How We Can Fix The Problem With Western Marriage

Marriage is intended to be a sacred bond between a man and a woman, preferably lasting a lifetime, and a stable platform for them to raise children. This institution dates back to the dawn of civilization. Altogether, it’s good for society, and—if things work out—good for individuals.

It’s a fact that children raised within a stable marriage tend to have better outcomes. There’s a reason why “bastard” is a generic insult, even though it’s not the fault of those who literally are bastards. It would be great for our civilization right now if more financially secure couples were having children, rather than letting the government be a surrogate husband while under-parented children all too often run wild.

The consensus position here, though, is that marriage is all too often a sucker deal for men. There’s a reason for this. Statistically, it’s a coin toss: half the time, nothing bad happens. The other half, you get divorced. Usually for a man, he loses his kids, along with half of everything he’s worked for, while having to pay the ex-wife a monthly allowance. There’s a word for this: theft.

Let’s take a closer look at why this is so, and what can be done to fix the problem.

No-fault divorce

Spreading the unhappiness around

In times past, people could end a marriage if there was a real reason: infidelity, abuse, addiction, mental problems, refusal of relations, and so forth. After no-fault divorce, no real reason was needed; “mutually irreconcilable differences” was the catch-all legal boilerplate. Rather than trying to work things out, they could just split up.

Often, mutually irreconcilable differences are stated as “I’m not happy”. There are a couple of problems with that. First, making someone else responsible for one’s emotional state is a silly expectation. Further, ups and downs will always happen; that’s just the way life works, and it’s folly to expect otherwise. Finally, a marriage is carried out either by a judge or at an altar; that’s serious business. In earlier times, breaking a vow because of boredom wasn’t socially approved. Back in the barbarian days (or even the 1800s), oath-breaking was a foul deed; modern society has lost something vital.

Sometimes the reasons for divorces today are pretty stupid. In two instances, guys I know were divorced because they wouldn’t comply when the wives demanded to make changes to their mutual vacation plans at the last minute. One couple had a two year old, and the other had two small children. Way to go, Mom! Happy yet?

These are examples of a frivolous divorce (“frivorce“), also called the YOLO divorce. Actions have consequences; the marriage strike followed the rise of the frivorce. Today, the marriage rates are half of what they once were. Even the Blue Pill public knows it’s a sucker deal for men.

Examining the numbers

We have two rather startling statistics about marriage in the USA, likely pretty similar in the rest of the developed world:

  • About 50% of marriages end in failure
  • About 80% of divorces are initiated by the wives

So, given the above, outcomes for marriage are about the following:

  • 10% of marriages are ended by the husbands;
  • 40% of marriages are ended by the wives; and
  • 50% of marriages endure.

Looking a little closer, there’s a category of people who take marriage pretty seriously and won’t bail unless there are serious problems. The other category sees marriage as a step beyond “going steady” but doesn’t think of it as a lifetime commitment. That’s also informed by several factors as well, some of which boil down to a person’s character and morals. So, if someone bailed on her last marriage because she “wasn’t happy”, you might not want to be the next guy to put a ring on her finger!

In any event, we could have a 20% overall divorce rate if women were as seriously committed to marriage as men. That would be pretty cool, because an 80% success rate is a lot more acceptable of a risk than a 50% success rate.

So what accounts for the above statistics? This isn’t just a matter of human nature; it’s the lack of social restraints that allowed this flakiness to thrive. Society was different in earlier times, which is one piece of the puzzle. Another part accounting for the difference is the cui bono principle: “Who benefits?” So let’s follow the money.


So she needs him like a fish needs a bicycle, does she?

Although the USA had no-fault divorce everywhere by the 1970s, some aspects of this part of “family law” (the branch of jurisprudence devoted to breaking up families) still go back to a 19th century understandings. The particulars are:

  • Women are delicate flowers who can’t fend for themselves and need special protection;
  • A woman who got divorced was “damaged goods” since she no longer was a virgin; and
  • If a divorce happens, it’s probably because the man did something bad.

So, back in the 1800s, all this added up to the concept that after a divorce, the man “owed” his former wife an indemnity: alimony. These days, that’s a sad joke. Today, women have it drummed into them that they’re strong and independent and can pursue any career they want, virgin brides outside of devout religious communities are pretty rare, and—largely lacking the social restraints and male leadership they once had—they even can be praised (rather than criticized) for any sorts of egregious conduct.

The legal justification for alimony is “to support her in the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed”. However, this outdated understanding is pretty out of touch with modern times! Further, many divorced men have to drastically downgrade their living conditions, sometimes even getting thrown out of the home he bought—what about his lifestyle?

The other outdated argument for alimony is that the ex-wife is basically owed back wages for all that homemaking. Even in the 1800s, it was baloney; the husband was putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads all that time, now wasn’t he? Alimony is supposed to be gender-neutral, but in practice, only 4% of alimony recipients are men. That must suck for any female executives and celebrities who got divorced from their boy-toys, and they tend to be pretty furious about it when that happens. All I’ve got to say is, welcome to our world!

Alimony must be abolished; it’s theft. When a relationship ends, its benefits should end too.

Child support

How much of this really will be spent on your kid? Who the hell knows?

What happens to the children is the most depressing aspect of divorces today. We need to fix that. By default, joint custody should be awarded, unless there’s a compelling reason otherwise. Unsupported smear tactics (often encouraged by bottom-feeder lawyers, which should be grounds for disbarment for life) don’t count.

When child support is awarded, the cost basis should be the same as what the state pays to foster parents. In many cases, inflated child support is being used as back door alimony. Further, DNA testing should be mandatory. If the child isn’t the ex-husband’s (with the exception of adoptees), he shouldn’t be defrauded any further. The cheating ex-wife knows who the real father is; she can go after him instead.

More financial chicanery

Say goodbye to half of it

Property division is another opportunity for a guy to get robbed in court. The idea that a man might have to lose half of everything he worked for is another outdated relic of so-called family law. That needs to end too. Instead, we should let people exit from marriage with whatever assets and property they brought into it. As for what was acquired afterward, division of assets can be calculated proportionally based on what each party earned minus spent on themselves.

Feminists tell us that a woman doesn’t need a man, so why do any of them need an ex-husband’s money? They should put up or shut up. Since feminists are not clamoring for reform of this area of the law (as well as abolition of alimony) in the name of equality—which they don’t really care about these days—then it’s yet another example of them wanting to have their cake and eat it. The goal of second-wave feminism was to wreck the family, and they did a fine job of it.

Further, we need to get rid of “heart balm” lawsuits in the jurisdictions where they still exist. When a man proposes marriage, it’s an offer, not a contract. It was different back in the Renaissance, but times have changed. I might add that even back in those days, if a woman changed her mind, the man usually had no legal recourse. These archaic measures have no place in modern society. Do guys sue whenever someone flakes on a date? That’s a “promise” too, isn’t it?

Other factors

Divorce lawyers have an incentive to keep the system as it now exists, and to discourage any clients from having second thoughts; it’s their bread and butter. They either get a percentage of whatever they steal from the ex-husband, or they get an hourly rate and have an incentive to drag things out and talk up the bill. It’s time we got these lawyers off the gravy train. What other area of the law provides financial rewards for breach of contract?

Divorce is good for real estate and big business too; don’t count on their support in helping to reform the system. Every family that splits up will now need two residences, and furnishings for both. The extra demand is one reason why housing costs are crazy high.

Finally, society encourages unrealistic expectations. This includes animated fairy tale movies for kids, bridezilla magazines, romance novels where the guy has a yacht and abdominals like a plate of spaghetti, etc. Feminists also have been guilty of encouraging unrealistic expectations, along with stirring up conflict between the sexes. Finally, there are the bitter divorced friends giving “helpful advice” because misery loves company. Discrediting all the above will be helpful.

Really, today’s feminist divorce system hurts women too. For one reason of several, if a woman marries at 25 and divorces at 35, is trading up in terms of mate quality very likely? I think we all know the answer to that one!

In summary

If these proposed reforms are adopted, this will strengthen society greatly. Couples will still be able to get out of dysfunctional marriages. However, if the wife no longer has a financial incentive to leave at the first sign of trouble—she won’t be able to rob her husband in court—then she’ll make more of an effort to work out any problems that exist, instead of divorcing over things like boredom or vacation plans.

Read More: How To Reduce Your Risk Of Divorce

226 thoughts on “How We Can Fix The Problem With Western Marriage”

  1. I’ve suggested a federal “covenant” marriage law.
    Under this, no divorce except for abandonment, adultery, or (felony battery) abuse, and filing for a state no-fault divorce is abandonment. The at-fault party has to pay alimony, child support, and gets no part of the marital estate.
    A second lesser status might force no child support but joint custody – 50/50 – if ever there were a divorce.

    1. IMO the only circumstances under which a spouse should get alimony is:
      1. That spouse isn’t the one who initiated the divorce.
      2. That spouse did not engage in adultery.
      3. That spouse gave up his/her own time/efforts to raise children and keep up the house, without the help of day care, nannies, maids or anything like that.
      And even then, that alimony should have a hard cap that once reached, no matter when, ends forever.

      1. The only way a spouse should get alimony is if no-fault marriage is eliminated. Keep the vow and fulfill the responsibilities, you have an argument for continuing to receive some of the benefits. Break the vow and fail to fulfill the responsibilities, no ability to claim to continue to receive benefits.

        1. My scenario covers that already, as a spouse would be ineligible for alimony if she initiated the divorce or committed adultery.

  2. Nice article and the summary is dead on. Those neccessary changes won’t be happening anytime soon as women will not relinquish their privileges to mans wallet and the state’s monopoly of power over men. We have a long way to fall yet.

    1. I agree, the barn must first burn down.
      I can just picture the men singing “we don’t need no water, let the mother fucker burn!”

    2. The only thing driving alimony reform is second wives who are pushing for it. They don’t like how their income is factored into their husbands’ alimony payments.

  3. Could be summed up as-
    Make no-fault divorce truly no-fault. Marriage ends, financial responsibilities end.
    As it is now, it operates as if the higher-income spouse is at fault. They are stuck with the financial obligations after the benefits are stopped, while the lower income is relieved of the responsibilities but continue to receive the financial benefits.
    Of course, as I said on another thread, I’d like to see what happens if a man sues to receive the conjugal benefits “in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed”. If an hour of his work day is generating income for the ex’s benefit, then she can spend a few hours a week for his benefit.
    A point about child support– California actually allows citing the cessation of child support as a reason to seek an alimony increase. If it was for the kid, then why would it be considered at all?

    1. Once you sign a marriage contract with the government as the third-party, your life is practically over. It is by design, therefore do not expect the government to help. The government is intent on destroying the independence of the natural man by using the women as a potent weapon.

  4. Divorce itself is a legal fiction. In reality, when you marry, it’s until death do you part. Nowhere in the marriage vows does it say anything about infidelity, or poverty (quite the opposite in that case) or anything else. Only death separates you, and that’s how God sees it. This is why Marriage is a Sacrament, not a Contract.
    Marriage, in and of itself, isn’t the problem. Human beings are. But, we think we can lower the standards of marriage to accommodate us; imagine if we altered mathematics that way for those who otherwise would have more trouble with it? Oh, wait, we don’t have to.

    1. It’s a sacrament in the religious sense, not in a legal sense.
      Not everyone shares the same religious beliefs. However, we’re all subject to the civil law.

      1. The government has nothing to do with marriage. Since the day civil marriage was implemented it went downhill…

        1. I agree the government shouldn’t- it should be a private matter between the individuals involved.
          But the fact of the matter today is, in the US, the government has a lot to do with marriage including issuing licenses, declaring long term relationships as ‘common-law’ marriages, determining the manner of dissolution and division of assets, etc. etc. etc.
          Like it or not, the government is involved in marriage as it is exists today.

        2. Legal marriage no longer exists today. What we have is the fading dream of what marriage was. The reality has left marriage in the dim past.

        3. My point was that until this little detail is recognized (the fact that marriage should be out of the State’s purview), any discussion about marriage is like discussing Nero’s horse mane while Rome is burnt down.

      1. Nothing says I love you like a legally binding contract underwritten by the government right?

        1. Marriage, as enforced today, is not a contract. An agreement or document has to meet several requirements to rise to the level of a contract. What marriage is today is an illusory promise. The definition is below:
          Illusory Promise: A promise that is unenforceable due to indefiniteness or lack of mutuality, where only one side is bound to perform. An example of this would be an agreement between a seller and buyer which states that the seller “agrees to sell all of the ice cream he wants to” to the buyer.

        2. I don’t know much about marriage, I will be the first to admit. However, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you ask a guy who went from having a 7 figure net worth to living in a 500 square foot apartment eating beans for dinner whether or not his marriage contract was a legally binding document he would tell you absolutely.

        3. It’s a legal entanglement, but it isn’t a contract per se. An exchange of goods services with a means to assess damages on the party breaching the contract.
          There aren’t enforceable provisions- your spouse cheats and has a kid by someone else. No recourse other than divorce where, under no fault, those factors won’t affect the dissolution.

        4. But you see, the reason he lost everything and is living in a 550 SQFT loft eating beans is because the contract was not a contract. It was binding only on him. His wife had no obligations, and could trash the agreement at will and suffer nothing. That is the exact definition of an illusory promise. She promised to love honor and obey him until death did them part. Then she decided to end it and take the proceeds of the partnership. This is not a contract. She gave nothing, and her promises meant nothing, because her half of the agreement were unenforceable and therefore null at time of delivery.

    2. When you sign a “marriage” contract with the government as the third party, you have introduced an illegality into the sacrament. Want to properly get married? Do not involve the corrupted government. Just make a vow to the woman’s father and take the woman in as your wife. If she bales on you, there is nothing to gain.

  5. I don’t agree with changing no-fault divorce. The state should not be forcing 2 people to be a couple when both of those people aren’t committed to the idea. As long as the financial problems you mentioned are reformed, we could, and probably should, keep no-fault divorce.
    Alimony of course should be limited. Ironically the group of people who have been able to push this are the second wives of divorced men who don’t like having their income factored into his alimony payments.
    As for child support, in many respects this simply alimony by another name. Ideally child support shouldn’t exist, as both parents should be expected to share a kid’s expenses when that kid is in his or her direct physical custody. If one able-bodied parent cannot support a kid without outside help, then that parent should not get physical custody until that parent rectifies that situation. If there have to be payments from one parent to the other, these should be managed with a debit card that is restricted in what it can purchase, with any unspent money either being returned to the paying parent, or set aside for the kid’s benefit in the future.

    1. If it’s no fault, then make it no fault. No alimony. Child support in the amount actually necessary for the child’s expenses.
      Alimony is an assumption that the higher-income spouse was at fault. They continue to be burdened by the financial obligations of marriage while the lower income is relieved of all of marriage’s responsibilities.

      1. I’d actually go further. I don’t agree with the idea of state-sanctioned marriage to begin with, mainly because it allows for the state to define marriage in a way with which people may not agree.
        If we have to allow for people’s legal affairs to be commingled it should be done by way of civil unions for anyone involved instead.
        But alimony and child support payments are slavery, both need to be reformed or abolished.

        1. Well, I think if it’s your child then you should take responsibility.
          I do agree on actual contracts for long term relationships – with provisions for dissolution of the contract, what constitutes breach and the penalties vice a state sanctioned institution with broad power to dictate the terms of the dissolution. Get religion completely out of the state part. You sign a contract for the legal aspects– then go to whatever religion you abide/participate in for the religious marriage.

        2. No disagreement with any line of reasoning down this thread.
          Marriage should have only ever been one of many accepted evidences of civil contract and its subsequent legal implications, never should have fallen under governmental purview.
          Sort of like how you can present your DL or your Passport for identification purposes in most instances.
          And nowadays, paternity testing should be prerequisite to determining whether responsibility exists or not, that would be a good starting point.

        3. And vice-versa, to get the state out of the religion part.
          The marriage license was perhaps the single biggest mistake in the history of marriage.

        4. 99% of the population supports “state sanctioned marriage” and supporting your own offspring. So why argue for something that makes you sound autistic?

        5. You fail at reading comprehension.
          Parents should raise their kids regardless of their own marital status. But if one parent can’t do it without help that parent should not be able to impose a financial obligation on the other parent.

        6. Paternity testing should be a requirement to put any guy’s name on a birth certificate.

        7. While I think that divorce is wrong I agree with you that there needs to be consistency. American women should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too (maybe this is why they are so fat?) Same thing with abortion. Men should not be enslaved over a woman’s choice period.

        8. You said child support is slavery. I believe that is a stupid statement, but if that’s what you believe, then it must be abolished as you can’t reform “slavery.” Clearly the overwhelming majority of rational adults would find your conclusions wrong and would never support abolishing child support since the child would then be dependent solely on the community or be left to die in the street.
          My reading comprehension is fine. You just can’t follow the logical conclusion of your spergy statements.

        9. Please tell me how the state telling Person A that he must pay Person B money every month, under penalty of incarceration, because Person B is unable to fulfill her parental responsibilities isn’t slavery.
          Person B should get her act together so that she can support her kid, and Person A should retain full custody of the kid in question until Person B does that.

        10. Because when Person A inserts into vag., he takes on that responsibility whether he wants it or not. I don’t care if Person B lied about being on the pill or whatever excuse you’ll come up with. Society should not be forced to take care of Person A’s children and no, we aren’t going to allow the children to starve on the streets.
          This is so basic that your lack of understanding makes you sound autistic. Even if you can’t understand it, you should shut up so at least you’ll pass as someone normal.

        11. Again, please review your reading skills. No one is suggesting that any parent abandon parental responsibilities.
          If a vag can’t take care of her kid, then that kid should be removed from her custody and given to the guy.

        12. It is slavery. Men can’t deduct payments on taxes yet the woman getting the monthly payments gets to write off HIS money for taxes. That is the VERY definition of slavery. You know. Taxation without Representation.

        13. There are fewer people who believe that child support is slavery than there are blue haired homosexual cat ladies. So good luck with that line of argument.

        14. My reading skills are fine. You just can’t accept that your ideas on child support are autistic and rejected by 99% of the population.
          You will never get anyone to take you seriously if you start your argument with “child support is slavery” and you will never get the majority of the population to accept giving child custody to the “better provider.”
          In many instances, one parent may be unfit or unwilling to hold primary custody. Or they may not be able to support a child without monetary support from the second parent. Therefore, society will be left with the responsibility because society. Do you even think through your positions?

        15. So not only can you not read, you don’t know what slavery is either.

          In many instances, one parent may be unfit or unwilling to hold primary custody. Or they may not be able to support a child without monetary support from the second parent.

          So why should the second parent be rewarded for being unable to support her child by way of a financial penalty against the first parent? Why can’t the second parent work a better job like the first parent is doing? And why should a kid be forced to live with someone who by definition is unable to support said kid?

        16. Wow, you are dense. Holding someone financially liable for the consequences of their actions is not slavery. It may not be “fair,” but society doesn’t consider fairness. It considers the welfare of the child.
          In most cases, society believes the children are best served by giving primary custody to the mother. You will not convince society otherwise by crying slavery. You just sound retarded.
          And I’m done.

        17. If society cared about children in such situations then someone who can’t support a child without forced outside help would never get physical custody of that child.

  6. From the outset there is a dishonesty inherit in the approach of the modern female to a relationship. You’ll hear them say “men are only after sex” (and for arguments sake premise accepted).
    So, then what are women after? Do they want a physically attractive specimen? If so, for what purpose? Are they seeking financial gain? Stability? Protection? Validation? Or (Heavens to Betsy!) …sex?
    Fellas, if the girl can’t openly admit to herself whatever true reasons she has, then she’ll not only never admit it to you, but actively conceal it and rationalize her guilt by projecting it onto you. Not a good foundation for building anything.
    She can always say she loves you, but she also loves poodles, pedicures, people who like her on FaceSpace, and penis that might not be yours (perhaps not even in that order), so require her to prove her value. Be ruthless in your judgements and consistent in your expectations. Give her a stronger influence to conform to or give her up and save yourself the waste.

  7. Divorce still carries a stigma in [most] Catholic countries. Say what you want about the Church, but they did an incredible job of preserving the family unit and gender roles relative to the Protestants. When the player phase wears off, don’t rule out going to a catholic country to find future Mrs ___.

      1. “current Pope is changing that”
        Yes indeed. I hear what BetterDead is saying, because as a protestant I always had the impression that catholic families were always stronger.
        But if Catholics want to save themselves they best de-throne that pope before catholic girls start bleaching their anuses.

        1. I agree. The Church is being flushed down the toilet: peace with muslims???? Unbelievable.

        2. My mother, who was always more Catholic than the pope, past and current, wouldn’t shake the hand of that bastard.
          The Catholic church died with Vatican II. What we see now is just the Zombie Walking Dead Church.

        3. Exactly. The only thing I disagree with you is on the “dead” adjective. The Church is no the buildings or even the Pope and his cardinals, the Church is a community of believers, with a defined dogma. As long as that survives, regardless of how small in numbers this community may be, there will always be the Church.
          On the issue of VII, you are right, they literally blew up the hierarchy and official and public structure.

        4. Francine is getting some pushback right on his “home” turf in Rome. Not all Catholics are buying into his fake mercy crap.

        5. Amen. I believe the etymology of the word “church” is related to the “body” if I’m not totally mistaken.

      2. But he isn’t Catholic, so it really doesn’t disprove the point. Just like Obama was an anti-American American president, the current pope is an anti-Catholic pope.

    1. Protestants, as a rule, are more lax on the cultural aspects than are Catholics. This makes sense from a perspective of history – the Catholic church is a governing body first and foremost (dispute it as you will, but that’s the purpose of the hierarchy), and governing bodies must frequently have cultural control or they will fall.
      However, remove the Catholic girl from those places where Catholicism holds cultural dominance, and she will adapt to the culture around her. AWALT, and only the controls hold back those less-expedient impulses.
      So, I would argue, if you are Catholic or willing to live as a Catholic, then go and live in a Catholic country to find that Catholic girl. But bring not along those cultural aspects that corrupted the girls around us.
      (I say all this as a Protestant. I reject the authority of the popes and councils, but I can appreciate some of the cultural values of that religious hegemony.)

      1. Hey Brother, I’m going to add a disclaimer that Protestants are superior in scientific endeavor, economics, and political stability. Every culture has its strengths and weaknesses.

        1. I would say that it turned out that protestants were at its peak during industrial revolution. That’s all.

        2. There aren’t really any Protestant nations left though. They’re all dead. I mean who’s left? The US can’t claim it now. Germany? Haha. 🙂
          It appears all the former Protestant nations have all turned into SJW dumps. Meanwhile some Catholic countries are still holding it together. … Some of them anyway. 😀

    2. Great comment. Protestants started the decline of the West. Protestants started all this mess.

      1. “Protestants started all this mess.”
        As a protestant, in my observations all my life, unfortunately I have noticed this too.

    3. True. Old saying I once heard, “jews invented guilt and catholics perfected it.” I attended a catholic school in my early years and the nuns and priests could really instill shame. It was effective.
      Of note: There may have been a reason John Wayne (Presbyterian) married 3 times and all were catholic latinas.

      1. The Duke was certainly a man of taste, I can’t blame him. From what I’ve witnessed, the only places in America where the women remotely treat their men as well as the average catholic girl, is in the rural deep south, where religion hasn’t been fully stomped out.

        1. I agree. The best wives I have seen are the ones who maintain faith and have had their fathers in the background when growing up. That isn’t a coincidence.

      2. I don’t know, the women he chose tended to be nuts. Regardless he certainly didn’t handle them well.
        Great films though!

        1. True! heh. I know a guy who met him in the 70s as his uncle was an old hand from the early days. John’s notch count was pretty high and there were some wild stories about him in his younger years.

  8. The only solution is to minimize the government contract aspect of marriage.
    – Remove the “family only” restrictions on things like hospital visits. Instead, you can form a legal contract stipulating what kinds of people are permitted (e.g. “My wife Sue, our legal children, the parents listed on my birth certificate, and Bob from accounting”)
    – Use current joint asset laws, but only those laws, to determine divorce division. For example, if you both own the house you both have a 50% stake (unless you contract a different stake), but if you have a separate account you don’t both own it.
    – Eliminate all government-enforced child welfare regulations. Not only does it allow fathers to walk out on their kids (as mothers can through abortion), but it also removes any financial incentive for divorce involving children. It also puts the onus on men and women to be selective with marriage, as a bad father/mother will leave them holding the sack.
    These actions make marriage a religious and cultural phenomenon instead of a legal one, and that makes all the difference.

    1. They will just offer cash incentives to make men sell out like they already do for adoption. Expect it to be from 5 to 40k tops depending how bad the situation is. Also if you cohabitate expect the courts to start making landmark rulings that your married regardless of what the state law says.

  9. To get all the facts, read
    It’s important to note that the statistics quoted above change drastically depending on the state. In parts of California the divorce rate is 85% but the government hides this fact by refusing to collect statistics. Read and learn.

    1. Jesus man-it’s worse than I thought and I only looked at my state of Illinois. Never been happier to be unmarried!

    2. From the California article:
      “This is why instructions are given to NBA players never to leave a condom in the house. Always flush them down the toilet. Otherwise women will use a turkey baster.”
      That’s some seriously scary #$(*&# on that site! 🙂

      1. Have you seen that women are selling positive pregnancy tests online? Get pregnant, pee on a bunch of test sticks, sell on line…

  10. The answer is easy – Patriarchy
    By that I don’t mean loading up and beating your Wife black and blue. I don’t mean fake alpharing it and siring 20 kids with 20 sluts. I don’t mean selling crack in welfare-dependent hoods. All mistaken fake-alpha shit!!
    I mean being a man. A physically strong as hell, brilliantly well-read, family leader; who can teach his kids, fuck his woman, hang a door, cook a proper meal, and basically raise HIS clan.
    This is the stuff of Western Civilisation. Live it!! And push it damn hard!!!

    1. If you think into it logically…. say you lease a car for 3 years…. 1 year in you decide you dont like the color of the paint… “irreconcilible differences” … and not only can you break the contract with no penalty – you get to keep the car too…. total madness….. no where does this work in any legal frame work.
      The leasing companies can alpha up all they want, their contract is not only worthless…… but incentivized to be broken.
      No fault divorce = no alimoney divorce. Until that is in place – its a broken – almost insane contract.

      1. It’s such a simple concept. If one wants a divorce, they should have no right to legally force partner to finance them post marriage.
        The notion that a woman who wants divorce is entitled to alimony (because 1/2 of hubbys wage is hers during marriage) is ridiculous. If a man has to continue to support ex-wife post divorce, then logically the ex-wife should have to provide sex after marriage too.

      2. You have to add mandatory joint custody, with no CS, since each supports the child for the 50% of the time they are with them.

      3. my favorite analogy is Stefan Molyneauxs “wife is the only job in the world where you get paid after you quit or get fired.”

    2. I agree with all of the above. There is no reason to beat one’s wife black and blue. You hit her where it doesn’t show. With a bag of oranges.

    3. This is flawed logic. It is the woman who is guilty of most “frivorces” and the men don’t have to alter much once the woman is placed in check by the courts.

    4. Truth. Some bitch boy would read this and think it’s a nightmare. Build better men build a better world.
      I’ll never understand how someone that can’t change a tire thinks they run something.

    5. Um,hate to break it to you, hoss, but that’s what we had. Didn’t last. Never does.
      Clan? Wow, that’s some heartbreaking stuff right there. Move to an Islamic state, I hear they still live that way.
      And what is wrong with selling crack? You want me to give it away for free?

    6. Except that Patriarchy is illegal and for that matter, overt masculinity is also illegal.
      Being a man, a strong, masculine man of purpose is always a sound design toward a good and meaningful life. But this life is not forged and maintained in a vacuum.
      Yours are fine ideals, but our culture has already decided that Western Civ. is no longer viable, and as such, the powers that have supplanted God, Family, Headship, and Community in the name of equality, diversity, fairness, and feelings, continue to salt the fertile ground upon which these men might take their root.
      So a self-made man of means exists only as a lighthouse in the tempest of this progress. He can be a rock for those in his heart and under his care, but for others he is an obstacle, a reminder of the ancient and obsolete; a rigid fixture of a past now painted with the broad brush of oppression and framed in the balsa of patriarchal pathology.
      He can toil tirelessly to cast his light into the dark forces that desire him to be crushed into submission, and that light may even attract a few kindred spirits, maybe even a woman worthy of his strength, but he is not a Civilization, he is but a man living the Truth among many opposing truths like so many waves pulsing from an endless fetch of dark forces that deem him the enemy of the good, the impediment of the holy (progress), and the very embodiment of a dangerous idea.
      He is a target as much as he is a beacon. His liberty resides in his heart and mind, but his body remains subject to the cultural waters that surround him. Waters that continue to etch away at him with the acrid saline of the culture of decay.
      Marriage cannot co-exist with divorce.
      By its very nature, modern marriage is pregnant with divorce; a codified form of dating that serves to consolidate waning female sexual options according to her whimsical preference for provisioning.
      And just as marriage cannot co-exist with divorce, this tri-party contract with the State seeks to simultaneously occupy both the meaningless and the meaningful. But unlike the idea of marriage, this contract actually has teeth. It annuitizes male obligation and servitude with no corollary benefits under the law. The arbiter of this is, of course, the State, which just happens to hate him.
      The contract is just one more explicit *option* in a culture obsessed with options; one more affirmation of female status in a culture obsessed with signaling status.
      The fact that the *option* is a unilateral “put” in favor of the woman should render it null preemptively. Being a “strong” man does nothing to alter these conditions.
      The fact that the State needs men in order to function is just an inconvenience that is to be resolved over time as those waves erode the rock into compliant sand.
      A strong man cannot “fix” marriage and marriage cannot fix Western Civ. The dark progress must first become ashes to return what is vital to the soil. And then, perhaps these good, strong men will grow something again.
      Take my comment not as critical defeatism, but as realism; these noble traits stand on their own, but in a time of inverted values, perverted virtue, and relative truths, an individual effort to become a good, strong man cannot not make Patriarchy any more than the State can make marriage.

    7. Patriarchy isn’t the answer. The collapse of marriage coincides with the introduction of effective contraception. That’s no coincidence. To restore balance, you need to remove what disrupted the balance to begin with – remove contraception and force women to face the consequences of their sexual behaviour once more and they’ll start thinking twice before abandoning stable relationships.
      No condoms, no contraceptive pills, and no abortion, and then there will be fuck all divorce

      1. You hit the nail on the head. Everybody laughed at Pope Paul VI and Humanae Vitae but history will be on his side.

      2. I also want to argue that there is no respect from either party anymore.Women don’t respect themselves, men don’t respect them anymore, children can see it happening and don’t respect parents anymore. What son could respect a bitchy mother and a wimpy father? What daughter could respect a man who stares at porn all day and a fat mother? How many bosses with ugly wives have you met an instantly lost respect for?

  11. Divorce is a problem because for the most part women have been empowered by government to be irresponsible and at the same time allowed to see men as both disposable and replaceable. To protect women from cruel exploitive men (usually your basic epsilon male) Liberal government and society has empowered women to be whores. Truth is liberals have given women too many ‘rights’ at the expense of men. At the same time men in the name of ‘progress’ have spoiled women and allowed them to get away with a lot of bad behavior, they simply have bought into the concept of Wife as Man’s Best Friend which well the female view of friendship is what modern marriage has become a temporary relationship. Government has also gone to great lengths to trivialize marriage as well as heterosexuality making all kinds of perversions ‘normal’ and ‘equal’. Like all the modern rot brought upon by well intentioned ‘progress’ this all has to change. We must look to Russia for Western society must return to patriarchy in order to come back to sanity while women must return to the home and men must return to the steering wheel of society to take control. Realistically for marriage to work the first step is I would want to make legal for a man to require of his woman to reduce herself to the legal status of a minor as a precondition to becoming his wife making him not just her husband but her legal all powerful guardian, demand she sign away most of the so called ‘rights’ liberals have wrought signing herself over to him both body and soul in exchange giving her his warranty to his honorable behavior with her as husband and their children as father, assuring her he will be strict with her but also fair. The Asian concept of the Slave-Wife may appear shocking but the Slave-Wife is less likely to turn on he all powerful husband than a ‘Friend-Wife’ on her Male BFF which is why we have the divorce rate we have today.

    1. The idea of a submissive Asian woman is a Myth. I had Asian friends growing up and spent enough time in their homes to know that their mothers ruled with an iron fist (including the dad). I am married to an Asian woman. She is as far as you can get from a submissive. She is religious,, and was raised in a traditional patriarchal culture, which makes her a better wife than 99.999% of western women. But submissive Asian women are not. Thailand has the highest number of penis reattachment surgeries in the world. There are doctors there that specialize in nothing else. Sound submissive to you?

    2. There’s NEVER been a “Slave-Wife” concept in Asia. I don’t know how some people come to this type of preposterous conclusions ! Females always had/have equal & more rights than MALES, especially when it comes to relationships.

      1. I suggest you read the teachings of Buddha in regards to the Seven Kinds of Wives in his lecture of Sujuta, the Slave Wife is considered to be the best form of wife a woman can be.

        1. I seriously suggest that if you take one example of this kind, I can take 100 examples where the west treated females lesser than shit (albeit it’s well worth and those females deserved that !).
          I am not here to “teach or lecture” about the culture that existed thousands of years before any other “cultures” ! But in short, when it comes to females, any damn “culture” expects something similar to the two parts:
          =Female should be in the protection & care of Father in childhood
          =Female should be in the protection & care of Husband in adulthood
          =Female should be in the protection & care of Sons in old age
          *** And hence the female doesn’t deserve “freedom” ***
          =Female is equal to/represents mother, when serving food
          =Female is equal to/represents lust, when in bed
          =Female is equal to/represents sub-ordinate, when in work
          =Female is equal to/represents slave, when serving her MAN
          I don’t know what “freedom” means for females in the west (walking bare chested !? slut-walks !? pink saturdays !? FREE abortions !?)
          I don’t know what “being a slave” means for females in the west (cooking dinner for herself & her MAN !? serving hot cup of coffee to her MAN !? keeping Home, a place where she spends time with “absolute privacy !”, clean & tidy !?)
          Now, I leave to your understanding/maturity on how you think/take/conclude about female being a “slave” to her MAN and females doesn’t deserve “freedom” !

        2. Well those and our original culture before the current ‘modern’ mess worked. Rather than the positive bearer of life women originally were modern woman well the first three of Buddha’s seven wives well describe ‘modern’ females.

  12. Just accept that in 10-20 years it is over for the majority of the next generation. Maybe 1-3 percent of highly traditional groups will still practice it. YOU simply cannot turn a whore into a housewife.

    1. I disagree I believe the government will offer cash incentives like they do for adoptions to get married expect it to be from 10 to 25k.

  13. Has anyone considered that property, sales, state, and national income taxes are also anther form of child support and alimony, even for those who have no children. Sometimes it seems inconceivable for me to believe that in the suburbs of Chicago, a man would have to easily pay 5,000 dollars or more depending on the value of his house just in property taxes.

    1. Absolutely correct – $5k/+ for property taxes for upper middle class/lower upper class homes in large # of areas in the country. I have one property that is $4,983/yr in central NC that’s basically entry level upper middle class home and my cheapest property tax is $1,323 in SC just over the state border with NC. My old boss has a home in CLT that’s $15k/yr in taxes alone. From what I understand about NJ, property taxes practically start at $5k in large areas of the state.

  14. A divorced woman once asked me the old question of why a man who cheats is a stud and a woman who cheats is a whore?
    Because when a man cheats, it’s only sex. He doesn’t go destroying things all over the place. When a woman cheats, she’ll destroy everything in her path…children, marriage, finances, etc.
    The woman said that’s bullshit. I asked how. She had no answer, said she has better things to do. She asked the question. But, that’s a woman for you. Undoubtedly a whore, if it was such a concern.
    Should’ve fucked her face right there, but I had to go back to work. That and I’m not a crook.

      1. All a woman has to do is exist. A study was done in a date site of 4 men and 4 women. Did you know that the man rated most attractive among the men got the same amount of messages from the opposite sex as the woman rated least attractive?
        It was said, at that rate, it would have taken him 2 years for his inbox to match the number of messages the woman rated most attractive got from men. And that’s only because her inbox reached the maximum amount of messages it could hold.
        The least attractive man got zero messages. Even a man considered handsome still has to pursue to get sex.

        1. Women have it easier in life period. They can’t last one day in a mans world even with the high almighty power of the government behind them.

        2. Good analogy. My sister stormed out of a bar once because I was explaining to my cousin the disparity been how many messages men receive on an app such as Tinder versus how many messages a woman will receive. My cousin was saying she received about 75 messages from I would say at least 50 men in about half a day. HALF A DAY! It would take me probably 5 years to get 50 women to message me and I’m a fairly attractive guy who puts work into what my dating profile looks like. My sister said it was sexist and that most men that messaged my cousin were nasty. Im like thats not the point, the point is women have the pick of the litter. If 100 women messaged me and only 2 were women I’d fuck, I would be thrilled with that. It means I would actually have someone messaging me and someone I could actually pick from. I deleted my last dating app, because I got nothing in return for the effort I was putting in, or if I did get messages, it was from land whales or crazy feminazis. Online dating is not the way to go for vast majority of men, but it is a great instrument in explaining how the deck is stacked against men and in favor of any woman who wants attention.

        3. “Even a man considered handsome still has to pursue to get sex.”
          This x100.
          Most women consider me top 2% in male attractiveness. I’ve been recruited to model but have never bothered to do it. Much of it is luck of the draw, finalist of the genetic lottery, and some of it is my hard work via diet, exercise, and sleep.
          Why am I telling you this? Because that and two bucks will get me a chicken taco. I’ve been frivorced by a shitty wife and, when much younger, dumped by girlfriends. I’ve had 7s flake last minute even when I’m clearly way above their pay grade.
          Takeaway: Women care about looks waaaaay less than you would believe. All good looks do is get you in the door. You still gotta act like a man, or you get booted back out into the street. A good-looking simp has zero advantage over a busted-looking masculine red-pill man. You can take that to the bank. Trust.

        4. Online dating only works for the best looking guys. All others should approach in real life.

        5. One thing I’ve found is that a lot of men who claim to have problems getting women have those problems because they don’t pursue. They approached one woman 5 years ago, she rejected him and in his mind it turns into “Women ALWAYS reject me”. They give up too easily. Like that Elliott Rodgers fellow. Turns out he never approached girls, hence he never got laid by default. It’s men who have to risk rejection. In my approximately 30 years, I can count on 1 hand how many times a girl approached me and most of those times were by proxy.

        6. Hmm, that’s interesting, how do you look? I’m curious because I don’t consider myself particularly attractive, maybe 7.5 or 8 max, and I get approached all the time, to the point where it’s annoying.
          It even happens when I’m out with my wife.
          I’m 6′, average slim build, blonde, blue eyes, but other than that nothing particular. And no, I’m not rich.
          My theory is that it’s about “aura” or “air” one projects rather than looks directly. A friend of mine is short, chubby, but gets oodles of attention from girls, more than I do.

        7. I get women who check me out but nothing usually happens unless I say something first. I’ve asked girls I’ve had sex with that if I didn’t talk to them first if they would’ve talked to me. The answer is always no. The same when it comes to initiating sex, at least for the first time. From my experience, if me and a girl never had sex before if I don’t initiate it, it won’t happen.

        8. On the OKC survey they found that women rated 80% of men below average. How is that possible?

        9. And…that is why you’re a man. Most shortsighted ppl are women who only think in the moment or their feelz. God bless their beautiful hearts, but damn me if they don’t have a long term plan

        10. Yes precisely. I think for me what it ultimately boils down to, is that the girls I approach who are not knock outs by any means never end up reciprocating interest. I think its just the environments I’ve been in and itll get better post college. But my success rate has been really low even though women have told me I am attractive and fun to talk to. Actually funny thing happened the other night when I posted this. I went out to a restaurant where a girl I know (not well, but she works where I work and at the restaurant I went to) and she came over and said something about how the waitress I had thought i was really attractive and that I should leave my number for her. I would have left my number for her, if her thighs weren’t as big as both my legs combined. It was an indirect approach, but I thought it was amusing that I got approached a day after I said I never get approached ha.

        11. You should try living in the Philippines or Thailand. They don’t care how old you are or what you look like ……. and they do all the chasing.
          All because their governments don’t give them free shit!

        12. I was in a bar last week, a woman threw her arms around my neck and shouted, “Take me home and fuck me now”, several times. Took me ages to get rid …… all my friends laughed. Fairly normal in SEA.
          Number 1 rule out here, never chase them, they chase you.
          Number 2 rule, always pay them after, taxi fare home.
          Pay because it will get you the best advertising ever. All their friends will jump you too.
          Your answer will probably be … “I don’t date whores” ….. but they are all whores and they all want payment in the end. It might be drinks and dinner, it might be a house and car …… but they all want it, because they are all whores.

    1. Related to the same reason that female virginity is prized and male virginity, after a certain age, scorned. Remember the movie, 40 year old virgin? A man that old and a virgin is the subject of mockery and scorn and made to be laughed at. A woman isn’t mocked and laughed at. Plus, if any woman is honest, she’d rather have a 40 year old well sexually experienced man than a 40 year old male virgin. With men, we want relatively chaste women for long term mates, not the town whore and women instinctively know this.

      1. Sorry to be the devil’s advocate, but in today’s culture a 40 year old female virgin is a figure of scorn as well.

        1. Not as much as a man would be. Plus, most women have many chances to lose their virginity many years before turning 40. And, a woman that old who is a virgin has to be very f***ed up. But, she’ll get more pity and sympathy than a man in a similar position.

      1. Might be, but “expensive” eggs are worthless, useless and good for nothing, without the “cheap” SPERM !

  15. Change the laws so that they’re not so damn anti-male (it needs to be a bit in favor of the man) and divorce will plummet. Other things need to be done too of course but that’s one of the most important parts.

    1. The government benefits from the status-quo by keeping strong independent men at bay, so why change the law? Men have to find a way around it. Dowry system is such a way.

  16. Stats like this prove Islam is the true way of life. A woman cannot divorce her husband she may request a divorce through the authorities If 1. She is abandoned 2. Her husband refuses to maintain her 3. He does not have sex with her or impregnate her

    1. Seems like Islam most closely resembles the dream relationship with women many guys here want. I’m not sure why they’re not out protesting with the liberals against Trumps attempted ban.

  17. The list of assumptions astounds… no 50% of marriages aren’t “Successful” that is only true if the people involved don’t hate each other. How many of these would dissolve if the men in the contract would be given guarantees of keeping their assets, no alimony, and no child support. The fact that the woman can simply threaten frivorce to win any argument and do anything she wants (including cuckolding) is a factor in this. What we need is a return to basic standards put in place in earlier times.
    1) All property including children belong to the husband. Period. No ifs ands or buts minus a pre-marriage contract. Upon dissolution all property *still* belongs to the husband. If women don’t like this don’t get married – its them that wants it. Men are generous and wouldn’t leave most women high and dry anyway nor would most deny them visitation (unlike women who do this routinely) but this needs to be a choice of a man and not involve government coercion.
    2) Cuckolding is and should be punishable as aggravated rape. 10 year federal prison sentence minimum.
    3) The decision to divorce needs to be the mans decision ONLY and there needs to be specific legal grounds. Obviously desertion and other factors will need to be accounted for.
    Women stay in marriage because they cannot support themselves. The bible says a woman is too respect her husband and a husband is to love his wife. Even GOD above knows that women are incapable of love and so HE doesn’t command it – but respect? Thats an easy one particularly if you cannot feed and clothe yourself.
    The current female centered marriage model is broken and will collapse society (please let this happen soon!). The whole thing needs to die and women need to go back to being what they truly are – commodities. Worthy chaste obedient women can be cherished and loved commodities but at the end of the day that’s what they are.

    1. A lot of this exists already. In Saudi Arabia, where men can have up to four wives. You should really consider moving there.

  18. ” Statistically, it’s a coin toss: half the time, nothing bad happens.”
    So being a well off, in-shape guy in your 40s, 50s, and 60, and being stuck with a wrinkled old bag with stretch marks and cellulite isn’t bad??? The ONLY way that could work is if the wrinkled old bag is OK with her husband getting young girls on the side. Good luck finding that in the US.

    1. With a woman in her 40’s she may not be a wrinkled up old hag, but by 60’s, yeah, no exceptions really. And a woman who stuck by your side for decades faithfully, provided children and cared for them, well, you should probably have matured a bit beyond thinking solely with your dick by that age. BUT…..yes, your “ONLY” statement is also valid.

  19. “When child support is awarded, the cost basis should be the same as what
    the state pays to foster parents. In many cases, inflated child support
    is being used as back door alimony. Further, DNA testing should be
    mandatory. If the child isn’t the ex-husband’s (with the exception of
    adoptees), he shouldn’t be defrauded any further. The cheating ex-wife knows who the real father is; she can go after him instead.”
    Agree 100% about the paternity issue.
    But I’ll go you one better on the child support.
    End it entirely!!!
    The parent who can best AFFORD to take care of the children gets them. When my sister got divorced, she got a sizeable child support settlement, 2400/month. The first thing she did? Went back to her old job and hired an Au Pair to watch the kids! My brother in law could have done the exact same thing!!!

      1. Pft – I live in a state where I’d be paying ~$5k/mo in alimony for the rest of my life if my wife divorced me (and we have no kids!). At least child support eventually ends.

        1. Zero chance I’d get approved for BK and the alimony would be based on my income not assets (when we got married I was making ~35k/yr – I make ~9x that now)

        2. File bk before the court orders you to pay or before final hearing after the fact is a waste of time

  20. So since women arent supposed to go to college or pursue their own careers- we need to stay barefoot and pregnant for the entire marriage and in the advent of a divorce shouldn’t receive spousal support either- what exactly are we supposed to do if divorce happens? Starve?

  21. I just got divorced from a man who owns a successful business. I own pretty much nothing except my car. We had no prenup and legally I could have taken half of everything he has. I didn’t take a penny. Thankfully I have my degree to fall back on and I’ve always been independent by nature. He and I are still good friends.

    1. Wow you are such a saint for not robbing him blind. Great job contributing to the degenerate decline of the west. Marriage is indisoluable.

      1. Excuse me, what? Lol. Im just offering a counter-example to this ridiculous article’s claim that women are all trying to fuck men over financially. The divorce was amicable and mutually agreed upon by the way, not that it’s any of your concern.

        1. You made it my concern when you posted it online for the whole world to see as a vain attempt in virtue signaling.
          Marriage is indisoluable no matter how much it is “mutually agreed upon.” How about you honor your oath and your contract instead of telling the world how noble you are for not committing gross thievery.

        2. Although I should say it is good that you did not do as most women have done in similar circumstances nonetheless divorce is still wrong. And furthermore living up to basic moral standards such as not stealing, or extorting is what should be expected of someone no matter how depraved the generation they grow up in is.

        3. As I said, my situation is a counter-example which proves this entire article wrong. And yes, in 2017 in the West, whether you like it or not, marriage is in fact “disoluable”, two people who are not happy together do not have to stay with one another. Don’t like it? I suggest you move to Iran, or find something better to do with your life than concerning yourself with other people’s relationships.

        4. There you go again with your moral relativism. With that attitude I’m sure we will become a more virtuous people lol. Morality is an absolute it is always wrong to divorce no matter if you are in Iran or America.
          I don’t care about your relationship, you obviously still care about it because you are broadcasting it to the entire world as a proof of virtue. When this proof is questioned it suddenly becomes absolutely untouchable. So therefore you believe in moral objectivity when it suits you and moral relativism when it suits you. Typical woman think, which is why much to your chagrin you very much need marriage in order to be submitted to a man.

        5. Anecdotes don’t prove the article wrong. There are roughly 2 million new marriages per year, which means roughly 1 million divorces per year. If even 10% of those divorces end where both parties are happy (100k people), that still means 900k out of those 1m are getting screwed.

        6. ” legally I could have taken half of everything he has.” ?
          If “legally” men could rape their ex wives and a man said ” legally I could be raping her every night for the rest of her life.” He would be a saint for not doing it, according to your never ending defense of your blatant virtue signalling.
          You really sound like every self entitled American female on the internet, completely self absorbed and using absurd justifications.

        7. Yes you racist piece of crap. What do you know about Iran? Were you there? These left-wingers are the exact racists whom they claim to be fighting. I bet feminists like you go up in arms against Trump when he has some immigration bans but talk ill about the same people whom you claim to support. Shut the f up you monstor, Hopefully, no kids were born out of your wedlock. We should bring back witch hunting.

        8. It doesn’t prove the article wrong.
          When speaking generally there are exceptions. It’s a good thing you didn’t try to rob your ex blind. Really it is.
          That’s not how it usually goes down at all though. I’m not just talking anecdotally, check out Helen Smith, et al, if you need the stats and you do, we all do.
          The law has tipped things towards the woman so far, that marriage is financially dangerous for men. This is a fact. That some women decide not to twist the knife is interesting, but they could if they wanted to and most do, also a fact.

        9. Logic and you, you’re not mates are ya’?
          I can find an example of where a 100 foot wave didn’t capsize a ship it encountered, but tell you what, I’m not going to say that 99.999% of ships aren’t capsized by 100 foot waves.
          Besides, your original post admits right up front that you could have cleaned his clock, you just “benignly chose” not to. Hardly a refutation of the article’s premise.

        10. As I said, my situation is a counter-example which proves this entire article wrong.

          Oh lord, you really are as stupid as I assumed.
          Look sugartits, you didn’t “prove the entire article wrong”. To do so, your experience would have to be the standard experience, not the exception.
          There are some cases where energy can escape the pull of a black hole but they do not prove wrong the notion that the vast majority of energy and matter cannot escape a black hole once it’s within the gravitational pull of one.
          As to ‘concerning yourself with other people’s relationships”, you came in here and trotted around your status, so deal with it.

        11. This goes with the feminist doctrine that if one man does something, then all men are guilty of it. And if any one woman does not do something, then all women are innocent of it.

        12. Could have ended at “Look sugartits” and that would still be worth 100 up votes!

    2. “…legally I could have taken half of everything he has.” This comment right here supports the article you say is entirely wrong. Even you acknowledge how the legal system will support a woman when there is no reason,”The divorce was amicable and mutually agreed upon”. And instead of pointing this out you did what the majority of women do, …you made it about you. Getting attention like most women want. Go Away.

    3. “always been independent by nature” ! is it !!??
      What do you mean by “independent” !? In what sense you are “independent” !? By what means you are “independent” !? What makes you to feel you are “independent” !? And from whom you are “independent” !?
      You actually did a “big favor” to yourself by not taking a “penny” from your MAN; because that would make you a “beggar”, a “parasite”, a “leech” ! and a person with no “self respect” !!!

  22. When my first wife and I got a divorce (she was severely, not fit for human habitation bipolar), it was handled by a female Jewish lawyer. I’ve got to say she was a hot shit in court even though she was constantly trying to upsell me by encouraging hard feelings and belligerence toward my ex so I’d fight over every penny (after all she makes money by hours worked). I got away pretty well financially despite not biting on this. As we were walking out of court on the last day the lawyer asked me if I was going to have a divorce party. I guess this is the in thing now. I replied that we do not celebrate failure, in this case of my decade long marriage… She looked at me as if I had just gotten off a ship from Mars. I am beginning to think having more traditional ideals and values makes me an anachronism.

    1. Female Jewish Lawyer. Indeed quite anathema to your so-called “anachronistic” ideals.
      And we know you never got over Padme.

  23. No need for reform in all the areas mentioned in the article. Just limit the fees which divorce attorneys can receive. Maybe $300-400 per divorce for each attorney. Most everything will get worked out in the initial agreement and take out the incentive for continued litigation. Cap the cost of getting the divorce will take out much of the attention seeking behavior from bitter and dysfunctional women. Problem solved.

    1. That is actually a very interesting idea. A great deal of the adversarial contention comes from both sides’ lawyers egging their clients on to “get what you can!”. Hmmmm….

      1. It’s why if you can work it through a mediator it is far cheaper. Just one lawyer, he’s getting paid to write up an agreement and has no vested interest in prolonging the process or who gets what.

  24. Community property (wealth gained since the marriage began) *should* be split 50:50. The woman’s job is to create a happy home, which is not a dollars-and-cents proposition
    Have the Respondent decides who gets the kids. Automatically nullifies using children as bargaining chips. Ie play nice or the dice are loaded against you. If neither parent wants the job, judge can referee (including penalties for attempted child abandonment).
    Not your blood, not your problem, but there is no need to exempt adoption from DNA-paternity. The number of foster parents who would abandon their charges is miniscule. .
    A claim of domestic abuse should prejudice claimant against children’s custody. Why? Proven bad choice in partners.

  25. Man: Will you have sex with me for $1,000,000?
    Woman: YES!
    Man: Will you have sex with me for $100?
    Woman: NO! What do you think I am?
    Man: We already established that, now we’re haggling over price.
    ALL women are whores, they just think they’re $1,000,000 whores.

    1. “There are only two kinds of females in the world. Prostitutes and whores. Prostitutes are females who take money for sex. Whores are everyone else”.
      – me, 1988

  26. Lol when I saw what they first projected as my support off my earning potential. Wasn’t flattered. Not slandering myself, just it was absurd. 30% – 40% higher then any peak I ever considered reaching. It was fantasy land. More like unicorn bitch said how much she wanted and they reverse engineered the math.
    I sorted it out. Just it pissed me off during the process. Insulting I’ve done nothing wrong, and getting hit with worse penalty then a probation violation. Honestly a first offence for anything sans capital crime can get diversion…what is this shit.

  27. If she’s bored, then on Mother’s Day get her a gift that outlastes the warranty on the usual toaster or Honda Accord. Get her a sisterwife for company. No reason to let a silly hamster keep chewing holes and sink the boat now. Be safe and begin panning for the right third wheel at the first signs of hamster squeak from her. Half a boat don’t float. It’s either all the boat or no boat. The boat is worth more than her alone so I say save your durn boat brah.
    This is kind of hard to explain, but in a waning marriage, throwing in a second wife actually actes as a parachute for all occupants encumbered in the contract. You’ll see.

      1. See, one wife alone can become a severe handicap like a runaway wheel with bad bearings that you have to chase and retrieve and guide back with a stick. Two becomes a useful and working machine like a bicycle.

  28. Community property (wealth gained since the marriage began) *should* be split 50:50. The woman’s job is to create a happy home, which is not a dollars-and-cents proposition
    Have the Respondent decides who gets the kids. Automatically nullifies using children as bargaining chips. If neither parent wants the job, judge can referee (including penalties for attempted child abandonment).
    Not your blood, not your problem, but there is no need to exempt adoption from DNA-paternity. The number of foster parents who would abandon their charges is miniscule. .
    A claim of domestic abuse should prejudice claimant against child custody. Why? Proven bad choice in partners.

    1. Real proven statistics that women initiate 80% of physical violence between partners (lesbians constantly fight and hetero women start fights) should bear weight for equally penalizing 80% of women who claim that there was physical altercation (she started it in the first place).

    2. So as CEO of Microsoft who married a checkout girl, you think she should be entitled to half?

      1. Absolutely.
        Not to half of the CEO’s starting net worth, but to half of the increase in combined net worth during the marriage. So if he marries with $5bn and divorces with $10bn, she gets $2.5bn but not a cent of alimony.
        If that seems unconscionable, think of it this way:
        Assume that they were married for 5 years. Her companionship was worth $500,000,000 per year to him in productivity.

        1. If she were a whore, her companionship was worth $50 a go. If she were a checkout girl (who gave up work), working as a temporary whore, her worth would be 5 years of a checkout girls pay.
          Saying she was worth $2.5B is beta madness!

        2. Valuing a woman’s companionship (at more than her normal earning capacity) is Beta madness. Don’t forget to make deductions for the nice house, expensive holidays and good food she had at your expense.

        3. Why would anyone pay a checkout girl $500k/year for her time?
          That’s beta madness!
          I pay my wife $300/month (plus running expenses) and if she doesn’t like it she can leave with nothing more. No asset stripping or alimony where I live.

        4. It is not all peaches and cream. If hubby’s net worth stays the same or decreases, she walks away with nothing more than she came with.
          A mistress or whore would come out ahead.
          A wife rolls the dice.

  29. A couple of thoughts.
    “Family law” also includes things like adoptions, it’s not just a euphemism for divorce.
    It used to be, and perhaps still is, common for the parents to share “joint legal custody” with prime “physical custody” going to one parent or the other. Physical custody often changes over the course of the child’s growing up years.
    I have a working theory that divorce never comes completely out of the blue. Something has gone wrong to the point that someone is willing to call it quits. In the circles I travel in, divorce is more the final option rather than the first thing tried when a marriage goes sour. I’m wondering if a number of those “female initiated” divorces were mutual decisions to split, and the guy said, “you file. I have to go to work. ”
    Interesting that I can’t recall anyone I know who “traded up” post divorce (better-off man for the ex-wife, younger woman for the ex-husband). I wonder how much of this “truth” often bandied about here is based on statistics, and how much on conjecture and what happened to a friend of a friend?
    Lotza questions tonight!

    1. When a plateau is reached in a marriage, when finances are set and when security is guaranteed and needs are met, it is at this point when a woman will feel stifled or trapped. It is at this resting point of peace and plenty that the woman becomes purturbed or restless and a woman can become hypersensitive to triggers. A dripping faucet can drive them mad. They begin pulling proplems out of their ass that were non existant or miniscule at the beginning of a fine day. Women have always done this but in modern times when women grab for straws, they are handed legal options by roving predatory legal hacks and women are weaponized to specifically kill off the sire. It is a greatly engineered sexual dysphagia-like disease emasculating and depatriarching our society. Feminism and feminist doctrine were the carrier medium that allowed western society to become infected. Anti patriarchy enforcable laws could only be passed when preceded by widespread feminist philosophy and the result was the west losing orderly control of their females. The west now falls under leveraged control. The territories, inhabitants and resources can now be traded like shares. Feminism is a tried old tool of macronomics. I say it’s a disease too.

    2. It used to be, and perhaps still is, common for the parents to share
      “joint legal custody” with prime “physical custody” going to one parent
      or the other.

      Yeah, it’s a mystery who the kids get put with. Like, if you consider “with the woman 95% of the time” mysterious I mean.

      I have a working theory that divorce never comes completely out of the blue. Something has gone wrong to the point that someone is willing to call it quits. In the circles I travel in, divorce is more the final option rather than the first thing tried when a marriage goes sour.

      That’s one heck of a straw man you built there, bro.
      Where is it claimed that it’s the first option?

      Interesting that I can’t recall anyone I know who “traded up” post divorce (better-off man for the ex-wife, younger woman for the ex-husband).

      If you hang with the beaten down “man” or the middle aged woman/cougar, then yeah, I can see that observation being accurate.

        1. I didn’t have to petition, if I had she would have fought it. Divorce took 6 months from initiating the draft with a mediator. I just let her push the kids away, keep asking me to take them more and more, and I’d ask for the agreement to be modified. In 6 months it went from 50% to being changed on the day it was signed to my having full custody.
          Know a lot of guys who’s ex’s dump the kid… sorry, benevolently bestow the opportunity for Dad to step-up and have more time with the kids– after the divorce. Convenient for mom, she gets the CS payments, parties with her BF’s while Dad’s actually got the kids more. Harder time changing the agreement at that point. She’ll have a fit and try and shame him about he should just be glad about having more time with the kids. She’ll threaten to stop all that and be a barrier to his kids if he goes to court…..

        2. My lawyer in my first divorce (the only one with child custody as an issue) told me that I could pay him to challenge custody, but there was no way on the Earth that I would get it. I would have to prove not only that she was totally as in 100% unfit, but also that such unfitness was harming the children. Then I would have to prove that I was a perfect person, and parent, in every single respect. This is the reason so few men push for custody.
          I had a work acquaintance who tried to overturn custody. He had been divorced for a while. Had remarried and had a couple more kids. He had a stable good marriage and a middle class lifestyle. His ex wife was a heroine addict that lived with her pusher drug dealer boyfriend. He had affidavits from multiple counselors, psychiatrists, school counselors, and court appointed advisors that the ex wife’s life style was harming the child from his first marriage. The judge ordered him to pay for his ex wife’s drug rehabilitation and no change to the custody. That is how biased the system is against men.

        3. m a, were you remarried? Or your children older? I assumed most men wouldn’t seek physical custody of young children because … well, most don’t seem inclined to give fulltime care to them. But, then, most mothers don’t either anymore.

        4. No remarrying. Kids’ didn’t need the drama/turmoil, would have made it tougher for her to visit them, and harder to keep the kids in touch with her parents. Good folks.
          She only moved a couple miles away, I would leave early for work so she could come by and see them off to school. She kept doing that even when they were old enough to drive themselves. Brought them dinner once a week, would come by after work once or so a week. Putting another woman in the mix would have probably made that unworkable.
          They were older, late elementary school/and 8th grade.
          I wanted custody since the biggest threat to a child is mom’s new BF/husband, would have sought it even if they were younger.
          In the words’ of my daughter’s therapist- my ex wanted to shed her responsibilities and play at being a mom. Sad thing is my kids are very smart and they figured that out quickly.
          BTW- they don’t know their mom signed away custody, I would never tell them that. They think this just evolved as circumstances unfolded.

        5. I’m honestly floored. You are an honorable man, m a. I hope you’ve found some happiness after that ordeal.

        6. I am happy, and grateful. After seeing what a lot of men went through, I’ve had it good. I got to kiss my kids every morning before work, and kiss them every night before bedtime. Been their for the proms and BFs and breakups and high school show choir, son’s LAN parties and high school competitions. How could I make some woman I hadn’t even met yet a priority over that, my kids?
          I think happiness isn’t found, it’s lived. My mother and father chose joy in life, through ups and downs.
          As to being honorable- I have lived up to my own code of values and can look myself in the mirror.

        7. My former wife is entitled to $25,000 a year in welfare because she has 100% custody. No way she would ever give that up!

    3. I traded up- I’m single and happy no longer having the stress of trying to ‘make someone happy’. Her issues are ‘Not. My. Fu&%ing. Problem.’ as she fired me from that job.
      Thinking divorce is about ‘trading up’ is kind of a feminist thing. The accusation that men dump their older wives to get someone younger. George Gilder and other folks looking into it with that assumption were surprised to find it was usually the woman filing for divorce because ‘she wasn’t happy’. If the guy filed the usual reason was ‘I can’t make her happy’. Getting the ‘younger women’ usually came after the divorce and wasn’t a factor in it.

  30. My answers in part.
    1. Get government out of marriage-totally out.
    2. End the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking.
    Number 2 does a few things: ends the need for 2 income family, and preserves wealth so families can become wealthy over a few generations by just being frugal and saving.
    Number 1, well, so many interests are vested here its a pipe-dream.

  31. Depends on men internalising the true nature of women. And then depends on every girl’s exposure to feminism power mania. Post wall losers are sinking ships.

  32. I agree child custody should be 50/50 unless there’s a good reason why it shouldn’t and each person would leave with what their own assets and split the shared ones. The courts really make it shitty for responsible fathers.
    Marriage involves commitment, sacrifice, respect, love, loyalty and consideration from both people. The way a lot of you talk your idea of an ideal marriage seems very one sided where it’s all about what she will do for you. I don’t think truly successful marriages work when only one person’s desires and needs are being met with little consideration to the desires and needs of the other person.

    1. The current paradigm puts all the burden of work on the man and leaves the woman free and unfettered by accountability or even reason. Reactionary articles are just that, reacting to the current situation. Coming in pre-compromised “Can’t we all just get along and be nice” does not work any longer, you have to come in punching hard and fast.

      1. Times are different and its not as easy for men I agree. Even if the current situation and resulting reaction is the fault of feminism, the fact is both men and women are in me first mode. Not all men and women, but quite a few, making it difficult for both men and women to find someone with which to have a healthy marriage.
        If the self- preservation motto is to go in punching hard and fast, why bother going in at all? In any case, it’s been stated here time and again that women offer no real value to a man’s life outside of a warm body and maybe someone to make dinner. You don’t need a wife for that. And, as the average woman wants to be more valued than that, she in turn doesn’t want to be a wife under that condition. Maybe this is a sign of a real shift in what defines relationships. More people have never been so self centered as they are now. Maybe this will lead to the extinction of marriage as we traditionally know it.

        1. The Judge don’t care if the guy is in ‘me first’ mode or not, he’s still gonna give her everything.

  33. The secret to my strong marriage is easy- I always great him at the door naked with a Martini, and I let him bang anyone he wants.

    1. OK Bill……you’ve claimed you’re not a woman and you’re not gay, so which is it?
      Just askin…….

  34. Marriage? Straight people still do that? I thought LGBTQABCXYZ people were taking up the mantle?

  35. I’ve given this tremendous thought and while the article outlines key necessary things to bring stability to marriage I would like this community to consider the Dowry system of old, that of western civilization as opposed to eastern. In Roman times there was marriage and there was divorce (in fact there were different types of marriage and divorce, but that is beyond the scope of this post) and things were very simple because of the dowry system.
    The bride to be’s family was required to pay over a dowry to the soon to be husband (smart husbands invested and grew the dowry in order to keep the difference). The size of the dowry usually depended on the quality of the girl, the family’s connections, and so on. Potential husbands were scrutinized. It was a value system. Good solid men tended to get good solid wives, and money on top of that. When divorce occurred it was the husband’s responsibility to pay back the dowry to the wife or the wife’s family. Simple and done. If he did not have the dowry, then he would owe it as a matter of law. Again simple.
    Even women who had their own money, perhaps due to inheritance, being widowed, or divorced could dangle the bait of their dowry to attract ambitious husbands at much more advanced ages (think career women).
    Fathers in this scenario have all the power because they decide who to spend their daughter’s dowry on, girl children actually had a worth because they could attract quality suitors and fathers had a vested interest in maintaining the quality and purity of his daughters. Fathers with quality sons stood to enrich their family because their quality sons could marry quality wives who brought wealth to that family.
    It’s a wonderfully effective system that incentivizes value and keeps divorce extremely simple. I’ve only outlined very basic information, I would encourage you all to research it yourself, but I would wholeheartedly support this kind of system in replacement of even the system that was around in the 1950’s.

  36. 1. Quit the welfare state. No daddy government anymore.
    2. No childsupport anymore, let women make good decisions on who they have sex with.
    3. No child benefits from the state anymore, pay for your own children. The money saved can benefit taxpayers who payed for this initially.
    4. stop no-fault divorce.
    5. No palimony laws anymore until women will do their job: stay at home and watch after children.
    6. and last but not least: no affirmative action anymore.
    You know what will happen when we strip away the anti-male legislation? Women will flock to men, again. They will hold their yaps close. The same will happen in times of crisis btw. That’s also when nature takes over. And all of this is fair because you don’t advantage anyone anymore. When these laws don’t change: don’t marry ever. And if women complain about “no good men” around: just tell them how it is. Tell them about the cockcarrousel, the Tinder lifestyle, tell them about divorcerape, men who got cuckolded and have to pay anyway.

    1. It will never happen because the government is benefiting from the status-quo to keep strong men at bay,

      1. True. There is nothing more dangerous to the state than a 18-45 year old healthy single heterosexual male.

  37. All of you need to move to a rural area. I am telling you society rags on and beats down the “Hillbilly/Redneck” stereotype but from where I grew up all the men in the community took care of their wives, were there for their kids and could PROVIDE. They usually had a religion in place that reinforced not being a slut, not being a beta male, and housing is affordable when you can live without 3,000 cable channels, excessive clothing, and stick to a diet of predominately self raised beef and vegetables. Not to mention the benefit you get out of avoiding advertising and marketing schemes. The media tells us society is better in the urban cities where disease and feminism thrive, out in the rural parts of America there is still hope for self sufficiency and tradition.

  38. Complete BullShit!
    Women divorce because they get most of the assets and an income for life. Stop that and you will stop (most) divorce.

  39. There is ONE secret every guy keeps. Bottoming is fucking great. Yes, it hurts every time. Yes it is sometimes messy (Santorum is just not a candidate in Iowa). But it is always fucking worth it. There are lots of guys who only like to bottom. There are lots of couples that are both bottoms and they take turns begrudingly topping. There are also lots of tops who only like to top. Topping is fun too. But if topping is like a merry-go-round, then bottoming is like the best fucking roller coaster you’ve ever been on in your life. The weird thing is “power bottom” isn’t just some stupid straight boy insult, the gays use it too. There’s some sort of shame about being a bottom, like it makes us less manly and that straight people won’t take us seriously. That is probably true, but those feelings are wrapped in all this heteronormative, patriarchal bullshit that straight society has thrust upon us, and we hate you for making us feel bad about something that is better than chasing a million dragons. And, yes, straight guys, let your lady stick a finger up there sometime, and you’ll know what I’m talking about. I promise not to make you feel like less of a man for it.

Comments are closed.