Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: An article tells women what to ''consider'' before getting divorced

  1. #51
    The magic of manly protection amounts to only allowing people into your circle who bring sufficient or equal value.

    Therein lies the crux.

    If you have a 1950's beta provider mentality, you're unlikely to perceive "value" in anything other than a federally guaranteed lifetime marriage.

    Whereas society has moved on to a more granulated/prorated system of partial payment for partial wifery or temporary marriage.

    At this point we're not complaining about the service, we're just haggling over the price.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Deidre View Post
    IMO, don't think anyone in a relationship should have "power" over the other, it should be a mutual type of partnership with the guy leading. Leadership isn't the same as exerting power over someone else.
    Leadership is leverage.

    Without leverage you're not a leader, you're a guidance counselor.

    It's sort of like being good at business.

    In business you have contracts that "force" the other side to perform.

    In other words the whole basis of that relationship is having leverage.

    They have leverage to your money and you have leverage to their performance.

    And that way you can "lead" the interaction to a successful result.

    Now imagine if you didn't bother to get their signature on the contract.

    You can't force them to do shit, they show up when they want, fuck up the project.

    You're no longer capable of leadership.

    Now you're just a passenger on the bus like everybody else.

    I think women who balk at "control" are just trying to hedge their bets.

    They want the service of being led.

    But they don't want to pay the fee of giving up leverage (of signing the contract which can force them to perform)

    And that's pretty much just a lack of trust, having had bad experiences with other "leaders."

    I think Mifune called it "topping from the bottom."

    Basically she says she's submissive but she's just a backseat driver.

    So the first step of leadership is saying, "Ok, sign the fucking contract."

    In other words, seeking leverage.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Deidre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4,902
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by dubs View Post
    Leadership is leverage.

    Without leverage you're not a leader, you're a guidance counselor.

    It's sort of like being good at business.

    In business you have contracts that "force" the other side to perform.

    In other words the whole basis of that relationship is having leverage.

    They have leverage to your money and you have leverage to their performance.

    And that way you can "lead" the interaction to a successful result.

    Now imagine if you didn't bother to get their signature on the contract.

    You can't force them to do shit, they show up when they want, fuck up the project.

    You're no longer capable of leadership.

    Now you're just a passenger on the bus like everybody else.

    I think women who balk at "control" are just trying to hedge their bets.

    They want the service of being led.

    But they don't want to pay the fee of giving up leverage (of signing the contract which can force them to perform)

    And that's pretty much just a lack of trust, having had bad experiences with other "leaders."

    I think Mifune called it "topping from the bottom."

    Basically she says she's submissive but she's just a backseat driver.

    So the first step of leadership is saying, "Ok, sign the fucking contract."

    In other words, seeking leverage.
    You mentioned that you are divorced. Did you have leverage during your marriage, in your opinion?

    My father leads in my parents' relationship but he believes marriage is "becoming one flesh," so that's how they have worked it. What's "his" is theirs. And vice versa.
    Last edited by Deidre; 01-11-2017 at 06:12 PM.

  4. #54
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,665
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    ok well im speaking on legal risk to lose my belongings kids or livelyhood.

    zero.

    Palimony
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

    Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  5. #55
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,665
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    pauls latest seems timely for the mgtow or not discussion

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaQ-UIQNE6E

    That was the same setup and theme as one of the Honey Badger Radio episodes recently. But Paul goes on to make good points.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  6. #56
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,665
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by dubs View Post
    The magic of manly protection amounts to only allowing people into your circle who bring sufficient or equal value.

    Therein lies the crux.

    If you have a 1950's beta provider mentality, you're unlikely to perceive "value" in anything other than a federally guaranteed lifetime marriage.

    Whereas society has moved on to a more granulated/prorated system of partial payment for partial wifery or temporary marriage.

    At this point we're not complaining about the service, we're just haggling over the price.

    The same thing happens in business these days too. Gone are the days when a man signs up for a lifetime of service to his employer in return for a gold watch and a pension. And just like women, corporations still want you to be absolutely loyal to them without their need or obligation to be loyal back in return.

    I suppose it's no wonder that corporations value HATEFUL FEMINISM in the way that they do.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  7. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    49
    Rep Power
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Palimony
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

    Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married.
    I got super nervous until I saw my state was not on the list of states that allow this.
    Then again, I suppose all it takes is one precedent.

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Palimony
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony

    Palimony is the division of financial assets and real property on the termination of a personal live-in relationship wherein the parties are not legally married.
    you misunderstand me.

    i have no threat because of the character of the woman i am with.

    and i have no threat because by the time we are gone. that money will never come back to western culture.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.
    It's always bothered me how much glee people take in the utter destruction of another being.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,973
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by dubs View Post
    Leadership is leverage.

    Without leverage you're not a leader, you're a guidance counselor.

    It's sort of like being good at business.

    In business you have contracts that "force" the other side to perform.

    In other words the whole basis of that relationship is having leverage.

    They have leverage to your money and you have leverage to their performance.

    And that way you can "lead" the interaction to a successful result.

    Now imagine if you didn't bother to get their signature on the contract.

    You can't force them to do shit, they show up when they want, fuck up the project.

    You're no longer capable of leadership.

    Now you're just a passenger on the bus like everybody else.

    I think women who balk at "control" are just trying to hedge their bets.

    They want the service of being led.

    But they don't want to pay the fee of giving up leverage (of signing the contract which can force them to perform)

    And that's pretty much just a lack of trust, having had bad experiences with other "leaders."

    I think Mifune called it "topping from the bottom."

    Basically she says she's submissive but she's just a backseat driver.

    So the first step of leadership is saying, "Ok, sign the fucking contract."

    In other words, seeking leverage.
    I tried to formulate something like this before; concerning the Apex fallacy, IIRC.
    Complaining that men hold the "positions of power" is like complaining that your limo driver gets to take the limo through the curves as he is driving you.
    Or like compaining that the janitor has all the keys to all the doors, and gets to climb to the top, usually of a ladder and to change the lightbulbs.

    In ideal times, which perhaps we had earlier, or not, man and woman gave up some of their selfhood in order to subsume themselves up into a higher "we-hood".
    That the contributions were uneven - and perhaps considered to be by both parties - was not a concern as long as the giving was sincere, i.e. unreserved.

    But even such a we-hood is a contract, and one always wants to enter into contracts having secured the best possible terms.
    As people become more self-centered, the trend is to try to make the contract as one-sided as possible.
    Who gets the upper hand, is a matter of power.
    Men used to have a bartering position in bringing in outside goods; women bartered with inside goods, including sex.
    Then women got the pill, and got outside goods from their own jobs, and men lost their bargaining position and their leverage, their power.
    So now the contract is one sided, favouring women, who now have to sacrifice nothing, not even sex.
    There is nothing a women can do or fail to do that can be brought against her as a serious charge.
    IOW, AFAICS, they no longer accept that they have to pay a fee at all. I think that that is a new development, starting around 1970 and being the norm today.

    M

  10. #60
    [QUOTE=dubs;199647]The magic of manly protection amounts to only allowing people into your circle who bring sufficient or equal value.


    yes its a hedge against the risk of the one sided power imbalance. of course a hedge doesnot justify making an all in high risk investment.......perhaps a 2% portfolio investment instead of 1%.......and that's only if you rate the benefits of a relationship equal to a ten bagger return.

    but sure if I was dying for a live in relationship.........it would only be with a lady who has both assets and income north of my own( 20% higher to cover court bias), and no kids, as a minimum.

    last time I dated was mid forties, and the ladies seemed very interested in what I could bring to the table, as they had guys half there age interested in them.......so how about that imbalance. you can minimize risk but there is still going to be cost.

    like I gotta say having a truly loving blah blah relationship really doesn't seem worth it.......in Thailand at least the money puts ya in the driver seat, instead of just in the running as a hitchhiker
    Last edited by menrppl2; 01-11-2017 at 09:38 PM.
    A man can gain no more respect than by, laying down his life for a woman. And a woman, no more than by, beating down a man. For a man to ask, what is fair and good and true and just, is to offend.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •