Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

"We" just hit mainstream media

sodbuster

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
378
Age
64
Location
South Dakota
OK, it's a small newspaper, but one of the columnists opened up what we've been saying about marriage here. Bet there's alot of panties in a bunch right now. Don't know how to do the link, but aberdeennews.com Lawrence Diggs...have to see what my staff thinks of it
 

zekko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
15,859
Reaction score
8,562
Here's the direct link:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/opinion/aan-4a.01-26-12.ed.column.diggs-20120126,0,5220854.story
It makes a good point about changing gender roles. If the roles of husband and wife have become poorly defined, how do we know how to fulfill them?

The question of "what's in it for men?" is hardly new, though. I remember being aware of it when I was in my teens. It was well known even then that marriage was a very risky venture. So this viewpoint definitely didn't originate with SoSuave.

The woman who posted the comment to the article gives about the only possible answer:
"What is to be expected of a partner in marriage? Love, affection, respect, companionship, sex, sexual and romantic fidelity, parenthood if chosen, and fulfillment of lifetime potential."
 

Warrior74

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
5,134
Reaction score
227
zekko said:
The woman who posted the comment to the article gives about the only possible answer:
"What is to be expected of a partner in marriage? Love, affection, respect, companionship, sex, sexual and romantic fidelity, parenthood if chosen, and fulfillment of lifetime potential."
That's a poor prize for the legal trap required to attain it. You can have all of that without the state or the church being involved. The key word here is MARRIAGE. I promised my ex all of that, but refused to sign legal paperwork as I knew that was a mugs game.
 

zekko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
15,859
Reaction score
8,562
Warrior74 said:
That's a poor prize for the legal trap required to attain it. You can have all of that without the state or the church being involved. The key word here is MARRIAGE. I promised my ex all of that, but refused to sign legal paperwork as I knew that was a mugs game.
Well, I'm definitely not advocating marriage. You're right, you can have all of those things without signing a paper. The problem is that it's firmly estalished in today's culture that the "promise" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. All the legal paperwork guarantees is that you are going to have to be splitting up your property when it's over. It's kind of a "pre-divorce" contract. That wasn't the original intent.

As you might know, I've been cohabitating with my girlfriend quite happily. The main reason I have found to marry her is so that she can inherit my estate when I'm dead without being hit with excessive taxes. This is important to me, that she is protected, but I am in the meantime reluctant to take the risk. Hopefully I don't drop dead suddenly.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Off note:

What we usually tend to forget is the primal purpose for our society "rules".

Marriage was supposed to serve as a legal tool to secure women, other men and most importantly children. Other men were secured because they were not forced, like they are now, to take care of single mothers who were knocked up by other men.

In days with no social support for single mothers it would be death sentence for the child if man left the mother easily.

It is quite "funny" how forced charity spoiled our world. True story...my friend lost her husband and father (two months) to an mountain bike accident. It took her a year to get some support money from social security department. Why? Because the money and effort goes to any single mother...not being married to collect the support. And because she owns 1/17 of some cottage...which she can't even sell to anyone.

Marriage is still valid, at least to provide stability for children.

Marriages fail because men marry the first women who want them, even though they don't love them that much. Women interpret their lack of love as strength, coolness...not AFC. After years they learn they married pvssies and disrespect them. Relationship turns to hostility. Divorce battles putting enormous strain on children. Basically children get a first realization that they are being surrounded, "protected" and provided by unstable non reliable grown up children.

Show me a guy who gets a divorce and I show you a coward...past or present.
 

Colossus

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 22, 2005
Messages
3,542
Reaction score
558
DanelMadr said:
Marriages fail because men marry the first women who want them, even though they don't love them that much. Women interpret their lack of love as strength, coolness...not AFC. After years they learn they married pvssies and disrespect them. Relationship turns to hostility. Divorce battles putting enormous strain on children. Basically children get a first realization that they are being surrounded, "protected" and provided by unstable non reliable grown up children.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, but a very good observation nonetheless. It is true that many men marry the first woman who really wants them, while sort of sweeping their own desires under the rug for stability's sake.

However, it is also true that many WOMEN marry the poor schlub that loves her unconditionally, when HE isnt what she truly wants. Then in time she grows to resent him for not 'giving her what she needs'.

DanelMadr said:
Show me a guy who gets a divorce and I show you a coward...past or present.
Again, true in many cases, but your'e painting with a pretty broad brush there.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Colossus said:
That's a bit of an oversimplification, but a very good observation nonetheless. It is true that many men marry the first woman who really wants them, while sort of sweeping their own desires under the rug for stability's sake.
I believe for the sake of having a woman, because the strain/fear of seduction "process" is too much for them/us.
However, it is also true that many WOMEN marry the poor schlub that loves her unconditionally, when HE isnt what she truly wants. Then in time she grows to resent him for not 'giving her what she needs'.
I'd like to think women always marry up. However projections, false expectations/hopes and biological clocks can distort that. Also and it is pure speculation on my part, I believe women seek wussies to marry not even for safety reasons but also because that is the only father model they know...either no father or wussy one. Daughters of not wussy fathers have hard time finding a partner (personal observation).

Again, true in many cases, but your'e painting with a pretty broad brush there.
Yeah I know and it should be viewed as that...broad strokes. What I did not want to say...Most men are wussies and we/I am special.
I wanted to emphasize the damaging role of fear and lack of personal courage plaguing our minds on all fronts. And mainly I wanted to remind everybody that Children should be the focus, not some equal rights for grown ups.

It is quite sad to watch push for rights of fathers when they should be OK, being grown ups and all.

Fathers> We want equality too
Mothers> OK?
Fathers> in child custody. If we pay we want equal time with them.
Mothers> No way. It is too much strain on them and besides we hate you.
Fathers> But...equality.
Legislators> Equal share of children for the sake of equal rights of both parties.
Third party-children> WTF?
 

sodbuster

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
378
Age
64
Location
South Dakota
The inequity of the system ALLOWS women to act on whatever whim they feel. they automatically are assumed to be the best parent...in fact, you did just that. So,they have no fear of losing the kids. MEN have to fear losing the kids and paying child support for kids they never see. Not to mention losing half the stuff I earned before I ever married. Not sure I want to sit at a game I know is rigged against me again.
 

BobMo'

Don Juan
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
123
Reaction score
7
"Show me a guy who gets a divorce and I show you a coward...past or present."

Perhaps one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on this forum.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
sodbuster said:
The inequity of the system ALLOWS women to act on whatever whim they feel. they automatically are assumed to be the best parent...in fact, you did just that. So,they have no fear of losing the kids. MEN have to fear losing the kids and paying child support for kids they never see. Not to mention losing half the stuff I earned before I ever married. Not sure I want to sit at a game I know is rigged against me again.
I do assume women are better carer in most cases. It is just common sense.
Even if equality could be achieved between sexes I just don't see why? Where are the children in it?????

If both parents agree on visits, fine. If not I don't see why children should be put changing sides every month or so in hostile environment.

Why do you earn anything if not for the kids anyway? Will you take it to the grave?

My father once told me :' If mother of your children starts to hate you, give her everything and run like wind. It is a small price.'

Is it good for children to see their father? Yes but not for the price of being thrown in the battle of hurt egos.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
BobMo' said:
"Show me a guy who gets a divorce and I show you a coward...past or present."

Perhaps one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on this forum.
Thanks.

Actually that was a safe call. Most of us are cowards and most of our "problems" are related to that.

I hope some of us realize this bitter truth, take responsibility and stop the power struggle damaging themselves, their exes and surely their kids.

Nothing kicks as bad as ego in hurt and cowards have big ones.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Why is it common sense that women are the better care-givers? By what logic have you come to this conclusion?
Maternal instincts.

You lost me here. "What about the children" is the mantra of the modern propoganda-terrorists who use children as a human shield. You could murder half of the world "for the children" and people would not think twice about it.
Don't you find it interesting that children are used as a human shield in every BS but in family matters they are suddenly irrelevant compared to needs of parents and their hurt sense of justice?
Main reason for constituting a marriage is the well being of children. Recently we changed that to 'who gets what...children included'.

The environment is hostile regardless of the changing of hands by a certain schedule.
It is certainly more hostile, if both parents have to interact frequently.

How harmful do you think it is for children to be raised without a father?
I don't know. Certainly not good. However, I guess it is less damaging than fighting parents, changing loyalties...less stress factors.

Again, a quote that comes straight from the "use the children as a shield" offensive strategy utilized by feminists across the world.
Feminists probably use it because it seems damaging to men.
IMHO, I use it because it is my view. I won't take the $ to my grave and I wouldn't feel any pain giving it to my children.

The problem with this is, how much of that money is really going directly toward the child's benefit as opposed to just being spent on the mother's wishes du jour?
Agreed. In todays world divorced spouse shouldn't receive any alimony in case she does not have any children.
If mother spends the money on things like handbags she should be held accountable.

Again, that battle occurs regardless. And again, what is the cost of not having a father?
The battle shouldn't occur if both parents were responsible adults. And if one is simply angry b1atch the other should walk and not to fuel it. Also the judge should see this and sometimes does. What judge usually sees however are too angry b1taches. I simply advocate for being reasonable DJ even in divorce court.

Cost of having no father? Father or angry b1atch?

What you espouse amounts to confiscation of property, rationalized by the (dubious) positive effects it has on the children.
Actually my father meant positive effects on yourself. A peace of mind :)

I cannot possibly endorse such a mentality, and I honestly find it hard to believe that anyone could actually think this is ok.
Try to have another perspective. Divorce is for lot of men strong blow to their egos. Ultimate rejection, shattered dreams, feeling like losers, pain from not being close to their beloved children. I get that. But this site teaches us to be above that all and play it with cool head. And like real leaders we should see the greater good and not to bulldoze ahead for some feeling of hurt or injustice.

Unless you married total b1atch I see no reason for divorce battles. And if you made that mistake, it happens, we should cut our loses and not trash around like children.
 

Jitterbug

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
3,230
Reaction score
143
Men were once children too. At what age did we stop being special enough to warrant any consideration from DanelMadr?
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danel,

You are basically saying "Sacrifice the Fathers to save the Children". I call bull$hit. We have had millenia of existence where we never had to have such sacrifices. The only reason we are trying to do it now is to enable the mothers to choose whatever lifestyle catches their eye at a certain point in time.
Needs of children should be above the needs of fathers. That was what I was saying originally. I was concern by the neglect of children in our battle of sexes. Recently in my country Father movement score some big points -equal share of children act. In the whole debate before the law, there was lot of shouting about rights of fathers, equality etc. But to my amazement no mention or study of what is actually better for children. And I'm missing it in this debate too.

Extreme examples of violent spouses, alcoholics and abusive partners aside, I don't see many divorced women with children adopting other lifestyle than that of the mother who has to include her parents or babysitter when she needs to work late, travel or whatever. Certainly not a bliss. But I guess it is better than cohabitation with a partner they do not love anymore.
Certainly we can criticize that lack of devotion and loyalty these days. It is true that some years back women had less options and had to think hard before they would divorce. Do we want that back? Or should we, men choose better or be the DJs who have the respect, loyalty and love of their wives?

Frankly from what I hear here are the cries after making the law the way women will have trouble leaving us.

Not happy with your current life? Divorce your husband, take the kids (and thus the money with it) and join the ranks of cougardom.
I don't know about that. Life of a cougar is pretty sad, especially when you have children to care for and women know it.

Sacrificing fathers for the sake of the children is a battlecry embraced by the entitlement feminist complex of modern times. It enables and promotes divorcing the sex with lesser rights and is even based on the predisposition that he is incapable of raising his children. I hate to say it Danel, but you are brainwashed.
Well, I have to disagree but I would say that if I was brainwashed, so I can only appeal on your objective mind. I do see the inequality before court but I'm not brainwashed by leftists to demand equality for whatever the price. And I don't want to fight the feminists by their own weapons (EQUALITY solves all). We are not equal in all departments.

Answers to your statements below.




Is paternal instinct any less authentic, deep and powerful than maternal instinct? What you are espousing is that there is a "better parent", when in actuality children need both parents.

Not unlike "Working Mom", maternal instinct is another catch-phrase to show the strength of women that men also lack.

Do you believe there is no such thing as "Paternal instinct"? We more commonly know that as "Protect the tribe", but of course, you will never hear that out loud in today's society, as it implies women are weak.
I believe in paternal instinct but I also believe that maternal one is much stronger and better suited for taking care of the child on everyday basis.

They are used as human shields EVERYWHERE. More importantly, it is only the females who use them as shields when it comes to family court. I argue that children are better served by a system that promotes justice and SIMULTANEOUSLY does not reward a divorce state through giving the children and the money to the mother by default.
I am all for equal care of both parents. But not mandated and forced by state. It has to mutual agreement. And indeed in many cases parents make an agreement. Court is fast and everyone is happy. I understand that when the woman is the primal care giver and wants to revenge on the father through children sharing issue, it is bad. But will it be better if court forced equal care? Yeas, absolutely...for the ex husband. And children are where in this picture? Do they need both parents? Absolutely. Do they need to travel between hostile parents? I don't think so.


And it is even more hostile if we promote divorce by giving incentive to the women for the filing of divorce, wouldn't you say?
Incentive is given by our prosperity. And I prefer personal freedom to walk above staying in unhappy marriage for existential reasons.

Again, there would be even less damage if we do not promote divorce by virtually guaranteeing the mother gets everything and loses nothing.
what is the goal here? Make them suffer more after divorce or make it more risky so they will think harder before leaving us?

If you are right about the value of maternal instinct (being it just propaganda) we will certainly see boom in divorce when fathers will receive the children in court. Mothers will be free of children and the lack of alimony will certainly be compensated by full time jobs and sugar daddies.


Nor would I feel pain giving money to my children, but you and I both know that the money does not go to the children. It goes to the mother who spends as she sees fit without any accounting for where that money goes.
I agree they should be held accountable for this. In the age of electronic payments and bills it could be easily achieved without bureaucratic over head . No more hand bags from alimony.

Should and can't are two very different terms. Don't you think it makes sense to ensure the children are getting the full benefit of child-support payments and that alimony is altogether wiped out BEFORE you point the finger at men when it comes to divorce and children????

Men have a more than valid point here, it is time to make the women accountable.
I do agree. No alimony for wives who did not bare our children. It's 21st century, they can get a job.

Again, what "should" occur and what "does" occur are two vastly different things. Do you find it odd that no matter how much the woman gets angry, she still gets the children? Not matter how unstable she may appear, she still gets the children. The Father walks away to not inflame things, and his reward? A big fat paycheck to the ex and very limited time with the kids.
I'm not sure you are being objective. I know many cases when mother was found unfit to take care of the child.
If she is unstable and angry towards the children, she will be find unfit. If not, then it is a mistake to give her the children. However in most cases she is unstable and angry only towards the husband.


Sounds like a good reason to see him more than every other weekend, wouldn't you agree?
That's probably one of the reasons why my mother did not divorce him I guess. His attitude does bring respect and he can diffuse conflicts not fuel it.

If she would divorce him and even was mad enough to block him for us. My father would certainly hold his ground, he would want us but he wouldn't prolonged the pain for us by fighting to death. Therefore not losing our respect for him and eventually we would persuade our mother to see him.
Positive effects of his fathering would be otherwise silenced by the roar of battle of endless divorce, mother's nagging every time a visit should occur.
This is a great quote, but I think you are picking the wrong gender to point it at.
Unfortunately we can't change them. We can only teach by example. Consciousness is contagious. As well as unconsciousness aka ego.

Again, your viewpoint boils down to "Sacrifice the Father for the Children". I call bull$hit. In no way is it beneficial to sacrifice the father for ANY reason. Such a mentality can only come to be in a society of cannibals. Unfortunately, when it comes to men, that is what civilization has come to in this modern age.
I just don't see how a judge can make our relationships better.

Frankly, I do think most of the court children care battles are just a revenge and hurt ego driven on both sides and I try to stop it at least on our side. I also see the call of men for state to bring the artificial safeties of yesterday when divorce was more complicated. It is unrealistic and I don't think it is even desirable. Everyone should be more free to decide, not limited by circumstances.

Some AFC's even cry for sharia to make their lives easier, heh.

I agree with your point that the freedom should not be financed from men's purse. I am against alimony other than for the children. And those should be more accountable. However I don't think alimony do entitle to visits and man who does not pay them should be held responsible (I refuse to finance strange children from my taxes if they just have a father on ego trip).

Demanding on state to resolve our relationships is double edged sword. State will never make good decisions in these matters. Unless one example of king Solomon ;-)

I guess, it was what I was trying to say. Will we cut the child in half, just to make feed our image of a good father? Or are we willing to swallow our pride in order not to prolong the hostilities?
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Jitterbug said:
Men were once children too. At what age did we stop being special enough to warrant any consideration from DanelMadr?
Hopefully after reaching puberty. At least after having our own children. But apparently we are still special snowflakes and our feelings should be taken in to account on the same level with children. :moon:
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Danel,

You make some well-reasoned points, but keep in mind your point of view still comes down to sacrificing the fathers for the sake of the children.

Tell me, do you think it is ok to sacrifice the mother's happiness for the sake of the children?

From my point of view, you keep saying that the children are the number one object to be defended, yet you are still ok with the damage done to a child in a divorce as long as the mother remains happy?
You formulated a very tricky question, you devil.

Lesser evil....the one who spends more time with them should be happy to provide happy environment. Yes, in most cases it is the mother. I'm not sure we would want to change that, or do we? That is the question.

Damage to the child who can't see it's father is great but lesser than the damage done by hostile environment.

And this attitude in divorce courts...'who wins and who will be more happy' is the problem. No matter what, children really lose, and the longer the battle the more they suffer.
 

sodbuster

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
378
Age
64
Location
South Dakota
I had a better relationship with my son's, was the primary caregiver[had them out with me more than she had them,was raising them alone without her-she had a job that required travel-more than she was home alone with them,make 4 times the money,and can do EVERYTHING better than she does[including emotional support] except cook and clean.

After the divorce, I have them half time, pay $800/month in child support for one,$13 k in college tuition for the other[like SHE doesn't have a job?] and got to write her a $200k check as her going away "present". When she moved out, I was the happiest I'd been in YEARS,but I don't like the way the courts have screwed me over.
 

DanelMadr

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
23
Danger said:
Ha, good fun!

Not meant to trick you, but to get at the meat of the matter.

I find it interesting that just the other day there was an article on The Spearhead regarding this subject, and a link to numerous studies with sources citing that an unhappy marriage was better for children then a divorce would be.

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~rhetoric/105H16/cova/jlscova.html

The Spearhead article is below....

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/0...-socializing-the-best-interests-of-the-child/

Now, I have always been of the mind that a non-toxic household is better than one toxic house-hold....but this did give me pause on that consideration.

By this standard, would you not consider the woman's unhappiness to be the "lesser of two evils"?
An unhappy marriage is better for children than a divorce would be. Provided there are no fights or even silent hostility. I guess in that case even if break up occured both parents would be still sane enough to strike a quick and reasonable deal on child care.

We are talking about toxic divorces where children are taken hostage and revenge, hostility and hurt pride rules.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'll try.
In case of hostile divorce were both parties fight to death...

If court ordered equal care....hostility would remain or it would be present in mother's home, but probably both homes as strains of the equal sharing between enemies are always stranded. Also technicalities would make children suffer...two homes, possibly two schools etc.

If court ordered A as primal care giver. And B would have them partially...I guess B would be even more pissed than in former example compensating the relative happiness of A. Again some technicalities of sharing would remain pulling the nerves.

If court ordered them only to A. Children would miss the B obviously. However no hostility, no loyalty conflict would occur.

In fascist state, in case of hostility between parents state would claim the children.

Again it boils down to who will be the primal care giver. And he or she (or he or he or she or she in case of homo adoption) then decides about the shared care.

Why not to do some rigorous psychological examination of both individuals?

I guess even the best of men would fail in case of little children as they don't produce any milk :)

Of course many women prove to be very selfish, demanding the divorce even knowing the damage it will have on the child. But we can't do anything about that other than not marrying them. If that happens even to the best of us we should deal with the situation sanely. Perpetuating the hostility by fighting the battle for the sake of children ;-) for they need our immense wisdom and parenting, is just more harm than good. Even worse when we fight because of hurt pride or refusing to admit our responsibility for our mistakes.

And yes we had to make some mistakes. Either in selection process or in marriage. Women do not divorce Djs. It is simplification but admitting ones faults and learning from them is important DJ's virtue.

The second link 'The Problem with Socializing the “Best Interests of the Child” fails to provide solution other than 15th Century Papal approval of divorce to make it more difficult for women to divorce unfaithful or wussy or broke or unlucky(?) or whatever husbands. Or do they suggest if woman divorces she won't get alimony for children as solution?

I guess more divorces is our price for more freedom. Bright side is...
today when a woman stays she really means it the home is hostility free. There is more and more singles and childless. We are overpopulated anyway.
Damaged children are less likely to reproduce or prosper...natural selection (I'm bad). Meaning....cool people don't divorce and are producing cool children. Hoooray more cool people.

Note> hard core feminists say differences between men and women are social constructs. They even dispute maternal instincts and don't even admit their crucial role as boob feeders. At least they can't dispute child bearing.
 

lifeislearning

Don Juan
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
166
Reaction score
13
DanelMadr said:
In days with no social support for single mothers it would be death sentence for the child if man left the mother easily.
No. From a historical perspective a disadvantaged single mother would be forced to become efficient at some, often illegal, profession or trade. Often prostitution. A sentence of poverty and degradation to be sure, but not of death.

As for the strength of marriage, bonds, loyalty, securement of progeny, etc; sure all these things can be done with or without a marriage contract (keep in mind; legal or not, religious or not a 'marriage' is a contract).

What determines the vitality and the efficacy of any symbol is dependent solely on the importance and power each partner attributes to a symbol, in this case a marriage contract. If the marriage is respected as a public contract declaring a couple's intimate devotion to each other, in order to be supported by the community and kept socially accountable; then, the marriage has a good chance to succeed. If the marriage is seen simply as a government sanctioned paper; then, there is little strength or validity to this contract.
 

sodbuster

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 11, 2008
Messages
2,579
Reaction score
378
Age
64
Location
South Dakota
Jophil was divorced,his wife went crazy after they were married a long time...suppose he should have seen it coming 15 years earlier? As far as being a DJ...you aren't qualified to carry his jockstrap. READ his stuff, see how close you are to him[or aren't]. If you've never been married,you really don't have a clue. BUT, you've read a book on it somewhere that makes you an expert.

You can read a book on American football,but nothing tells you about the flash of bright light you see when you take a good helmet to helmet hit,the searing pain you feel when your kneecap is knocked over to the side of your leg,or the painful pop when your shoulder is dislocated. Do you think they aren't men because if they were DJ's they could have handled it different or not gotten into that position? Seems to be what you are saying about marriage. Marriage is a full contact sport...even the best can get hurt through no fault of their own...sh1t happens.
 
Top