Lord Feverstone's Commentary

Musings of a Christian monarchist on life, government, society, theology, etc.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The Original DontMarry.com Essay

Read it here.

Yesterday, I was browsing MGTOW and I encountered this classic article which describes at length much of what I find wrong with marriage today. As I said before, marriage is in shambles.

As this essay so aptly states, marriage is quite a risky proposition for men. Even if there was a woman out there I fancied and she likewise fancied me, I would have to carefully consider whether I can trust her for lasting commitment when she could so easily change her mind and leave me to pick up the pieces. If I would be willing to step down the aisle and say "I do" to a woman, I would fully intend to honour my commitment. Would she?

I would be pleased to have a long, loving marriage like my parents have. They have been married approximately as long as I have been alive, and it shows no signs whatsoever of dissolving. I could perhaps be fortunate enough to find a woman I would spend the rest of my life with, but the probability is not exactly promising, especially in the West. This tragic situation is one of the prime reasons behind my unwavering contempt for feminism.

42 Comments:

Blogger Fidelbogen said...

Thank you, LF, for touching upon a subject which I too have given considerable thought.

Marriage is indeed a foolish gamble for any man nowadays. We have many things to thank for this state of affairs, and feminism is behind most of it.

Women now hold the legal power to '9-11' a man's life in many ways, but this power is strongest by far within the precincts of so-call "holy" matrimony. And feminist activism has been the chief agent of legislative/judicial enablement for all of this.

A male boycott of women (including the notorious 'marriage strike') was, and will continue to be, a predictable consequence of present conditions -- especially as more and more men get wise to what's
going down. Already we hear older women especially
complaining about a "man shortage", and we can expect
that trend to accelerate in a manner that will impact all age groups.

And eventually there will come a tipping point, at which
the entire bio-political balance of power will swing dramatically in favor of men.

I could write a whole book on this. But not here.... ;-)

5:03 AM  
Blogger Duncan Idaho said...

I used to be pro-marriage, and despite being an Eternal Bachelor, I still am. However, only in the traditional sense, if a marriage actually holds a woman as accountable as a man. Obviously this isn't the case. As we all know, women can cash out any time they like and have no obligations to their ex-husbands, but he has to support her and the children he will probably not be able to see. Even during marriage, women seem to take pride these days in not doing anything for their husbands, but they insist he fulfil all his duties, like breadwinning, not to mention doings her's too, like housework! Whilst she sits around watching daytime TV and spending his cash. Marriage has no benefits for men these days, only obligations and risks.

Long live the Marriage Strike! Perhaps women and governments will start to figure out that something's wrong when we have a generation of old spinsters living with cats. Then again, probably not. Governments are already trying to give co-habiting couples the same status as married ones, so women can strip boyfriends - rather than just husbands - of their assets. Naturally this will lead to a co-habiting strike, although many men like me have already decided that letting a girlfriend move in is as stupid as marrying them.

Women have spent decades insisting us men are useless and how they don't need us...let them grow old and lonely and put that to the test. Expect lots of whining from them though. Heheh!

Good blog BTW.

5:44 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

More women are single then men...

So perhaps it's just the opposite of what it appears to be and that it's fewer WOMEN who are chosing to get married instead of fewer men...

I read somewhere yesterday that people marrying multiple times are skewering the marriage statistics...so maybe different men are marrying the same pool of low-level skanks over and over again...

As I find many MRA's stories begin with the line: "I met a girl in a bar (insert nightclub, party, pole dancing in Russia/Philipines) or somesuch location..." and fill in the ending of the story yourselves.

5:02 PM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

So marriage is not what it was 50 years ago. Well, neither is open heart surgery and satellite television. May it be dead and buried. I'll play the violin at the funeral.

It is high time that we give it the hook and pull it off stage. We don't need it. We don't particularly want it. So why is it such a big topic? Marriage has always been a women's sport anyway. Ever hear of "Modern Groom" magazine? Let it pass into the night unheeded and unremembered.

5:43 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

Well open heart surgery and satellite television coming on the scene were improvements to the human condition.

But now what do we have to substitute for marriage?

AND although I'll agree women were generally more interested in marriage then men, still it did give men the benefit of access to families. As once women actually turn their backs on marriage and start planning their lives w/o it how will men have children then????

As it's a lot more complicated and expensive for a man to decide to have children without a wife or girlfriend involved, then it is for a woman to get an anonymous sperm donor and have children on her own.

It can be done for men through single parent adoptions and hiring surrogate mothers but it's very expensive and a lot of trouble. So frankly I don't see too many men bothering with it.

I mean men pulled the same crap with the sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s when they turned their backs on marriage with one woman for casual sex with many. I don't think men ever thought so many women would just go ahead and have children w/o the benefit of marriage...

So that last stunt had the effect of almost making men totally irrevelant to the whole family scene. You managed to just barely scramble out of it THIS TIME with all these statistical lies about single mothers and how important you were to children. However, if you men continue your current crap with all this custody war business and other MRA nonsense, I see you shooting yourselves in the foot a second time and it's not going to be so easy to recover from it this go around.

After all it only took a generation or so for it to become perfectly acceptable for a women to have children outside of marriage. It should probably take about the same amount of time for women to accustom themselves to having children using anonymous sperm donors and other reproductive technology as well...

So you better start thinking about that...

If most women start envisioning family life with their kids w/o men, it's not going to be so easy to reverse that mind set back again. As today, even single mothers still continue seeking a married relationship, that's still seen by them as a positive good.

11:22 PM  
Blogger Fidelbogen said...

NYMOM, it might not happen the way you say, even if it WAS the way you say.....
Also, you are leaving far too many variables out of the account.

Whatever. Blather on.....

12:53 AM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

NYMOM:
But now what do we have to substitute for marriage?

Rich:
Why does there have to be one?

NYMOM:
AND although I'll agree women were generally more interested in marriage then men, still it did give men the benefit of access to families. As once women actually turn their backs on marriage and start planning their lives w/o it how will men have children then????

Rich:
Since marriage, as it is, does not give men access to families the point is moot.

NYMOM:
As it's a lot more complicated and expensive for a man to decide to have children without a wife or girlfriend involved, then it is for a woman to get an anonymous sperm donor and have children on her own.

Rich:
So?

NYMOM:
It can be done for men through single parent adoptions and hiring surrogate mothers but it's very expensive and a lot of trouble. So frankly I don't see too many men bothering with it.

Rich:
Me neither.

NYMOM:
I mean men pulled the same crap with the sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s when they turned their backs on marriage with one woman for casual sex with many. I don't think men ever thought so many women would just go ahead and have children w/o the benefit of marriage...

Rich:
All long under the bridge now. I barely remember the 70s and don't remember the 60s at all. Not likely to be much of a factor in the way men live their lives in the future.

NYMOM:
So that last stunt had the effect of almost making men totally irrevelant to the whole family scene. You managed to just barely scramble out of it THIS TIME with all these statistical lies about single mothers and how important you were to children. However, if you men continue your current crap with all this custody war business and other MRA nonsense, I see you shooting yourselves in the foot a second time and it's not going to be so easy to recover from it this go around.

Rich:
Recover from what and why? No kids, no custody wars. If a guy has no children to be important to, it doesn't make sense for him to give it any thought.

NYMOM:
After all it only took a generation or so for it to become perfectly acceptable for a women to have children outside of marriage. It should probably take about the same amount of time for women to accustom themselves to having children using anonymous sperm donors and other reproductive technology as well...

Rich:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I don't care if women want to mix their DNA in a flask with some yak or polar bear. Men have nothing to do with that. I'll be the last one to say not to do it.

NYMOM:
So you better start thinking about that...

Rich:
It is of no consequence. Women can and will breed as they please. Why do you think it would be better for men to interfere?

NYMOM:
If most women start envisioning family life with their kids w/o men, it's not going to be so easy to reverse that mind set back again. As today, even single mothers still continue seeking a married relationship, that's still seen by them as a positive good.

Rich:
Dead issue. What interest do men have in reversing that mind set? They might as well try to change the mind of a chair or a wall. Women and their offspring have no particular significance. What motive could a man possibly have to even give them any thought?

5:49 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

So you say now...you're not interested.

YET other men are interested enough to get taxpayer funds to start all these phony fatherhood projects all over the country...giving men ideas of how to steal custody of a child from its mother...

Not to mention the many statistical lies you have all put out there about single mothers and changes in laws and public policies men have instigated to advantage themselves in legal situations regarding children.

So don't act like men don't care.

Obviously you do or you'd leave women and their children alone...

11:39 PM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:56 AM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

nymom: So you say now...you're not interested.

Here we have the crux of the matter. I don't care and you don't like it. One man tells others not to play in the sewer and you pitch a tantrum.

Why do you fear one individual man who is perfectly willing to leave you and your litter alone? Purely rhetorical because I already know the answer.

I'm very sorry nymom. I'm afraid that I am lost to you forever. Plan A -- vitriolic hostility didn't work. I still don't care about you. Plan B -- emotional blackmail won't work either. Nor will Plan C -- pretending to be decent and civilized. You have kinda lost the sun. For everyones sake, don't demonstrate the full gammut of female sociopathology. You can't get me back, other men will discover all of the hidden methods and you will be seen as a Quisling to your feminist sponsors.

3:01 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

The problem is not getting you back, it's keeping you out of our lives with the constant stream of meddlesome laws and public policies you have devised to give men undeserved rights and unearned privileges to the fruits of womens' wombs.

That's the problem.

You keep acting like you speak for all men with your attitude but I have to look at the actions of most men as exemplified by laws and public policies and measure real intent through those, not just through the words of one man on a blog.

AND based upon that, it doesn't look to me like you speak for many men. Especially since most legislative bodies, governors, senators, representatives, our President as well as MOST of the Supreme Court are men and involved in passing these laws and public policies.

Thus I must assume MOST men agree with them and not with you.

2:18 PM  
Blogger Rich Bansha said...

Your last post is much more coherent and not just a tirade. Much better.

nymom:
The problem is not getting you back, it's keeping you out of our lives with the constant stream of meddlesome laws and public policies you have devised to give men undeserved rights and unearned privileges to the fruits of womens' wombs.

That's the problem.


Rich:
You are welcome to your womb. Enjoy it with my blessing.

nymom:
You keep acting like you speak for all men with your attitude but I have to look at the actions of most men as exemplified by laws and public policies and measure real intent through those, not just through the words of one man on a blog.

Rich:
I am sorry to report that I have resigned my post as General Manager of the Universe. What other men say and do is no longer my department.

nymom:
AND based upon that, it doesn't look to me like you speak for many men. Especially since most legislative bodies, governors, senators, representatives, our President as well as MOST of the Supreme Court are men and involved in passing these laws and public policies.

Thus I must assume MOST men agree with them and not with you.


Rich:
Maybe you women need to round up all of these presidents, senators, governors and the like. Then rent a hall someplace and divy all of the wombs, test tubes, stem cells and frozen embryos among yourselves. I promise not to gripe if you neglect to set aside a share for me.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

OK, I followed a weird link here, so I probably posted this in one other place.

Wow, first post in, and already this skank nymom is slinging around insults like "bitter womanhating loser" for any guy who suggests that marriage isn't in a man's best interest. Meanwhile, in the same breath, she's heaping praise and adoration upon women who have decided to have children without fathers. Do you draw square circles in the sand often nymom?

First of all, no one, not a one of us, is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing anyone to not marry. Not a single one of us is threatening or cajoling this gentleman into remaining single. You know why this guy is remaining single? Here's a hint: yall ladies aren't as great as you think you are, and anyone who really looks for themselves will see this clearly.

Your whole nature is centered around the twin pillars of victimhood and entitlement, so much so that you can't even see it for yourself. You effectively call this gentleman loser, because he doesn't want to be married, and because he hangs around people who don't want to be married, seeing as it has no benefits for the man. What would you say of a man who calls a woman a weakling and not a real woman because she won't marry a man? We can already guess because you're here posting the tripe you are, and not fingering the 70% of women who initiate divorces in this country, and the women who choose to become single parents to their children's detriment.

You try and tell this man where to go, and who to associate with, with the admonishment that we are bad influences to young men. I'm sorry, but were you ever a young man? Not, "did you have a son, did you have a brother, do you know men?" Were you ever a young man? No? Then maybe you should sit the fuck down and shut up, before I take your argument and use it to tell you what you should do with your body and your "sainted" womb, what with certain things being a bad influence on women and all. Bad influence indeed...

And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, I find it amazing that you even said this:

NYMom Said:

As it's a lot more complicated and expensive for a man to decide to have children without a wife or girlfriend involved, then it is for a woman to get an anonymous sperm donor and have children on her own.

It can be done for men through single parent adoptions and hiring surrogate mothers but it's very expensive and a lot of trouble. So frankly I don't see too many men bothering with it.


And then this:

The problem is not getting you back, it's keeping you out of our lives with the constant stream of meddlesome laws and public policies you have devised to give men undeserved rights and unearned privileges to the fruits of womens' wombs.

That's the problem.

You keep acting like you speak for all men with your attitude but I have to look at the actions of most men as exemplified by laws and public policies and measure real intent through those, not just through the words of one man on a blog.

AND based upon that, it doesn't look to me like you speak for many men. Especially since most legislative bodies, governors, senators, representatives, our President as well as MOST of the Supreme Court are men and involved in passing these laws and public policies.

Thus I must assume MOST men agree with them and not with you.


So wait, either it's way harder for us to have children by ourselves, or many men have passed laws making it easy to take the "fruit of your womb" away from you, thus making it easier for us. Ok, that could be interpeted as a bit of a false dillema, but when you couple that with the fact that women have a whole battery of laws that turn men into their personal ATM's just for being married, I wonder where you get off talking about anyone taking the fruit of anything. In this country, a woman can literally sit on her ass, get a guy to fuck her two or three times, get a ring, and get divorced a week later and get half his stuff if he wasn't smart and hid his assets. Fruit indeed: Puff Daddy paying two million dollars in "child support," but he gets visitation rights to the baby. Bitch talking about "the child needs to have a standard of living equal to his father." Wouldn't the simple solution to that be to leave the child with his father? That child doesn't require 2 million a month for anything and we know it: bitch spread her legs, got pregnant, and left, and now she's getting 2 million. Did she help Puff Daddy with item one in his rap business? Stealing fruit indeed...

The man has his eyes open, there's no reason to get married here in America: women walk around wearing shirts saying "I'm not a bitch, I'm THE BITCH, I'm too cute for you, Maybe if you were hotter, If you've stared at me this long the cops are on their way," and other man deriding shit. Women going around boasting that they need men like fish need bicycles. Guess what skank: the bicycles don't mind not having fish on their seats either. You want to keep talking about how women don't need men, how women can just use men for baby gravy and get another man to support them. I have news for you sister, men built society, we support society, as more and more of us wake up and realize we're being sold a bill of goods, we're going to check out and not support your shit anymore. 50% of all marriages already end in divorce, and that number is only going up. Older guys who have already been assraped are eventually going to cash out of the game altogether, if they haven't already. Young guys like lordfeverstone here and myself (I'm only 26) aren't even cashing in to the game: not only have we seen too many older guys getting assraped, but we've been screwed over too many times ourselves. Yeah, that thought never occured to you did it: young guys are pretty much built to seek out female affection and approval. Most of the time one pretty girl can sway a guy away from three of his male friends. How badly does a young man have to be treated before the very thought of woman becomes offensive to him, and he respects nothing she has to say? Guys can talk badly about women all they want, but in the end it's you skanks doing exactly what we say you do that makes the hardcore converts.

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Always quite interesting to see what google finds! Might I ask, what is the URL for main part of the BLOG? Thanks.


A few comments ....

1. NYMOM: " blah, blah,. blah....AND although I'll agree women were generally more interested in marriage then men, still it did give men the benefit of access to families. As once women actually turn their backs on marriage and start planning their lives w/o it how will men have children then???? "

There are several ways, one of which are artificial wombs.

" The womb is a dark and dangerous place,a hazardous environment," wrote the late Joseph Fletcher, professor of medical ethics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine." Indeed it is...how many "fruits of the womb" are aborted every year? How many "fruits of the womb" grow up with abusive mothers? How many "fruits of the womb" lives are forever bruised (damaged) due to having a mother whom has an alcohol, violence, poverty or drug problem?

You can find more information about this using google to link to articles such as "The End of Pregnancy" at http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0117-05.htm .

In a nutshell NYMOM, you and your kind have been downsized (read: marriage strike) , out-sourced (read:foreign women), and/or made obsolete thru technology. Oh and thanks to male contraception coming out, MEN now get to control their reproductive RIGHTS.



2. NYMOM: " blah, blah,. blah....As it's a lot more complicated and expensive for a man to decide to have children without a wife or girlfriend involved, then it is for a woman to get an anonymous sperm donor and have children on her own. It can be done for men through single parent adoptions and hiring surrogate mothers but it's very expensive and a lot of trouble. So frankly I don't see too many men bothering with it.
"

As opposed to divorce, it is quite cheap. More importantly by removing the soon to be -- role of the mother men do not have to worry about loosing custody of their offspring. Hey, 4 days a month visitation doesn't cut it.

I encourage men who want children to do so as SINGLE FATHERS, or to EXPAT to other father/marriage friendly nations.

There is a new term going around these days NYMOM..."MGTOW". That means, "Men Going Their Own Way". Men do not need women.

Besides most single fathers are better providers and parents than single mothers.



3. NYMOM: "blah, blah,. blah....It should probably take about the same amount of time for women to accustom themselves to having children using anonymous sperm donors and other reproductive technology as well. So you better start thinking about that..."

Scotland only has one active sperm donor. Many clinics have had to close there and obviously the selection isn't too high. The situation is mirrored in many other westernized nations and the situation is only going to get worse - for women. Why? I think most men are quite aware of the cases where men were charged for child support after donating to a sperm bank.

Face it, sperm banks are an endangered species just as are those games women like to play (oops, did I forget to take the pill today?).

So you had better start thinking about that.

12:41 PM  
Blogger KellyMac said...

Jesus, nymom. You must be a masochist of the first order. Since you're so into mothers' and childrens' rights, why don't you spend more time advocating for them, and less time harassing people who disagree with you? You're just wasting your time here, and frankly, I worry about your mental health. Have you seen a therapist? It might be a good idea.

1:05 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

"I promise not to gripe if you neglect to set aside a share for me."

I've heard of many men who say this and then turn around and wage a custody fight after the fact. Even if the mother doesn't want any child support.

So it's just more propaganda from men to trick women.

1:11 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

I never called any man a loser who didn't want to be married. What I object to is men who have opted out of the marriage market trying to sneak back in through the backdoor by suing for custody of a woman's children.

Okay.

That's the main problem.

As when men opt out of marriage they have essentially opted out of having families UNLESS they do the whole single parent adoption thing or hire a surrogate mother.

But these legal rights you have given yourselves however to children conceived from one night stands and other casual sexual encounters with women is nothing but legalized kidnapping of children from their rightful guardians, their mothers.

You have no more rights to these children then the man in the moon.

The rest of your comment isn't worth a response.

1:18 PM  
Blogger Lord Feverstone said...

> Always quite interesting to see what google finds! Might I ask, what is the URL for main part of the BLOG? Thanks.

Anonymous, thank you for posting your comments. The main page of my blog is http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com.

The blog entry these comments belong to is http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/original-dontmarrycom-essay.html.

1:22 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

Kellymac:

Everybody carries on their 'crusade' in their own way. How I carry on mine should be no concern of yours as long as I'm not on your blog doing it.

Just to let you know I will post on mens' blogs and put up with more crap from them generally then from women because 1. they usually have an actual following and/or are linked to large more public site where my opinions and ideas will get a wider hearing. 2. They have the actual ability to make the long-term changes needed to amend the situation. 3. I happen to believe most are sincere about the issues as opposed to many women, who are just involved because their husbands or boyfriends are involved or they'd like to meet one...

Now, I warned you when I was commenting on your site that I would leave if you continued your disrespectful behavior towards me and/or allowed others to do it as well...

I think you should probably worry MORE about your own mental health and motives. I mean why do you feel the need to follow me around on the blogosphere? You actually initiated contact with me originally posting on my blog to invite me to yours. Then when I showed up, you subsequently had a snide remark in every single post towards me even though I posted in good faith for about a week before I gave up. Predictibly now that I'm not there anymore, you have few commenters.

Now you've showed up here?

I'm curious as to why you are so much more interested in me then I am in you?

AND just to respond to the curiosity of why I showed up here originally, it's because I actually felt after reading this blog randomly that the owner of the blog was a man in distress. It appears however that I was wrong. As he has managed to direct most of his anger at the world to blame women for all of his problems. AND since that is a total healthy pastime, I guess he'll be okay...

1:39 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

"There are several ways, one of which is artificial wombs."

Well yes...

Men can do that in the future, I doubt if most will...actually as one person pointed out to me more WOMEN will probably start using them so they can have children w/o the pain, discomfort and disfigurement we go through now.

As MOST women still wish to be mothers but many don't want to have to face the physical challenge involved.

All I can say is we'll have to wait and see what the future holds in that regard.

1:45 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

I understand the problem with no sperm donors in England, Scotland and Wales. But you must remember that came about due to a change in the law. You appear to want to act like men suddenly stopped doing that on their own because so many women were using anonymous donors and then suddenly suing for child support.

That is NOT what happened at all.

What really happened is that men passed a law that being an anonymous sperm donor would no longer be legal I believe the REAL reason this happens was NOT because they were cocerned about child support or children, but rather they saw the increasing numbers of single women who had begun using these clinics and treatments to create families on their own.

AND quite simply men felt threatened.

So they passed these laws making it illegal to be an anonymous donor. I guess they felt they hadn's been successful in stopping women from having families w/o men, even though they did everything possible to discourage them...

So they decided to go after the weaker link in the chain, which was clearly the male sperm donors.

Single women who go to the trouble of signing up with an IVF clinic and paying the money for an anonymous donor are rarely burdens on society. Actually they are probably a cross-section of the 'creme of the crop' of women, professional, educated, etc., as those are the successful career women who do not get married.

So this whole business of acting like this was a bunch of welfare mums who they were protecting the public purse from was propaganda and completely untrue.

1:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh there is lots of press starting about how men are getting stuck with child support. Every man is being made aware through these lawsuits that even if they do not try to exact a pound of flesh from you now, they certainly will later on -- the laws are subject to change. Who wants to pay retro-active child support for something you did out of your own generosity?

Donating sperm is no different than marriage - it is a BAD, BAD, BBAADD deal for men and only getting worse. What's the government going to do, make you donate sperm? Ha, just try!

Personally, IMO, I think it's insane to donate sperm. I have a great body, great health, wealth, great genes and a fairly high IQ - my sperm is not something I just "donate" and not something most women deserve. After all, it's the most valuable thing I have. I will protect it by whatever means I see necessary.

It is my decision alone to be (or not be) a father.

It is my decision alone if I choose to be a single father, removing the risks of loosing MY children to divorce.

It is my decision alone to use whatever technology or services I see fit, in whatever geographic location I see fit, to accomplish said goals.

My body, my choice, my life, it's that simple.

6:20 PM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

From http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-marriage.html

Don't make the mistake of messing up your future by listening to a pack of losers who are jealous of women and generally hate everything our civilization has created.

Also, the main thrust of your hypocrisy comes out: men don't have rights to their kids, yet they have responsibility toward them. You know, I think there's a term that we use when a person has a responsibility toward somethng, but no right to it, what was that word again, oh yeah that's right, SLAVERY!

If you insist that men have no rights to their own children (their own flesh and blood), then shouldn't you be deriding these women for being a bunch of thieves. I don't know where everyone is from, but I assume that in the civilized world, people aren't supposed to have responsibilities for things that they have no right to.

6:58 PM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

No...

There is not 'lots of press' about anonymous sperm donors being forced to pay child support.

Those stories in the press are mostly exaggerations. Those men were not anonymous sperm donors but either old boyfriends or relationships that 'supposedly' agreed to a pregnancy with no rights for the fathers and then one or the other person went back on their agreement.

Because a private individual cannot make an anonymous sperm donation to another person. You must go through a doctor's office or some other such service.

This was the usual crap and propaganda from men trying to be in charge of everything again and fearful that too many women might sidestep them in order to start their own family...

Men are jealous of womens' abilty to bear children.

It's that simple.

11:16 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

Men have rights established through MARRIAGE...

Okay.

That's how you get rights to children, not through recreational or casual sex where you invest, contribute or risk NOTHING...and in the end walk away with the same rights to a child as a married man or a child's mother, courtesy of a court system you've rigged in your favor...

Every mother goes through the same process to have a child whether she is married or NOT. Every father USED to be in the same situation. But recently men have decided to change the rules in their favor as usual. Where you now invest absolutely nothing in a pregnancy other then a quik drop sperm deposit, not even buying a vitamin for the mother to ensure a healthy child, but then can roll out of bed, throw on your jeans and show up at the hospital 5 seconds after delivery with the exact same legal rights to a child as it's mother or other married men.

You shouldn't get brownie points for doing nothing. Which is the situation as it now stands.

You don't want to get married fine. But we need to change the laws to make sure you don't benefit from womens' sacrfices, AFTER you decided to opt out of the game.

11:28 AM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

Your reply is so erroneous and so oft refuted, that I wrote my reply half sleep after I came back from work yesterday. Copied and pasted from another message board I frequent:

So let me see here, if a man and a woman get married, I assume that according this skank's idiot logic, he has no right to the child. Obviously, rights to products of the marriage can't be dependent on whether they stay together or not: if a husband leaving could forfeit his right to their child, then a wife leaving should forfeit her right to his money. Since women do not forfeit their hold on a husbands money upon divorce, but she never mentions how a man would forfeit his right to his child, I can assume that she means to say that the man could never have any right to his child.

Soooo...if one is to get married, what, he runs a 50% risk of getting divorced, or losing at least 50% of his assets, a 33% chance of taking care of a child that isn't his, and even if it is his, he has no rights to it anyway? But still and yet, he should be happy to enter this arrangement where there are no benefits and a gaggle of drawbacks?


And let's keep in mind that you still haven't replied to anyone regarding how women initiate 70% of divorces. You haven't responded to anyone regarding how women claim alimony for 50% and up of a mans earnings, even if they had nothing to do with those earnings. And I know you aren't going to respond to being outed for a liar and a hypocrite when you said you didn't call men who didn't want to marry losers even though it's right there in black and white.

Men aren't walking out on marriages, women are, because it's a financial benefit to them. So what you're saying is, a woman can have a baby, and then out and out terminate the father's right to the child, just because she doesn't like the surroundings anymore. However, her right to his money is inalienable, and his responsibility to the child can never be voided. Yeah dumbass, that sounds like slavery to me. Given those circumstances that you defined, name ONE reason why anyone in here should get married in America.


Every mother goes through the same process to have a child whether she is married or NOT. Every father USED to be in the same situation. But recently men have decided to change the rules in their favor as usual. Where you now invest absolutely nothing in a pregnancy other then a quik drop sperm deposit, not even buying a vitamin for the mother to ensure a healthy child, but then can roll out of bed, throw on your jeans and show up at the hospital 5 seconds after delivery with the exact same legal rights to a child as it's mother or other married men.



Why do we keep trying to drag this argument back toward "sperm donor" babies? You must think that you have something of a leg to stand on there but you don't: sperm donors have been getting sued for child support just like traditional husbands and fathers. Apparently sperm donors do have the exact same rights as other married men: the right to get their ass sued into oblivion as the result of an arrangement that the mother chose.

Furthermore, you keep speaking of carrying children, as though you're the only ones who contribute anything in the process. Um, newsflash skank: if you're living in a house with a 150K mortgage, taxes, and a new car with a note on it, you aren't working for all of that by yourself with a 2 foot belly in front of you. If while pregnant your husband just kicked you out on the street, and you had to survive law of the jungle style, I mean really law of the jungle style, I think you'd see real fucking quick what your husband was contributing to the pregnancy, including shelter, food, rest time, and protection from all manner of thugs, pimps, hoes, and other crooks who know that an 8 month pregnant woman isn't in the best shape to defend herself. Them and the other sick women who decide that they'd like a baby so much that they'll cut yours out. And if you start up on "well that's what the police are there for," then you're missing the point, and have no idea what you're saying.

8:44 PM  
Blogger KellyMac said...

Bravo, Reckless the Ronin. Bravo, I say. You utterly and completely pwned nymom. I just have to quote it:

"Um, newsflash skank: if you're living in a house with a 150K mortgage, taxes, and a new car with a note on it, you aren't working for all of that by yourself with a 2 foot belly in front of you. If while pregnant your husband just kicked you out on the street, and you had to survive law of the jungle style, I mean really law of the jungle style, I think you'd see real fucking quick what your husband was contributing to the pregnancy, including shelter, food, rest time, and protection from all manner of thugs, pimps, hoes, and other crooks who know that an 8 month pregnant woman isn't in the best shape to defend herself."

1:40 AM  
Blogger Lord Feverstone said...

> Bravo, Reckless the Ronin. Bravo, I say.

Seconded.

Exceptional analysis as always, Reckless.

6:00 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

First of all Ronin it is the posters like you who keep dragging the conversation back to sperm donors by ridiculous comments about artificial wombs, for instance.

You keep refusing to face the 5,000 lb. elephant in the room, which is that if you continue advising men not to get married, you are also pretty much assuring that they will not have any children either. AND I don't hear you accepting responsibility for that in your pompous advice to others.

Remember, it is far easier for a woman to just have casual sex, get pregnant and just have a kid, then it is for a man to do a similar thing...It is an expensive, troublesome and time consuming process for a man to either adopt or hire a surrogate mother.

MOST men won't bother doing it.

Regarding women initiating divorce: I know that men LIKE to believe the world revolves around them and every waking minute any thought a woman has in her head is instigated by how it will impact one of you. Unfortunately in this instance it not about men that causes women to file divorce first. It's quite obvious that women initiate divorce action FIRST in order to get temporary custody of their CHILDREN. As in spite of the many lies told by men about bias in the courts against them, it's a pretty well-known fact that temporary custody usually morphs into permanent. So generally the person filing FIRST keeps custody of the kids.

AND once again you are telling a bold-faced LIE that many sperm donors had to pay child support and trying to imply that's why the laws were changed in England recently. Those laws were changed because men became fearful when the numbers flipped on how many people were making use of the services of anonymous sperm donors at IVF clinics. It used to be mostly married couples where the man had a low sperm count and a small group of single women. Over the decades however as more and more men kept pulling this custody war and abduction crap, the numbers started flipping so that now it is mostly single women making use of those services. As women are not stupid and going to continue having children to risk some spite-filled and greedy, jackoff stealing them a few years down the road. You are sadly mistaken if you think that women today aren't aware of that risk...

So this is why the laws were changed. It had NOTHING to do with the sperm donors themselves making this decision to stop donating because so many of them were getting hit with child support orders.

THAT IS A LIE.

This shortage of men wishing to donate sperm is a situation wholly manufactured by men themselves who became fearful that too many women were becoming pregnant w/o the requisite male overseer assigned.

Additionally Ronin prepare your brothers now for more women becoming pregnant from casual sex going forward and simply forgetting to ever mention it to them...they'll just have their baby and forget you ever existed.

As just the fact that women were willing to go to the expense and trouble to use a sperm donor from one of these places versus getting pregnant from casual sex was a 'tip of the hat' to men. An attempt to address the ethnical concerns of women towards men and act with some common decency towards a pack of morons who obviously are too stupid and self-centered to recognize when someone is trying to cut them a break.

10:46 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

BTW, we don't LIVE in a jungle.

We LIVE in civilization.

So your analyis is completely off the mark.

Women can work and save for the period they cannot work and be totally self-supporting afterwards and most are in spite of the many statistical lies put out there about single mothers...

So once again men in their never-ending selfishness and greed shot themselves in the foot in this area as well. Since the generaion that turned their back on marrying one women in exchange for casual sex with many is now reaping what they sowed.

Men wanting to be playboys during the 60s and 70s were the instigators of this current situation. You all wanted to be playboys like Hugh Hefner and you got your wish.

Now you're all complaining because you don't like the world you created?

TOUGH...get used to it.

Quit trying to blame feminism for the selfishness and greed of men that led to our current state of affairs.

10:57 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

Last point: there is NO marriage strike by men going on.

Anyone with half a brain looking at the statistics can see that.

It is fewer WOMEN who are getting married.

You idiots are still getting married at the exact same rate...probably marrying the same bleached blond skanks over and over again...as these multiple marriages are what is distorting the marriage statistics.

Wake up.

11:00 AM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

You know, this is some of the most fun I've ever had cluebatting a troll. Rarely have I ever gone through the pain of illustrating how someone is full of shit, only to have the opponent immediately demonstrate everything I and my allies just said.

Where to begin: first off, stop with the strawmen OK. If you're going to strawman it really helps if you know what you're doing, and let me tell you, you suck at it: I've burned down far better strawmen than yours. This shit about the laws being changed in England one way or another has no place in this conversation, because 1) you have failed to provide any explicit detail as to how these laws were changed, 2) not one person in here referenced these mythical law changes, and 3) OK, so lets say that the law was changed so that sperm donors are no longer anonymous. How does that justify the increase in sperm donor lawsuits that we're seeing, where sperm donors are being sued for child support? Once again you make most of my case for me: if sperm donors have no right to their kids, then women have no right to ask shit of them to support said kids or themselves. When you were prattling on about how marriage is the key to paternal rights, I didn't hear you say shit about identity affecting it. So I assume then that, as I said before, you engage in the hypocrisy that women's rights to a man's posessions are inalienable, but a man's right to his own child can be terminated at any time by the mother if she feels like it.

Yeah, keep talking, scare those marriage backers away for me.

You say this:


First of all Ronin it is the posters like you who keep dragging the conversation back to sperm donors by ridiculous comments about artificial wombs, for instance.

You keep refusing to face the 5,000 lb. elephant in the room, which is that if you continue advising men not to get married, you are also pretty much assuring that they will not have any children either. AND I don't hear you accepting responsibility for that in your pompous advice to others.


Well, number one, I think artifical wombs got brought up once in this whole musing, as one of many methods that men could use to control their reproductive options. It was never brought up in conjunction with sperm donors.

And you keep focusing in on the children, as so many women do, using babies as the fulcrum to balance your ridiculous argument for American marriage. As rich bansha said, who the fuck cares about having children? You've pretty much made the case that a man can't keep his child even if he does want to stay in the marriage. I mean you explicitly make the case:


It's quite obvious that women initiate divorce action FIRST in order to get temporary custody of their CHILDREN. As in spite of the many lies told by men about bias in the courts against them, it's a pretty well-known fact that temporary custody usually morphs into permanent. So generally the person filing FIRST keeps custody of the kids.


I mean for the love of goodness, why not just come out and say "women initiate divorce 70% of the time because they want the kids all to themselves?" Once again, you pretty much make my case for me: why rush to get married when most of the time your wife is going to decide she wants the kids all to herself, and moves to cut your parental rights out from under you? If your argument is "men should get married to have children," then you effectively counteract your own argument by implying "oh and by the way, women get last call on whether a father gets to stay in the picture or not, and most of the time, we give him the boot." So if you're a man and you really want children, you really should adopt or go overseas, as it's cheaper than the wringer you will be put through in divorce court.


Additionally Ronin prepare your brothers now for more women becoming pregnant from casual sex going forward and simply forgetting to ever mention it to them...they'll just have their baby and forget you ever existed.


And miss out on all that free money. Please.


BTW, we don't LIVE in a jungle.

We LIVE in civilization.

So your analyis is completely off the mark.

Women can work and save for the period they cannot work and be totally self-supporting afterwards and most are in spite of the many statistical lies put out there about single mothers...


Um yes we do live in a jungle, you've just spent too much time in the village to notice the chaos outside the campfire. Rather than going on about the comparisons between the actual jungle and the dangers of unemployed, urban living (because I don't have several hours to waste), let me point out that all of these assumptions you make about being able to save up money for unemployment, are based on a couple of unfounded assumptions: 1) that women do save money to plan for future events, and 2) that anyone outside of the people in your fictional world or people who aren't being forced by feminist laws are going to guarantee you your job when you come back. If I'm a business owner, why should I hold your job for you for a year and a half while you run off, get pregnant, have a baby, and recuperate? Why should I make extra accomidations for you just because you have a child at home with no man to take care of it? See, you have all these things like planned time, maternity leave, the 40 hour work week, and sensitivity training, and you think that that's just how it must be. Wrong: you work a job, you work it till it's done, no matter what. Some employers are more accomidating than others, regardless of laws. However even they are in business to make money, and won't bend over backwards to meet every demand that you make. If I'm a business owner, and I have a choice between a single guy who can pull two 16 hour shifts to get my network ironed out, and some single mom who just insists on having 4 weeks off a year plus light load assignments, plus an extra 3 weeks of unplanned time just in case something happens to her kid, guess which one I'm going with? Hey, it's not discrimination, it's called living with your choices. Since you did miss the point of my posting, let me point it out to you: you can't have a child and then work to raise that child properly all by yourself. If you have a child by yourself, then I'm not holding it against you for raising that child by yourself. However, if I have a business to run, I need to get the people who can devote themselves entirely to running my business, and you can't hold that against me or people who actually do run businesses. Since you can't devote yourself to a business heart and soul with children and no one else to take care of them, you've pretty much removed yourself from that pool of employees that an employer would want.

As for these statistical lies about single moms, if they're lies then prove them wrong.

Finally, since I'm running out of time, let me pinch hit this bullshit:


Last point: there is NO marriage strike by men going on.

Anyone with half a brain looking at the statistics can see that.

It is fewer WOMEN who are getting married.

You idiots are still getting married at the exact same rate...probably marrying the same bleached blond skanks over and over again...as these multiple marriages are what is distorting the marriage statistics.

Wake up.


Um you are an idiot, even more so if you're looking at the statistics and saying this.

http://www.unmarried.org/statistics.html

If you don't believe them, a quick check against the Time Almanac 2006 and the US Census bureau homepage quickly bears out all these statistics. Also, there's a nice link on the page showing how they got their numbers, so if you get different numbers, then please by all means, show us how you got them.

From the above cited webpage:

In 2000, 31% of men and 25% of women ages 15 and over (the way the Census counts adults) had never married.
- U.S. Census Bureau, Families and Living Arrangements 2000


Ok, exactly how does this translate into "fewer women are getting married?" All things being equal, the ratio of unmarried women to unmarried men is about 81%. This means that if there were exactly as many women as there were men in America, then population wise, the number of unmarried women would be 81% of the unmarried men.

Now, because I am aware of how statistics can be used to pervert truths, I am aware that those are percentages, not numbers of people. However because I paid attention in fifth grade math class I also know how to manipulate those percentages to get the numbers which you claim exist. In order for the actual number of never married women to even equal the actual number of never married men, the actual number of total women would have to be 1.24 times larger than the actual number of total men. Or there'd have to be 1.24 girls for every boy, in simpler terms.

For the numbers in question, from the Census Bureau:

US Male Population: 138,053,563
US Female Population: 143,368,343

The ratio of females to males in this country is currently at 1.04, or 1.04 girls for every boy. Sorry dumbass, but there's no fucking way that fewer women could be getting married, unless you can find 28+ million women somewhere who didn't get counted. Also, I'm glad to hear that you think that 75% of women in this country are bleach blond skanks, and that they're all golddiggers. Actually that is the only thing that you were close to right about: a lot of women are marrying a smaller pool of guys. Which doesn't really concern me: some people are going to keep on being stupid no matter what. They'll learn or die eventually, makes no difference to me. Proves that the Marriage Strike is working though, and that men are slowly waking up, one way or another, while women are trying to milk the game for all it's worth.

Now, would you like to kick your own ass some more, or are we through watching you say ever more ridiculous things about marriage and justifying everyone who ever swore it off?

11:28 PM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

Reviewing my previous comment, I need to correct one thing:

The ratio of females to males in this country is currently at 1.04, or 1.04 girls for every boy. Sorry dumbass, but there's no fucking way that fewer women could be getting married, unless you can find 28+ million women somewhere who didn't get counted.

I had two similar thoughts in my head, and confused them. The above manipulations would result in MORE women remaining unmarried than men, not percentage wise but quantity wise. However this would also increase the quantity of married-at-least-once females.

In order for the number of MALO females to be less than the number of males, we need to manipulate the numbers so that the number represented by the 75% of women who do get married is at least equal to the 69% of men who don't get married. However you do it, the number of men would have to surprass the number of women in this country by 8%, something which obviously isn't happening, given that women outnumber men in this country. Hence leading to the conclusion that there is no fucking way that there are fewer women getting married in this country than men.

2:16 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

Ronin: Are you from England, first of all? I assumed you were as your name appeared to be some sort of reference to England just as mine is a reference to where I live.

Because if you are then you know as well as I do that in Apirl of 2005 England changed it's laws making it illegal for a sperm donor to be anonymous any longer.

This had NOTHING to do with any anonymous sperm donors being hit up for child support. But in fact was a continuation of men attempting to stop single women from using the services of fertility clinics...They tried a few years back to stop single women by attempting to intimate doctors in the clinics. Since that didn't work, they then decided to hit at the weakest link in the chain which was the paid donors.

AND no, there is no spate of anonymous sperm donors being sued for child support. That was not the reason. This is total crap and propaganda put out by men like you...

You can read the article on my blog at: http://www.womenasmothers.bloggers.com/ in July 2005...

AND yes, it is relavant to our discussion

Bringing up the idea that men could use artificial wombs is obviously connected to the idea of women using anonymous sperm donors as the thought process of the persons using these method for having children is similar...ie., having children with no legal connection to the other parent.

So, of course, it is not a strawman...

Do you even know what a strawman is???

BTW, of course using the statistics of people who get married from the age of 15 or so is going to allow for distortion as few people anymore get married at 15...

But I will look for the statistic that shows fewer women getting married...

BTW, knock if off with the snide remarks to me as I'm getting a little sick and tired of it...you'll be talking to yourselves again if it continues.

4:10 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

There is a SLIGHT difference in women versus men in the US population...but if and when illegals are given citizenship that inbalance will be corrected.

4:13 AM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

This had NOTHING to do with any anonymous sperm donors being hit up for child support. But in fact was a continuation of men attempting to stop single women from using the services of fertility clinics...They tried a few years back to stop single women by attempting to intimate doctors in the clinics. Since that didn't work, they then decided to hit at the weakest link in the chain which was the paid donors.

Do you even have any idea what you're saying? OK, the patriarchy has this master plan to stop women from using semen from men without actually having to deal with men. In short, they'll make all male sperm donors reveal their identity. At that point, women, knowing these men's identity, will sue them blind, and thus interact with men in a destructive manner. If I ran the patriarchy I would fire my war strategist, cause that is the single dumbest plan I ever heard. How is this men keeping other men from donating sperm or men keeping women from having babies without having to deal with the father? The only thing you've stated that the law does is out the identity of a sperm donor. If a woman wants to sue her donor blind, that's on her. No one is making her sue her donor for child support. Indeed, one would think that that was the whole reason that she got a sperm donor, to remove the father from the equation. If a woman decides to sue her donor, then SHE'S putting the father back into the equation, no one else. If women sue so many men that men decide to quit donating sperm, that is no one's fault but womens. You were the ones who claimed "we don't need no mayuun!!!" and then turned around and sued us. All this law did, by your description, is name names. You were the ones who dragged men back into the equation, and if this action causes them to stop donating, the onus is on you.

But no, to answer your other assertion, this has nothing to do with the state of marriage. Laws being changed regarding sperm donors one way or the other do not affect the pointlessness of marriage. They don't affect the stats regarding women who take children from their fathers. They don't affect the hypocrisy which exists when a woman's right to her husband's valuables are inalienable, but a father's right to his own child is tenuous and at the whim of the mother at best. So they changed the sperm donor laws in England? This doesn't change the fact that if you're a man, and you get married, you're pretty much fucked, in a bad way.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25027

http://www.christianliferesources.com/?news/view.php&newsid=1688

Oh, and yes, donors are being sued for child support, and it's only getting worse.

As for the comment on my distortion of the facts, now you're grasping at straws, admit it. Check the Statistical Abstract of the United States 2004, or page 128 of the 2006 Time Almanac. Interesting chart there, breaks down the percentage of never married people by age and era. And so you can't piss and moan about the low age range skewering the data, note that it starts at age 20. In 1970, more women than men remained unmarried, in 2000, more men than women remained unmarried ALL ACROSS THE BOARD. 20-24 yr olds, men are remaining unmarried. 30-34 yr olds, more men are remaining unmarried. 40-44 yrs old, men are still staying out of the game. Any way you break it down, more and more men are deciding that marriage simply isn't worth it.


BTW, knock if off with the snide remarks to me as I'm getting a little sick and tired of it...you'll be talking to yourselves again if it continues.


Go to hell, no one asked you to disgrace us with the displeasure of your ignorance and ego. You haven't made one statement that has held up under any kind of scrutiny, and I'm really not even trying that hard. If I were trying I'd just disappear for three days and come back with an encyclopedia of data to debunk you with. Please do go, and leave us to talk to ourselves, the conversation was so much more intelligent when we did.

10:23 AM  
Blogger NYMOM said...

"...How is this men keeping other men from donating sperm..."

Well since the average sperm donor (in the US anyway) was paid about US $150.00 per week, it was a strong enough incentive for young men who need some extra money to donate. Many college students used this as a way to get extra income while going to school. Actually MOST sperm donors here USED to be college students. AND I assume it was the same in England as your society is very similar to the US in many ways.

Anyway, as long as they were guaranteed anonymity there was no long term risk to the students and it made sense for BOTH parties. As women are not going to go through the expense and risk either, if an anonymous donor can turn up later with rights to their children.

Remember it doesn't cost women only $150 to be inseminated and become pregnant. Actually it's a few thousand per treatment and it generally takes a few treatments to become pregnant. So what women is going to go through this and have some anonymous sperm donor turn up years later with legal rights to her child?

AND btw, I never even heard of an anonymous sperm donor who used the above method being sued for child support.

NEVER.

The 'sperm donors' you refer to in the news were not anonymous but made private agreements with women (or so they claimed after the fact) which were later not upheld by the courts.

So clearly passing a law to address a non-existent problem (as in anonymous sperm donors being sued for child support) was done for another reason. AND I can't think of another one except to stop single women from being able to have children w/o the requisite male overseers...as most of the women using this method were established career women with adequate income to support any children they had as well. So you couldn't even use the old 'welfare mum' ploy...

So passage of this law ensured that no man or woman is ever going to use this method now...

NOW they would be fools to do it, either one...


"...this has nothing to do with the state of marriage..."

It has EVERYTHING to do with the state of marriage.

As continuously telling men to NOT get married leaves out the corresponding point that if they chose not to marry, they probably are chosing to never have kids either.

As it is STILL far easier for a woman to have children w/o a husband then it is for a man to have children w/o a wife.

In spite of the never-ending attempts by gender neutralized feminists and MRAs to act like it's an even playing field for both sexes, it is not. As the inherent biological differences between men and women will NEVER change...


"...note that it starts at age 20..."

Yet you chose to use data starting from the age of 15 when you originally responded to me. Which everyone knows skewers the results as most people in the west don't get married at those young ages anymore but the ones who do are usually ALL women.

Actually many Christian right organizations use data like that to post statistical lies about women and out of wedlock child birth and marriage...

Why, if you knew you had the data from the age of 20 already, did you even use data from the age of 15 to begin with????

Even the age of 20 is probably too young as the age of marriage has been rising in the west to about the age of 25/26 or so...

Clearly you used the younger age so you could post a statistical lie. As women still get married younger then men...so including women from about the ages of 15 or so was an obvious attempt to jack up the percentages of women marrying versus the percentages of men marrying to prove your point.

That was the real reason for you including the data from the ages of 15 or so...As I said earlier another statistical lie.

Very typical of your movement btw.

Statistics should be used honestly to uncover the truth. NOT in an attempt to obscure what's really happening or worse yet, support a thesis which is unsupportable.

40-44 years old is another lie...as far more women remain unmarried in those age groups then men...even divorce statistics clearly demonstrate that although most divorced people do eventually remarry, the ones who do NOT are the women in the older age group categories that you mentioned above...


"Please do go and leave us to talk to ourselves..."

Fine...

The readership here was too small and insignificant anyway for my purposes.

Going forward, do yourselves a favor however, and quit using statistical lies to try and make a point.

The truth will set you free as they used to say in the 60s...so use it.

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. If I were offered 10 million dollars for my sperm my answer would be simple: NO!!

I would never donate something as precious as my genetic code (sperm) to anyone. If lesser men wish to grossly under-value their own genetics codes and carelessly give it away (at great financial risk to themselves and the potential to loose out on a real family if they get stuck paying child support), well, I suppose that is their decision.

2. I've done my own independent research into marriage and sperm donations in North America. Hey, a used car saleswomen can try to sell me the lemon-of-the-year but I do not have to buy it. Smooth talking, rigged stats and a sales "pitch" do not work on me. Marriage (and sperm donations) are nothing but a LOOSING proposition in North America and most men already know it. The smart ones anyways.

3. My decision to have children would (or has) either been restricted to a foreign women residing in a foreign family friendly nation OR single fatherhood. First of all I want the best genetics (eggs) and that is found off-shore in the case of women, IMO. Why not, i have the best sperm. North American women just don't measure up, same as the "family support" structures found there. North American women simple cannot compete and are being outsourced.

4. The first 9 months of a child are relatively unimportant - save for health - compared the next 18 years of a child's development. I am far more interested in societies where a FATHER and mother can raise their children in a loving environment. Sorry, North America is way, way, WAY down the list. Besides, with the number of women who kill their own babies (opps, sorry, I mean abort those nasty parasites) what man in their right mind would choose an American women?

5. The more successful a man the more options he has. So the best will move and the rest - well, your daughters can marry them.

12:42 AM  
Blogger Reckless_the_Ronin said...

Well, it looks like the troll isn't coming back, but just in case, let's tie up these loose ends:

1) I never said "anonymous" sperm donors being sued, I said "sperm donors." Period.

1a) Just like a feminazi, blaming a man for the reprocussions of an action that she is directly responsible for. If men are outed as sperm donors, women see dollar signs and sue, and men say "fuck this," that's women's fault. Nothing says you must sue your sperm donor if you know who he is.

1b) This still has nothing to do with the conversation. Newsflash: we here don't care about the kids, and nor do many other men who have made the conscious choice to stay single. American women are not worth the bullshit to have kids with them. The drawbacks with being with an American woman are so numerous that waving kids around like a carrot doesn't work: there's next to no benefit a child could provide that an American woman doesn't immediately negate.

2) Now you're bitching about what age I'm starting from when I count numbers of never married men. Most idiotic part of ALL your posts. You bitch that 15 skews the data because no 15 yr olds are married yet. So when I show you that 20-77 yr olds are all showing an increase in permanent solitude, you bitch that my ages are too low cause only women get married that young. Um, 20-77, what part of ALL ACROSS THE BOARD don't you understand? For any age range you pick out, more men are staying single than women. And indeed, you should be glad I used numbers starting from 15: starting at 20 and using those brackets sends the percentages skyrocketing up to 80% and up.

2a) You keep claiming that people are using "lies." You haven't given one set of verifiable numbers yet. Hell, your counter arguments are shaky: no my numbers are not wrong because you think that more 40-44 yr old men get married than women. Your say so isn't proof of any kind. And those statistics that you said you were going to get, proving that women got married less than men. I see you don't have them yet. Probably because there are no such statistics. Because men get married less than women. Indeed, as you put it, a lot of women are going around marrying the same bunch of guys.

In any case, if your purpose was to make yourself look like an ignorant dumbass, don't worry, mission accomplished, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Now, what's for dinner ^^

9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reckless_the_ronin:

What the h*ll is a mater with you?!?! Have you no sense of fair play?!?

Don't you know that you should have at least:

a) Tied one arm behind your back AND,
b) consumed 10 or 15 beers no less than 1/2 hour before debating NYMOM AND,
c) closed your eyes (well, at least one) AND,
d) taken double doses of drugs which inhibit logic and reasoning

..to give NYMOM at least 1/2 a chance?

Shame on you!

Worse yet, all that is left of NYMOM are two smoldering shoes -- and they stink to high heaven!

Thanks allot! ;-)

(TIP - next time just our water on the wicked witch. Melts them everytime!

5:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please be careful what you say - your words may have intentions that you don't intend.

I have been married for almost 10 years. My husband's mother was married 4 times by the time he was an early teen. My parents have been married for almost 35 years. I consider marriage to be a vow to both God and your husband, and one that is very serious and eternal.

My husband started reading your pages and others similar to them, and started doubting me. I have wanted nothing more in my life than to be his faithful and loving wife. I understand that his actions have more to do with what his mother did than anything else, but pages like this fanned the flames. He turned away from me to porn and started telling me continually that I was not going to leave him and take away his children (we have two small beautiful children). Over the last two years, whenever he feared I might be leaving (which happened often after reading things like this) he would beat me.

I waited until I began to fear that he was going to kill me. I knew that my children needed me alive, so I am currently under a protective order. I am holding onto hope that he will seek counseling so that we can become a family again, and I can live out the vows I took very seriously when I made them 10 years ago.

Please just understand, there are many, many women out there that DO love their husbands, that want nothing more than to be good wives and mothers. And sometimes blogs like this help to do exactly the opposite of what you've intended. They help to destroy relationships. If you are concerned about men and marriage, why don't you go out and find good women that you can praise, and encourage men to look for them instead of making them suspicious of everyone.

7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster who stated "there is NO Marriage Strike going on..." - think again. You have bought into the typical feminist partyine that "empowered"women are not marrying. Buuuaahahaha! Guess again. You should see all the posts about women pining for relationships - it's how they're made! But women have no risk in marrying whatsoever. Men, on the other hand have ALL the risk. It makes considerably MORE sense that women are not marrying BECAUSE MEN ARE NOT ASKING THEM. Silly. Get a grip. The Marriage Strike is alive and well - and growing!

4:42 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home