|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 09:42 PM May 29th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I really must congratulate feminists. Provided this legal(?) ruling really accomplishes what the article says, feminism has destroyed western (and maybe more) civilization.
The legal profession advises wealthy (or potentially wealthy) men not to get married????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:39 PM May 29th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
If a Man gets married he is fairly safe unless he has Children with the Woman. Whenever Children are involved the stakes immediately increase, and usually the Man gets the "shaft". Wage slavery anyone? We have to keep those state and federal employees living above the average American Family now don't we, not to mention the wealth of the attornies that specialize in Family "law".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:50 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a comment a long time ago talking about the safe way to marry or cohabitate with women in the age of "cashing out" of marriages, "mommy support", "shout at your spouse and lose your house" and "911 is a girl's best friend", but it was back when anonymous comments were still allowed and I can't find it now.
You're absolutely right, Davidadelong. If you must marry for whatever reason, get a pre-nup, never buy a "matrimonial home" (you'll lose it if you ever divorce, even if you inherited it or paid for it yourself before meeting your soon-to-be-ex), and have a vasectomy. It's the only way to avoid gang-rape in the courtroom, or a long stay in debtor's prisons and indebted servitude. I can't imagine that feminists aren't trying to arrange it so a man can't have a vasectomy without his wife's approval (it's our only way to truly protect ourselves), so I'd have it before the wedding if I were you...
One note about pre-nups: in Canada and other countries, these are frequently ruled invalid, even if the woman has independent legal advice before signing. Just like criminal courts, family courts hold women to the standards of responsibility most often associated with a mildly disabled child, while granting them far more rights and privileges than any adult man. Stay safe: don't marry, and don't have children or donate sperm to anyone. Given that a woman can take a used condom out of the trash and use the contents (from sex you had with another woman) to impregnate herself, then sue you for child support AND WIN, please allow me emphasize the importance of a pre-nuptual vasectomy, at least until a 100% effective, tamper-proof contraceptive is available to men. Why tamper-proof? Believe me, even if the "male pill" becomes a reality, there are plenty of women who would happily swap your "pills" with aspirin to get pregnant and hold you up for 25+ years of free living.
When it comes to marriage, here's some simple advice:
Marrying a woman has a 50% chance of costing you your home, your children, your career, your freedom and sometimes your life. Jerking off is free, you don't have to pay your hand support for life after it steals your kids and your house, and it won't falsely accuse you of rape or domestic violence to make a profit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 07:27 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen a few comments on here about how a woman can take sperm off of a surface and impregnate herself with it. That is medically impossible; once sperm touches any outside air, all of the sperm cells die virtually instantly. Any storage of sperm cells requires a "closed" system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 10:30 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Any storage of sperm cells requires a "closed" system.
Like, say, a condom that's been knotted and discarded after use?
Perhaps you could tell me then why a semen sample taken from a man has viable sperm in it for some time after the sample is collected? Are these men giving samples under an inert atmosphere? How exactly does the donation of sperm work? Are they jerking off in a room full of argon?
Or maybe you could explain to me how a woman giving a man a blowjob was able to collect the fluid containing live sperm and later impregnate herself with it. And then sue the man she blew for child support, when he clearly never consented to vaginal intercourse or paternity? And WIN? He lost the suit for distress, by the way, but still has to pay this conniving bitch child support for a a child he never agreed to father, even accidentally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 01:52 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
When I made my reply earlier, I was not sure of the exact conditions that sperm could live in. The following link provides an answer to the question:
http://www.sexualhealth.com/question.php?Action=re ad&question_id=2791&channel=1&topic=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 01:57 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
In my post above, I tried to change it when I previewed but I could not seem to get that space out of the URL that is splitting the "read" in it. If you want to see that link, copy and paste the URL into your browser and delete the space that I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:50 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The space issue with URLs seems to happen alot around here, so I usually put my links in using an HTML tag. Pardon my earlier sarcasm.
I checked your link Kelly716, and a quick search on my end didn't cough up any additional, usable facts (I'm too lazy to hit MedLine today). Still, based on the 72 hours (under lab conditions) that the link claims, I'm sure you see why it seems logical to presume that under some circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable to fear that a woman could use sperm to impregnate herself shortly after a sexual encounter, even when the man never participated in vaginal intercourse, or consented to her using his sperm for that reason.
Still, that's not the part that worries most men - it's the fact that we can be railroaded into decades of child/mother support (and the attendant threats of debtor's prison, loss of basic civil rights, etc.), without voluntarily participating in any behavior which could yield children, even when we don't consent or when a woman "steals" sperm to get pregnant. Women who commit statutory rape against minors have collected child support from their victims, so even if the sperm are the obtained through crime, the woman gets decades of support from her victim for her "choices". I've got a huge problem with any law, government, court or person who feels this is a good idea.
Until the law provides the same level of choice and protection to men re paternity which women are entitled to re maternity, this will remain a very real threat to our well-being, and a perfectly credible reason to elect permanent sterilization early in one's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kelly716 on 04:03 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I found another respose on that same site that is related to this issue. The link below (be prepared for it to not work unless you copy and paste it, like with the other one) describes the survivability of sperm when it touches a surface away from the body (such as the ground).
http://www.sexualhealth.com/question.php?Action=re ad&question_id=2883&channel=1&topic=20
Sorry about all my posts on this issue; I was just trying to get the facts straight about the issue of whether sperm in an outside environment can still be viable or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 04:59 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the most shocking component in the new Brit law was a radically revised definition of "fair compensation" for calibrating a stay-at-home wife's "contributions" to her workaholic husband's fortune.
It was not at all certain from the article that the soon-to-be-ex- needs to be a mother in order to cash in on this new broader legal concept, because merely "keeping up the home" might qualify her for lifetime extortion.
That was the other shocker, that a woman can now be awarded alimony (maintenance) "for as long as she needs it."
Needs it for WHAT? A $4,000 per month shoe shopping fetish? Apartment rent for a boy-toy she befriended prior to the divorce? Endless elective cosmetic surgery to make the aging gold-digger's assets less pathetically saggy?
"Many welcomed the ruling as a ground-breaking victory for wives that recognised their contribution as equal partners in a marriage and a new definition of 'fairness'. " ...
"Until now the courts have never defined fairness. Baroness Hale has now said there should be three elements: needs, contribution and compensation." ...
"The judgment recognises HER sacrifice."
As near as I can tell, this drift in divorce law towards even more imbalanced favoritism towards women will fuel a men's Marriage Strike unlike anything we've yet seen.
Ironically, this latest assault against the heterosexual family comes at precisely the time that ever more educated females are proclaiming that, after knocking off the obligatory master's degree, all they want is to stay home and make babies with a high-earning hubby.
Feminism .... Crazy is as crazy does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bull on 12:30 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the day when women actually cooked, sewed, and cleaned the floor on their hands-and-knees, the feminists might have an argument about wives being taken for granted. However, in this day and age of deposable diapers, canned formula, and microwave ovens, what the hell are they being compensated for!? Many contemporary wives spend a great deal of time complaining as they sit on their butts, watch soaps, and shove junk food in their pie-holes. If they're so over-worked, why are most of them overweight!? They complain about doing most of the laundry when most of the laundry is theirs. They complain when there’s no money after having dwindled their husband’s pay-check down to nothing buying self-indulgent crap. And then, if the marriage goes south, they want to be compensated into the future!? Give me a break! If anything, the guy should demand repayment for putting her up during the years of the marriage. Let’s give them a break; we’ll charge Budget Inn’s daily rate instead of the Ritz’s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by masculanium
(kgl_m@DELyahoo.com)
on 03:39 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Its amazing, the gall of the women and their lawyers just sitting with their palms up, hoping for a big cash prize. Oh wait, these days its more like enlisting the help of the local bully to help shake down the lunch money of the rich kid.
How can judges decide that a woman is entitled to half the man's income long after the marriage is over and done with? Who in his right mind says this kind of sh*t? "Julia McFarlane, 46, was entitled to £250,000 a year from her husband Kenneth, 46, a tax specialist, for as long as she needs it."
The bigger injustice is that societal pressure doesn't only work on girls - men are pushed very hard to marry and "settle down", and most men won't even be aware of the risk of getting their balls handed to their wife on a plate. Everyone goes into marriage thinking, oh this will never happen to me. Wake up, because the statistics aren't coming out of nowhere! The divorce rate is not a fantasy!
I hope we can stop insane laws and rulings like these before they reach our shores. They're only a short while away - it doesn't matter whether the dems or the republicans are in power, they would pass this sort of thing in a heartbeat to appeal to the NOW and other special interest groups.
Here's to hoping that this is overturned somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:20 PM May 30th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"Julia McFarlane, 46, was entitled to £250,000 a year from her husband Kenneth, 46, a tax specialist, for as long as she needs it."
Given that all heterosexual interaction has been reduced to a financial transaction, that women are so eager to put a price tag on their sexual services (for such a brief period of time), and that the sex trade is now "empowering" for women according to the average university's women's studies department, I feel it's only fair to make some comparisons, using the "women's movement"'s own ideas and treating heterosexual sex as a financial transaction as they suggest. After all, having sex with a hooker and allowing yourself to be exploited for money are both "empowering" for women, marriage is "oppression" and consensual sex is "rape", so we're doing them a favor!
Here goes. Assume that it's $2500 a night for a decent hooker in an area where it's legal and the women participate freely and voluntarily. On average, married people have sex every 1-2 weeks. Let's do a little math, assuming the man has 20 years left in his post-divorce work life before retirement, and that he was married for 10 years, so we're talking about a total period of 30 years. Having sex every 10 days (I'm being optimistic), for that 30 years at $2500 a lay, the bill comes to 1096 nights of great sex, with a total price tag of $2,740,000. I'm not going to correct for inflation, because the judges have said the woman can have part of the man's future income, which will also rise with inflation.
Let's double it to account for any medical costs, gratuities, travel, gifts, etc. that might come up as a result. $5,480,000. No strings, no paternity issues, no nagging, no domestic violence against you, AND you get to "empower" the women involved. Better sex on a continuous basis. You pay, you get laid, and in addition to making the woman who's having sex with you rich, you're "empowering" her - it's a feel-good affair all around!
Cost to get laid (per occasion): $5000
Now let's compare.
Hmm. Assuming the man lives another 20 years, he will pay $12,500,000 to a woman he had sex with for maybe 10 years, again having sex every ten days during the relationship (my optimism knows no limits)! Over the 30 year period which included the period where he was married and having sex, he pays out (assuming she spent at least an amount equal to the alimony during the 10 year marriage) about $18,500,000 for 365 nights which included sex. Paternity fraud, false accusations, the 911 brigade, debtor's prison: all of these things are risks in his situation, as is a radically increased risk of suicide. With women now 40% likely to "cheat", the risk of contracting an STD is somewhat higher than with a prostitute who works legally and is careful to have regular medical checkups. Given the size of the divorce award, and the perverse fact that men are almost always expected to pay the costs of the women suing them, let's round it up to $20,000,000 to include legal fees for both sides, weddings, dowries (sorry, "engagement rings") and so forth.
Cost to get laid (per occasion): $54,795
I've had some spectacular sex in my life, but none for which I'd be willing to pay $54,795.
In case you're wondering, according to these calculations, this very generous man could have legally had sex with (and "empowered") a very expensive prostitute with no strings attached every single day for the entire 30 years, and would still have saved millions.
I've got a message for Catherine McKinnon: heterosexual sex most certainly IS always rape. But you've got the genders backwards, bitch. It's the men that are getting raped.
The British courts have just encoded into law the idea that a few minutes of sex should translate into a lifetime of support for the poor "victim", even though she consents. Of course, since women are legally children, they can't be held responsible for their actions, even the contracts they sign (such as pre-nups) after obtaining competent, independent legal advice. Goodness knows that according to the women's movement, they're certainly not competent to give "consent" to heterosexual sex. I find it funny that feminists claim that all men are chauvinist pigs, yet they're busy ensuring that women are viewed as incompetent children under the law.
I have no doubt that Catherine's very pleased. But she'd be happy to know that I FULLY support the legalization of prostitution. The math doesn't lie, and I get to "empower" women at the same time! Now that's what I'd call a "win-win" situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 09:35 PM May 31st, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent genger-exchange-theory math.
But you neglected to account for the true existential price of the transaction.
He lost his soul.
Her balance = 100% profit. (Because she invested 0% if you lookj closely at the charade...)
His balance = how much will it cost, beyond 100%, to buy my soul back?
Well, dude.
That would always be 1% more than you can afford.
1%!
It's a bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:34 AM June 1st, 2006 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bitch!
So's his wife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:56 AM May 30th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The British legal system lost an opportunity to really reform the mess called family law in Britain and other Western nations.
They could have said that it is not the business of government to regulate marriages. Nor is it the business of government to say what goes on in the bedroom and with whom. Also, the responsibility of level of economic comfort the children will live on is the responsibility of the parents not governmental bureaucracy. If the wifey makes a bad decision in choosing her mate then it is her responsibility. The government has no business using its powers to negate her bad choices in life! This is what they should have done rather than make total asses of themselves.
P.S.There was some discussion a couple of days back about whether or not the British courts recognize prenuptials, now we know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess after reading this, you won't see me walking down the alter any time soon! Well, maybe the UK is more interested in granting money to a rich little bitch than keeping a mom, a dad, and their kids together! I can't wait for this Marriage Strike to happen!
Emmanuel Matteer Jr.
Emma.noelle.blay@hotmail.com
*****MASCULISM IS A BLACK MALE'S BEST FRIEND!!!!!*****
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Return of the King on 09:48 AM May 31st, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
'ALL couples were advised last night to sign In the most important judgment on divorce for more
than 20 years the law lords ruled that women who sacrifice careers to bring
up children and look after the home should be compensated and may claim a
share of their husband's future income.'"
ON THIS LOGIC ONE COULD ARGUE THAT HOUSE-MAIDS SHOULD BE PAID THE SAME AS INVESTMENT BANKERS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:32 AM May 31st, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminists are after equality of results or "outcome", NOT equality of opportunity. If women are free to vote, but a female candidate does not win every last election or contest, feminists will complain that discrimination is taking place and that women are all "oppressed", even though every woman has the same political rights as every man in our society. If women vote for a man, they are "complicit in their own oppression". If a woman sits on her ass all day but marries a hard-working man who slaves to rise to the top of his field, feminism dictates that she deserves the same compensation he receives.
Therefore, you are correct, the "women's movement" does not consider effort, skill, risk, merit, ability or experience when demanding equal pay or other "affirmative" measures. They are delusional enough to believe that housewives deserve to be paid the same as CEOs, and both the governments and the courts seem to agree with them.
Penis envy's a terrible thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 11:50 AM May 31st, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Further to my last comment, here's an excellent analysis of the shift from the noble, egalitarian Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Hubert Humphrey (a Democratic Senator sponsoring the bill) claimed he would "eat" if it led to equality of results, to today's situation, where equality of outcomes is the real goal and racism, sexism and other discrimination is freely practiced, all in the current form of "equality".
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "Story