Post: #51

(08-18-2016 10:25 AM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  ^You'd be surprised how committed women are to something that will get them what they need. A good example being chicks who are gym rats(not power lifters). They know staying in shape will help them across the board so they stay committed to it.


It's not so much female commitment as it is female desire that changes.

I defer to your wisdom on that, but I'm still reminded that men and women approach commitment as differently as cats and dogs commit to their owners.

Post: #52

(08-18-2016 10:20 AM)TheOllam Wrote:  Commitment is a lifestyle choice for men. They can commit to career, hit the gym, self-improvement. Men can commit to awesome hobbies like fishing and take it to near professional levels in their spare time.

Women go through phases of commitment and shift for convenience.

Reminds me of an old parable: "It is said about breakfast that while the chicken is involved, the pig is truly committed" since chickens can just lay eggs, but pigs have to die for the bacon.

Women change their mind based on the moods she has in a random day,
or based on what she heard her friends did...

There is nothing more fleeting and temporary than the affection/attention given by a woman

Post: #53

(08-02-2016 07:01 AM)Roger Wrote:  Well naturally the man is a provider and the backbone of the family.

If he loses this status and becomes unworthy, that divorce might be '' justifiable'' .

However considering the total decadence of the times we are living in, the women today have found endless '' reasons'' to divorce, even when the man is a good guy and has a good job.

Suppose the husband isn't providing for his family. Should the law say that this is a legitimate grounds for divorce? If so, how long should the wife have to wait for him to get a job before she is allowed to divorce him?

In my state, the law says that if a husband has been sentenced to serve more than a year in prison, that is grounds for his wife to divorce him. What if the husband is out of a job for more than a year; should that have the same effect?

What if the husband has a job, but isn't making a lot of money? Should that be grounds for divorce; and if so, on what basis should we decide the amount of money that he's required to make? (In many cases, a husband will be self-employed, but have hardly any business, so it's almost like he's unemployed.)

What if he's employed sometimes, but not always? For example, suppose in a period of two years, he keeps finding jobs and getting fired a few months later, so that altogether, he's only employed for 11 out of those 24 months? Should the law specify that he has to work a certain number of hours over a certain period of time, or else there are grounds for divorce?

What about cases where the husband doesn't have to work, because he inherited a bunch of money, or won a bunch of money in the lottery? Should that be considered an exception to the requirement that he be employed in order to prevent his wife from having grounds for divorce?

What about if he works as, say, some kind of highly paid consultant who only needs to work a few hours a week in order to pay the bills? What about if he's semi-retired?

What if he doesn't make a lot of money, but he supports the family in other ways, for example by building a home for them with his own hands?

Should the law deal with these situations by having two criteria, e.g.: if (a) he fails to work 2,000 hours in a two-year period, AND (b) he fails to support his family at a certain standard of living, then there are grounds for divorce? If so, what should that standard of living be, and how should it be measured?

What unemployment ever a grounds for divorce in the past, before we had no-fault divorce?

I'm interested to know what you think, because I'm running for state legislator right now and want to draft some proposals to revamp our divorce laws. Thanks.

Post: #54

Marriage only makes sense in a Christian context. In a Christian society two Christians who believe marriage is for life through thick and thin can have a successful marriage.

In America today, which is run by wicked people in high places with a satanic culture, marriage is a fools game for a man. You are basically signing a contract where you assume all the risks which the girl receives lavish gifts for breaking. If the culture places no more value on a marriage than a relationship, which has zero meaning itself, there's no reason to enter one.

Even if a girl is nominally Christian it doesn't mean anything. I've walked into churches where the preacher himself is a heathen and atheist. Not to mention some denominations have decided butch lesbians have a place behind the pulpit.

If you are in the intelligent services and can get your buddies to perform 24 hour surveillance on the girl for a year prior to the marriage as a background check, or you are a druglord she knows can have her butchered at the snap of a finger, go ahead sign the papers.

As a Christian I have set aside any qualms about premarital sex as unfortunately marriage is not an option and I am not interested in being a monk.

Post: #55

(02-14-2017 07:37 PM)godfather dust Wrote:  As a Christian I have set aside any qualms about premarital sex as unfortunately marriage is not an option and I am not interested in being a monk.

The Bible doesn't explicitly say premarital sex is wrong. It just says that if you do have premarital sex, you have to marry the girl. As long as you're providing for her and the offspring you have by her, and don't abandon her, you're arguably fulfilling the spirit of the law. Historically, marriage was a private contract between two families anyhow, and didn't require a license. So if you don't get a license, you're just following the tradition of your ancestors.

To follow up on my earlier post -- I decided that the law doesn't need to make a husband's non-support of his family a grounds for divorce. In our modern age, the wife and kids will not go hungry; there will always be food closets ready to give them the day-old bread that the supermarket bakeries would otherwise send to the landfills.

If we legalize polygyny, then men will always have an incentive to make more money, to stay in shape, to keep their game on point, etc., because there always be possibilities to acquire more wives. They won't just get married to one woman and say, "I've made it; now I can slack off" even if divorce is outlawed.

Post: #56

(08-08-2016 05:58 AM)seniol Wrote:  Yes there was some PUA guru that had a guide of how to pick up strippers, and it was just pathetic.

A Man's Guide to Life and Love in the Philippines devoted several pages to this topic. I think he was saying, the main advantage is that you can try a bunch of different women that way, and then decide which one you want. Each category of Filipinas had its own drawbacks; for example, the Young, Smart, and Ambitious type might leave you once she no longer needed you, while the Young Without a Clue type might not be able to keep up with you intellectually, and so on.

Anyway, I was thinking -- men are supposed to be the ones who take risks, yet some of those risks could result in losing one's income. Does the vow "for richer, for poorer" mean that she's supposed to stay with him even if the risk turns out poorly? Or is the possibility of losing your wife just supposed to be part of the risk you take when you, say, start a new business that may or may not be profitable?

Traditional values would say that it's manly to take risks, yet at the same time would say that the woman should rely on her husband's income, and that she should stay with him through good times and bad. Therefore, it seems like it's best to make one's fortune prior to marriage, and then stop taking major risks. But, if you do that, then arguably you give up part of your manliness.

There's always been a conflict, I think, between the need to be alpha in order to maintain attraction, and the need to be a beta provider so that the wife doesn't need to work and so the kids can be fed.