Yabby

"Yabby, there are actually huge benefits to living on one’s own terms. In one thing Fractelle/Examinator/Romany/CJ Morgan/Bronwyn is right, there are many nice men out there, but also a few scheming ones, who only show their true colours after the ring is on that finger.

We only need to read this thread to see that some men have no qualms about trying to turn their wives into a poodle and will use sex as a weapon to achieve it. If she tried to leave, she might well be cleaned out in the courts, so many women would feel trapped. What a shame that some of you boys can’t be honest about your intentions, before you take those marriage vows, for I wonder if those same women would have agreed so readily."

If OLO's posting system was a little more sophisticated the above would appear far more effective but I am sure you have sufficient intelligence to get my point.

Fractelle:"If she tried to leave, she might well be cleaned out in the courts,"

Nope. At worst, with no children, she'd get 50% of the family assets, regardless of her contribution to them. As feminists are always complaining that men make all the money, that means he's the one to get cleaned out.

If there are children, the odds of his losing everything in a divorce escalate dramatically.

reversing the gender of statements is only effective if the statement is true after the reversal. It is a useful tool to test the inherent sexism in a statement and I'm afraid that yours fails the test.

As yabby and i have pointed out, many men who have been married choose never to do so again after their first marriage ends. This suggests that marriage as it is practised today is not an institution that serves the needs (or at the least, the expectations) of men well. As we are constantly told that women are also unhappy in marriage the same would appear to be true of their needs or expectations.

The question then becomes whether it is the institution or the expectations that need to change to make people happier in a marital relationship. Simply labelling men who don't subscribe to the feminist dogma as "dinosaurs" or similar is begging the question.

My own feeling is that the feminist propaganda of the past few decades has raised the expectations of women to a point at which most men are simply unable to fulfil them, while lowering the expectations of men to the point that they see the whole thing as a waste of effort, especially when things are not going as well as they might.

I'm generalising, since there are obviously some men who are suited by the Brave New World run by Female Chauvinist Pigs, but they are, I suspect, in the minority.

Fractelle, I also have sufficient intelligence to show why your
post is wrong. For you and some others conveniantly just try
to brush off biology as so passed it, in the name of your latest
fad or belief. Sorry kiddo, biology is reality and you ignore it
at your peril, when you try to brush it away.

If women marry men with whom they don't have great communication,
why don't they sort these issues out before they get married?

Its women changing and losing their libido, not men. He probably
married you because he fancied you, not because you gave him the
cold shoulder.

Another little point of biology. When it comes to fight or flight
response, women might flee, not so for plenty of men. Trying to
blackmail them into becoming your poodle will just created anger,
resentment and he'll tell his mates at the pub that you are frigid.
I doubt if it will create the happy marriage that you seek.

The figures kind of bear me out. About half of marriages end in
divorce, of the half that are left, at a rough guess 50% are
working great, the other half stay together for reasons of money,
kids, habit, etc. That makes your chances of a great marriage
around 1 in 4, if that.

Clearly the feminist solution hasn't worked that well in keeping
marriages together and working. At least Bettina seems to
understand basic biology and that you are more likely to get
co operation from a male by being nice to him, then trying to
blackmail him.

As to the courts, we all know that women usually get the kids
and along with the kids go most of the assets.

There is a species of spider where the male presents the female with a package wrapped in his web containing a juicy morsel such as a fly. While she unwraps the package he has his will of her and flees. Sometimes the package is empty.

Humans are different. Either sex can sell an empty package

Antiseptic

I thought Romany's apology was a little too profuse and I now suspect she'll be thinking much the same thing. She may have muddled her examples, but she had the right person alright.

Interesting you should talk of 'female chauvanist pigs'. If there's ever a poster here who consistently exhibits chauvanism, it's your good self.

"Nope. At worst, with no children, she'd get 50% of the family assets, regardless of her contribution to them. As feminists are always complaining that men make all the money, that means he's the one to get cleaned out."

As you well know, this statement completely negates the value of unpaid work and child rearing, which in many relationships is deliberately shouldered by the female to allow the male the time and the freedom to work more and earn more. The only fair way to divide assets that have been built up in an equal time partnership is to at least start at the halfway mark. Unless of course you believe as you do that the male contribution is more valuable than his female partner's.

"IRL, I can't imagine you or SJF or the geriatric CJ engaging me, a solidly-built, sometimes gruff man of 45, in the ways you do here."

What makes you so certain you intimidate women, or men for that matter? Did it ever occur to you there could be another reason many choose to keep their distance?

Your appearance, whatever it was, certainly wouldn't prevent me in real life from pointing out the flaws in your argument, if you started mouthing off about women the way you do here at times. I can't imagine Fractelle or Romany, or any of the other women or men who've stood up to your online bullying and ignorance, suddenly being too intimidated to speak up in real life conversation purely because you happen to be a big man.

Whether or not they'd want to of course is another thing altogether.

The fact that you even mention this possibilty, says a lot more about you than it does anyone else.

Yabby

"...understand basic biology and that you are more likely to get
co operation from a female by being nice to her, then trying to
blackmail her."

Antiseptic

I have no idea what you wrote in your last post because in the one before that you stated that you "In this milieu I see no need for the lubricating courtesies to be extended and I sometimes deliberately phrase things so as to provoke a response or to ridicule, or even, sometimes, to shut down a conversation ..."

So why should I waste my valuable time with you?

Davidf

"Humans are different [from spiders at least have reservations about penguins]. Either sex can sell an empty package"

Very true. Trying to explain that both men and women are responsible for their behaviour to Yabby and A-septic is like trying to explain flowers to a couple of lumps of concrete.

Final Post here:

Mrs Pierno

I am sorry that your husband betrayed you, however I do not blame prostitution. There was something wrong in your relationship. Very few people have hassle free relationships and if they claim they do they are probably lying - it takes a lot of work and open communication. I guess you can see for yourself that with some people no amount of communication is going to make a shred of difference - in that case, cut your losses and get the freak out.

Bye for now.