How to Pick a Wife – 2.0

25 Mar

When I first wrote my post How To Pick a Wife, I failed to take into consideration the very real, and potentially devastating legal environment that marriage occurs within. Devastating for men, that is. Marriage is, and remains, the sweetest gig a woman can possibly get, which is the primary driver, I think, behind the MGTOW wars. MGTOW men hate marriage, because it is just so damned unfair to men, given the current environment. Changing that environment is one of the principle aims of the MRM, and one that will happen, although it will take time.

In the meanwhile, for humans who are deeply drawn to pair-bonding (and that’s most of us), here is an updated list of how to pick a wife, aka mitigating risk factors. Many men will never marry, until reproductive, marriage and divorce laws become fair, and that’s a rational response to an irrational bias towards women and against men. I intend no shame towards those men who reject marriage and women outright, although that is obviously not a strategy that is going to work in the long-term. It’s nihilism.

There are ways to make marriage safer. And even bringing these topics up for discussion will let you know very quickly just what your beloved has on her mind. A day for a Princess or a life for a Queen?

Queen

  1. Ask her about circumcision

Prepare for a great deal of ignorance, because many women (and men) have given this zero thought at all. A woman who is instinctively repulsed by the thought of harming a child in this way gets one gold star. A woman who declares that a mutilated penis pleases her sense of aesthetics should immediately be shown the door. A woman who mistakenly believes genital mutilation is about sanitation and health is merely ignorant. She should be given an opportunity to learn and demonstrate her compassion for infant boys. Not caring about hurting babies is a deal-breaker, IMO.

  1. Find out her thoughts on abortion

This is obviously deeply personal and complicated. I’m not even sure what I think about abortion, but I have never faced needing one. My chain of thought at the moment is that at some point that little clump of cells divides to the point that a person exists.

There is a difference between this:

Blastocyst

And this:

12 week

A tiny little brain becomes active, even at a primitive level, and an “I” exists.  I would like to see us be able to detect that using prenatal imaging, at which point I am very comfortable banning all abortion for any reason. That is no longer your body, and no longer your choice.

Whatever your personal feelings about abortion, you will be able to deduce a lot from a woman based on her opinions. You can’t legally prevent a woman from aborting your child, so if that’s a deal-breaker for you, you need to find out sooner than later.

  1. Never trust her with birth control

Sorry, just don’t. You are legally fucked if you do. There is no way around that except to take control of birth control yourself.

birth control

An exception might be if she has an implantable birth control device because you can physically feel that under her skin. You buy (or acquire) the condoms yourself, and you never let her touch one.

When I was writing this post about birth control sabotage, I poked well over 40 holes in a condom, right through the package. Neither me nor my husband could detect a single one, not even in bright light. Try it yourself.

condom

She never touches the condom.  Never leave a used one anywhere she can get it. You will be held legally responsible if she is able to impregnate herself with a used condom. Calculate the value of child support based on your income over the course of 18 years. Think of your used condom as a little pile of cash for that exact amount. Would you leave that cash out where she can get it?

cash

Have emergency birth control on hand. If a condom breaks and she refuses to take it: pray. That is your only option. No matter what happens, never legally marry a woman who refuses to involve you in her reproductive decisions.

 

  1. How do you want to raise children, if you want them?

My husband I both wanted our children raised at home and we were explicit about that pretty much from day one. We met in MBA school and I agreed to shelve my career ambitions (which I honestly had few of to begin with) to make that possible. It’s a personal decision, but if you are both not on the same page, you need to know that up front. Ultimately, you will have to use your judgement, since she can renege on her side of the bargain, any damn time she likes.

  1. Sign a prenuptial

A woman who balks at a fair prenuptial is, to quote Taylor Swift, a nightmare dressed as a daydream. Prenuptials should include:

  • A financial settlement that reflects what you have both put in to the marriage
  • Child custody arrangements
  • Division of assets based on your mutual earnings

You should only consider getting married in a state where your prenuptial will be enforceable.

I can imagine most women reacting to these conditions:

screaming

 

When you find one willing to consider why these are of vital importance to men, a woman who understands she has a loaded gun and is willing to give you the bullets, that is a woman worth considering.

Many of you will read this list and say oh hell no, and that’s a valid response. For those men who do long for a mutually beneficial marriage that lasts for the long term, or in the alternative, isn’t completely life-destroying, these are vital considerations.

How to choose a wife? With your eyes open and your armor on. It doesn’t guarantee you victory, but it helps prevent the most grievous injuries.

Sad, when war has become an appropriate metaphor for marriage.

victory

 

Determination won’t matter much. But preparation will.

Most of all, be prepared for a lot of women calling you a misogynist for caring about fairness and equality.

Par for the course, I’m afraid.

Lots of love,

JB

141 Responses to “How to Pick a Wife – 2.0”

  1. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 15:40 #

    This all sounds quite reasonable to me, although when I was young and idealistic, I would have balked at the prenup — not because I thought it would ever be okay to get a divorce other than in the most dire of circumstances — such a man abusing the kids or me, or cheating on me, but because I would’ve felt like he was already foreseeing falling out of love with me, which seemed kind of like jinxing our new life before we’d even begun.

    But now, it makes a lot more sense. Even a former fiancé’s insistence on me trying to commit to how I would react, down the line, if he cheated on me. At the time, I was like, “We haven’t even had sex yet, and he’s already thinking about getting bored with me?” But now I realize that maybe this was just something he know about himself — that he needed to have sex with a variety of women, so he needed to find a woman who’d be cool with that — possibly because she wanted to have sex with other men, too.

    And some women would go for that — there really are some women who’d like the freedom of having sexual relationships on the side, so hopefully he eventually found someone who wanted some sort of give-and-take arrangement in that area (I heard that he did end up marrying, having a son, and then getting divorced, but maybe he found a sweet deal later on — or maybe he’s on here, LOL). He seemed awfully weird to me at the time — but really, it’s better to be perceived as weird or a misogynist and avoid marrying someone who can’t deal the reality of who you are.

    Like

  2. parthasadhukhan March 25, 2015 at 15:47 #

    Reblogged this on The Male Factor and commented:
    I just came across this post from Judgybitch.com..and found these points to be so true..

    Like

  3. Jim March 25, 2015 at 16:15 #

    “Ultimately, you will have to use your judgement, since she can renege on her side of the bargain, any damn time she likes.”

    Yup. So why bother? It’s not a contract if one party can do anything they please while the other is simply enslaved. No thanks.

    Like

  4. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 16:23 #

    There is no getting around this one. You can’t force a woman to get a job and you can’t force her to stay home. If it’s a dealbreaker, then it’s a dealbreaker.

    Completely understandable.

    Like

  5. Brad Nichelson March 25, 2015 at 16:25 #

    Like

  6. Copyleft March 25, 2015 at 16:47 #

    These are good points, but the WIFFM factor is still missing: what’s in it for me? What are the actual benefits to men that would make getting married rewarding?

    Lately, it seems nobody can answer that question… and quite a few are pretending to ignore it entirely.

    Like

  7. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 17:08 #

    Men who are happily married live longer, enjoy better health, closer relationships to their children and community and have more sex.

    Those aren’t benefits that interest you?

    Like

  8. Dean Esmay March 25, 2015 at 17:18 #

    Uh oh you just pointed to a scientific reference showing that pairbonding is a normal biological impulse in most human beings. Watch the fur fly!

    Like

  9. Jim March 25, 2015 at 17:27 #

    “Men who are happily married live longer, enjoy better health, closer relationships to their children….”

    Probably true but what are the odds of being happily married? I also would find it extremely stressful to know that at any time the wife can simply say, “Ok, I’ve had enough. Now give me your money, property, and children or I’ll sic the cops and courts on you!” If she can do this then I’m simply selling myself into slavery. I guarantee you I would die much sooner under those conditions.

    “….and have more sex.”

    If you’re extremely lucky, yes. But again, she can withdraw it at any time and I would have nothing to say. By not marrying I have the power, not her. This way if she refuses me sex I can just tel her to her face, “No problem, you won’t put out, I’m going somewhere else to get it”.

    Men die sooner than women these days whether they’re married or not. This is what happens to slaves. My life is quiet, relaxing, and very stress free at home. This should extend my life all by itself.

    Look JB, I know you mean well but with such a high divorce rate (its even higher when they measure it past 10 years) and the court’s disgusting vagina worship it’s just not worth it. Heck, your own mother converted it feminism and destroyed your family.

    I consider feminism a religion. People think theocracies are gone. Ha, I don’t think so. They never really disappeared. We just have our own secular version of it today.

    Like

  10. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 17:29 #

    Sure, but that is what the prenuptial is addressing. Take those bullets out of the gun with the very big proviso of course that you live in a state that will enforce those agreements. If your state won’t enforce the agreement, then yes, there is no point to getting married.

    Like

  11. Paul March 25, 2015 at 17:40 #

    If she was married before, especially with children, see how she, and her family, treat and talk about her ex. If they treat him like crap or talk about him very negatively, especially in front of the children, then run.

    However, if they get on, especially in front of the children, and don’t fixate on him then that’s a good sign.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 17:41 #

    Very good addition!

    Like

  13. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 18:15 #

    Speaking of “fur flying” — don’t and awful lot of manosphere guys live by the alpha-beta wolf analogies? Alpha wolves mate for life.

    Like

  14. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 18:18 #

    Yes, this is certainly something I paid attention to when dating any divorced men. Any man who was all that wrapped up in hating his ex just wasn’t wrapped up enough in me.

    Like

  15. Spaniard March 25, 2015 at 18:19 #

    So, never a Jew.

    Like

  16. Dean Esmay March 25, 2015 at 18:23 #

    Well the whole Alpha/Beta thing is definitely not something I believe in-it is an imperfect model used to describe wolf behavior and they don’t even use it to describe wolves anymore it’s so outdated and problematic. But yeah some people are into it and yeah, you make a good point.

    Like

  17. Spaniard March 25, 2015 at 18:28 #

    The best wife you can pick on Earth is a 45+ post menopausic high class hooker.

    *She is not going to get preggo.
    *Surely she is very good looking. Only if you are into milfs.
    *Surely she is rich.
    *She is a geisha in bed.
    *She is romantic (only hookers are romantic).
    *Due to she is has enough glamour and carousel at work. When she is at home she wants to be the perefct housewive.

    Like

  18. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 18:33 #

    I don’t think a lot of women are menopausal at 45, but pregnancy is unlikely. My grandmother had her last child at 45 and her mother at 48 so the grandchild was older than the natural child. Not common, but possible.

    Like

  19. Jim March 25, 2015 at 18:34 #

    If (and that is a very big if) prenuptial agreements were not routinely thrown out then yes, marriage wouldn’t be slavery for men. From what I’ve seen though, when the little woman is says, “it’s not fair!”, the judge will usually just throw it out.

    This leads into another point: If courts refuse to enforce contracts then not only do they make contracts or any kind of legal agreement arbitrary and therefore worthless they make then make contracts and courts just white knight defenders of one party (in marriage it’s almost always the woman).

    A judge’s opinion can also decide whether a prenup is “fair” or not. Hell, we’re even at the point where they are trying to make sex de facto illegal for men even outside of marriage! (California’s “yes means yes” law)

    If you (or anyone else) can find me a state that enforces prenups with no catches (and no judge arbitrarily deciding, “Well, that’s not fair so hand over everything you have schmuck!”) then I’d say marry away.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 18:42 #

    That is some good research to look into. The second consideration will be reinforcing agreements for people who married in a “safe” jurisdiction, but reside in another.

    Like

  21. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 18:59 #

    Geishas actually aren’t sex toys in Japan.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Jim March 25, 2015 at 19:38 #

    Definitely.

    Like

  23. comslave (@comslave) March 25, 2015 at 20:26 #

    What was the baseline? Does that factoid consider pre-marriage health? And what definition of single did they use? (widowed, etc.) All that factoid really says is healthier men are more likely to get married.

    With regard to community, whose’ community? Hers or his? All my married male friends were disappeared. Wives didn’t like me.

    Like

  24. John March 25, 2015 at 20:30 #

    Manosphere “alphas” use more trite herd regurgitations more often than any other group I’ve seen; maybe I just notice theirs more because constant recital of cheesy platitudes seems at odds with alphaness, or whatever. “Alpha” “red pill” etc. I do understand that the 15 year old sci-fi reference is catchy and will grab a lot of like minded people’s attention.

    Like

  25. thesadtruths101 March 25, 2015 at 20:35 #

    What I’ve gotten from your site is that women’s preferences are wrong and we should ultimately settle. Is that what you did? Yet you tell men to go for the best and how. A lot of women, like me, prefer tall men who are handsome, have deep voices, etc. My attraction for a man isn’t tied to his personality but what he looks like. Also if a woman wanted a prenuptial agreement like I do, would you commend her the same way you do men? What I’ve earned is what I’ve earned and should be spent that way

    Like

  26. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 20:36 #

    Yes, when I first discovered the manosphere it seemed like I was always having to stop and look up new terms like “NAWALT” (early on, some guy accused me of using a NAWALT excuse, LOL…then there was another who called me a “hatchet wound.” I’d never learned so much from the Urban Dictionary before. 🙂 )

    Like

  27. comslave (@comslave) March 25, 2015 at 20:37 #

    We are beyond the point where marriage can be saved. Trendlines are pointing to the death of marriage as a mainstream tradition somewhere around 2025-2035. Sure, some small religious groups will still do it, but not the average American.

    The question is what comes next? Hookup culture or prostitution? My money is on prostitution becoming mainstream. It will ultimately be the very last form of safe sex.

    Like

  28. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 20:38 #

    What I’ve gotten from your site is that women’s preferences are wrong and we should ultimately settle.

    No idea how you got that impression. No one should “settle” for anything.

    And yes, if you have significant assets you want to protect, of course you should have a prenuptial? Why ever not?

    I have repeatedly stated that no ONE should marry someone to whom they are not physically attracted. That will not get better over time.

    I believe in equality between men and women, but we do not live in a state of equality. Women have more legal rights than men.

    Until that changes, I will advocate for equality by recommending men take precautions that mitigate against the legal prejudice against them.

    Like

  29. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 20:39 #

    People may be getting married less these days, but they certainly still seem to be pair-bonding and raising kids together. I predict that there will be a lot, lot more arrangements that end up being common law marriages because nobody wanted to make a commitment but they just loved each other, stayed together, and became a family.

    Like

  30. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 20:42 #

    The decline in marriage rates is lower for highly educated men and women, which is ironic, because the high-income earning men have the most to lose. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/11/20/no-reversal-in-decline-of-marriage/

    Like

  31. konoron March 25, 2015 at 20:51 #

    > You buy (or acquire) the condoms yourself, and you never let her touch one.

    Easier said than done. Where would you store condoms to avoid tampering?

    Like

  32. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 20:56 #

    If you lived with her, that might be a challenge. Guys, any suggestions?

    Liked by 1 person

  33. thesadtruths101 March 25, 2015 at 20:58 #

    You, as well as others, advise women to marry young because we don’t have much time. Isn’t that advising women to settle? I’ve had advice form many other older women who say “Put off marriage as long as you can. It isn’t what you think” One of those women happened to be my grandmother. I asked her why she married young. She replied “she had no other option.”

    A lot of young women, myself don’t want to settle down now and not because we want to sleep around (well that’s not my reason) but because we want the experience of living on our own or having girls’ night out. The stereotype of marriage becoming repetitive lifestyle comes from a place of truth/

    Like

  34. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 21:04 #

    Depends what you mean by young and what your family goals are. If you want to have multiple children, it’s not wise to wait until you are 35. Simple biology.

    On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with getting married at 22 and having the family you want.

    The point is to know what YOU personally want from life, and take the actions that will allow you to realize your own goals.

    Want lots of children? One child? No child? Don’t care one way or another?

    Your choices will be different, depending on what you want.

    All I advocate for is honest discussion without judgement. Be honest with young women and men about how goals and choices affect one another.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. thesadtruths101 March 25, 2015 at 21:12 #

    There’s a lot of questions I would like to ask but I don’t want to ask them in comments.

    Like

  36. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 21:18 #

    I’m not speaking for Janet here, but if you’re like a typical person who’s built up significant, prenup-worthy assets and are around 30 or beyond, some men here would tell you that the things that make a man prime marriage material and the things that make a woman so are entirely different. They’ll say that a woman’s primary assets are her youth and beauty, and that a woman past her first bloom who still wants to get married can’t expect to have first pick like a young girl can.

    This may be some of the “settling” message you’re hearing — not straight from Janet but from various men here who note that girls are encouraged to set their standards high and assume that they deserve nothing but the very best, and play the field and not be in a hurry to settle down, and then as they near middle age and their clocks are ticking, suddenly wonder where all the good men have gone.

    I’m not preaching because I didn’t marry till 35, and it wasn’t because I was all wrapped up in a career, or having all kinds of wild sex, or anything. I just generally felt most attracted to the men who never noticed me. But one day I realized that the life I wanted didn’t necessarily match with the kinds of men I had crushes on, and I decided to be open to falling in love with someone who actually loved and wanted to be with me. Many would call this settling, but whatever you call it, I’m really glad I did it because life with my loving husband and two beautiful daughters, even with the many challenges we’re facing, is a zillion times better than the lonely life of refusing to settle.

    In contrast to women being encouraged to have high standards and hold out for the very best, our society tries to guilt men for being “superficial” and not being attracted to women they don’t find attractive. I discovered that I had my own bias in this area, in that I’ve encountered both husbands and wives who try to police their spouses’ eating habits — actually more wives, and even though I find both kinds of people annoying, I’ve tended to feel like the wives were just overly maternal and concerned about health, while the men were just superficial and thinking of their wives as ornaments.

    But anyhow, the fact is that we all, men and women, are attracted to what we’re attracted to, and not attracted to what we’re not attracted to, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If a person’s range of attraction is causing them problems — as in, there’s no one that they’re attracted to who’s also attracted to them — then that’s a problem for that person to work out for themselves (like I did). But so long as they’re able to find people within that range who are attracted to them, there’s really no problem.

    Like

  37. thesadtruths101 March 25, 2015 at 21:18 #

    There are some questions I would like to ask but not through comments if that is alright

    Like

  38. that1susan March 25, 2015 at 21:32 #

    Here’s a link to a good article I read a while back on “settling.” I think it’s really pertinent because of our high divorce rate, and because most divorces are initiated by women. Just as we’re urged to hold out and not be in a big hurry to marry the first guy we fall in love with, we’re also often encouraged, after marriage, to keep reevaluating and determining whether it’s really the best we can do.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t work to improve our lives and our marriages — but our most effective efforts will those focused on fixing ourselves and not on fixing or replacing our significant others.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10536016

    Like

  39. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 22:13 #

    Sure. You can send me email Janet@avoiceformen.com

    Like

  40. thesadtruths101 March 25, 2015 at 22:24 #

    But do you feel completely happy with the guy you chose? Do you ever have a what if moment?

    Like

  41. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 22:30 #

    @sadtruth

    I don’t know about Susan but I have those moments frequently. I recognize them for what they are: petulant reactions to minor annoyances that are just human.

    I have never once had any serious thought I should not have gotten married to this person qualms, no. But we dated for a year, were engaged for a year and married for a year before we started trying for a baby, so serious qualms had lots of time to show up.

    An easy way for me to gain perspective is to force myself to think of an annoying “he’s wants to strangle me” thing that I do whenever I feel that about him. Our “issues” are blessedly petty.

    He uses paper towels to wipe up spills on the floor, but leaves the towels on the floor.

    WHY DO YOU DO THIS?

    I leave wet bath towels on the floor.

    He would like to kill me for that.

    We muddle through mostly happy.

    My advice: you’re gonna annoy each other. That’s life, but serious qualms warrant serious considerations. Expecting constant happiness is not realistic. You need to understand yourself. What are your dealbreakers?

    Know thyself.

    Like

  42. Observasaurus Rex March 25, 2015 at 22:44 #

    1) In the old box o’ porn, inside some DVD boxes. Make sure several DVDs with sticky covers are on top of the one holding the condoms.

    2) under the upright plunger in the bathroom (inside the bell). Women that would sabotage BC will be too entitled to unclog their own toilet.

    3) Next to the certificate of sterility you acquired after your vasectomy.

    Like

  43. Jason Wexler March 25, 2015 at 23:40 #

    There is actually some interesting data on this, regarding who marries and who stays married successfully. The bad news is you have to be college educated and in the top third or so of household incomes. To a significant degree it appears that marriage success anymore is dependent on being a feminist with a pussy whipped husband. Although it’s more likely that successful marriages are built by people with similar values who much like adults are supposed to, actually talk about what it is they want from each other and work for it. Which is basically what JB’s first article on this topic said, and some of this one says the same.

    Like

  44. JudgyBitch March 25, 2015 at 23:43 #

    It might be possible that BECAUSE educated, high income male earners have so much to lose, they put up with their psycho bitch wives, and not because lower income women are more psycho?

    Like

  45. Jason Wexler March 26, 2015 at 00:07 #

    I should know better to post this without the citation at hand, but the last time I saw this claim discussed, I checked up on it and found a research review discussing how most of the studies on this keep recycling a data set collected in 1990. A data set which showed that single men were less healthy and had lower life expectancy but not significantly so (a four point difference); and perhaps most importantly a data set which intentionally oversampled HIV+ openly gay men who at the time would have been classified as single regardless of actual relationship status, thus misrepresenting the numbers of single and in-relationship men. The lower health rates of course are a result of the higher then average rates of HIV infection.

    Hey I found my sources…

    http://www.unmarried.org/single-vs-married-who-really-lives-longer/

    I am going to have to post the link to the other study and then my analysis of it.

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/ajoswald/finalsentscanjsex04.pdf

    “Thank you for posting those sources. The second source only gives us an abstract the full article would require us to have a paid subscription. The first article only relies on self reported data about happiness and doesn’t measure health at all. This is problematic because of the presence of social desirability bias, and the fact that random surveys are known to exclude a significant population of Americans who for whatever reason don’t participate in elections or surveys and by deduction we are able to determine that they have significantly different demographic characteristics from the survey taking segment of the population.

    The difference in the rate of unhappiness for married and single people according to the data set provided is statistically insignificant it is only 6 points, while the difference between married and divorced people is twice that. That would seem to reaffirm the position stated by someguy in another comment. Again as stated before I wouldn’t be surprised if the difference in happiness between single and married people is a result of discrimination against gay people, in spite of parity in the rates of happiness among gay and straight people, the gay sample is disproportionately represented among the singles. The abstract or introduction stated that homosexuality had no statistical significance on the data, but based upon their claimed sample size, I calculate that all unhappy homosexuals being grouped as necessarily and by definition unmarried (the survey covers years 1991-2000) would account for 60% of the difference (almost 4 points) between happiness among married and single people.”

    Like

  46. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 00:11 #

    This lit review says married people are happier. http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/married-people-are-happier-people.html
    This one says men are specifically happier if their wife has a lower BMI than they do http://news.discovery.com/human/health/thinner-wife-happier-marriage-110725.htm

    Like

  47. Matthew Chiglinsky March 26, 2015 at 01:35 #

    I dig that you mention circumcision. Most people are too shallow to think about things like that. I also don’t believe in gynecology. I guess basically I don’t want doctors involved with human intimacy. Actually, what about cancer treatment, like if your child gets cancer, do you believe in chemotherapy? There have been court cases about this where they actually tried to take custody of the child against the parents wishes. An Amish couple even fled into the night to avoid having their child kidnapped by the state.

    Forget about cell count. Abortion is preemptive murder, logically, if you step back and look at the past, present, and future of the potential life. The real question is whether murder is ever right. We murder animals. Some of us fly to foreign countries and murder their soldiers. Some of us even murder people who don’t behave properly in society. Firing someone from a job and evicting someone from an apartment or a house is legal, but then people get upset at the very notion of suicide. Abortion is the least of the existential problems society has.

    Um, there is no form of birth control that is 100% reliable (biologically), even if you can trust a woman. Check “Typical use failure rate” at the CDC’s Web site. But, really, if you don’t trust a woman to even try to do the right thing, why marry her anyway? I hate dishonesty. Liars can burn in Hell. I’d rather a woman cheat on me and tell the truth than lie about something mundane.

    The prenup seems reasonable, given our litigious society. Pat Benatar apparently thought, “Love is a battlefield.” back in the 1980s. I hear it on the radio all the time.

    Like

  48. Matthew Chiglinsky March 26, 2015 at 01:40 #

    [Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. The second and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. Finally, the woman died too. Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

    Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.]

    (Luke 20:27-36)

    Like

  49. Anonymous age 72 March 26, 2015 at 02:43 #

    I did legal research for the ten years I spent counseling divorced men so I could give them correct advice.

    In most states, the status of prenups is very simple. They aren’t worth the paper they are written on, and in most cases state laws specifically say so.

    Prenups written in anticipation of divorce are not valid, period. Note that is the only time you really need one.

    If a man has money and the woman does not they rip it up, period.

    If the judge thinks the result is unjust, it is not valid.

    If you do not list all properties, it is invalid. There can always be a tool box with yellow handled screwdrivers that were not lsited.

    Simply put prenups aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

    On men’s boards and blogs, feminists come on to disrupt things. They use shaming language; insults. A few also rattle on telling you that prenups are endorceable. This is just another way of confusing men and convincing them to marry.

    Like

  50. Jim March 26, 2015 at 02:49 #

    Those wealthy men are fools for doing that. I remember hearing that in the UK lawyers were begging their wealthy male clients not to marry because the misandry is so strong in divorce courts over there.

    Like

  51. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 02:49 #

    Holy shit, for real? There is no state in which a prenup will be honored?

    Like

  52. Anonymous age 72 March 26, 2015 at 03:01 #

    In the 90’s before I retired, men in my work section started a discussion on what to look for in a woman to know if there is a chance of a stable marriage without divorce. We came up with a long list of pluses and negatives.

    Mostly, it seemed that a good woman respected an external authority; bad women felt if it feels good; do it. Also, good women were concerned with the well-being of others than themselves.

    Later, I was discussing this with a single man in his late teens. He called us a bunch of names, mosty involving our stupidity. He said, “Just look how she drives.”

    We talked to women in our department, without telling them why. We found all the divorced women drove like fiends. All the stable married womeon drove very sedately and carefully.

    Their driving reflects their view of an external authority, and their concern for the well-being of others.

    of course, this only works for geographical locations where people routinely drive.

    Like

  53. Jason Wexler March 26, 2015 at 03:44 #

    I want you to know I was fair and honest and I read your links thoroughly, and then I went and found their sources and in one case their sources, sources, and I found them riddled with all sorts of methodological problems, ranging from the general social science problem of Social Desirability Bias involved in self reported feelings to the more serious although just as common problem of social scientists “creaming” their research, leaving out unfriendly data points. However even if I accept that their research isn’t methodologically flawed, there is still the problem that they are overstating their results, when everything is said and done, I have a hard time accepting that a 4% difference in a fairly ambiguous subjective measure is compelling evidence that marriage is really all that much better.

    I want you to know that I am not arguing with you as a MGTOW I am actually pretty skeptical of that movement, I am doing this from the perspective of someone who is a longtime critic of poor scientific practice by social scientists, who often have weak peer review processes, fail to perform repeatability testing, and tend to be hostile to alternative interpretations by those who do, do repeatability testing. I have a fairly long list of research topics I have found to be fairly obviously problematic, and this just happens to be one of dozens.

    At the risk of starting a citation war, I want to offer you one more in depth analysis, full disclosure it’s done by the same author as one of the previous links I sent you one Professor Bella DePaulo, a woman who has a clear ideological axe to grind, and it was published in PsychologyToday a far from reputable pop-science “journal” of a field I hold in the absolute lowest of esteem. I only send it to you for two reasons, one authority bias is in play, she is a credentialed scientist and that may boost the value of her arguments, and two her arguments with regards to this particular topic are brilliantly spot on, you’d almost think she was a natural scientist… a physicist or geologist or some such as opposed to the sociologist she is, in other words her analysis is brilliant and exceptional.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201303/marriage-and-happiness-18-long-term-studies

    Some key points from the review:

    In at least 11 of the 18 studies, the people in the marriage group included only those who got married and stayed married all through the study. This is important. The cumulative results of the 18 studies don’t really tell us about the implications of getting married; instead, they tell us about the implications mostly only for those who get married and stay married. For those who marry and then divorce or become widowed, the implications may be very different.

    ~

    Here’s what did not happen: Except for that initial short-lived honeymoon effect for life satisfaction, getting married did not result in getting happier or more satisfied. In fact, for life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction, the trajectories over time headed in the less satisfied direction.

    What is really remarkable about the combined findings of the 18 studies is that the designs were biased in favor of making marriage look good. At least 11 of the studies included only those people who got married and stayed married.

    There was one sentence in the results section of the meta-analysis about how the results were different for those studies which included people who had separated, rather than tossing them out of the marriage group: “These samples did not differ in the initial reaction; however, the rate of adaptation was significantly less negative in samples without any separations.”

    ~

    So how did the authors find a way to make getting married look like a boon to happiness? First, they looked at normative changes in life satisfaction over the course of the adult years. Setting aside considerations of marital status, the study showed (as have other studies) that life satisfaction decreases over time. Then they looked specifically at the people who stayed single, and found that their life satisfaction showed some decrease over time.

    (Some specifics: At the time of the marriage, those who got married and stayed married reported life satisfaction that was a half of one point, on a 7-point scale, higher than the matched single people. In the years afterwards, those who married and stayed married averaged .28 of one point on a 7-point scale greater life satisfaction than those who stayed single. About the “matching”: For each person who got married and stayed married, the authors tried to find a single person who was as similar as possible in age, sex, education and income. They didn’t say when they assessed income. The matching was not totally successful. For example, the single people, on the average, were four years older than those who got married and stayed married.)

    Here’s what the authors said about their results: “…although our previous analyses showed that people were no more happier after marriage than before marriage, these results suggest that married people are indeed happier than they would have been if they did not get married.”

    NOTE (This is Jason inserting his two cents): What the NIH study she is talking about above found was that people who got and stayed married were half a point out of seven points happier to begin with that translate to a whopping 7% happier and they became less happy over time losing almost half of their advantage in comparison. Going back to my response to Jim elsewhere in this thread, it seems that successfully married people may be successfully married because they are better at organizing their lives and knowing what they want and how to get it. I am not sure even in the absence of methodological flaws it counts as married people being happier if happier married people were happier to start with. (End of my interruption)

    Like

  54. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 03:59 #

    Here’s what I don’t get JB. If she really does love you and you explain marriage to her and what an awful position it puts you in, what kind of woman would go through with the marriage anyway? I’ll answer that – a woman you don’t want to marry.

    JB, you just don’t get this. You haven’t fully grasped what the hell is going on here. You’re trying. I appreciate that. I really do. But you and the crowd at “A Voice for Marriage” are hopelessly out of touch on this subject.

    Pair bonding? Oh brother.

    Like

  55. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 04:04 #

    Marriage IS prostitution. Women get married for financial security, that is money. Ask pretty much any woman on the street and she’ll tell you that. When you sell sex for money, you’re a hooker. End of story.

    Like

  56. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 04:17 #

    “… BECAUSE educated, high income male earners have so much to lose, they put up with their psycho bitch wives,…”

    Yep. Hit the nail on the head. We’re just simply stuck. We’re in marriage prison. Simple as that.

    Like

  57. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 04:18 #

    Exactly. Thank you!

    Like

  58. Jim March 26, 2015 at 05:38 #

    The deal breaker is that there is really is no deal at all. It’s only a “deal” until she wants to break it off whenever she feels like it. Now, if it just ended there (with her parting from me and that’s it) then I could live with that. But breaking it off at a whim and having the option of stealing my income, property, AND kids? NO….WAY!

    How the hell can that even be a contract? Is it any wonder that more and more men are just saying fuck no to marriage? And to top it off you have so many bitches these days (not you JB, you’re a “good bitch” :P) shaming men for not “growing up” because we don’t want their skanky asses when they’re 35.

    Now, I don’t really care that much about the shaming that much since all it does is validate my position but I’m just amazed (I guess I shouldn’t be) at the sheer audacity these cunts have. No self awareness whatsoever. It’s like they’ve never been told NO before.

    I remember being in a job where I used to work with the public all the time. Almost all the married men look liked beaten dogs. Not only that but almost every guy was actually just, almost out of the blue sometime, telling me not to get married. They had the look of a trapped and beaten animal. I never forgot that.

    Like

  59. Magnus March 26, 2015 at 09:27 #

    I think that is the “unhealthy” thought pattern that keeps a lot of us from marriage.
    To paraphrase Tim Allan:
    “Men view their women like they view cars. Everyone want’s a sports car because it looks good and is the envy of other men… until you realize how much work it is to maintain it. Other times all you want is a trusty pickup. It’s not much to look like, but it’s reliable and no fuss.
    Most men though, end up with a station wagon”

    Point is, you can’t go through life always looking for that one special unicorn. Everything has it’s flaws.
    Marriage is give and take.

    Then again I won’t marry, mainly because up to this point most women have shown me they would rather take than give.
    I also realized that I really don’t know what I want from a relationship, there really isn’t anything offered that I feel I need. (that doesn’t come with so many strings attached that it hurts).

    Yes, some people marry for life, I envy them, I just don’t seem to be the guy who finds those girls.

    Like

  60. Magnus March 26, 2015 at 09:30 #

    Obviously in jars with twist off lids!
    Women can’t seem to ever open those.

    Like

  61. Magnus March 26, 2015 at 09:51 #

    Now I personally live a MGTOW lifestyle. But you have to be rather retarded if you think that’s a choice for everyone.
    Pairbonding (when it’s stable) is still THE best way to raise a child.
    And guess what? People want to have children! Even men want children, but we want to be present in the raising and development of those children.
    Many men want to marry, nothing wrong with that, they just need to know all the pit falls.

    Marriage is a desirable state for many people, if it’s stable. I think it’s you extreme MGTOW who don’t get it. What is the endgame of extreme MGTOW? What is the goal?
    At least JB and AVfM tries to get a better deal for all men who want to live with a woman.

    Like

  62. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 13:38 #

    Who said men who don’t want to get married don’t want to live with a woman? Generating false choices is hardly helpful.

    “What is the goal?”

    Fair relations for men and women. I can assure you that telling men that, yes, marriage is a bad deal for you but do it anyway “for the children” or “with the right girl” (the AVFM, JB, NPO, Robert Franklin approach) is a direct path to the status quo.

    Really, this screed, written by a woman who is telling us if we just marry someone like her everything will be fine, is utterly self-serving and off the mark. I like JB, don’t get me wrong, but the truth is her husband is stuck to the ball-and-chain we’ve all heard about it. It’s real. One signature – life over. Or an unhappy life stuck in marriage prison. There’s no reasonable way out. It’s a tremendous burden to carry for Mr. JB. Pretending this isn’t the case is a disservice to the men’s and father’s movement.

    Like

  63. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 14:00 #

    I am happy most of the time — and yes, I usually feel happy with my husband. As I’ve shared on some other threads here, he now has some very serious health issues and is often very unhappy, and I do wish I could change all that for him, and I feel a lot of sadness at times when visualizing various possible health outcomes — but then I also know of people who technically “should have been dead years ago” but managed to live to a ripe old age, so I feel like we never really know what will happen and we just have to take it day by day.

    I don’t really know how to explain my approach to happiness — but even when I was single wanting to be married, I was happy most of the time. I guess I’m just one of those flaky people who can take an insane amount of pleasure in stuff like a really good cup of coffee or, even better, a moment of deep connection with my husband or one of my children — so the world can fall down around me, but so long as there are still a few simple pleasures to be enjoyed, I’ll find a way to enjoy those moments and get through.

    I don’t have “what if” moments when it comes to my marriage — probably because I see marriage as a done deal so long as there’s no abuse or cheating going on. Plus, my children wouldn’t be who they were if I’d married anyone else.

    I find “what ifs” more useful in situations where I actually can go back and redo something if I feel like I did it wrong — like if I put too much cayenne pepper in the chili, could I fix it by adding some sugar or would it be better to add in a bunch more ingredients? I guess even then I don’t agonize too much over “what it” I’d been more careful with the pepper, though I’m likely to be a lot more careful next time. 🙂

    Like

  64. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 14:02 #

    I love this one: “under the upright plunger in the bathroom (inside the bell). Women that would sabotage BC will be too entitled to unclog their own toilet.”

    Like

  65. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 14:05 #

    If you live with a woman you can and will be held liable for her and her children financially regardless of whether you are the genetic father or not. It’s not marriage that makes you vulnerable. It’s any established relationship with a woman.

    Like

  66. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 14:14 #

    Another thing to consider if you want children is that you have not a single hope in hell of seeing that child if you are not legally married to the mother at the time the child is born, if that relationship fails. Family courts are grossly unfair to married fathers but medieval when it comes to treating unmarried fathers fairly.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/white_working_class_women_should_stay_single_mothers_argue_the_authors_of.2.html

    Like

  67. John March 26, 2015 at 14:29 #

    This information is not accurate everywhere. I practice family law. In my state, prenups are most certainly enforceable, and I have yet to see an argument that a prenup entered into before the marriage is invalid by virtue of it being entered into “in anticipation of divorce.” I’m not talking about coercive conduct like a postnup “sign this or I’ll divorce you” situation. I imagine telling the court that a prenup should be invalid because it was made in anticipation of divorce would result in a response such as “yes, that is the point of the prenup, what is your legal basis for invalidation?”

    Also, while courts here have wide discretion in many family law matters, prenups are generally governed by contract law as to fairness, as in, agreeing to a bad deal is not a basis per se to invalidate a contract without something more. You may see invalidation of clauses that are prohibited by statute (typically child issues, support is governed by statute, children are third parties that didn’t get to negotiate the agreement, and other reasoning), but typically the remaining agreement will stand.

    The listing of all properties, including yellow handled tools. Once again, I don’t see your statements as accurate. Proper disclosure of financial assets is important, and lack of disclosure can serve as a basis for invalidation. Like with any legal document with nuanced formalities, parties should have lawyers to make sure these kind of things are properly addressed. Though typically the reasoning for invalidation based on insufficient disclosure is justified based on factors such as whether the disclosure was sufficient, and did it give sufficient information about assets for the other party to enter into the agreement voluntarily. If a party attaches a financial statement to the prenup saying they have 2 businesses worth 10 million, 3 houses worth 5 million, and approximately 2 million in personal property, how could a party argue the disclosure was insufficient or unfair because the yellow tools weren’t listed? of course everything is relative – if this person doesn’t disclose significant sums, or if someone with little assets discloses $100 and not his $2000 in tools, it may be a different story.

    With a prenup, you may not be able to avoid a challenge to the agreement, but by taking the proper steps you can have an enforceable agreement.

    And of course, none of this is legal advice, I could just be some random internet troll for all you know.

    Like

  68. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 14:43 #

    Pfft. He shoulda known what he was marrying when he married it.

    For that matter – she shoulda known. No, a Russian politician in fact cannot tolerate a wife that pulls this shit. It makes him look like a pussy if he puts up with it, which in Russia is fatal for your political career.

    Like

  69. John March 26, 2015 at 14:43 #

    Indeed. NAWALT is another funny example. On one end of the Manosphere you’ve got men pissed about negative stereotypes about men. On the other side, you’ve got men making endless negative stereotypes about women and coming up with cute acronyms to deflect criticism instead of dealing with it.

    Just look at Returnofkings, with articles like “Girls are Fundamentally Lazy.” I think it takes a special type of pseudo-alpha hive mind to take a lot of their stuff seriously. And if you read the comments on a lot of their posts – many say things like “this site has devolved in to silly woman hating bs” indicating some thinking is going on among their audience members.

    Like

  70. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 14:47 #

    Happily married men live longer – but we may be confusing cause and effect here. Let’s phrase it differently: “men who are able to get married and stay married are also the kind of men who live longer”. This may be true. But it does not necessarily mean that a man can become a longer-living dude by getting married.

    Like

  71. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 14:48 #

    Thanks for that, John. I will assume you are a lawyer and that pre-nuptial agreements are a valid and enforceable way to mitigate the risks of marriage.

    Like

  72. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 14:49 #

    In either case, the marriage has to be happy, I would imagine.

    Like

  73. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 14:49 #

    It’s like saying “married men are wealthier”. The reason this is true is that women divorce losers. It is not the marriage that makes the wealth; it’s the wealth that makes the marriage.

    Like

  74. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 14:51 #

    Wow — and apparently in Russia (if the video is to be believed), he now has no financial responsibility toward her or their child (so maybe Russia’s a good place for men marriage-wise?). No, I can’t imagine her thinking it was okay to post those pictures with a politician husband. Even if he wasn’t a politician, she should have cared how he felt about it. But now at least it may put food on the table for her and their child. 😦

    Like

  75. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 14:52 #

    “Alphas” are – almost by definition – not part of the manosphere. The manosphere is made up of people who spend a lot of time in front of a computer. Yes: four fingers pointing back at you and all that, but I never pretended to be one of them alphas.

    Like

  76. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 14:55 #

    These types of RoK articles are simply clickbait/trolling (the categories are different but not mutually exclusive).

    Like

  77. Fred Flange, hint of minty freshness March 26, 2015 at 15:03 #

    Slight amendments to what Anon72 says about prenuptials. I agree with him if there is enough $$$ at stake for a fight, most prenups can be punched open. When that happens they can be “renegotiated” too, probably on not-as-great terms, but the courts are pushing mediation big time these days and that process can be a bit less unfair because if mediations are seen not to succeed no one will choose to use them. No picnic though.
    If there are kids, doesn’t matter what the prenup says, a child support component will be imposed, since the child was not a party when the prenup was drawn (duh).

    Prenups will be upheld in some limited scenarios: the most likely one is where both parties are just dividing up stuff (no kids) though the split is not 50-50. Oddly, the other is where one party is large OLD money (i.e., the Durst-types) and the other is a peasant wastrel marrying in. There has to be a somewhat generous allowance for the wastrel, though it may be only 1 -2% of Old Money Hubby’s trust fund or personal wealth. Everyone is super-lawyered up and the signature ceremony is often on video so everyone’s consent is visual as well as written. It’s not cheap but the other options are far far worse. Donald Trump did this with wife #1 and it stood up.

    PS: Any prenup NOT co-signed and reviewed by independent lawyers WILL be tossed out, undue influence is always assumed.

    Like

  78. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:08 #

    Pay attention to three things:

    What her mother looks like
    How she treats the waiter
    Her attitude to her father.

    She *will* wind up looking like her mother. If – in your secret heart of hearts – you could do her mom, then this is step 1 passed.

    How she treats the waiter is how she treats people who she doesn’t have to “make nice” to. After she has you locked down, she no longer has to make nice to you. She will treat you like she treats the waiter. Similarly: watch how she treats family. After you are committed, *you* are family, too.

    Her attitude to her dad is her attitude to the provider male in her life, to the dude who puts the roof over her head. You want to see gratitude and respect. If she feels he is a clueless buffoon, if she happily has sex with you in his house and doesn’t give a damn about his disapproval because she has zero respect for him; then she will not just cheat on you, she will do it in your bed while you are at work.

    Do not ignore this stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

  79. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 15:10 #

    Excellent points. I would give a pass to anyone who had a genuinely abusive father, as I did. My father apologized to me sincerely, and I forgave him openly and completely. He genuinely felt his violence was in the service of God.

    My mother has never repented her violence, never apologized, and I do NOT forgive her.

    Like

  80. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:11 #

    Yeah, the make a big deal of this. Insist that it is the case. Geishas totally, absolutely do not provide sex to their japanese billionaire clients, not matter how compellingly obvious it is that they would. For sure.

    Like

  81. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:16 #

    A very different situation. As with all generalisations, they don’t always exactly apply to everyone.

    Having said that – at the end of the day isn’t being able to forgive and reconcile with your dad exactly what I am talking about? Compassion, acceptance – there’s a lot of words for love.

    Like

  82. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:19 #

    You leave the paper towels on the floor – obvously – so as to give them the chance to mop up absolutely all of the spill. It’s perfectly logical and sensible, and I have no idea why this is a thing. 🙂

    Like

  83. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:22 #

    Marriage is about children and the family unit in the context of a broader society – something that is precisely missing in the prostitution relationship.

    Like

  84. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:24 #

    Wallet. If she’s going though your wallet – it’s already too late for you.

    Like

  85. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:28 #

    “Abortion is preemptive murder, logically,”

    Pfft. So is ejaculating onto her back, logically. “Pre-emptive murder” is a nonsense. Either an act isn’t murder, or it is. Either the embryo isn’t a *person*, or it is. If what is aborted is a person, then aborting it is murder.

    Maybe.

    Are you obliged to feed and sustain another person? With your own blood? If they can’t survive without it?

    Like

  86. Paul Murray March 26, 2015 at 15:31 #

    Interestingly, this is not sex-specific. We are talking about what kind of person a person is. Specifically, we are talking about anti-social personality disorder: people that won’t recognise that the rules that make society possible also apply to them.

    Like

  87. Copyleft March 26, 2015 at 16:22 #

    Of course, the wealthy men are the ones getting more and more high-quality offers, so the selection LOOKS better to them.

    Like

  88. Copyleft March 26, 2015 at 16:24 #

    ??? Then why are infertile, elderly, and other childless couples not forced to split up? Marriage is -not- about children; rather, children are one possible feature of some marriages.

    Like

  89. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 17:44 #

    “Forced” to split up?

    Like

  90. Spaniard March 26, 2015 at 18:51 #

    OK, better this way: “she is a hooker in bed”.

    Like

  91. feeriker March 26, 2015 at 20:00 #

    Her attitude to her dad is her attitude to the provider male in her life, to the dude who puts the roof over her head. You want to see gratitude and respect. If she feels he is a clueless buffoon, if she happily has sex with you in his house and doesn’t give a damn about his disapproval because she has zero respect for him; then she will not just cheat on you, she will do it in your bed while you are at work.

    Do not ignore this stuff.

    Yes, indeed. It’s really easy to gauge this because most women today are overt and uninhibited in their expression of this. The old Delta Me saw this very clearly in my soon-to-be-ex wife while we were dating, yet chose to ignore it (“hey, she LOVES me and would NEVER treat ME like that!”). Many men also see this right in front of their eyes, but choose to ignore it, thinking that her “good qualities” outweigh/more than make up for these red flags. They’re always wrong, but never realize that until it’s too late, they’ve put a ring on it, and they’re locked down.

    Like

  92. feeriker March 26, 2015 at 20:31 #

    Depends on the woman, but I can think of three off the top of my head:

    1. Inside the oven, if she doesn’t cook

    2. Inside the cleaning closet if she doesn’t do housework

    3. inside your technical books (or even ANY books, if she doesn’t read)

    I’m betting that the first two are guaranteed “safe zones” for most men

    Like

  93. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 20:42 #

    I must just be an awesome wife then if most wives never open the oven or use the cleaning supplies. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  94. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 20:47 #

    Yeah, in my house, the smell of burning rubber would be everywhere!

    Like

  95. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 20:49 #

    See men. Paul Murray wants us all to get married “for the children”. Seriously?

    You are simply wrong. Marriage has NOTHING to do with children. It never did. Marriage, most especially modern, legal marriage in its current form is nothing but a state welfare program for women. That is the EXPLICIT purpose of marriage. That is why the states are involved in our personal relationships.

    I would urge you to look into at least the introduction of the book “Wives Without Husbands” by Anna Igra. Anna spells this out very clearly. You can look at the introduction online through Amazon. Read. Learn. Educate yourself.

    Like

  96. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 21:02 #

    You might also want to consider that given the current legal environment, you are insane to have a child outside of legal marriage. That child belongs, de facto, to the woman.

    I don’t agree with that and pointing out a fact is hardly endorsing it.

    Only legally married fathers have a presumed right to see their own children. You won’t be treated fairly, and again I am NOT endorsing that, but that’s the reality.

    You can hate marriage, but it seems unfair to hate women who are married with their eyes wide open, and who spend a good deal of time trying to draw attention to just how unfair marriage is for men.

    The alternative is worse.

    Like

  97. that1susan March 26, 2015 at 21:03 #

    Why burning rubber?

    Like

  98. peppiniello March 26, 2015 at 21:21 #

    are marriage rates equally down for every race group?

    Like

  99. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 21:28 #

    From condoms burning when I turn the oven on?

    Sometimes, when I am very lazy I hide dirty pans in the oven and I always forget they are there til I hit preheat.

    I consider it a bi-monthly check of the smoke detector.

    Liked by 1 person

  100. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 21:36 #

    First, thanks for letting me participate. I do appreciate that very much. I know I’m “abrasive”, to put it mildly. That’s not lost on me. Whatever I write, please know that I very much appreciate your contribution to these causes.

    “… regardless of whether you are the genetic father or not.”

    I know all of this too well. My cousin sued her ex-boyfriend for “child” support for a kid everyone knew wasn’t his. He broke up with her and this was her way of getting even. Of course she won. I haven’t talked to her since I found out about this many years ago.

    “Family courts are grossly unfair to married fathers but medieval when it comes to treating unmarried fathers fairly.”

    Again, you are right. No argument here. But remember that if you’re married and your wife spits out some other guy’s child you’re on the hook for that. Can you imagine?

    The problem is, getting to the point of your post, nothing here is a reason for a man to get married. I think you’ve inadvertently just made the MGTOW points very clearly. It is not extreme in my view for a man who understands the current state of “family” law to get a vasectomy, not get married, and not live with a woman. That is perfectly rational behavior.

    What is NOT rational is to understand what is going on and say, oh well, fuck it, I’ll take my chances anyway. That is NOT rational. You would never suggest to someone to enter into a lopsided business arrangement, right? Of course not. THEN WHY MARRIAGE?

    You have your anti-feminism going very well. I’m all for that! I think you and Paul and Robert Franklin and others need to reflect on why you can’t dump marriage, as it currently exists, into the trash right now. What is stopping you?

    Like

  101. JudgyBitch March 26, 2015 at 21:52 #

    In a nutshell because FAIR SANE MARRIAGE is the best way to raise children, acquire wealth and be happy.

    Fair, sane marriage would impose a grievous price on those who made such a profound commitment and then reneged.

    I have nothing against those who prefer not to marry. I want to see those who commit and then renege not profit from it.

    I believe most men are deeply, intensely romantic at heart. We’ve set up a system that allows women to rape the emotional vulnerability of men and that is just wrong. It’s cruel, sick and unjust.

    I can’t abide that.

    I hate the system that allows it, not the institution abused.

    Like

  102. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 22:23 #

    “Only legally married fathers have a presumed right to see their own children.”

    I want that to be true, but it really isn’t. Legally married fathers have the OBLIGATION to pay for his OR SOME OTHER GUY’S children should his wife spit them out.

    At the end of the day there really isn’t such a thing as a father’s right to see his children. If mom doesn’t want dad in the kid’s life, for most dad’s fighting that in court is virtually impossible. And I don’t consider “every-other-weekend” as anything other than kidnapping. It certainly has nothing to do with rights.

    This is all MUCH worse than you think it is. I’ve seen too much of this up close for my brain to form the thought “married fathers have a presumed right…”

    I DO NOT hate you or Suz McCarley (my personal ban brigade over at AVFM) or Karen Straughn or pretty much any other woman in the world for anything. Please don’t mistake my anger and abrasiveness for hate. I’m being tough on you for sure. If you think I’m tough on you, though, you should try being Robert Franklin. The truth is I love all of you for what you’re doing. I am so grateful.

    Like

  103. caprizchka March 26, 2015 at 22:44 #

    I like the notion of marriage even if I personally am not any good at it. Living in some state of illegality appeals more. It would seem to me that an outlaw pair-bonding is also more romantic. However, that’s probably not the best way to raise children, which, I suspect, is the eugenics objective of some of these misapplied and lopsided laws.

    However, that’s not why I popped in. It would seem to me from child behavior research that a child doesn’t even have a fully developed sense of self as separate from the primary caregiver until about aged two, and anything can go wrong meanwhile with that sense of self resulting in either narcissism or a lack of personal boundaries and thereby becoming a narcissist magnet. This is not my way of advocating retroactive abortion until aged two only that infanticide has a much longer tradition as a “birth control” method than any other and therefore abortion at any stage is an improvement over that model, unless one is into quantity rather than quality of one’s society’s reproduction, such as if one has ambitions of an enlarged state or owns a factory and thereby requires a huge excess labor force in order to keep wages low. In short, over-reproduction is a tool used by both The Left and The Right whether by fomenting Feminism, unbridled immigration, or irresponsible reproduction by a “conservative” class. I think it’s important therefore to choose a wife who follows your own ideologies, whatever they are, rather than having a political battle each step of the way. I can see how a “blank slate” wife may appeal but that can backfire too.

    Meanwhile persons with narcissistic personality disorder or who lack sufficient personal boundaries generally get burned during marriage one way or another, and probably ought not to reproduce, if they can help it. This is not my way of saying that there should be a law to stop them necessarily, only that feral feline females probably ought to be spayed.

    Like

  104. feeriker March 26, 2015 at 22:50 #

    Probably so. There is a “remnant” of about ten percent (to estimate generously) among the North American English-speaking female population that doesn’t eschew housework as some act of degradation forced upon them by men. Glad to know that you’re part of that remnant.

    Like

  105. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 22:52 #

    I’m all for “fair sane marriage”. We would differ on the details, for sure, but at the end of the day I would take your version any day of the week.

    Here’s the crux of my frustration with this marriage issue: we do NOT have “fair sane marriage” or anything close to it presently. We can’t pretend the problems for men don’t exist, suggest marriage is a viable option, has a higher purpose (the children), but there is “risk” involved. “Risk” is not correct word here. What men experience in marriage and family is “sacrifice”. That is the man’s role in a nutshell.

    It is flat-out wrong IMO for men’s and father’s advocates to suggest men should sacrifice themselves for any purpose, even “the children”. IMO the only message the men’s and father’s advocates should be sending is avoid marriage and family, altogether. This should be unequivocal. Not only would this message protect impressionable young men (especially), but this “strike” mentality will quicken the larger debate so we can get to sane marriage someday.

    I really think this hedging on marriage is a form of “gradualism” and appeasement. Something to consider?

    Like

  106. feeriker March 26, 2015 at 22:53 #

    Sometimes, when I am very lazy I hide dirty pans in the oven and I always forget they are there til I hit preheat.

    Funny that you should mention that, because putting dirty pans (by “dirty” I mean caked with grease and/or food remnants) in the oven and heating them on low to moderate heat for about 30 minutes can actually make them easier to clean. This is especially true of cast iron skillets, where all you have to do is rinse them in hot water (NO SOAP! It makes the food stick to the pans) and they’ll wash instantly clean.

    Liked by 1 person

  107. feeriker March 26, 2015 at 23:01 #

    It is flat-out wrong IMO for men’s and father’s advocates to suggest men should sacrifice themselves for any purpose, even “the children”.

    Don’t be fooled by the feminist perversion of this word. REAL “sacrifice” is a man doing what his instincts tell him need to be done for the sake of those children he loves and would go to the ends of the earth to protect and nurture.

    Unfortunately, our modernist society and its feminist pilots have bastardized the term “sacrifice”, where it applies to men, to mean “caving in to the feminine imperative at all costs and without hesitation or question, consequences to the man’s well-being or the good of his family or greater society be goddamned.”

    I think this is the definition of “sacrifice” that you have in mind, and yes, it is sick, perverse, unjust, and unacceptable.

    Like

  108. Carchamp March 26, 2015 at 23:02 #

    “marriage wouldn’t be slavery for men.”

    Marriage would still be slavery for most men. Even if pre-nups were iron clad they’re very limited in reach. For 99% of men who have nothing or virtually nothing going into marriage a pre-nup is worthless.

    Like

  109. that1susan March 27, 2015 at 00:16 #

    Oh my gosh, that’s hilarious!

    Like

  110. Terry March 27, 2015 at 00:20 #

    Wow, a ton of comments here – touched a nerve! Haven’t gone thru all but here’s two suggestions to verify with your potential mate:
    1) Does she call herself a “feminist”? (maybe this one is so obvious that it was left out)
    2) Does she support you in your pursuit of your career? If not, she won’t (eventually) respect you.

    Like

  111. Matthew Chiglinsky March 27, 2015 at 05:01 #

    The circumcision issue for boys made me think of a corresponding issue for girls. How do you dress your daughter? I see a lot of little girls dressed like sluts when I go out grocery shopping (often copying their slutty mothers). A woman may argue that she has a right to dress however she wants and that a man shouldn’t control her. Maybe, but what about their daughter? I think a man has a right to at least teach proper values to his own daughter (and the mother is an influence on the daughter).

    Like

  112. The Real Peterman March 27, 2015 at 05:23 #

    Dressing a little kid in a sexy way shows such a warped mind that I don’t even know what to say.

    Like

  113. Orphan March 27, 2015 at 06:22 #

    JB wrote: “Sometimes, when I am very lazy I hide dirty pans in the oven and I always forget they are there til I hit preheat.
    I consider it a bi-monthly check of the smoke detector.”

    I very highly recommend pots and pans with stainless steel handles if you can get them. This is why…
    “Food Country with Chef Michael Smith Episode 4: Potato Bacon Cheddar Tart”

    Like

  114. Magnus March 27, 2015 at 11:27 #

    “Who said men who don’t want to get married don’t want to live with a woman?”

    Many places in the west the act of living together will make you more or less the same as married under the law. In effect it’s the same thing.

    Like

  115. Mark March 27, 2015 at 12:09 #

    JudgyBitch, I love your blog, and I think this is great advice. I’d gladly refer guys to it. But, (speaking only for myself) I’ll stay on the sidelines of marriage and relationships. The legal and social blowback is just too much.

    I call myself the Industrial Strength Nuclear Powered MGTOW.

    Also, you make an excellent point about men taking great care with birth control. After a close call some years ago, I will never trust birth control to anyone else. I’ve had a vasectomy, and highly recommend it. It’s comforting to know you don’t have live rounds in the chamber, if you’re certain about not having children, or not having any more.

    Like

  116. that1susan March 27, 2015 at 12:59 #

    Even when the other person is completely trustworthy, all birth control has some sort of a failure rate. But surgical sterilization is pretty fail proof; the rate of recanalization is very, very low.

    Like

  117. killerwhale681 March 27, 2015 at 14:36 #

    Debtors prison, economic slavery, child theft…….what a deal! Thing is, if a young man is thinking of marriage…..you need to do some serious opposition research on her. You are looking for anything. A notch count of 3 or more means that she is unable to pair bond with you. I advocate intensive surveillance. Women ALWAYS have something to hide. Any type of the sentiments mentioned in the article are a no go. Sad to say, most young men looking to get married simply aren’t smart enough to realize just how serious this is. Darwinian. Women lie about most things, and really, LUPO – (lying until proven otherwise) is the safest bet.

    Like

  118. JudgyBitch March 27, 2015 at 14:38 #

    Women ALWAYS have something to hide? Like what? I’m not aware that I have anything to hide from my husband. What sorts of things will women typically lie about?

    Like

  119. JudgyBitch March 27, 2015 at 14:47 #

    OK, this is fucking disturbing. Someone called “the Depressed Feminist” wrote a blog post indicating that she would have passed ALL my criteria and you would still have ended up married to a fucking nightmare.

    http://depressedfeminist.blogspot.ca/2015/03/yay-according-to-janet-bloomfield-im.html

    My husband and I were just discussing the insanity of the fact that we would be better off financially if we legally divorced. He would be permitted to pay me X amount of his income as child support, and we would both pay tax on that lower amount. Income splitting, essentially.

    That would make a statement, wouldn’t it? If JB and Mr. JB legally divorced, but continued to live together and carry on as a long term couple.

    It would be an interesting solution to the conundrum: if ever either of us truly wanted to leave the relationship, the paperwork and financial settlement would already be done.

    Like

  120. that1susan March 27, 2015 at 16:26 #

    But of course, your more recent post is just a supplement to your prior one, in which you mentioned that no one should marry anyone they’re not attracted to. Since snork maiden is middle-aged and most of the guys here have swallowed the red pill and will continue preferring girls and women in the 14-25 age bracket right up through their 90s and beyond, I don’t think you have to worry about them getting suckered in by snork maiden. 🙂

    Plus she seems quite contented, albeit depressed, with her platonic life partner. I’m glad I looked up the term “post-sexual,” because I thought it meant that now that she was already a “mum” and middle-aged, she was done with sex (and maybe she just hooked up one time with her platonic partner to make that baby), but it means something else entirely.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=post-sexual

    Like

  121. Jim March 27, 2015 at 16:34 #

    Yeah. It’s not sacrifice, it’s SLAVERY. And I have ZERO interest in signing a contract that is nothing more than selling myself into slavery. What sane man would do that?

    Like

  122. killerwhale681 March 27, 2015 at 16:34 #

    Here’s the point I’m making….a young man has to be very careful. Electronic surveillance is very easy with an investment of 3-4 thousand dollars. You have to know what she tells her friends. What she tells her mother. Yeah, I understand that this subject is really problematic, but for warned is forarmed. As for a prenup, not worth the paper they’re written on. The feminist judiciary ensures that. I really suspect that you know that, as well, JB. Bugging someone seems like dirty pool, doesn’t it? Consider the consequences if you don’t. As for what a woman may have to hide, anything that can ruin her meal ticket. This post is designed for those young guys who are going to make something out of themselves. I’ll be specific…..anything that would affect her ability to pair bond. Any feminist leanings, no matter how subtle. You mention abortion and children, but women lie. And men pay the consequences. A skilled liar can ruin a young man’s future. However, you can use her nature against herself. If a woman is planning on taking a guy to the cleaners, well, she’s going to tell someone. Women can’t keep their mouths shut. That’s an operational fact. There’s a whole wide world of malware, JB.

    Like

  123. Jim March 27, 2015 at 16:35 #

    Yup. The fuckers in black robes have made it impossible no matter what so I choose to live alone. It has its benefits. It’s actually very peaceful.

    Like

  124. that1susan March 27, 2015 at 16:37 #

    Could you give some examples of subtle feminist leanings?

    Like

  125. killerwhale681 March 27, 2015 at 17:20 #

    It’s kinda like what they said about pornography, you know it when you see it. My mother was an early feminist in the ’50s. Those women never had a chance to be happy. Essentially, if a young girl has been raised in this feminist society, she will go feral at some point. You have to pay attention to what she says in context. If her friends are talking about “starter husbands”, and she laughs, she’s a sympathizer. Most young women today are raised to believe that men are animals. Given that state of affairs, she won’t treat a man as well as she will her friends. It’s a lot easier to mislead an animal, isn’t it? You see, it would be a VERY rare young woman who isn’t at least a sympathizer. I realise thats a very cold way to look at it, but I was forced to learn the hard way. My real bug bear is the appalling practice of drugging young rambunctious boys. A feral woman has no problem with that. Just like her attitude towards abortion in its many facets. Churchian women who profess a woman’s right to choose are feminists. Plain fact. So, electronic surveillance is a real cheap investment in your future. Find out what is really going on, and then you can make a decision. BTW, is this shocking? Grow up. Just what do you think your government is doing right now? Given the stakes involved, it’s just a logical investment in a young man’s future. Since its acknowledged that women will not act in a moral manner, well, we can act as we wish. The rich can hire expensive private investigators, so, we can do the same for less.

    Like

  126. that1susan March 27, 2015 at 18:33 #

    I agree that the women who laugh about “starter husbands” are no different than the men who joke about using women as “cum buckets.”

    With abortion, I’ll always see it as murder but I guess I see it as the baby residing in the mother’s “universe” — I personally choose not to release an un-survivable disaster (or ANY disaster) on my precious unborn child, but I’d rather focus on doing right in my own universe than interfere with Uranus.

    And I’m absolutely opposed to drugging ANY child to make them fit into a classroom. I don’t have any boys, but I homeschooled both my girls (still homeschool my youngest — my oldest wanted to start school at 13) and let them both decide what kinds of group activities they wanted or didn’t want to be involved in. If they were bored with some activity they’d started, they had the option of dropping it — but not, of course, of going in and out and disrupting the activity for everyone else.

    Some people felt like not forcing them to conform would interfere with their ability to adapt to rules when they needed to in the future — but it actually seems to have increased their ability to make a reasoned decision to follow the rules (even one or two that they don’t see any point to) in various settings where they’d like to take part in what’s going on.

    While I’ve found this approach to be awesome for my girls, I’m starting to think it might be literally lifesaving for many boys because public education seems to be diametrically opposed to the way that most boys develop.

    Like

  127. InsertNameHere March 28, 2015 at 11:56 #

    The legislature can retroactively change the terms of a marriage / divorce or of a prenuptial agreement at any time.

    An example of this was the change from fault divorce to no-fault divorce. A man who married in 1968 thinking that marriage meant something that could only be torn apart by specific bad conduct – and then that person may get sanctions in the divorce decree because of it – had the rug pulled out from underneath him as state after state started adopting non-fault divorce laws in the years after that.

    He married under one set of rules and would get divorced under completely different rules.

    And even if prenuptial agreements are supposedly enforced, look what happened to people like Steven Spielberg (Amy Irving) and Jack Welch. If there is a lot of money there, that money can buy a horde of lawyers looking for any way to break it. And if there is not much money, who cares.

    Just don’t get married. I don’t even live with my girlfriend anymore; we live in separate places.

    Like

  128. cocaine_face March 28, 2015 at 13:54 #

    I just don’t see the point of actually having a contract.

    Plenty of (and the most successful) couples I know are typically, “shacking up” – not signing paperwork. As long as you’re not in a common-law marriage part of the world, this doesn’t offer any cash and prizes incentive, and seems like it would increase stability.

    Like

  129. JudgyBitch March 28, 2015 at 14:05 #

    That’s not true in Canada. After a certain period of time, it varies by province, you are considered “common-law” married and the Divorce Act applies. All you have to do is live with a woman to be considered her personal ATM.

    Like

  130. Carchamp March 28, 2015 at 17:59 #

    You might want to add something to your list about self-described feminists. A few decent women might drop off the safe list, but you’ll avoid mostly crazies.

    Really, it’s hard enough to pick a contractor or a financial advisor or doctor or lawn service, for that matter. Trying to pick a person to live with for the rest of your life is, unless you’re in your seventies, is an impossible task. I know you mentioned that you’re into punishing promise breakers, but might I suggest the problem is the prospect of a lifetime promise, not the impossibility of a twenty-something keeping such a covenant.

    Like

  131. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 07:37 #

    Iirc there are ways around this, such as maintaining a separate mailing address when that is indicative of intent, disrupting the amount of consecutive time you cohabit, and so on. It varies by province, and in the US by state. Be very, very careful. This is the kind of thing about which paying for an hour of an attorney’s time is wise.

    Like

  132. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 07:41 #

    No offense, but I’d like to see something other than anecdotal evidence that judges throw out prenups willy-nilly.

    Like

  133. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 07:48 #

    I’m so well off, I’m out of options.

    Like

  134. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 08:11 #

    You will ALWAYS have ‘what if’ moments. Always. I’ve learned to enjoy mine, to enjoy fantasizing about lives I have not lived before getting back to–and enjoying–the life I’m living.

    Think of it this way: If you do or don’t marry that guy, you’ll have what if moments.

    Like

  135. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 08:30 #

    So… you don’t understand pair bonding, or is it that since it isn’t for you you don’t believe anyone else should want it, either?

    Like

  136. Jack Strawb March 30, 2015 at 08:43 #

    Your PS especially is just a guy make stuff up on the internet to justify his wants and biases.

    The ratio of actual, hard information in the manosphere on specific judges making specific rulings to specific prenups remains at infinity.

    None of which is to say that prenups are always solid, or are invariably followed (especially when children are involved), but the fact remains that this is a fact-free issue to date in these parts. No one should consider not marrying because of the broad assertion that ‘prenups are worthless.’

    Tip of the day: anyone who claims to have blanket advice on prenups doesn’t know anything about prenups or about contracts. Also, anyone who talks about prenups as though they are the only way of sheltering assets during the dissolution of a marriage (think Trusts, especially Third Party Trusts) isn’t worth your time, either.

    Like

  137. Kim Priestap March 31, 2015 at 01:56 #

    “My cousin sued her ex-boyfriend for “child” support for a kid everyone knew wasn’t his. He broke up with her and this was her way of getting even. Of course she won.”

    Why didn’t he demand a paternity test? If he isn’t the father, he can’t be roped into paying support.

    Like

  138. JudgyBitch March 31, 2015 at 12:07 #

    Oh yes he can.

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. How to Pick a Wife – 2.0 | Manosphere.com - March 25, 2015

    […] How to Pick a Wife – 2.0 […]

    Like

  2. Advice for Sons: How to Pick a Wife | Honor Dads - March 30, 2015

    […] Advice for Sons: How to Pick a Wife […]

    Like

  3. America Solved: Alan Cohen's cry for family-law reform - April 5, 2015

    […] obscure, one-size-fits-all legal regime that few understand before marrying. Moreover, when couples establish prenuptial agreements, courts often subsequently nullify those agreements in unpredictable ways. Cohen proposes that a […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: