Don’t co-habit


——————————————————-

16 October 2006

Cohabiting couples to win legal rights if relations break down

Britain’s two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.

Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms.

There was no doubt that this would go through. Women are whining that few men will marry, meaning it’s harder for them to orchestrate a legal theft of a man’s property and future earnings, and when women whine, governments swiftly act. Plus the family lawyers are panicking as their revenue falls.

Opposition MPs and family campaigners said the sweeping changes – expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years – would further undermine the institution of marriage.

Plus it’ll undermine co-habiting of course. This is what happened in Australia when they introduced similar laws; co-habitation has plummeted and more than a quarter of women are living alone or with parents, and moaning about it the whole time. “Boo-hoo, men are afraid of being financially raped…I mean, er, committment and intimacy.” The same thing will happen here.

The important thing is that as many men are made aware of this law as possible to save them from foolishly letting a woman move in and thinking that, so long as they don’t marry, they’ll be okay. They need to konw that that’s not the case.

But constitutional affairs minister Harriet Harman said the number of people living together outside marriage would double in the next 25 years – and insisted yesterday they needed a new set of legal rights.

I wonder whether these politicians are actually aware of the fact that the dropping marriage rates are because men are avoiding the risk of financial ruin, and that we’ll avoid co-habiting as well now, but are just deliberately refusing to acknowledge this, or are they genuinely that thick that they don’t realise.

Oh well, sensible men could see this coming a few years off and have avoided co-habitation as well as marriage, whilst other men will have booted their girlfriends out. More men will follow. A few women may enrich themselves with this law if they’ve lived with a boyfriend for more than two-years, but most women will lose out and face a future of living alone. So will us men, of course, but we can handle that. We kinda prefer it anyway. Women, on the other hand, seem to freak out at the idea of growing old without anyone. Plus us men, even in our forties and beyond, can go out and score with a younger woman for a quick fling, whilst women past forty generally can’t, and will struggle to do so past thirty in many cases. That’s assuming they’ll be happy with just being used for sex, which many don’t seem to be. Oh dear. Tough shit. They should have thought about that before supporting – or, at the very least, not speaking out against – all these divorce and co-habitation laws.

Financially supporting a cohabiting partner is not a legal duty, while each married partner has a legal duty to support the other, including after a split.

In other words:

Financially supporting a cohabiting girlfriend is not a legal duty, while husband has a legal duty to support his wife, including after a split.

Seriously, why do they even bother with this gender-neutral language? Oh yeah, it’s so us men might think there’s some chance we’ll get a fair hearing and some justice when Big Mother government gets involved in private relationships when they end.

Unmarried fathers also have no automatic rights or duties to their children, unlike in marriage.

And what automatic rights to our children do we have in marriage? Fuck all. Maybe visitation, bu that’s neither automatic, good enough or even enforced. We have duties – i.e. to provide mummy/child support – but not rights.

Miss Harman revealed that Government actuaries forecast that by 2031, 7.6 million people will cohabit and less than 20 million people will be married. ‘Cohabiting couples will constitute more than a third of the total,’ she said.

Wrong. The cohabitation rate will plummet as fast as marriage has. There’ll still be men foolish enough to cohabit, just as there’ll be men foolish enough to marry, but more and more will wake up and avoid both.

Settlements designed to give couples a ‘clean break’ would be favoured. A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.

With “a man’s children”?! WTF? So now children are our’s then? Strange how they’re women’s when it comes to custody, or who gets the final (and only) say in aborting them, but when it comes to supporting them, they’re a man’s, and he must pay to support their mother…I mean, them. Also, what about a girlfriend who steals a man’s children by ditching him on a whim? Oh, wait, I guess she’ll still be counted as being “left on her own” and will get the house and a nice big lump sum of his cash.

Couples are also likely to be given the chance to sign an opt-out from the laws, though these could be overruled by the courts.

Typical. Opt-outs need to be signed by both the man and woman, and women ain’t gonna sign them, and if they do, the court can just throw it out like they do pre-nuptials. So make sure every man about to cohabit knows about this. Too many guys get married with pre-nups thinking they’re legally binding when they’re not. We don’t want more of our brothers foolishly thinking the same thing about opt-outs.

One dissenting voice makes a sensible point:

‘The inevitable result will be more people living alone. We already have one of the largest proportions of one-person households.’

A woman in the comments section echoes this:

Far from being desperate to have the same ‘rights’ as married couples, when people realise that cohabiting means signing away your property,they will just stop living together.

Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too. The more laws introduced to make it easier for women to take our assets, the more we’ll avoid them. Even just having consensual sex with one who happens to have had a drink – or later claims in court she had had a drink – will soon make you guilty of rape by default and thus eligible for a long prison sentence.

Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come. Oh well, their problem, not ours.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:30 PM
——————————————————-

At 6:07 PM, Loki on the run said…

When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.

These young males organize into groups and start causing trouble and generating violence …

Women and children often get hurt and die in such violence …

Sometimes you have to be careful how you bend and twist the rules that a society has developed over time …

——————————————————-

At 6:41 PM, ColdHammer said…

I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.” No wonder marriage rates continue to plummet down to nothingness when its all for nothing in the end. Why get raped? What’s the whole point?

What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage. Of course, men know! Men always will counter-attack! Every time! Men will always adapt to the situation and time it will be by staying single which results in more women living alone for the rest of their lives.

Just look at the article’s COMMENTS section – men of all types stating, NO, announcing their claim to bachelorhood! It’s funny how the gov’t has failed to stop meddling into peoples’ relationships and personal affairs is long overdue.

——————————————————-

At 7:38 PM, Anonymous said…

You analyzed the consequences well, let be say some words about it.
When men avoid marriage and cohabit more frequently, obviously children may be born.
At the moment fathers pay and have no rights to those children, but at least they retain their property.
From a conservative point of view, the fact that usually the mother will leave the house poses a problem: she is not married, she lacks protection.

Marriage used to protect the interests of both wife and husband. The husband was sure to have a caring wife, who did her duty, brought up his children and did the housework. The wife had a husband who worked and got money.

This system serves the interest of father, mother and children best and we know that many women do not want to work even so they could do it.

Divorce laws have destroyed the sense of duty of women, thus men avoid marriage.

From a conservative point of view a pregnant woman should marry and remain married her whole life.
This simple solution is not practised, instead they decide that cohabiting equals marriage.
They do not see, that the problem with marriage is the lack of sense of duty of women and security of a man’s interest.

They try to transform cohabiting into marriage, not seeing that marriage itself is destroyed and the root of the problem.

What will be the consequences?
Despite divorce laws many men still marry, because most do not know the law, they believe in justice and fidelity.
For this reason there are still many men who do marry.

Cohabitation ist not regarded as a commitment by men. Young men will warn each other quickly not to cohabit too long.
The “Cohabitation-Strike” will come much faster than the marriage strike.

And together with the cohabitation Strike the awareness of the injustices in marriage will grow and it will enhance the marriage strike, too.

The legislation heightens the burden on men’s shoulders so much, that the system itself strikes back.

These are those ugly things men have to endure:

“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”

Duncan, you are so used to it, you did not comment it: she will keep his house.
The girlfriend keeps his house. In this case she has children, but of course the same applies if she does not have any children.
This is gross discrimination of men: why does she have the children, why does she have the house and not he?

We get used to it and the system will not bear itself for long.

It ist typical: a law (divorce) is introduced that seems fanciful in the beginning. Women are still treated as victims and as someone who needs protection, so they get alimony.
Then people avoid marriage and its pitfalls, because they realise that divorce laws promote divorce.

Then cohabitation increases and needs to be treated as divorce.
Now hopefully it will accelerate and soon, less people will cohabit.

New laws will be introduced until it becomes obvious that the divorce itself is the root of the problem.

Sadly I doubt that people will make divorce illegal fast enough and marriage mandatory for all pregnant women.
Even in this case, one problem will remain: women who do not work or do not get enough children in comparison to a man who works his whole life.

One thing is sure: people will stop cohabiting and will stop marriage faster.
It might not raise the awareness of flagrant discrimination during divorce in the media and legislation but it will certainly raise it among men.

——————————————————-

At 7:41 PM, Hutch said…

Duncan Idaho, brings the bare knuckles truth to your doorstep, but why does government insist on making fighting and stealing so rewarding to couples? (and now gays too).

If you could get, say half of what the typical court orders stated, then couples would have the incentive to make relationships work and not the otherway around!

I am writing from my mountain cabin, where my expenses are low, and thank-god, I own this place. Sure I have no running water electricity etc.., but I have distanced myself from the femimatrix which wants to financially ass-rape me every second of the day. In five minutes I will be working on my storage shed, preparing my roof. This shed is where I will put all my tools and important things that I have managed to hang on to since the femimatrix took away my family, two years ago.

Thanks to Duncan Idaho, he Ought to be the next Prime Minister.

——————————————————-

At 7:42 PM, Anonymous said…

The loneliness is not just a female problem. They need children and want a husband to stop working, but men, too, wish a caring wife who works dutifully and wish children.
The problem is much bigger.

The whole malaise is just due to the legalization of divorce. It makes marriage unsafe and unpredictable.

——————————————————-

At 7:48 PM, Anonymous said…

At the moment so many men are unaware of the dangers of marriage and children born to non married men.
They are unaware they laugh at men like me.
And then some get divorced and are surprised, they say they could not believe it, they did not know. But then it is too late.

Many men take marriage as a lifelong commitment, women can opt out and they know it or learn it fast.

Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.
Some people will still think that it is just to take away, pension, money, children and house (!) of a man, so that his girlfriend gets all, but these people will become a powerless minority.

——————————————————-

At 8:19 PM, nevo said…

I’m glad you brought up this subject.
Earlier today I was reading about “Breach of Promise” as suggested by one blogger.
I think I understood it correctly. If a man/woman break or bail out (use as appropiate), from this engagement, either party has a claim for compensation, which can extend to personal property.
In real terms it means that nobody has to go through the marriage charade to be able to have a claim on someone else property.
If the British government already has a law addressing unmarried couples, why on earth they bother with it?
Unless, they want to make sure of maximizing the havoc they want to create in a presently stable unmarried families.
Maximizing the effectiveness of the gold-digger’s charter by exacerbating the greedness in a break-up, more or less guarantee a country of single households in the future.
With the “Civil Partnership 2004” Law, no one can afford even to have a lodger without a legal contract. Lest he’ll or she’ll be sued for his property claiming breakdown of their relationship when they leave.
The unending insanity of the modern politician will turn present society into a lone anthood colonies.

NEVO

——————————————————-

At 9:39 PM, Mamonaku187 said…

Men will avoid cohabiting like the plague.

Not to mention all the wimmin who will be at risk, being single and living alone.

With the way these relationship laws are going, a woman will be lucky to have any form of long term commitment in her lifetime.

But as you said, their problem, not ours.

——————————————————-

At 9:41 PM, Anonymous said…

ColdHammer said…
I think it’s hilarious that the gov’t is going to appropriate this kind of “money making-law” onto the people, er, I mean men, excuse me, without the realization of ‘what will happen.”
What’s funnier is that governments enact such retarded measures because “they” don’t like how well-off single men are currently doing w/o marriage.

Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.

——————————————————-

At 11:16 PM, Anonymous said…

On a personal level, i recently told my girlfriend that i didn’t want to buy a house together so she bought her own. We still had a relationship until i told her that i would never marry, have children or live with a woman because of the potential problems i could face if it all goes wrong.
I’m single again!!!
Would i rather be in a relationship…yes. Would she like to settle down, have a home with a husband and have children….yes.
It’s not likely to happen and as much as she resents me for it, it’s the government and feminism that has created this situation. It was ignorance that allowed me to get married, its knowledge that keeps me single.
Womens Aid have been going into schools to preach about domestic violence. Could you mens rights activists please go into schools and teach boys about the fate that awaits them?

——————————————————-

At 12:04 AM, mfsob said…

This just goes to show – women are stupid. They’re the ones pushing this load of bullshit, and once cohabitation laws have made a beachhead in jolly old England, it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …

But then – they reap what they sow, and what an interesting crop it is going to be!

——————————————————-

At 12:24 AM, Anonymous said…

The Government wants to breed white Brits out.

You heard me right boys. They want whites, and those minorities who are Westernized, to be bred out by 1.0 per female birth rates.

If you have 100 people on an island, 50 men and 50 women, and they all couple up and have one kid apiece………………thats just 50 children in the next generation.

If the kids do it again…….25
If they 25 do it again……..12.5

100 makes 50
50 makes 25
25 makes 12.5

This math works in the millions.

The pinko/Godless/commie/Western Civilization government of England and the overclass HATE intelligent Westerners, and are trying to put enmity between the sexes to get you guys to breed yourselves out over the next 50-70 years. You must explain this to your women over there. That its all an ugly plot to destroy the British race and hand the Island over to a multi-culti menagerie led by the elite like the wage-slaves they will be.

These laws are EVIL. Evil people who hate the British have devised them. I hope you lads resist as best you can, but whatever you do………………explain to women patiently and in writing exactly what the consequences will be in 40 years or so when they are REALLY outnumbered by the Muslims.

Good luck

——————————————————-

At 12:28 AM, Anonymous said…

One possible solution I am thinking of is to only cohabit/marry a woman who is richer than me.

If the woman can bring assets and income to the table, it could be the woman taking the financial risk by getting married.

I know a lot of woman have worthless degrees (women’s studies and other such shit), and their “pink collar” jobs.

But there are plenty of women, at least that I know of, who have real degrees and decent careers.

So maybe us bachelors should become like women: demand that potential mates have a certain amount of wealth.

——————————————————-

At 12:43 AM, Playboy said…

RE: “Cohabitation is not seen as a lifelong commitment, so the new laws will raise awareness on the pitfalls of marriage itself.”

True. A guy who let his girlfriend move-in and then ended up in court when they broke-up is going to get a small taste of what divorce is like and likely will be less inclined to make that mistake again.

Then again, even wealthy men seen to dumb to figure it out after several divorces… how many wives have Trump and Hefner had?

——————————————————-

At 3:35 AM, Anonymous said…

There is going to be a whole new Extortion Industry cropping up out of this.

What is cohabiting? If she sleeps over 4 nights a week, but still gets her mail at her place is she cohabiting? The courts might rule yes.

Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.

This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.

Sounds like you can’t even let them in your residence at any time else they will claim they were living there and describe the interior of your residence to “prove it”. May even find a way around that if they never set foot in your residence, but claim to have lived there they will insist the male changed the interior decoration after they broke up thereby “proving” her argument of cohabitation without a shred of proof.

The only way I can see around that is to never paint, recarpet, or otherwise improve the inside of your residence. That way if the little dear insists she lived with you, concocts some phony description of your residence since her description won’t match your residence it will be impossible for cupcake to assert that you remodeled to “defraud her” because you will still have the same 10 year old carpet, furniture, and unpainted walls. It’s very hard to remodel something to make it look rundown.

This also gets into the whole art of asset protection. For example, list your address as living with your parents, but have a condo or other residence owned by a corporation or trust where your name does not show up. If she claims she slept with you she would have to convince the court that your mother allowed some tramp to sleep with her son under the parent’s roof. Would pit female against female in the courtroom. Not very pretty. Hiss! Hiss!

——————————————————-

At 7:47 AM, unpleasant bitter git said…

Anonymous 9:41 PM said… “Yep, this is it guys. The imminent “PENIS” tax in disguise.”

If they bring in a “penis” tax then I want a rebate!

Mines only 2 inches long, at least thats what feminists keep telling me anyway.

——————————————————-

At 8:13 AM, Captain Zarmband said…

Have you thought about the government’s real agenda here. They know that the more divorce laws they pass the less men marry and they also know that this will apply to cohabitation once these new laws are passed. I sure that this is the whole point. This government has overseen an explosion in the number of single-mothers since they took office. Fewer and fewer children are being raised in the traditional family (i.e. husband and wife) and more are born into chaotic, single-mother households which are dependent on state support. These people are easily controllable by the government, since they are totally dependent on state benefits. The result is that the government is increasing its influence and power as fewer families are independent. When you get down to it these laws are all about the government controlling people’s lives.

——————————————————-

At 9:27 AM, Thunderchild said…

Duncan

You should ‘de-construct’ the embedded rape article too. You would have a field day !

——————————————————-

At 9:34 AM, Thunderchild said…

To Nevo

Apologies Nevo, deeper investigation indicated that ‘Breach of Promise’ was abolished in an obscure clause of an Act of Parliament in 1970. It appears, however, with this set of rights that the concept has returned – with a vengeance !

——————————————————-

At 12:15 PM, evil woman said…

1 – Get a pre-nup
2 – Alway use a condom

That should stop things getting out of hand. It’s easy!

——————————————————-

At 12:56 PM, Anonymous said…

RE: “Since there is not necessarily any public record of them living together what is to keep her from making up a story that she was “cohabiting” with a man? Litigate it until he settles on a support amount. And then repeat the process with another male.”

That is true. At the moment legislators wish to achieve protection of mothers.
But mothers should be married and forced to honour the marriage.
This law does not just apply to cohabiting couple with children but to all of them.
Let’s compare it to false rape accusations: in most of the cases people believe the woman, because she ist weaker and needs protection.
Will most judges believe that a woman was cohabiting?
Certainly there is good chance.

Still it should be difficult for a woman to claim cohabitation if she still owns a home of her own.

What strikes me, is that she gets the house. It is argued that cohabiting couples buying a house together should have rights to it.
But this has always been so: if a group of people buy an asset, the asset is divided depending on the money that was brought in.

Certainly this law aims at women, the single mother that gets the children and the house is mentioned as if it was the normal case.

Certainly the child birth rate will fall even deeper.

Most people learn through experience:
a divorced man usually has children and is old.
A cohabiting man is young and without children. He will learn and tell his friends fast of the dangers of cohabiting and subsequently of marriage.

Discussions will go like this: “Why aren’t you living with your girlfriend in a house?”
“Don’t you know the new laws on cohabitation?”
“What new laws?”
“She gets your house, if you let her in.”

Some guys might use the looser bond between non-cohabiting couples for their own good through getting the girlfriend, but most good friends will hear and listen and take care of themselves.

And some will begin to talk of marriage because both begin to resemble strongly.
So young men will know the injustices of marriage in younger years.

It is sad, they do not want to abolish the main problem: divorce.

Divorce needs to be made illegal, because it is a breach of contract.
Divorce laws and benefits for people who do not want to work, for single mothers etc. make the birth rate plummet.
The effect of divorce laws is obvious: men get robbed of their assets, women do not get as many children as in long lasting marriages.
Social benefits make people lazy and take one major incentive for children: children guaranteed protection in old age.

Take away benefits, take away divorce and see marriage rate and birth rate climbing.
To avoid married women who do not get children and live off the husbands money it is necessary to make it her duty to work on her own or become pregnant.
One pregnancy is not enough, like the man who works until retirement she, too, would have to get more children.
I wouldn’t stand it to work full time and see my wife with just one child and not working on her own.

——————————————————-

At 1:34 PM, MS said…

“Of course, next men will be obliged to support a woman they dated for a few months, even without living together, so we’ll avoid that too.”

Then it’ll be a woman we dated for a couple of months, then ones we dated for a month, then ones we went for a few dates with and before you know it, the whole thing starts to look an awful lot like prostitution.

If the feminists continue this bs much longer, I can see it getting to a point where large numbers of guys become so pissed off they either emigrate or join with the Muslims and vote for Sharia …or both. Just desserts indeed!

——————————————————-

At 2:38 PM, HAWKEYE said…

yes! we have had these laws in Australia for some time now and yes! all the things you predict have come to pass,however one thing that did come out of it that is not mentioned is that pre nups became legally binding .

——————————————————-

At 2:43 PM, HAWKEYE said…

anonymous 11.16pm
i hope you went her for your 1/2 of her house

——————————————————-

At 3:17 PM, Anonymous said…

This new law is a victory for men. It’s proof that the marriage strike is working. The divorce courts and lawyers are starting to panic as more men refuse to expose themselves to the scam they have turned marriage into. Now they have to cast their nets out a little farther each time to catch more unsuspecting men. This law will be the followed by more acts of legislative desperation along with increased howling that all men are evil for refusing to cooperate in their own destruction. This going to be so much fun to watch.

——————————————————-

At 4:31 PM, byrdeye said…

Why can’t we just keep relationships and financial mergers SEPARATE?!!!

They are NOT synonymous! And what happens if you room with a male friend for 2 years – he gets half too? WTF?!

Most women these days are lying opportunists – so the LAST thing we need is yet another golddigga law that rapes men over the coals! EFF THIS! EFF YOU BIG MAMA!!!

——————————————————-

At 4:45 PM, Davout said…

loki on the run said:
“When a society has lots of unattached (unburdened) young males, you have lots of potential for trouble.”

On a related tangent, India and China are going to be great test cases to analyze how countries adapt to accommodate lots of unmarried men.

——————————————————-

At 5:56 PM, Anonymous said…

Let me think a bit. What could we do to improve the situation of women?

Take a woman who is dating a guy. Isn’t the date a reason to expect his support?
Didn’t she stopped her career?
She hopes to get married, so if he does not he disappoints her.
The guy is abusing her patience. And so on.

They won’t make a law defining cohabitation as just dating.
But maybe they could make a tax for men to fight “inequalities”.

——————————————————-

At 7:39 PM, Viking said…

“A girlfriend left on her own with a man’s children, for instance, would get a cash sum and be likely to keep their house outright, rather than being awarded regular payments.”

I’m calling bulls&!# on this one. If there are no kids involved, maybe he won’t get hit with an alimony like payment, maybe he will just be lucky enough to only loose his house and all his savings. On the other hand if there are kids he is going to be paying at least child support, in addition to all the above.

“it’s only a matter of time before they migrate over to the States. Sigh …”

It is already here if you count the common law marriage laws of a lot of states. Here in Texas all you have to do is be living together and present yourself as married to an outsider in some way. Example, if, after moving your girlfriend in, early that week, she introduces you to a friend, at a party that weekend, as her husband and you simply shrug an mumble, like most guys do in an awkward situation, and don’t directly challenge the claim, your married. That’s it. Done. Technically there is a third part. There has to be at least a verbal agreement between you and her that you are married but of course the “presenting yourself as married” acts as evidence for that agreement. Another way you can “present yourselves” is if she signs anything using your her first name and your last and, again, you don’t dispute it as soon as you find out. Of course it could be tricky to prove that you didn’t know about it. Also putting any bills in both names or giving her access to any of your bank accounts. Even setting up a shared “food fund”.

Pretty soon just speaking to a single woman in public is go to be enough to make you married.

Be strong, stay single.

——————————————————-

At 8:09 PM, Viking said…

“This might turn into a whole new serial plunder occupation for females aided and abetted by the wheels of justice.”

It just dawned on my why they would favor a single payout. If a woman gets remarried she looses her alimony. What is the equivalent when you are just living together. It doesn’t do her any good to get a $1000 a month if she is going to loose it as soon as she shacks up with someone else. But if you get a lump sum you can move on to your next victem right away and not loose a cent. And here the polits are trying to convince the guys that this is a good thing, a way of limiting the damage. Bullsh!#

Be Strong, Stay Single!

——————————————————-

At 8:28 PM, Viking said…

evil woman said…

1 – Get a pre-nup – easily overruled and completely useless if you do have kids.
2 – Alway use a condom – sometimes fail and she can still cry rape.

Be Strong, Stay Single!

——————————————————-

At 8:51 PM, pete said…

Both women and men are going to be very lonely in decades to come. Its time to start pushing men to overcome society’s view that men hanging out together is gay while women hanging out together is empowering.

The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure, even if it is about manly things that a woman would not be interested in. So you have boys bribing females to attend LAN parties with attention, money and alcohol – all in order to not appear to be a “loser”.

Its very telling that a geeky girl is placed on a pedestal by most guys (who are “normal” and thus geeky) while no girl wants to have anything to do with a nerdy boy.

——————————————————-

At 10:17 PM, Viking said…

“The double standard (I don’t know if you have it in the US) is that a party without any women in it is a failure”

A party on Friday or Saturday night, sure, it would be the same. A party on Sunday afternoon or Monday night during football season, not at all. Unfortunately football season doesn’t last all year. I am seeing a lot more lan or console gameing nights though. Still mostly just among the nerds. The non-nerds? More common to work on something together, like putting up a shed or rebuilding a car engine. I try to do a bit of both to keep a balance though lately I have been wasting a lot of time in the World of Warcraft.

After three years in an absolutely miserable marriage and not even making it out with so much as a TV let alone a computer, I have only in the last month gotten a new computer to call my own and not an office laptop loner. For the first time in 4 and half years I am playing one of the MMO and man they have come a long way. I use to feel like I was wasting the opportunity to find a nice girl to settle down with and start a family. You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world. I just done feel guilty anymore. I have no desire to marry again and I don’t even want to take a chance with dating and getting accused of something. I am single and celibate and that’s just fine. I do what I enjoy when I want too. Maybe the money ain’t real but at least that slinky looking dark elf isn’t going to take it all when she is ready to move on. 🙂

——————————————————-

At 12:10 AM, Youngbuck said…

Hey Viking, some of the best times in my life were at LAN parties fragging away at UT2K4. It ain’t just nerds man, although I am one.

I’m just happy to be able to do what I want, when I want. A friend of mine wanted to get the PS3, but his girlfriend found out it was $600 and said she forbids him from spending his money on it. He’s not even supposed to hang out with me and the rest of us, because we are a bad influence, according to her.

That’s what happens when you cohabitate with a woman, they control your life and takeover your stuff. His 24″ widescreen lcd monitor? Gone. It was too wide for her. Oh, keep in mind, this is a girl that buys $800 designer purses, but she forbids him from spending his own money on what he wants.

If this is happiness, I want no part of it.

——————————————————-

At 1:18 PM, NYMOM said…

I think the approach England is taking is very very fair.

An earlier article regarding this clearly stated it was mainly going to be used to level the playing field for live-in couples with children. AND that two people living together with no kids, both working, even if one was making less then the other wouldn’t really be impacted under the law. Unless one half of the live-in couple could show where they left their job to help the other person’s career in some way.

Men brought this upon themselves by insisting never-married men be given the same rights to children as married ones, once paternity is established. So you know what: this is womens’ response. That we will then be given the same rights as wives to your financial assets…as two can play that game.

In spite of all your complaining, millions of never-married men have custody of children…here in the US they comprise 30% of the custodial fathers pool…and I assume, since England is very similar to the US, that it’s the same thing there…

So you shot yourselves in the foot by trying to get more advantage for men then you deserve and this is the result.

Good…

I’m going to put a post on my blog this weekend celebrating this victory as an example of the state leveling the playing field finally after allowing greedy men to run amuck in society for decades…

People finally got fed up with their brothers all working the system as usual, and, btw, it was probably other men who were mainly fed up with you and took these steps…as most of your legislative bodies (again just like the US) are probably composed of men. So don’t kid yourself that this was just women doing this…

Again, good.

——————————————————-

At 1:25 PM, NYMOM said…

“Women are going to be very, very lonely in decades to come…”

Really.

Somehow I doubt that.

I actually found that my dog (deceased about two years now) was a far better, loyal, friendlier and more trusting companion to me then my ex-husband…

So you see, you are very easily replaced.

——————————————————-

At 3:03 PM, Anonymous said…

You know, the whole, why are you wasting your time on a virtual world and a vicarious life, you should live in the real world.

Of course that’s the whole point. The “real world”, at least that co-opted by the Gynosphere is a fraud. You’re sold a bill of goods and enticed to marry a “nice girl” (***Oxymoron Alert***) then after 30 days of gestation her inner demon is released. At least in virtual worlds you can find enjoyment absent in the Gynosphere. Why venture into areas where everyone is set up to fuck you over? Where is the possible shred of logic in that??

——————————————————-

At 5:47 PM, Pete Patriarch said…

I guess nymom has never heard of child support, which DOES give women a license to breed on someone else’s dime.

Anyway, your colors are showing – you think that anything men do to somewhat equalize the playing field is somehow “seeking advantage.”

You’re a hypocrite, a liar and a proper cunt, and I can safely say that you are cut from the same cloth as your feminist sisters.

——————————————————-

At 6:37 PM, Anonymous said…

“NYMOM blabbed…”

I thought you promised to crawl back into your dumpster??

——————————————————-

At 9:51 PM, voodoojock said…

Shit, the only way you’re going to get the Walmart Walrus to leave is if you threaten to post her personal information and relevant information in a public forum. She’s piss and moan to the contrary, alas, she isn’t a legal scholar, but a two-bit coffee-pot jockey at a university in New York.

Men brought this upon themselves? Guess you never heard of Helen Gurley Brown, who (after taking the helm of Cosmopolitan Magazine in the mid-60’s) espoused the virtues of the pill, free love, and using your sexuality to obtain the things you want in life. All under the guise of ‘femininity’ I might add.

Go on, Walrus, keep thinking it. We’ll keep posting evidence to the contrary. Unlike you, however, men are fixers, and while the question of who started it is debatable, there shall be no question of who’s going to finish it: Men.

——————————————————-

At 12:31 AM, HAWKEYE said…

i must admit i feel sorry for wymon like nymom,
they have been brainwashed by the feminists lies,
the poor dears cant see the grave they are making for themselves ,
we try to warn them but thet are just to far gone .

——————————————————-

At 11:31 PM, Christopher in Oregon said…

Oh, heavens, NY Mom. I’m sure men (have) been replaced in your life. But, remember if they actually CATCH you having carnal relations with your dog, you will probably be arrested- for cruelty to animals if nothing else.

——————————————————-

At 12:56 AM, NYMOM said…

Christopher in Oregon:

You really are a useless idiot…

——————————————————-

At 8:53 AM, Anonymous said…

This is not really anon..the gov’t already know everything that goes online!
Point 1..yes this is a ‘state-ist’ agenda to control procreation, production and everything else too..(control=feminista,anti-male stooges)
It will, eventually, self limit…other countries will soon need to capitalise on ‘old’ values and encourage intelligent ‘real’ males-and aware females, of course, to migrate to there.
Point 2..No such thing as pre-nup in UK.
Point 3…condoms split (or ‘perish’ the thought)can be sabotaged.
‘Fem’ birth control suspect..too tempting a scenario under these rules!

Wake up girls -we men may be soft hearted to self destruction…but not ALL eternally stupid !!
I’m an old ‘git’ now..learned the hard way…..and sorry for future men and women of good intention -including my kids.

——————————————————-

At 6:27 AM, Anonymous said…

NYMOM I feel sorry for the Dog. Heck, at least we can leave, animals dont have that option. I live next door to a feminist who used to yell and scream at her husband on a daily bases. So he left the biatch and she did the same thing as the troll here did. She got a dog. Now instead of yelling at her husband she yells at this little dog. A MALE dog obviously as a female wouldn’t do it for her. Tiny thing gets shamed, berated and generally serves as her witless companion so that she can feel “empowered” I should call animal cruelty. I guess they’d be out here in a moment. You see, you can torment men, but not animals in this country. She makes me SICK as do all there kind. IT always puts on the “sweet me” voice when IT needs the lawn cut or something fixed, SCREW her. Like I am too dumb to hear It’s vile and nasty mouth the rest of the time?

I am a powerful feminist woman. “Until” something goes wrong that I cant handle, which generally means “everything”

FOOTNOTE: When the Chinese or Russians or whatever army comes and they WILL eventually come as they have throughout our ENTIRE history! I’ll watch these sniveling fembots trying to rally the men to fight them and it will be tough SHIT sweetness. Go service them like the WHORES that you have become and you might live. I on the other hand will be welcoming them KNOWING that we are being LIBERATED from our western prisons. DONT fall for it guys, what is left to DEFEND in a matriarchy? The Wimmins rights and privileges and the ELITES way of life: nothing more. OH; They WILL be nice and act all weak and feminine until the threat has been neutralized, then the same plate of warm shit will be served up for us to eat again. SAD SHORT SIGHTED CREATURES THAT THEY ARE!

Steven

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: