Red Pill Classroom — Frivorce


This is a sensitive issue for many a man, myself included.  It is about divorce.  But not about just any type of divorce, but frivorce.  That is, frivolous divorce.  Divorce for no justifiable reason.

In the olden days, a reason was required for divorce legally.  One could not do it without an apparent reason.  This put a damper on divorcing, as well it should.

But what about today?  The incentives/disincentives are unbalanced between the genders.  There is no longer a requirement for a reason for divorce.  It  it now a socially sanctioned event on one’s lifelong journey.  Many modern women apparently are not serious about much of anything.  This toxic brew leads to frivorce.

There is, of course, the financial and other injuries imposed upon the husband.  Grown men are expendable, so there really is nothing to see there.   But the elephant in the room that women (and their enablers) do not like to talk about is what is truly best for the children.  After all, we do want to do what is best for the children don’t we?  Well, yes we do, and that normally means sucking the poor ex-husband dry for their (*cough her*) benefit.  Is this what is truly best for the children one might ask?  Being a father, and doing all of the things that fathers do, apparently has little importance.

As for the benefit of the children, it is often stated that it is better for them not to see the two parents arguing repeatedly.  Of course, this is not good.  But probably much of what is going on here is that women are somehow vaguely dissatisfied, talk to other divorcees who have nothing better to do than sabotage marriages, and then escalate the demands, leading to fights.  The fights become much of the supposed justification for divorce.  He gets blamed, when in reality, she was the reason behind it all.  Naturally enough, the hamster smooths it all over.

There are other scenarios where the women is effectively the instigator, and then pretends to be the aggrieved victim.  I am sure that commenters know of them.  Perhaps they could share.

To sum up,  women often have intensely strong incentives to divorce their husbands, require no legal justification to do so, and through passive-aggressive plausibly deniable schemes can make him look like the reason.

P.S.

I will relate four personal stories.  In the case of my divorce, my ex-wife divorced me effectively because I did not give her enough tingles (money, other stuff, was not an issue) .  This was primarily due to dominance issues, not physicality.  Trying calibrate things was difficult.  Even she realized this.  She wanted what she wanted (being highly educated and all), but also wanted me to be dominant.  Once she stated, “You need to walk ahead, and aside of me at the same time”.    Naturally she destroyed the very good relationship between myself and my step-son.  That was apparently unimportant.  In her case, she did not even try to justify the divorce.  Her family and friends were aghast.  One of her friends likened her to Anna Karenina.

I have related this story before.  After my divorce, I was doing laundry in a small farming village at the laundromat.   Four local fellas came in.  We started talking.  That asked what I did.  I stated that I was a professional in the city.  It also came up that I was recently divorced.  They all came to the same conclusion at once, that I was living in my minivan parked by the front door of the laundromat.  The knowledge of divorce rape is in modern men.

I was traveling with my brother, sister and Mom to visit relatives.  We were in a store parking lot, waiting in our vehicle for this fella with a pick-up truck and topper to finish his loading so that our vehicle could move on.  What he was loading, and how he was loading it were very unusual.  My brother commented that he looked like he was living in his truck.  I suggested that he was divorced.  My brother laughed, my sister got mad, and my Mom didn’t get it.  I am kind of glad that my Mom did not get it, as she was never contaminated with the evil thinking that many a modern woman has.

On one Thanksgiving during my married days, I took my stepson out of the house in order to keep him out of my wife’s hair.  He was just too excited about the upcoming event. I was coming down with something, and felt and looked awful.  We went to a Burger King for a snack.  The manager was working the register.  He looked at me ( very haggard in appearance) and my stepson, came to the conclusion that I was divorce raped and that I had my son for just an few hours or so on Thanksgiving; and promptly sent us on our way without paying.  He could sympathize with what he thought was a down and out fella.

Advertisements
Posted in FarmBoy, Feminism, Marriage, RedPillClassroom
73 comments on “Red Pill Classroom — Frivorce
  1. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    I think that I linked to the CNS.com story abou how devnety percent oof men aged 20-34 are single and fifty percent aged 20-54. Confidence in women is int the toilet. They have to realize that they are shooting themselves in the foot and, if not their fott, their daughter’s.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yoda says:

    women often have intensely strong incentives to divorce their husbands,

    End well this will not

    Liked by 1 person

  3. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Yoda,
    It’s hard to know how this will end. It’s hard to see into the future and there are few men who can.
    On the Adams Chronicles, I remember a scene that must have taken place before the Constitution was written and after the Revolution. The Prime Minister, Lord North, was giving John Adams a hrard time. Adams responded by saying that there is only one place this will lead, “Greatness”. But first, we had to learn how to make buttons.
    Deti predict a slow, gradual decline. My hope is that some feminist will do something unforgiveable and, they’ll lose effective credibility.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Farm Boy,
    Roosh reposted his “clown” posr on RoK today. It is significant in that it may explain the prevailing attitude in women. We’re accessories, we’re not needed. While the post only goes into singles, do women, once they marry, ditch these attitudes?

    http://www.returnofkings.com/58794/men-are-nothing-more-than-clowns-to-the-modern-woman#!

    Like

  5. Liz says:

    Wow. How accurate and disturbing.

    It’s really telling that frivorce has become so ubiquitous people can spot male victims all around. And people get accustomed to it, and children become accustomed to living this way (abnormal becomes normal) and the cascading, snowball of consequences continues to roll downhill, building as it goes.

    Like

  6. Liz says:

    Fuzzie, I’m not so sure I agree with Roosh, for a number of reasons.
    First, look at what he does for a living. Essentially, he IS a clown. He’s a sex worker who documents his life…I’m not judging, just saying. I don’t judge actual clowns either, it’s an honest living and i don’t disparage anyone who makes an honest living. But…I do question their personal life experiences/observations since they are not exactly standard.

    I don’t know a person in the world either who, if asked by a stranger (a safe assumption, after his description of the question as part of his “bank of rotating stock questions he asks women to know how he should proceed with his game”) “Do you need a man?” Would answer to the affirmative. “Heck yah!” That doesn’t mean there aren’t individual men the person needs. It’s actually kind of a socially awkward/uncomfortable and inappropriate question, I think, in the context of a stranger asking it in a bar/club.

    It’s true women have been conditioned in the modern world to believe they “don’t need anyone”…but honestly I think that’s better unless and until they actually marry. That’s when the interdependence should begin. And that’s what they should be taught. You need a man if you want children, and you need a man to raise them right.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Liz says:

    Didn’t no fault start in California, under Reagan (kind of ironically)? And then everyone ran there to file for “migratory divorce”, which effectively redefined a marriage simply by moving across state lines.

    Every contract, to be valid, included provisions for termination, encompassing both satisfactory completion and penalties for non-fulfillment. In marriage, this aspect is actually provided by the divorce laws. As a result, marriages around the country were radically redefined by no-fault divorce, and even today, one can alter one’s marriage contract simply by moving from one state to another with different divorce requirements. After that, of course, no fault spread everywhere and migratory divorce was no longer necessary. Interesting, though, that the original terms of the marriage contract can change…I don’t think there’s anything else like that under contract law (but I’m not a lawyer).

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Spawny Get says:

    The Western butler and his manhood says it all. Or all of the relationships were there’s no overt misandry, just complete disinterest in his wants and needs (traditionalism, some might say)

    Like

  9. Liz says:

    Wrong link, Spawny! Here it is:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/the-western-butler-and-his-manhood/

    (I’ll ‘like’ myself) 🙂

    [SG – ta, fixed]

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Frivorce is not the new black. It does not lead to personal growth and empowerment. I try to tell women this all the time in real life. Having a good man is a good thing. Be good to him and be thankful!

    Like

  11. Liz I see you share my insomnia?;)

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Liz says:

    Heh, yes…I’m a very light sleeper, too.
    And we were out last night and Mike didn’t sleep well…so I started flipping around too, and I can’t just lay there and flip and keep him awake. So, I’ve been up since 3. Gah! 😛

    Liked by 1 person

  13. @ Liz I tend to wake around 2 am pretty regular, annoying. But some of the only alone time I get, too! I get to catch up on my reading anyway… Xoxo

    Like

  14. Yoda says:

    It’s hard to see into the future and there are few men who can

    Verde men as myself can.

    Like

  15. According to chateau heartiste there’s a new epl style book on the way by a woman who didn’t bother with the divorce before starting her empowering ride on the carousel. Wild oats or some such. Frivorce is so yesterday, cuckholding is the new new black! (Eyeroll)

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Liz says:

    From Heartiste, that thread: “The cultural message is unmistakable: The clit is the new cock. But this message is wrapped in a fairy tale with a very dark ending. Women can no more play the man’s game than men can play the woman’s game. Not for long, at any rate, and not without a gnawing unhappiness that corrodes the soul.”

    Sounds like what I was saying about the predatory 14 year old girls and all that Tinder crap.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Liz says:

    My puppy avatar is a little too sweet and wholesome (for my ebul personality).
    I almost feel guilty as soon as I post something about 14 year old sluts and use the word ‘crap’…

    Liked by 1 person

  18. thedeti says:

    @ Liz:

    “I’m not so sure I agree with Roosh, for a number of reasons. *** I do question their personal life experiences/observations since they are not exactly standard.”
    ____________

    Roosh’s own personal life experiences aren’t standard. Granted, his experiences as a man dealing with women are turned up to 11 so to speak. But if you take what Roosh said in the context of what Fuzzie said, it makes more sense.

    Your average woman sees her boyfriend or husband as an accessory, an appendage. Her default position is “what does he do for me?” Not “what are we doing together” or “what are we together” or even “what does he do for US?” No, she is saying “What does he do FOR ME?” This is what a woman will default to if a man allows her to do so. Many men will allow this, so she will default to that sort of thinking.

    And yes, most women aren’t the sort of women who would consort with Roosh. But most women have had more than one sex partner (more than five, if the CDC and the “rule of 3” is to be applied). Most women who are getting married, it’s not their first (or second, or third) time at the rodeo. So most women see men, husbands, boyfriends, etc. as tools and means to ends which exist for her benefit. She’s trying to pick the best one, the most beneficial one for her purposes.

    So, yes, most women view their boyfriends as means to entertainment. A lot of women view their husbands as means to ends. “He makes the $$ to pay for my shit and the kids’ shit. He takes me out to dinner once a week because I should get a night off from cooking once a week. He gets me my week’s vacation every year to a destination of MY (not his, not our, MY) choice. He is here to make sure I have what I want and need.”

    That, I think, is the mentality a lot of wives will fall into and default to, if a husband allows it. That makes him a clown in her eyes — a source of entertainment, a tool, a thing that exists for her use.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. thedeti says:

    “Didn’t no fault start in California, under Reagan (kind of ironically)? And then everyone ran there to file for “migratory divorce”, which effectively redefined a marriage simply by moving across state lines.”

    Liz:

    No-fault is actually a socialist, communist invention, started in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and adopted in Red China in 1950.

    In the US no-fault was first adopted in CA in 1970. Then Gov. Reagan signed it, in large part because of his own personal experience in his divorce from Jane Wyman. Wyman had divorced Reagan about a decade earlier, citing grounds of “extreme and repeated mental cruelty”. In truth, he had been quite kind and loving to Wyman; she just didn’t want to be married to him anymore. He recalled how she essentially lied about him in official court documents, and how much it had hurt him. Reagan couldn’t understand it — he had never done anything to hurt Wyman, had never spoken a harsh word to her, and had never been cruel to her. But, he understood Wyman refused to remain married to him. He decided to let her go, because he could see that she didn’t want to be with him anymore. So Reagan admitted to something he didn’t do so Wyman could divorce him and they could both move on with their lives. (It did hurt him very much, though, and Reagan recounted he was deeply depressed for some time after Wyman left him.)

    Reagan believed that people in his situation could get divorced without having to lie in court, and without people having to admit to “bad behavior” so that people in bad marriages and people who didn’t get along with each other anymore can end their bad marriages with a minimum of mess and move on. He believed that “no fault” would be sparingly applied, and that it would only be used in really, really bad marriages where the husband and wife didn’t cheat, didn’t beat, didn’t abandon, and didn’t abuse drugs–they just hated each other and just couldn’t get along with each other.

    Reagan, and no-fault’s advocates, grossly underestimated how no-fault would be abused by women in marriages. I would like not to attribute bad faith to it — I suspect it was because Reagan had faith in people’s basic goodness, and bought into the lie that women (as well as men) would always act rationally and would not end marriages lightly.

    Now, of course, we have women who bail on their marriages because things get a little tough, or because some other guy at work is making eyes at her, or because he lost his job and is having a rough patch at work, or she is otherwise unhappy and dissatisfied with something about her spouse. There are a few men who divorce for no-fault reasons, but far and away women file the vast, vast majority of no fault divorces, and it is precisely for these frivolous “I’m not haaaaappy” reasons.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Yoda says:

    Deti in fine form he is.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Yoda says:

    Reagan, and no-fault’s advocates, grossly underestimated how no-fault would be abused by women in marriages.

    Key line this is.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. jf12 says:

    re: “if a husband allows it”

    The currently imperfect nature of the marriage contract, in which the consequences for breaking the contract are minimized and/or abolished, causes the trust issues inherent in limited commitment situations, for which the suggested remedy is incentive compatibility.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_market_imperfections#Limited_Commitment

    Like

  23. thedeti says:

    Thanks, Yoda

    Like

  24. I had an idea to prevent frivorce, a prenup that says in the case of divorce, they both start over w $5000 and the rest goes to charity! That would be incentive to work things out (unless they had less than the $5000 between them anyway..)

    Like

  25. Yoda says:

    Thanks, Yoda

    Wise both we are.

    Verde also.

    Like

  26. Yoda says:

    Bloom,

    “Spite” a factor still it would be.

    Like

  27. @ fb true. There could be that.

    Like

  28. thedeti says:

    @ yoda:

    It’s not easy being verde. Well, it is for me.

    Like

  29. Liz says:

    There’s one flight attendant who has married and divorced four pilots, all in the same company. She will now be able to claim a quarter of four different 401Ks when these guys retire. As much of a gold-digging-ho-bag as she must be, I have to wonder about that forth guy who married her. It’s not like this information about her wasn’t known…it was in the same company.
    That’s about like marrying someone with a big black widow tatoo in the middle of her forehead. Wonder how many exoskeletons she has in her closet!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Liz says:

    Wait..I think it might be half of each of four different 401Ks…

    Like

  31. jf13 says:

    @Liz, re: 50/50

    The division of retirement benefits probably was explicitly mentioned in each divorce agreement. Otherwise, the default probably will be to a 50/50 split of the fraction of the total retirement accumulated during their time together. One way is to prorate simply based on length of time. If either chooses to fight for more exacting divisions, the accountants and lawyers will eat it all anyway. For example, if she was married to each of four guys for 5 years, each of whom made the exact same money over the course of their 30 year careers, then her share of the retirement benefits would be the same as if she had been married to one of the guys for 20 years.

    Like

  32. Cill says:

    That’s a cute avatar, Liz, not as cute as the other one but workably cute. 😀

    [Cill self edits: Now Cill, you and she both have significant others who are beautiful to the extent of being impossible to supplant. You know that already, Cill, you over-hyped chump]

    To change the subject:

    jf6 could be “The Prisoner” maybe.
    “Who is Number 1?”
    YOU are number 6.”
    “I am not a number, I am a free man!”

    Waddayareckon, jf?

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Cill has a significant other, do tell! Has something happened since the last update that I missed? 🙂

    Like

  34. jf13 says:

    Other than the unimaginative “the right girl just never came along” (which I believe to be the age-old explanation proffered, for varied reasons, by nearly every unmarried man: baffled incels, smirking players, crusty hermits, homosexuals, etc.), I wonder just how much, percentagewise, the fear of frivorce truly contributes to the current decline in young men’s marriage rates. Is there a large survey somewhere which lists the reasons young men gave for not getting married yet?

    Like

  35. Spawny Get says:

    JF, there were some great comments made by ‘Troll Kong’s on The Spearhead a few years ago. The views expressed and experiences described were pretty bleak.

    Like

  36. Spawny Get says:

    Understandably bleak.

    Like

  37. Cill says:

    Bloom, there’s a relationships of sorts, an “understanding”, between me and M. It’s proceeding at crawling pace, because my caution level is in the red zone. I trust my female relatives in a way I can’t trust other women.

    She knows marriage or any form of cohabitation (and therefore children) are a no-go. I’ve told her if marriage and kids are important to her, she’s wasting her time on me. And yet, she’s happy. I’ve never seen someone so happy.

    We watch movies, which is something I’ve not done much of before. For me, watching movies is like paying good money to go to sleep. With her, I don’t go to sleep – with that body in the same room as me – no fucking way am I going to sleep (excuse the French).
    We do some boating, diving, surfing. I threatened to take her out hunting and she even said “yes” to that, which surprises me, her being a squeamish city girl and all.

    Baby steps. I’m as cautious as all hell. I have to admit, though, it’s bloody good fun.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. jf13 says:

    re: bleak

    I’m recalling more than a few conversations over the years in which the unmarried men confessed, or joked, that it was the fear of *not* getting divorced that kept them from being married. Many if not most would have been up for getting the “marriage experience” (including cohabitation and children and all that entails) from a woman if they felt they could trust the woman not to turn brawling and contentious (the Proverbs 19, 21, 25, and 27 woman), especially if there were unabated “rampant kinky sex” (one of Spawny’s preconditions. I think it’s in the Bible somewheres.).

    tldr For those men it wasn’t the fear of getting the “divorce experience” per se, it was the fear of the doom of being sucked into the maelstrom of cyclically insane arguments.

    tldr for women: “Learning how to argue” is the opposite of learning how to relate to a man.

    Like

  39. Liz says:

    Tldr=too long didn’t read jf13?

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Liz says:

    I don’t know anything else the acronym stands for but it seems confusing in this context…

    Like

  41. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    You know… In a certain light, jf13 looks a lot like…

    Nah, just my imagination. Jf13 wears glasses.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Spawny Get says:

    Nice one CP, LOL

    Like

  43. Cill says:

    CP are you daring to suggest he could challenge Him-With-The-MSGL in a look-off?

    P.S. I should be out storm-tidying but I’m enjoying myself too much here. Who created this infernal time wasting site…
    .
    XD

    Liked by 2 people

  44. jf13 says:

    “Shorter version” may have been more appropriate, but longer, than tldr.

    Sufficiently off topic to be relevant to several previous topics:
    “The study, which should probably be taken with a pinch of salt”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/one-true-love-survey-says-men-fall-in-love-more-times-than-women-10059631.html

    I think maybe there used to be a very old-fashioned usage to take a pinch of salt to make something distasteful like medicine go down faster. But I don’t think “taking it with a grain of salt” has meant “make it taste better” for a long long time. When did it come to mean “help you retain a healthy disbelief” or whatever?

    Like

  45. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    I have to admit, JF, that I don’t get that line of thought. If the fear is NOT getting divorced, why would you risk getting married? Unless that’s you’re only practical path towards kids, and you don’t care what divorce will do to them, I don’t get that thinking at all. I suspect I’m missing something.

    If it’s just the nagging and soul-crushing futility of marriage to a “wife” they’re after, they can get that with cohabitation if they are willing to go the distance.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Yoda says:

    A new post there would be

    Liked by 1 person

  47. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Deti,
    Well said about no fault in California. I can also tell that “no fault” was a popular notion for auto molile insurance at the time.It was introduced in Massachusrtts becausr their insurance system was a complete mess.
    I can see Reagan’s point. Eliminate finger pointing.
    Unforeseen consequences.

    Like

  48. Yoda says:

    Unforeseen consequences.

    Bear has the Force he does.

    Like

  49. SFC Ton says:

    Walking a way from a marriage with 5 grand in your pocket is a lot better deal then a lot of men get

    Like

  50. SFC Ton says:

    Walking a way from a marriage with 5 grand in your pocket is a lot better deal then a lot of men get

    Like

  51. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bear, the force he does have.”

    Bloom found this for me. Enjoy!

    Liked by 1 person

  52. jf13 says:

    re: “If it’s just the nagging and soul-crushing futility of marriage to a “wife” they’re after, they can get that with cohabitation”

    Nonfriends without benefits? Yes, it turns out that people behave in cohabitation EXACTLY like they’re married. Same exact honeymoon period. Same exact bickering. Same fertility rate.

    Like

  53. Spawny Get says:

    JF, isn’t there slightly more sex with cohabitation as opposed to marriage?

    Like

  54. jf13 says:

    @Spawny Get,
    actually no. When corrected for length of cohabitation there is no difference in sexual behavior. It is the moving in together that starts the doomsday clock on the honeymoon period, and it is the daily physical interaction (goodbye kisses and all) that drives women’s bodies’ unconscious incest avoidance.

    Liked by 2 people

  55. thedeti says:

    Most women are married to men they are less sexually attracted to than the men they used to sleep with before. Same for women in LTR/unmarried relationships.

    Obviously, it is because the men these women could get for a marriage or at least a committed LTR are not as attractive as the men these women used to sleep with. Ostensibly, these women wanted LTRs/commitment/marriage from these higher value men but couldn’t get that, so they settled for lower value men who don’t turn them on as much.

    To get commitment from the lower value guy she finds all she needs to do is turn on the sex spigot. A BJ here, a good romp there, every so often a marathon fuck session. The guy is hooked. She is clearly trading sex for commitment. Then comes the DTR talk, the “where is this going”, the “I was hoping you were going to ask me to marry you” blurt.

    He of course is getting laid, and pretty well. He wants this to continue. He doesn’t want to go back on the open market and start all over, because getting this one was like building the Pyramids at Giza. And he knows exactly how this goes down: The relationship ends; she will have a new guy inside a week. Who knows how long he will have to go without sex before he can get another one?

    So he asks. And she accepts. He thinks he will get the sex he wanted. She KNOWS she has the commitment she wanted.

    So when she finally gets the commitment she wanted, the sex spigot gets turned off. She doesn’t have to put out anymore. And she can use sex as a weapon to get him to do what she wants. He has no bargaining chip — he can’t leave and take his money. By the time it’s all figured out, she’s preggers or they have a kid. She now has him for a decade or more of chilimony and possibly alimony.

    that’s how this all goes down, folks.

    Liked by 2 people

  56. jf13 says:

    @deti, re: he has no bargaining chip

    I agree. Basically, for the man getting married is the act of handing over all his bargaining chips. And I dont want to hear of apex anomalies, other than to say exceptions prove the rule.

    So, because of “the trust issues inherent in limited commitment situations, for which the suggested remedy is incentive compatibility”, what are some practical steps towards incentive compatibility in the current MMP?

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Cill says:

    Don’t Get Married
    No cohabitation
    No kids
    Get used to going without
    Have assets but don’t invest emotionally in them (e.g. my paradise)
    Garner info and be vigilant
    Pack ready to move fast and light

    Like

  58. Spawny Get says:

    in the discussion about teh younger generation, I forgot that Cill is maybe only slightly older than the guys we were wondering about.

    Like

  59. Spawny Get says:

    JF,
    I think maybe my information was out of date. Perhaps these days women view cohabitation as as much commitment as they can get(?) then the sex drying up occurs just as it does in marriage despite his supposed greater ability for him to leave (kids? de-facto marriage split up in courts? etc).

    I have to admit that while this wasn’t an issue for me, it’s this kind of manipulation of men that really gets my goat. Many of the women know that sex is pretty much all they’re bringing to the table. Once hitched it’s just a weapon and on a whim.

    Like

  60. Cill says:

    “Cill is maybe only slightly older than the guys we were wondering about.”

    It’s confusing, to say the least. Although I’ve had sexual experience with women I’ve liked, I’ve never dated before. I never put myself out there on the dating scene. M never dated before either. I’m her first. When it comes to dating we’re just babes in the woods. There’s some blundering goes on between us, and when we get together we laugh our heads off about it.

    With all that wealth of experience (lol) here’s some advice from Uncle Cill’s agony column:
    Avoid all women who can’t laugh at themselves.

    Bwahahahahaha!

    I don’t know, it tickles my fancy to be dishing out dating advice. XD

    What do you experienced people think about my advice, though?

    Liked by 3 people

  61. Spawny Get says:

    I think that this “Avoid all women who can’t laugh at themselves” is gold.

    I remember my wife quanging and us both dissolving into laughter…so I’d say laughter was a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. jf13 says:

    re: repertoire of quanging etc

    I remember when I was young that all the old men had a limited repertoire of jokes and funny stories. I used to think it was because of their failing memory, more than anything like the supposed incompatibility of old dogs and new tricks. I have to say, though, now being old and (I hope believably) still unlimited in my repertoire, that the oldies are still the goodies.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. jf13 says:

    @Spawny, re; “I think maybe my information was out of date.”

    Not exactly. The problem is that usually the correct raw data were misanalyzed by counting the time of a marriage from the wedding vows rather than from when the couple moved in together.

    I suppose you know that in the US now over 80% of married women cohabitated with some man before marriage, and over 70% of married young women cohabited with their present husband for *over* two years prior to marriage.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-more-women-choosing-cohabitation-before-marriage/

    The vast majority of young women marry their man *after* their honeymoon period is over, or petering out.

    Like

  64. Spawny Get says:

    That’s maybe what happened to me…
    I wasn’t the one who proposed, shoulda said whoa.

    Like

  65. jf13 says:

    If we did a risk/benefit endpoint analysis, the only possible benefit to cohabitation for a man is if he walks away after two years.

    Like

  66. Liz says:

    Cill: “Avoid all women who can’t laugh at themselves.”

    ++1 Or humorless in general.

    Liked by 2 people

  67. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Deti at 4:34pm,
    I believe you and that this is what most men have to contend with. It didn’t used to be this way and how hard cah it be to have sex with your husband?
    NAWALT applies.
    I’d like to see that comment put right in women’s faces and then ask them, if they were a man, would they buy into this deal?
    There is another thing. Once sex is made conditional, or transactional, it’s not marriage.

    Liked by 2 people

  68. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Cill,
    I think that is good advice. It indicates a healthy and secure ego.

    Liked by 3 people

  69. SFC Ton says:

    Dating advice?
    Spend as close to 0 dollars on her as possible
    Always date more then one girl at a time
    No actuall date date until you’ve been banging her for a year
    Keep her low down on your priority list, move her up to the #5 slot after a year.
    If you lose visual contact for any length of time…. say like 5 mins or so, some other dude has already parked his mule in her barn. Never kiss them on the lips. Either set
    Always put yourself 1st. Always.

    Like

  70. SFC Ton says:

    Oh and.remember it is her job to add value to your life. When she no longer does or takes more then she gives, get a new one

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: