As you’ve specified, one can only hope these sociopathic subtypes eventually encounter a “dark horse” as to break or stifle the positively reinforced cycle of overt manipulation, egocentrism and grandiosity.
Exactly, that and those who tend to cause such trouble lack insight/disregard the potential for future consequence. Starting trouble as to enact revenge can be akin to losing before you’ve set your foot on the gas. Some people are unhinged, some people won’t hesitate to seriously hurt others, disregarding potential legal consequence. Then you have people like me who ‘wouldn’t hurt a fly’, not only for fear of consequence but because I think it’s the wrong thing to do.
It is of my belief these individuals (the former) are the type of people of whom are actually “dangers to society”, the type of people prisons are designed for; ticking timebombs waiting to go off.
This is ridiculous. I don’t want to have sex with men but I do mind if homosexuality is against the law. I don’t want to use steroids but I do mind that someone who does could go to prison. I’m not black but I do mind that they were legally enslaved.
Life is complex and not black and white. I won’t judge the personal dynamics of someone else’s relationship. You really need to understand the religion you are choosing to follow because right now, you don’t. We are all sinners, including you. We are expected to fail. Jesus is all about forgiveness.
I think his point is that when the female breaches the contract the male receives little to no restitution according to the clauses and gets fucked up the ass instead during a divorce. If more men were aware of these clauses, they may choose not to get married and start a family. Then it would detrimental to society as a whole.
Disclaimer: I am not familiar with the marriage laws in the West and Australia. From what I hear, the male gets screwed a lot more than in Asia.
No shit. Know a guy who, in his youth, would go up to a random guy with a girl in a club, take out a stack of 10 dollar notes and do some sort of “counting motion” and say, “Hey, you, I want to fuck your girlfriend. How much?”. He’s pretty normal now after seeking psychiatric help.
True, but being a contact it is legally binding, not meaningless promises. This has been chipped away at over the years, to the point where there is absolutely no benefit to a man, if something does go wrong.
Cavet emptor, indeed.
In Australia, there is no 50% split, especially if kids are involved.A friends wife decided she no longer wanted to be married to him. No infidelity, or domestic abuse was involved. He’s always worked 2 jobs to provide for his family.
He now lives in a rented one bedroom unit, and also pays the usual mortgage repayments on his family house that the ex and the kids live in, yet he has no access to. Despite the end of the marriage he is still a slave to his ex.
Based on my limited experience with divorced men, they get “screwed” for one of two reasons: they were assholes who deserved it or, they played nice instead of telling their attorneys to pull no punches.
Well, like I said, I know very little about divorce laws in the West so I’m not judging here, just commenting on what I thought @Beyond_Beyond 's point was.
Divorce laws differ a lot in different countries. In China, for example, you can just have a mutual agreement with each other without engaging any lawyers and go to the relevant government department to register your divorce. That’s it lol.
They could sell the house, its in both their names, but if you take into account ongoing child support, he still has to put a roof over the kids heads, legally until they’re 18. She has primary custody, he has them every 2nd weekend I think.
I have no idea what they will do afterwards, and what the $ split will be. He’s not the type of guy that shirks responsibility, even if it goes against his financial interests.
Its a bit of a catch 22. He didn’t go for sole custody, the ex is still a good mother to his kids. He can’t afford the mortgage payments and also the rent for another family sized house for himself and the kids. A one bedroom apartment isn’t much good to raise 2 teenagers, so she gets residency of the house, with the kids, at least until they’re 18. After that I don’t think they really know.
As with the other self destructive motivations behind the sexual revolution, some of the policies were condoned by men and had them shooting themselves in the foot, as with no-fault divorce.
Men: “Awesome! After my wife’s figure sags and she becomes a drag, Imma get me a stunning nineteen-year-old piece of —, with all my wealth and silver-fox self. After all, men age like fine wine.”
If you’re rich/powerful enough you can easily do this. I don’t agree with it though. A marriage/relationship ought to exist under two distinct paradigms. A physical/emotional connection. Lust, desire, physical attraction is a pivotal aspect of any healthy romantic relationship. At the same time emotional intimacy is of utmost importancs for a healthy relationship to be maintained (provided you’re neuro-typical.)
To disregard a marriage due to the inherently normal construct of aging in effort to acquire a nineteen year old mate creeps me out, the gap in emotional maturity is beyond substantial. Under most circumstances I can’t foresee a healthy romantic/sexual relationship developing between a nineteen year old and a middle aged individual.
I don’t believe there was a self destructive motivation. The sexual revolution came about during the era of birth control, there is/was no other hidden agenda. Scientists weren’t synthesising synthetic progestogens in effort to create broken homes and failed marriages. What’s more, if we wish to trace the origin of promiscuity within secular society we can go back to the emergence of “flappers” during the 1920s.
It was self-destructive considering that, contrary to what was expected, there wasn’t more sex to go around (eg, a harem for Average Joe), but rather a redistribution of it, with a few men hogging women. Ive gone over this several times; it’s OK if you don’t believe it’s true.
Few men are rich and powerful. Hence they didn’t take this and women’s hypergamy into account from the start of the revolution. Again, it’s OK if you don’t Believe so.
And the revolution wasn’t simply made up of introduction of a pill. It was multi-faceted. A third time: it’s OK if you don’t believe so.
