Marriage Is For Broke Men Only!

Why should a man with money, power, status and confidence get married? What is in it for men like this? Why should men commit to a woman at all? I mean, really?!

We can get sex from women on a regular basis because women are giving it up like it is Halloween. Many women feel they can act like men and “hook up” with guys. Ok cool! We can be serial “hook-uppers” and move from woman to woman. The women get hooked and the guys keep it moving.

I would love to read the responses to the question…why should a man commit? Yes, most people would say love. OK, you can love, but not commit. Tell me, can you love more than one person in your life at one time?

Why should a man marry a woman? I have several good reasons, but they have nothing to do with love. In fact, from the state’s perspective, marriage as NOTHING to do with love. Where on the marriage license does it ask if you love your future spouse? Where in domestic relations law does it mention love?

Let me break it down to you…it DOESN’T say it anywhere in ANY state.

So, again, why should a man get married? What are you bringing to the table in 2013 other than sex? I think it is time to re-think how we view relationships and ask some really hard questions.

If we are getting the milk for free, why should we EVER buy the cow?

Listen to my man Tommy and get back to me:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXwgRi9YrWI&w=560&h=315]

“If boys are in trouble, it’s a women’s issue – we’re all in trouble.”

Christina Sommers talks about the effects of a philosophy that can be somewhat hostile to young men: Women’s Rights. Advocating for recognition of gender differences while maintaining equality, Sommers discusses the implications, risks, and consequences of consistently supporting and encouraging females only.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxqlkr1JMBA&w=560&h=315]

How to pay child support and STILL face prison time

I really don’t know when everyone will finally understand the reality of the game of child support. When will people see that this has very little to do with actually supporting children and much more with punitive measures against men and fathers. When will people get it?

The National Parents Organization stated in one of their posts:

We all understand child support, right? When two people have sex, both know they may produce a child. And if a child is conceived and carried to term, both Mom and Dad are under a legal obligation to support little Andy or Jenny. That’s partly because adults should be responsible for the consequences of their own actions, partly because it takes money to support a child and partly because the state doesn’t want to do the job. Indeed, at least in the Anglo-American world, the very concept of child support originated in England about 400 years ago solely to remove from the populace the onus of caring for “bastards.” Prior to that, single women who bore children could leave them at the local orphanage or work house, from which time they’d be supported (and none to opulently) by the people of the parish. Think Oliver Twist.

Soon enough, it was considered right and proper that men who fathered said children should be made to pay for them. That was based on the notion that the mothers were innocents who had been defiled by unscrupulous and uncaring men who wanted nothing but to “have their way” with the women and then flee. If any of that sounds like the laws on child support today, it’s no surprise. Essentially every assumption made by those laws is based on the idea that every man who fathers a child is dead-set on having nothing to do with it, evidence to the contrary be damned.

Still, the basic premise is sound; mothers and fathers should support the children they and they alone decide to bring into the world. Enter the federal government that provides incentives to states to distort that simple concept and guess what. That simple concept becomes twisted beyond recognition.

Here is yet another example of why we need to abolish child support:

bilde
AUBURN, Neb. — Bryan Sheffield has found out that when it comes to child support disputes, a canceled check isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

The 32-year-old disabled military veteran who served in the Iraq War finds himself squeezed by a bureaucratic vise that may eventually land him in jail.

That’s because Sheffield refuses to pay the $11,000 in child support the State of Nebraska says he owes.

He already paid it, he insists.

As proof, he offers bank printouts of 20 canceled checks. Each $536 check says “child support” in the memo line. Each carries the signature of his ex-wife on the back.

Yet officials with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services said the canceled checks aren’t enough. They told Sheffield that only a judge or his former wife can credit him for the payments, because they were made directly to her instead of through the state’s child support payment center.

The attorney for Sheffield’s ex-wife sides with the state, saying judges routinely sort through child support matters.

Cases like Sheffield’s, where the noncustodial parent pays support directly to the custodial parent, are rare but not unheard of, Nebraska officials say. But Sheffield’s quandary illustrates why they urge that all support payments be made through the state’s center, which processes nearly 2 million payments annually.

Sheffield, who lives in a rented farmhouse near Auburn, Neb., says he can’t get a receipt from his ex-wife, nor can he afford an attorney to go back to court.

He has sought help from his state senator and the governor, to no avail.

In the meantime, state officials have taken steps to force payment of the $11,000. They filed paperwork to intercept tax refunds he might be owed and will block any attempt to get a passport. The state has the authority to go after his credit rating, his driver’s license and, if necessary, his freedom.

So be it, he says.

“At least I’d get a public defender and get my day in court.”

Auburn attorney Louie Ligouri, who represents Sheffield’s ex-wife, said allegations such as Sheffield’s are routinely decided by judges.

“My client hasn’t done anything improper. I haven’t done anything improper,” said Ligouri, who otherwise declined to comment on the matter.

Messages left with Sheffield’s former wife, Clarinda Cook, were not returned.

Read more HERE

Goodbye darling, you’re just too dull

New direction: women such as travel operator Lucy Valantine, above, are instigating divorces to embark on voyages of self-discovery without a 'nice but boring' husband Photo: SOLARPIX.COM

New direction: women such as travel operator Lucy Valantine, above, are instigating divorces to embark on voyages of self-discovery without a ‘nice but boring’ husband Photo: SOLARPIX.COM

I’d be perfectly happy with women divorcing their husbands because they are bored only if those women who wanted out of that marriage got NOTHING, except what she came into it with. No child support, no children, no alimony and no house.

That sounds like a good deal to me. Go ahead and find yourself! Cool with me. Leave your boring husband at an age where it will become increasingly harder to find a mate. Go right ahead ladies….and good luck with that.

The problem is this….the above scenario rarely happens. Women can cheat, leave for ANY reason and still get the house, children, alimony and child support.

Until our domestic relations laws change and it is truly equal, marriage for men is a big gamble. Read this article and tell me if you still think modern marriage its built to last. Reform no-fault laws and then we can talk:

Women and divorce: Goodbye darling, you’re just too dull…
These days, women usually end a marriage out of boredom. But are they quitting too easily?
By Julia Llewellyn Smith

Lucy Valantine was approaching her fortieth birthday when she made the seemingly bizarre decision to leave her husband of five years. “On the surface, life was perfect,” she says. “We had a gorgeous Victorian house in the Home Counties, I had a great job with a blue-chip company, and my husband was a lovely chap. He was kind and gentle and my friends all loved him. There was nothing wrong with him, but it wasn’t enough. I wanted to change my life.

“We’d married impulsively and really we were more like brother and sister than man and wife.” So, after “a lot of soul-searching and pain”, Valantine told her “devastated” husband she was leaving him.

In quick succession, she had a tattoo and bought a Harley-Davidson motorbike, which she rode across Australia and New Zealand. She taught English in Costa Rica and China, worked in a Zambian orphanage and travelled through Siberia and Mongolia. Now, six years later, she divides her life between the UK and Spain, where she runs a travel agency, Go Granada!

“It seemed unthinkable I could leave a good man and life, but I’d held a mirror up to it all and I’d started to see things I really didn’t want to see. I knew I had no choice but to face them.”

Fifty years ago, a woman such as Valantine would have been rare indeed. Divorce was taboo and few women had the guts, let alone the financial means, to brave the social stigma of walking out on a decent husband simply because she felt there must be “something more”. Until recently, with nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce, the most commonly cited reason was infidelity.

But times have changed. Last week, a survey of 101 family lawyers conducted by the consultancy firm Grant Thornton revealed that adultery was no longer the principal reason for break-ups. Instead, the most popular explanation was couples saying they were simply “no longer in love” and had “grown apart”.

Relationship counsellor Andrew G Marshall, author of I Love You, I’m Just Not In Love With You, says he has noted a trend towards such splits. “In the past 10 years, I’ve seen a huge increase in couples who don’t actually hate each other, they just don’t love each other enough to stick at it. Ninety per cent of these marriages would be perfectly serviceable if the people involved would just put in more effort.”

What does this say about our society? Is it a shocking indictment of our narcissism that we are ignoring “Until death us do part”, because it’s easier to slump in front of Facebook rather than book a candlelit table for two? Or is it a triumph of feminism that women whose mothers would have put up and shut up in return for a roof over their heads have decided that they refuse to live out their years with a man whose idea of an enjoyable night is dinner on his lap in front of Top Gear?

I say “women”, because they initiate seven out of 10 divorces. Divorce is also soaring among the over-45s, with break-ups in that age bracket increasing by 30 per cent in a decade. The writer Fay Weldon recently said: “Women in their fifties instigate divorce because they are bored and want to be free and single again, not because they want the emotional and sexual excitement of another man.” They’re encouraged by a recent vogue of “finding-yourself” literature, headed by the international best-seller Eat, Pray, Love, which recounted author Elizabeth Gilbert’s decision to divorce her husband and embark on a round-the-world odyssey of – depending on your view – inspirational self-discovery or nauseating navel-gazing.

Andrew G Marshall thinks that such soapy portrayals have had a devastating effect on the way we approach our own relationships. “The phrase I hate more than anything is ‘soulmate’,” he says. “There’s always that scene in the movies where a couple who thought they were mismatched realise they were meant to be because they’re singing karaoke and they both know the words to an obscure song – and lo! It sells us a fantasy that we’ll find this perfect match.

“The truth is relationships, however good, will go through bad patches. There will be times when you drift apart and you need to crawl your way back again. The problem is most of us don’t have the relationship skills to do it. We don’t like the idea of blazing rows, so we simply switch off and all the feelings – both positive and negative – die. We treat each other like brother and sister, and that’s the least sexy relationship imaginable.”

Most couples have cans in their cupboards that have lasted longer than their romantic phase. A study by the dating site ForgetDinner found that people who had been married one year spent 40 minutes of an hour-long dinner in conversation. After 20 years of marriage, it was 21 minutes; by 30 years just 16 minutes. Those married 50 years were talking for only three minutes.

Therapist Francine Kaye, author of The Divorce Doctor, says self-discovery is impossible outside of a relationship: “The best place to find yourself is with an imperfect partner. You can’t try to find yourself through travelling, because you take yourself with you wherever you go.”

But what of those marriages that can’t be rescued? Elissa Da Costa-Waldman, a 56-year-old lawyer, left her husband of eight years because he “would rather watch DVDs of trains than talk to me”.

“It was very tough,” she says. “It was not easy being single when you’re older. It’s daunting walking in to a room on your own. But I’m so glad I found the courage to do it.”

Lucy Valantine’s ex-husband is now happily remarried with a baby. And while she relishes her new existence, she hopes one day for a family life, too. “I still believe in marriage,” she says. “I didn’t leave mine lightly and many times I have wondered if I did the right thing. There have been nights when I’ve ended up sobbing, thinking ‘What am I doing in a strange country with no job, no husband, no friends, no home?’ But through quitting the conventional path I discovered who I really am.”

Origina here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/8739533/Women-and-divorce-Goodbye-darling-youre-just-too-dull….html