope people are stupid enough to not question something they do not understand fully.

  133. Opus says:

    @Paul

    I await to hear what our Anon has to say about that. You may be right and it seems to me that evolutionary science proceeds on the basis of drawing exaggerated conclusions from wishful thinking. In fact, I am coming to the view that all science is an hypothesis upon a delusion.

  134. earl says:

    Marriage is “love and war”? These women assume that when they marry, they go to war against their husband? I thought a married couple were supposed to be fighting on the same side?

    Apparently these women would rather fight than love.

  135. feministhater says:

    I love it when wives post their absolute ‘love’ for their husbands by denigrating them into nothing more than a paycheck and a utility. Oh man, ladies, keep it up! Show your husbands the love they so richly deserve and never, ever, ever think of making them something so simple as a lunch for when they go and work for you and your family. Yep, thank you.

    You’re just so ‘loving’ towards your husbands that making a simple lunch is just too hard and too oppressive. Lol! I luv it!

  136. feministhater says:

    You go grrrrrlS!!! Fuck yeah! ‘Emerrika!

  137. feeriker says:

    Marriage is “love and war”? These women assume that when they marry, they go to war against their husband? I thought a married couple were supposed to be fighting on the same side?

    Are you kidding? That whole “wives being loving helpmeets to their husbands” bullshit was sexist oppression for doormats! Get with the 21st century, pal! /sarc

    Ditto FH’s comments above. It’s just amazing how today’s Americunts so enthusiastically advertise their awfulness as human beings. The really unbelievable thing is that there are still men out there who actually buy (think of a candy store that advertises lumps of dog shit in place of gourmet chocolate and that actually manages to convince people to buy it).

  138. Mr. E says:

    Speaking of fraud, what about the wives who use sex as a form of control towards their husbands? If adultery is punishable by divorce, then so should not giving up the goods. If marriage is the only place that sanctioned sex takes place, and men have bought into the deal wholly, any fraud perpetrated by the wives should have consequences.

  139. BillyS says:

    Anyone who adores AI doesn’t realize it is just a retread of a 30 year old idea. It was big when I was in college and is big now. It hasn’t changed, computers are just faster and have more memory, so they can sort through far more data far more quickly.

    The results are dependent on the algorithm, so the idea that it will break feminism is naive. Think of how many computer models said we would all be flooded (global warming) by now if men didn’t stop influencing the environment. The models had bad assumptions and we have not all been flooded yet. (Though real soon now for that if we don’t bow down to the control freaks who don’t even act like they believe their models. OT, but relevant to show the “garbage in, garbage out” principle is alive and well, even in AI.)

  140. Random Angeleno says:

    Garbage in, garbage out everywhere we look when one really thinks about it.

    It’s incredible to see too many women still think only of themselves when married. As said above in different ways, whatever happened to standing side by side, facing the world together? Just another front in the war on ‘toxic masculinity’.

  141. Gaza says:

    If the culutre is allowed to continue unimpeded by men, the law will eventually find a way to relieve women of the poor outcomes of their sexual choices. Its not that far-fetched.

    We already grant Constututional rights to foriegn invaders and where that goes a bridge too far we simply reclassify the right (desire) in question as a Human Right. Not long before all women have the Human Right to their beta bux.

    And its not coincidental that the same males who erase sovereign borders to signal their piety to the gods of Progress are the ones who erase masculinity to accomodate the whims of the female sexual strategy.

    The legal argument in her proposition is retarded, but what is interesting is that in her pursuit of legislating male compliance so women can stick the af/bb landing, she is forced to reveal two things.

    First, women have an expiration date. Fertility is finite. Her value proposition for damages presumes a depreciating asset. So the value (cost) of her fertility actually goes up as it approaches zero.

    Perishable female value is a no-no in our culture.

    Second and related is the notion of opportuntity cost. Feminism 3.0 or whatever we are up to spends a great deal of effort to obfuscate this reality.

    The narcisistic feelz culture of insta everything needs to keep opportunity cost underground. Her plan drags it into plain view as it is the basis for her economic damages.

    So perhaps a silver lining of this insanity is that it shines a light into a couple of darkened corners.

    And as for misrepresentation, every single woman i have met over the past 10 years has lied about her past sexual and relationship history and/or male “friends” in her life. Every one. “Good” girls and sluts alike.

  142. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS: Think of how many computer models said we would all be flooded (global warming) by now if men didn’t stop influencing the environment.

    Remember Carl Sagan’s prediction that the Gulf War would create a Nuclear Winter?

    During the Cold War, computer models predicted that a nuclear war would fill the atmosphere with smoke, blocking the sun, and causing a Nuclear Winter. And Sagan warned that, should Saddam set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire, it too would fill the world’s atmosphere with smoke, creating a similar Nuclear Winter effect.

    Well, Saddam did set the oil fields on fire. And no Nuclear Winter. And nobody — nobody — called out Sagan on his daffy computer models.

  143. Opus says:

    I have long learned to take no notice of Cassandra-like predictions. In my short lifetime we were firstly going to be nuked and the entire planet destroyed, then it was predicted that Europe would run out of Food by 1972, a similar fate was to befall those who relied on Oil, then came Global Winter; everything was going to get colder, then it was going to get warmer; unbearably so, AIDS was going to ravage the Heterosexuals, and the crash of 2008 was going to cause a 1930s-style depression. So it went on – a friend of mine not unfamiliar with the Soviet Union tells me that he was nearly assaulted when he informed a British Army officer that the Russians would not get six miles before their tanks ran out of petrol [gasoleen], Saddam Hussein’s pretorian guard was also going to destroy invading American troops.

    I predict that bad things will happen but that no one will accurately predict what they might be.

  144. Otto Lamp says:

    There have been several AI projects shutdown, because they were giving accurate, instead of politically correct, recommendations.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45809919

    Amazon’s recruitment AI was favoring men: “Reuters was told by members of the team working on it that the system effectively taught itself that male candidates were preferable…They literally wanted it to be an engine where I’m going to give you 100 resumes, it will spit out the top five, and we’ll hire those… The system started to penalise CVs which included the word “women”. The program was edited to make it neutral to the term but it became clear that the system could not be relied upon, Reuters was told.”

    “And in May last year, a report claimed that an AI-generated computer program used by a US court was biased against black people, flagging them as twice as likely to reoffend as white people.”

  145. Opus says:

    Oh I forgot: CDs were indestructible and that was going to end vinyl – forever – dead. Yeah right.

  146. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I have long learned to take no notice of Cassandra-like predictions…

    I wrote about the same thing a number of years ago, from a slightly different perspective: Bad times to have children.

  147. Kevin says:

    It’s hard to care much about what the whores are complaining of. But women vote and some day we might have laws this bizarre which will be selectively enforced to punish unattractive men.

    Regarding women and sex the ancient Isrealites and modern Muslims look like they have it right. Don’t let them out of your sight until safely married. The whoring around of American women has made them insane.

  148. Gary Eden says:

    Thoughts on the bride price system of the Old Testament?

    Who am I to object to the system God saw fit to establish? A lot would depend on the details, but it was a good sight better than what we have now.

    Everything wrong with the current system can be connected to ways in which is contradicts the teachings and practices of the Old and New Testament.

  149. Moses says:

    “The goal of feminism is to place maximum constraints on male sexuality whilst removing all constraints on female sexuality.”

    You laugh? Expect more of this. They’re just getting started.

  150. Jacob says:

    “there should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.”

    Sure, Manta. You’d also have to include the wearing of make-up and high heels. The money men have spent on gussied-up women only to find a housefrau under the facade is likely to be much more than incidental costs. All the jails in the world wouldn’t be enough to house all the women guilty of obtaining sex by that sort of fraud.

  151. ChristianCool says:

    @EPP

    Are you an attorney? Retired?

    I spent 6 grueling years in the trenches as a Paralegal doing 80% Immigration and Criminal defense (since our immigrant clients were pretty much all criminals) and 20% family (I helped a “one man show” who did Family law in our office quite often) and civil litigation (mostly PI). My case load was between 90 and 120 active cases at any given time. I worked 50 to 60h/week when I first graduated with my ABA-approved AS degree in paralegal studies and I learned. A lot.

    Most importantly, what I learned is that unless men unleash civil litigation (lawsuit) warfare (lawfare) against feminist and women, they will never ever win. America is a litigious society, it will likely always be. We need as men to turn the weapons of the enemy against them. The days of “being nice good Christians” and allowing the Left to repress and destroy us using the legal system must come to an end. Or we will become 4th class citizens for merely being male, fathers, husbands, and/or Christian.

    Think about what the Church of Scientology does to anyone who dares criticize them, even in the slightest manner. They sue you, they sue any business you own (or they harass your employer), they depose everyone you have ever met in your whole life. They pass out fliers (through untraceable 3rd parties) to neighbors accusing you of being a child molester, misogynist, racist, serial killer, etc. They go all out and fight. That is why so few people even dare say anything against them.

    The Jewish Anti-Defamation League does about the same, though lately, they focus more on social pressure, since it is cheaper and more effective today.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center, back in the 1970s, bankrupted almost every enemy of the Left through litigation. True, today the SPLC is a front to falsely accuse others of all sorts of crap, from racism to anything else the Left deems “unacceptable”…. but they used lawfare to silence and defeat their enemies.

    If men had a way to do the same, like sue their philandering wives in civil court for “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, for instance, that would be a victory for men and one way to intimidate the feminists who use Family Courts to hurt and punish men.
    Sue women who lie to men, or sue a woman in civil court who commits paternity fraud, even if a Family law judge orders the cucked man (the victim) to pay child support. Claim humiliation, loss of friends, depression, etc.

    We have all heard of cases of burglars who trip and fall inside a home they broke into and get a massive settlement from homeowner’s insurance policy…. well, the concept is the same.

    It will not be easy, since we still have a lot of uninformed men who “white knight” on behalf of whores… The number of divorced men who have been abused is growing at staggering pace. Get enough of them in a jury and you get a win. As our society continues to teach men that being a good man, a dad, and a husband can only earn them scorn, mockery, and punishment (through family court), the pool for suitable jurors will grow in our favor. 🙂

    This is why I decided to go to law school even though I will graduate my 4 year program after I turn 40. I have to do this, not just for myself, but because we need to right this ship before it becomes too late. I intend to take men’s cases on contingency even if I know the ability to recover will be slim. But we have to try. As I said, think about how some lawyer somewhere started the “no recovery no fee” practice in PI decades ago and now that is standard. 🙂

    You need a mission in life and since I do not want to marry EVER again and my desire to have kids continues to wane, I think being a man’s legal advocate might be my calling in life. Thoughts??

  152. Tubalcain says:

    Christian Cool. I commend you on your calling to pursue law school later in life (I’m certain at a great cost and sacrifice) and advocating for the rights of men. We need more attorneys like this. If you’re the same Christian Cool that commented on the now defunct ROK site (no big lose in my book), then I remember you to be one of the few sensible and level-headed faith based commentators in a sea of whore-mongerering, nihilism, atheism, solipsism, and immature irritable millennials on that site. You’re spot on right that being good Christians today (when the modern day Diocletians and Neros on the left want to throw us to the lions in the colloseum) will make us substandard citizens, and that litigation is one defense. The left seems to have deep pockets, endless funds, Johnny Law, and the media (be it flatulence in a whirlwind) on their team. But Christians and traditional folks (be most of us low status working slobs) don’t have the $ or the muscle, IMO. So how do we defeat the monster?

  153. What about women who are deceptive in locking down a man? Many women mislead men about their sexual history and are less than forthcoming about debt and spending habits. Also, isn’t using cosmetics a deception as well? Wouldn’t she have to agree that women who engage in these forms of deception are guilty of rape? Additionally, what about same-sex relationships; shouldn’t they be covered by the same new rules?

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.