Sunday, June 05, 2011

Is marriage without romance a good thing? has an interesting article based on a book by author Pamela Haag entitled Marriage Confidential: The Post-Romantic Age of Workhorse Wives, Royal Children, Undersexed Spouses, and Rebel Couples Who Are Rewriting the Rules (via Hot Air). The author argues that "the 21st century is all about the postromantic marriage — one based on obligation, partnership and, yes, convenience." The article asks the question "How Married are You?" and goes on to describe five different types of marriages, none of which sound all that great.

One is a kind of business partnership, the next is for purposes of parenting, another is a "workhorse wife" who does pays the bills and does all the chores (where can we all find one of those?), another just agrees with anything the spouse says to get along, and the final couple is "semi-married" and simply functions separately.

Does this ring true for any of you? Rather than "Rebels rewriting the rules" as the book title suggests, it sounds to me more like people who have given up on romance. Is that really a better option?



Blogger Chris Arsenault said...

A marriage is like a good fire - you both have to tend it and provide fuel to keep it hot.

7:33 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Chel said...

Eventually one or both will begin to feel that they have been taken advantage of which will breed contempt and resentment....I've got the t-shirt. Obligation is a marvelous thing but it will not truly sustain anything, except the feeling of being alone in a house full of people who believe you are happy. Romance matters, always has. And it does take two, doing it alone also leads to what I previously stated.

8:08 AM, June 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of those sound like a nightmare to me. I'd rather stay single. Sure there are elements of some of those in most marriages, but it all sounds rather cold.

The older I get, the more I think the most important thing is that you are deeply attracted to each other - I mean in a primal way that doesn't change over time the way everything else can. If you can find that with someone, you are lucky indeed.

9:01 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Ern said...

The concept of romance as a basis for marriage is rather a recent one, I think. The concept of romantic love itself goes back only to the twelfth century or so, and I'd guess that the vast majority of marriages prior to the twentieth century were contracted for reasons other than romance. If romance wasn't necessary for marriages two-hundred years ago, I don't see why it would be necessary now.

9:02 AM, June 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In answer to your question, it's not "romance" (whatever that means) but attraction. If by romance you mean simply enjoying each other's company, then the answer is no, marriage without romance in not a good thing, but canned romance (Valentine's day and things like that) is worse than useless. Good food, good wine, good sex. Everything else is details. ;)

9:05 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Unknown said...

All it would take for many is someone who doesn't want things constantly done *for* them.

9:17 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

Let's just pretend for a second that all those people who write books are actually doing it for money. Just go with me here.

Kay Hymowitz, Hannah Rosin, whoever. Stuff happens, objective metrics are reported (usually lies), polls are taken (most people are stupid), people are surveyed (questions are loaded). Opinions are harvested (you know what they say about opinions). What can we do with them? SPIN!

Someone says the temperature is rising: Anthropogenic Global Warming! Men aren't marrying? IMMATURITY! Most managers are women: FEMALE SUPREMACY!

Books are written to make money. Most book buyers are women, and women buy more books. Don't get me started on what kind of tripe they consume, because I'm hung over and I don't need the aggro. But if you want to make MONEY, you make sure your target market demographic is catered to. Make them feel good about themselves.

So now we are to believe that romance, which has been the central driving thematic in relationships for, oh, a bazillion years, is now irrelevant? Sure. We're dumb enough to buy that. And men will now change all the diapers and go shopping while SHE becomes the Amazonian Goddess of Awesomeness.


I used to respect the publishing industry. I now regard it as whoreish as Hollywood.

Nobody is changing. Not men. Not women. Not society. The objective metrics are the result of agenda-driven policy shifting and the concomitant funding via gov't. The schools are feminized. People believe what they read on the Internet.

Wake me up when the insanity stops. I'm taking 6 Advil and passing out until my brain stops hurting. They invented raspberry-flavored vodka and I am a slave to my weaknesses.

10:02 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger SGT Ted said...

If by "romance' they mean "spend money on MEEEEEEE. Pay attention to MEEEEE!" and more enabling of childish female narcissism, no thanks.

10:17 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

If you are worried about having a melancholy marriage, a mediocre marriage, failing at marriage or having to abide by the marriage contract I have a solution. Don't get married. It will take away the stress.

10:55 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Bob Sorensen said...

It's one thing to get married for a utilitarian arrangement, but it's quite another when people drift apart and the affection dies.

11:22 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Southern Man said...

I'd like to have a few words with the editor who put a five-paragraph story on five pages.

11:52 AM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

What Chel said, what Sgt. Ted said.

12:24 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Trust said...

What I think is wrong is when one or both parties pull out all the stops go get married. They put all their words, actions, incentives, everything, behind convincing their prospective spouse they love them, admire them, respect them, desire them, etc., etc., etc.... then when the wedding is past and the legal privileges are set, they quit feigning it. It's just cruel.

2:32 PM, June 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... and the legal privileges are set"


Maybe someone can clue me in, but what "legal privileges" do men have in marriage?

I'm fully aware of the legal privileges that women have upon divorce, but I can't think of a single one that men have.

Can anyone jog my memory here and come up with one?

5:32 PM, June 05, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men have responsibilities and women have rights.

5:38 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Married people legally get to pay less taxes if they file a joint tax return.

6:54 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Kim said...

Actually, the concept of "romantic" marriage is a relatively recent occurrence, anthropologically speaking. Most marriages in the past were ones of financial or dynastic convenience, arranged by parents or families.

I'm not at all sure that the move towards romantic marriage has been, on balance, any better for society than the old model.

7:16 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Roman said...

Romance, for me, is highly overrated. I consider myself 'happily divorced', and like the saying: 'It is better to have loved and lost, than loved and won.'

I heard Rush Limbaugh say about marriage: 'just find a woman you don't like and buy her a house.'

9:28 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger Philzer said...

"All of those sound like a nightmare to me. I'd rather stay single."

I agree with Thag completely. My wife and I have become MORE romantic as time has passed. We're coming up on 15 years of marriage, and have two great boys that we're both crazy about. During our first two years of marriage, we had to learn to talk to each other - both being rather shy people - but once we overcame that hurdle, it's been wonderful. My heart overflows with gratitude for my wife, whom I loved for several years before we even began dating. I wouldn't want it any other way, and don't need it any other way.

9:54 PM, June 05, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Married people legally get to pay less taxes if they file a joint tax return.

Bullshit. The risk that a man will lose 80% of his past, present, and future earnings simple for failing to make his wife 'happy all the time' vastly outweighs any perceived tax advantage.

JG has it right. Marriage is horrendously lopsided against men.

Read Wedded Abyss.

The only reason that the market has not adjusted to this reality yet is because traditional, pre-1960 marriage was preserved so strongly by past societies, that it still carries momentum today.

2:29 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

It is a more profitable decision for a young man to become a pick-up artist and work only part-time (thus staying in a lower tax bracket), than work hard and enter into the lopsided legal arrangement known as 'Marriage 2.0'.

Thankfully, more men are finally making this overdue realization, and living for themselves at last, rather than to prop up a woman in return for nothing.

2:31 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cham sez: "Married people legally get to pay less taxes if they file a joint tax return."


That might be one. But are there any CPA types here who can clarify this?

My understanding about the United States is that two relatively equal earners don't get that much of an advantage if they are married.

The (major) advantage comes when there is a full-time earner and a person who doesn't work or who doesn't work very much, in other words vastly disparate incomes. So I guess you get the deduction by having to pay for her.

In that sense, it's not much different than paying alimony - you can deduct that from your income on your tax declaration. But I don't know too many men who are fighting to pay alimony - so that they can get the deduction. The problem is that you have to PAY the alimony in the first place, just like you have to pay for a stay-at-home in the first place.

As a side note, it kind of bothers me that the government picks and chooses who gets breaks on their income tax and for what.

6:14 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any other privileges for men?

6:16 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

JG: I google "privileges married" and a website came up with this list, but there are more:

1.joint parenting;
2.joint adoption;
3.joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
4.status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
5.joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
6.dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
7.immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
8.inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
9.joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
10.inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
11.benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
12.spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
13.veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
14.joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
15.wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
16.bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
17.decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
18.crime victims' recovery benefits;
19.loss of consortium tort benefits;
20.domestic violence protection orders;
21.judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

7:26 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cham, quite a few can also be obtained with agreements, powers of attorney, "living wills" or other legal documents; others are basically a de facto benefit for the wife (since women "marry up") dressed up as a benefit for both parties.

Look at this one:

- dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support

You really think that's a privilege or benefit for MEN overall?

I would instead say that's the reason why men are not getting married today. I would suggest that it is a fairly weak "privilege" if it actively causes men to avoid marriage altogether.

Lots of them (getting parts of pension plans, social security, Medicare etc.) are only an advantage for the non-working spouse (and we know who that is likely to be).

Some are just made up:

- domestic violence protection orders

You can definitely get protection orders if you are just living with someone.

7:36 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It looks like the real privileges (excluding the leeching privileges mainly for women) are:

- being allowed to be in the country as a foreigner because of marriage

- the spouse can't be forced to testify against you in court

- wrongful death benefits / loss-of-consortium awards in tort cases (although that is artificial, since two people only living together may have the same bonds or closer bonds than married people)

7:44 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7:51 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So men do obtain a benefit from marriage under certain circumstances.

Men can obtain a benefit if:

- they are not otherwise allowed into the country

- they plan on either committing a crime jointly with a woman or blabbing about it to her later


- expect that she will be murdered by a wealthy criminal who is a deep pocket that can pay a large tort award

8:04 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Helen said...

Cham and JG,

As far as paying fewer taxes, not true if you are more equal earners. The taxes are higher for a married couple who both are higher earners. They would pay less if both were single. So there is a penalty for making more money. And there are many deductions and other tax advantages that are not available if you file as married, filing separately.

8:13 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As far as paying fewer taxes, not true if you are more equal earners."


That's my understanding as well, but there is a tax advantage with widely disparate incomes.

8:15 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Helen: We need to hear from an accountant who prepares taxes for a living on this. I've heard contradicting statements on tax filings.

8:17 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Helen said...


You are welcome to find an accountant but there is plenty of informaiton on the web. From Wikipedia:

"such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons."

8:24 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:40 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I'm going to cross out (but only in pencil!) the income tax thing from the list of privileges that men have in marriage - for the time being.

But I'm definitely keeping the benefit when you think your wife is going to be murdered by a rich criminal on the list (you may get money in a subsequent tort case).

8:42 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

I have been happily married for 11 years. We have a fun , happy home, 4 kids we love, companionship and laughs, and romance. I count my wife as a good gift from God.

Before, I was married for 17 years and it did not have as many joyous momemnts in those 17 years as my wife and I had in our first two. Choice is so critical in marriage. That and emotional maturity.

I cannot imagine my life without my wife. I would lose so much, I fear my life would just be drudgery without her.


9:44 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm just curious, TMink, did you ever present or try to present your 1st marriage (the "bad" one) to others as a happy marriage?

9:58 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Peregrine John said...

I'm with Chel, Thag and others who reject a loveless life out of hand, and who would happily bitch-slap anyone suggesting that a cold milktoast version of "love" counts as something to live on, for, or with.


10:52 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...


What does your happy relationship have to do with marriage? You could have been just as happy without being married. If not, what does that say about your actual relationship with the woman you call your wife that either or both of you would be less happy without a contract?

11:00 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

JG, I certainly did. I stayed in it for 17 years. It was very, very difficult for me to accept that it was not good, it was embarassing that I could not make it work, nobody in my family had ever had a divorce, and to be honest, I should have gotten out of their much, much sooner.

But, I have a wonderful daughter, now 16, who was frankly the product of my being tricked. We were trying to reconcile, well, more accurately, I was trying to reconcile again, and I was told that my then wife was on birth control when she was in fact not. And so our daughter was conceived.

Three years after that I was involved in a horrid custody case that become part of case law for father's rights in my state. My daughter has lived with me half time since the divorce.

Frankly, it was difficult for me to admit to myself that the marriage was a sham, much less to tell that to anyone else. So, I know from painful and expensive experience how bad a marriage and the aftermath can be. But, lessons learned. And God has since reichly blessed me with a wonderful, satisfying marriage and three more great kids. I am finally a happy family man.

But then, given your already established empathy, you likely already knew that. Any luck with that self lobotomy you were considering?


11:01 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Dark Eden said...

Rather than being some modern invention, I think this is how most marriages worked for the vast bulk of human history. I think its romance that is the relatively modern invention, like leisure time. Something that once was only the province of the wealthy / aristocracy.

11:06 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trey, that was very sweet. If only everyone could feel that way about a spouse.

11:13 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your first comment I mean, lol. Duurrrr....

11:14 AM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Any luck with that self lobotomy you were considering?"


I still have to pick up some vodka to sterilize the hanger. But it wasn't a lobotomy, I just want to become a psychopath to make money more quickly.

Good that you eventually got out of a bad marriage.


J. Bowen sez: "What does your happy relationship have to do with marriage? You could have been just as happy without being married."


I was going to write almost exactly the same thing. He's happy because he is around a person he can be happy with, NOT because of the marriage status.

11:17 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger knightblaster said...

As far as paying fewer taxes, not true if you are more equal earners. The taxes are higher for a married couple who both are higher earners. They would pay less if both were single. So there is a penalty for making more money. And there are many deductions and other tax advantages that are not available if you file as married, filing separately.

Exactly, Helen.

This is why the IRS recommends you run the calculation both ways (jointly and separately), but, even so, there is a significant tax penalty for filing under married status if both are high earners.

11:28 AM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Dunkelzahn4prez said...

Maybe the question should be simply "Is marriage a good thing?"

1:22 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Bob's Blog said...

Of course it matters. What a great topic. I am going to come back and read the comments, but I wanted to thank you for your knack of continually posting on subjects that interest me!

1:42 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Demonspawn said...


- the spouse can't be forced to testify against you in court

As a FYI, 5th Amendment protection for spousal communication is one of the few things that you cannot gain outside of marriage via other legal documents.

Both my wife and I have worked and likely will again work in security clearance fields. As such, this is a real benefit for the two of us (we can actually talk to each other about our jobs).


A marriage cannot make a relationship happy. It has no power to do so. A relationship can make a marriage happy... just hope that said relationship is with your spouse ;)

2:14 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

Romance (with a capital R) is an interpretive strategy through which we make sense of the world; romance (with a small r) is a love story, very few of which end well.

The problem is that most romance novels, which are written by and read by women, all follow a formula: girl meets boy, girl loses boy, girl wins boy back. Notice the emphasis on the girl--it's all about her. Also notice there is no man involved.

Compare that formula to the plot of the greatest Romance novel, Gone With the Wind: girl meets man, girl refuses to grow up, man leaves.

It's not about romance; it's about responsibility. Does the modern American girl admit, much less recognize, that she has any in a relationship?

Feminism ruined Romance. Presumptive paternity and no fault divorce render the marriage contract null and void from the very beginning. Only a complete fool or some lovesick idiot would enter into a fully binding legal contract with a modern American girl these days.

My grandparents were married for 65 years, until my granfather died. My parents were married for 45 years, until my father died. Because my grandmother and mother did not question their responsibility and honored their vows. One would be hard pressed to find a woman like that today.

Just about every guy I know is divorced, many multiple times. And they're all paying dearly for it. More than a few are paying child support for children they did not conceive.

People confuse Romance with courtship, but the salient point here is that this is a female problem. She wants it all to be about her; she wants it all and she wants it all the time. Unless or until the modern American girl realizes that it's not about her, this problem is not going away. Not under the terms and conditions of the marriage contract in this culture with this court system.

A marriage should be a union between co-equal partners, for the purpose of raising children, who are the physical embodiment of the union between husband and wife. It is a contractual agreement and financial arrangement for the mutual benefit of both parties involved, as well as that of the children. To the extent it is not is the extent to which it is a doomed endeavor, to the detriment of everyone involved, including society as a whole.

2:32 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

"He's happy because he is around a person he can be happy with, NOT because of the marriage status."

I could not agree more. Well said.

The judge I went before in my 5 figure custody fight was known to rarely find in favor of men and was also known to hate psychologists. I grew so depressed I took meds for 6 months to help. The thought of losing my daughter was so depressing, her mom was trying to move her out of state where it would be very difficult for me to follow due to my licensure and good practice where I live now.

I was called abusive in court with no proof offered, I was called a threat to sexually abuse my daughter with no proof offered, the mom took my daughter to a psychologist who told my daughter that I did not love her and had never loved her and was only fighting her mom because of the money. That psychologist had never met with me and believed every lie the mother spewed.

Miraculously, the judge found in my favor. Then the court of appeals did the same. I credit God. So do people who know the case and the judge involved.

JG, I owe you an appology. I thought you were being snarkey and so I put in the snipe about the lobotomy. That was wrong, I appologize. I honestly think you and I have the potential to develop a friendship, and I honestly ask you to forgive me for the times I have written condescending or manipulative things about you. I will do better.


2:42 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

Allow me to comment more on the legal status of marriage. JG and Jbowen made astute points in noting that the political act of marriage and the government involvement does nothing to make my marriage good. The political act of marriage puts me and my property and children at risk. It does nothing but put me at risk so far as I can see.

The only security I have is trust in my wife and God as far as marriage goes. That is part of the reason I consider my wife a good gift from God and say that sincerely.

Marriage does not protect me or my children at all. In fact, it offers my wife the ways and means to destroy me financially and take our precious children if she so chose. And that is scarry as hell.

Having been through hell because of those legal facts, I completely understand why a man would refuse to marry.

As a psychologist, I have seen how damaging divorce can be to children, men, and women. Mostly to men and children frankly, but I do know of a few cases in which women were shafted. It can be horrid, and some people in my profession are complicit in the horror.

The whole thing makes me sick when I think about it. So when I write to insert a differing perspective, it is with up close and even personal appreciation for the damage that is done to people through family court "justice."

Thanks for allowing me to blather on, the subject is close to my heart and I can go on about it.


2:52 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Joe said...

The last few years of my marriage was utilitarian. It doesn't work. Yes, it's a sample size of one, but talking to other people in the same situation and it didn't work for them either.

Forget romance, nobody knows what that means anyway. What makes a marriage work is a very strong like for each other and that their deepest needs are satisfied.

2:53 PM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:03 PM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And TMink, what you describe about your divorce is something that a LOT of men have gone through.

I would never touch divorce law, let alone represent women who are trying to screw the man for whatever, but I can imagine the scumbag lawyers saying: "Well, Mrs. Jones, if you can remember an incident of abuse ... I don't want to push you in that direction, of course, but ... it would be VERY helpful to your case to start off with a restraining order ... now try to remember back ...".

3:07 PM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And frankly, that's being charitable to that type of lawyer.

3:10 PM, June 06, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow ...what comments. A question is asked about romance in marriage and what we get is
1. I prefer being single
2. tax advantages or not
3. costs etc

Why not address the question and not bring your personal peeves into the discussion?

5:24 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

fred, mirror mirror. Why don't YOU answer the question? You know, since you are ragging on us for not answering the question. Seems a tad, well, hypocritical.

We await your answer.


5:55 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

Note how Cham won't admit that divorce laws are preposterously unfair to men.

Very few women admit this, because they know their free ride would end if more men 'took the red pill' so to speak.

6:07 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...


LOL! Yes, Cham does in fact think that if a man has to pay money to his ex-wife in alimony (even if HE did not want a divorce), that benefits a man.

Hence she lists that as a benefit a man receives (just like the right to go to jail for losing his job and falling behind in alimony payments).

Remember, she is a woman. Feelings matter, logic does not.

6:10 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Mom said...

After being married to my best friend for 35 years, I am convinced that is the secret.
The sex, the romance, the child, the grandchildren are all gravy.
I can truly say I have never been bored.
And can't imagine my life without him.
the secret is to be best friends.

9:15 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger mariner said...

While my own sentiment mirrors GawainsGhost, I'm always glad to see comments like Trey's. I'm glad some people are happy and are raising their children together.

I've seen older couples interviewed -- people who married in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Their marriages were often arranged by their parents, and they were still happy with each other. They said that love actually developed after marriage.

I think we lost a lot when we became so mobile that we stopped marrying people we knew as children and lost the benefit of our parents' counsel. (I realize it wasn't always a benefit for everyone.)

9:19 PM, June 06, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

why did i marry my wife?

because i wanted to be with this woman who i get along with through thick and thin, and sure she has the potential legally to ruin me financially, but i believe that she`s of sufficient character to resist that urge.

jg et al are bang on regarding the legal entity called "marriage" and cham shows immense niavete offering such "benefits" as an inducement to men on this forum.

i entered into my marriage entirely on trust, as my wife asked that i do.

my last marriage was one of pressure, deciet and open hostility toward anything i offered, and yes i have two wonderful sons from that experience, but some days she pushes the bounds...

my first marriage was romantic folly on my part. a pretty girl who turned into an angry young woman and put the focus on me...and why not, she and her sisters were abused by her father and uncles for years.

we do learn things in this life.

i say repeatedly that you have to become the person to be with the woman you want to be with.

that may sound confusing, but it will come into focus eventually.

9:15 AM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

I am delighted for any man or woman that marries successfully. I view happily married couples with an admiration that borders on hero worship.

But, given the legal realities, I am impelled to view any woman (who is not religious) who demands marriage to be a gold digger. There is nothing in marriage for her except financial reward at the behest of the state. If she wants to bring in a lawyer, a judge and a bevy of cops to see to her maintenance, then count me out.

Sorry. I'm a romantic. Commitment is what you get from me, not the gov't.

10:02 AM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Steve said...


I'm sure you are well aware that the divorce rates for the "religious" women are the same as for non-religious. I dn't think I would use that as a sole basis for marriage material. Everything on.

10:57 AM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the "real" reason men get married is that they feel pressure from society to "grow up" and take on responsibilities, they feel pressure from the "one-and-only" girl (otherwise she might have to drop him, OH NO!) and maybe some other silly reasons along those lines.

Once you make it to age 40 or so, the pressure from society just falls away. You also realize that the "one-and-only" wasn't, in fact her looks at the time distracted you from really seeing her personality.

As for the rest, I think the "she is also my best friend and we share a love that has never been seen" crowd is a bit naive and silly - or really intent on trying to impress others - but whatever. I have seen many of them get divorced over time, same with religious people.

If you are going to be a chivalrous male, then take your lumps and just pay her if you miscalculate.

11:16 AM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

@ESB: My codicil re religious people was based on my belief that religious people have a long-standing tendency to marry to avoid "living in sin."

I'm not religious, so I don't sin. I just aggravate people.

If a woman was religious, she would *normally* take up with a religious guy and marriage would be the objective. So I would not necessarily suspect a religious woman to be a gold digger (though I'm sure many are).

Rather oddly, I have an uncle who is religious and who is "living in sin" for 14 years with a religious woman...and it's purely because of the legalities of marriage. Both he and she are very open about that and they choose to overlook their religious stuff to accommodate their lifestyle. They're also very nice people, so I don't see how it's any of my bees wax.

11:16 AM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

and where jg and i part ways is when he feels that if a guy feels strongly for a woman it must be because of the best friend and/or we have a love that has never been seen rhetoric.

it might simply be that we want to be together and find ways to make it work.

12:47 PM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

"I'm not religious, so I don't sin. I just aggravate people."

Outstanding line! Great writing there pal.


3:00 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If you are hepped up about a girl in the first 2-3 years, it is infatuation. I would expect people over 40 to know what that is, but they sometimes don't.

"Love" (as I understand it) comes after 20 years or more, and it is kind of like my father trying to do the best for my mother - and doing things that can help her, but other people don't recognize - while she divorces him and treats him like shit.

If you've known the girl only a few years, you are infatuated with fucking her. I don't know how to put it more directly.

So go do whatever it is you do with your grandiose relationship, but don't try to smear it in my face. Please.

3:09 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely a side note:

Can any of the psychology types here come up with a categorization for a:

Narcissistic, subclinical psychopath?

It's obviously not in the DSM-IV (they only talk about antisocial types), but it pretty much walks around most major companies.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

3:13 PM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

yeah yeah, used to be, give it a year. now that we`ve past three you take a new position.

amusing though...unless i had to hear it every night at the dinner table.

5:27 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you are hepped up about a girl in the first 2-3 years, it is infatuation.

2-3 years? I thought the standard was 6 month to a year for the infatuation phase to wear off, sometimes a lot sooner than that.

5:30 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK ... based on pressure from Doctor Alistair and Thag Jones:

The infatuation phase is only 6 months. After that people treat each other with true love in any and all aspects.

5:56 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who makes it past 6 months in a relationship is definitely NOT an immature twit. Repeat NOT.

5:57 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG, very helpful commentary, thanks.

(Never claimed to be particularly mature).

6:01 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Alistair opines "it used to be, give it a year. now that we`ve past three you take a new position."


I seriously am not keeping track of your love to end all loves. Seriously.

6:03 PM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

yeah, you are.

7:06 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...another is a 'workhorse wife' who does pays the bills and does all the chores (where can we all find one of those?)"

The working poor.

7:24 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Incidentally, unless there is a large disparity in income between the parties, alimony doesn't come into play so much these days and is very much time limited. The dependent spouse is expected to get a job at some point, and it terminates with his/her remarriage or cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex who is not a family member within the prohibited degree of consanguinity.

That said, family law judges (majority men) have a great deal of discretion--spousal support, alimony, property distribution, custody and child support.

Still, the laws are much fairer than they used to be, and they're presumptively gender neutral. The problem for middle class men is they usually make more money, and they're usually the ones on the receiving end of the divorce. There's an advantage to filing first: you get to frame to issues.

7:34 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There's an advantage to filing first: you get to frame to issues."


What BS. It's not a patent infringement case, it's an issue of a no-fault breakdown in the marriage. Only so many ways to frame that.

And American men are paying 7 billion dollars a year in alimony ( - Document 477). But the kicker is the property settlement in a no-fault divorce. That's where men really fork it over under the fiction that each worked the same amount in the marriage. That's why Paul gave Heather 40 or 50 million or whatever it was and that's why Mr. Kluge gave Patricia (the ex exotic dancer) almost a billion dollars after she sat on her butt in the marriage.

9:54 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:55 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:56 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:23 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ JG

I haven't practiced law for several years and family law was always never my bag. But one of my girlfriends is a very successful divorce attorney (TV ads and all). We have lunch about once a month. She tells me her stories, tells me my career choice is tantamount to throwing my life away, then cuts me a check to assuage her guilt over her job. I'm managing her charity portfolio she tells me.

What I take away from our conversations is, I think, a more realistic view of divorce than you have, although you seem very invested in your point of view and perhaps it brings you a measure of comfort. As a client once told me, "The world is cold, and hate keeps you warm."

Not every divorce is no-fault. In my state you can sue for fault (adultery for example), and marital misconduct is a factor in determining alimony awards. Why do you think divorce is such big business for PIs?

Nor is it the case that men are always getting screwed. Just last month my friend was telling me about her client, a doctor, who is divorcing his wife of 20 plus years, the mother of his children who put him through medical school, to marry a pretty young nurse (the oldest story in the book). Except the pathetic woman is still in love with him and won't sign the papers. He's offered her a great deal of money and screams the most horrific abuse at her at settlement, but she wants counseling. Wants to work it out. So he's ordered my friend to find him fault grounds, as he doesn't want to wait the two years to be rid of her. Horrible. They have six children.

In any case, the examples you cite are likely from community property states, rather than equitable distribution or title jurisdiction states. But if these things distress you so much why don't you do something constructive? Run for legislative office or become a lawyer and run for a judgeship. Or if you're not cut out for that, raise funds for someone who rides the same hobby horse as you and is.

I should tell you though, the style of argumentation you currently employ is unlikely to be persuasive to anyone. Hysteria never is.

11:01 PM, June 07, 2011  
Blogger Unknown said...

JG - Sorry, but you're writing as if wherever you live governs all. Missouri, for instance, has no alimony. It's also a state where what you came in with, you go out with, divide the rest. It may be a fiction in some marriages, but my wife worked. Reality is a lot more variant than your view.

11:02 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In my state you can sue for fault (adultery for example) ..."


Can I guess the state? New York?

There is even a movement afoot to change divorce to no-fault there.

11:12 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You are like a terrier on someone's ankle. You are heavily invested (for whatever reason - probably because you are a housewife) in making divorce seem "not so bad" for men.

It is.

11:14 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:17 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:23 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:24 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Something further for Golddigger and her important divorce-lawyer friend with TV ads:

I've long been an advocate of splitting law schools up into a law school and a "law school lite".

Law schools would teach intellectual property, antitrust law, international law and that kind of thing.

Out back, in a trailer, you can have criminal law and family law.

And off in a different wing, you can have tort law combined with the drama and acting school of the university.

11:30 PM, June 07, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's called a "maintenance award", which is the same thing as alimony:

Maintenance order, findings required for--termination date, may be modified, when.

452.335. 1. In a proceeding for nonretroactive invalidity, dissolution of marriage or legal separation, or a proceeding for maintenance following dissolution of the marriage by a court which lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, the court may grant a maintenance order to either spouse, but only if it finds that the spouse seeking maintenance:

(1) Lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to him, to provide for his reasonable needs; and

(2) Is unable to support himself through appropriate employment or is the custodian of a child whose condition or circumstances make it appropriate that the custodian not be required to seek employment outside the home.

2. The maintenance order shall be in such amounts and for such periods of time as the court deems just, and after considering all relevant factors including:

(1) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance, including marital property apportioned to him, and his ability to meet his needs independently, including the extent to which a provision for support of a child living with the party includes a sum for that party as custodian;

(2) The time necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party seeking maintenance to find appropriate employment;

(3) The comparative earning capacity of each spouse;

(4) The standard of living established during the marriage;

(5) The obligations and assets, including the marital property apportioned to him and the separate property of each party;

(6) The duration of the marriage;

(7) The age, and the physical and emotional condition of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(8) The ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse seeking maintenance;

(9) The conduct of the parties during the marriage; and

(10) Any other relevant factors.

3. The maintenance order shall state if it is modifiable or nonmodifiable. The court may order maintenance which includes a termination date. Unless the maintenance order which includes a termination date is nonmodifiable, the court may order the maintenance decreased, increased, terminated, extended, or otherwise modified based upon a substantial and continuing change of circumstances which occurred prior to the termination date of the original order.

4:30 AM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think divorce is very "bad" for everybody, JG. Husband, wife, society and especially the children. No winners. And this notion that divorce is better for children than having unhappy parents is a self-serving lie generated by boomers to excuse their monstrous selfishness. It's overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence, not that that matters. The fall of the family and the decline of marriage, the institution you so despise, isn't doing anybody any favors. Not even men, as you incessantly, albeit unwittingly point out.

You want facts? Fine. First off, what is the largest demographic group living in poverty in America today? Single-parent households. 36.5% of them live in poverty. Compared to kids from married, two-parent families, and controlling for race and education, kids from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime; twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems; twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school; and a third more likely to drop out before completing high school.

Men either need to stop knocking up women (condoms anyone?), or man-up and marry them when they do. As if the financial costs to taxpayers weren't enough, the social costs and the personal price paid by these children is incalculable.

Then there are the children of divorce, who seem to suffer more, if such a thing is possible: They're increasingly the victims of abuse; they exhibit more behavioral, emotional and even physical problems that the children of married parents; they’re at greater risk for drug abuse; and have higher rates of suicide. They perform more poorly in reading, spelling, and math. They're also more likely to repeat a grade, have higher drop-out rates and lower rates of college graduation. Best of all, they tend to blame themselves for their parents splitting up.

Almost 50% of single parents with children that are going through a divorce fall into poverty afterwards. But that’s not all. Women on average experience a 73% drop in their standard of living during the first year following divorce. Men, on the other hand, enjoy a 42% rise in standard of living within the first year of divorce. Surprised? Yeah. So if women are divorcing for money, they sure are screwing it up.

I doubt this means much to you, however. It seems clear from your grievance mongering posts that you view men as some sort of victim class. Nobody else ever gets hurt or destroyed. Nobody else's pain matters. It's incredibly shabby of you, and you are justly punished for it. Enjoy your hate, JG, because if you keep on like this, it's the only thing you'll ever have to keep you warm.

8:03 AM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And out come the shaming language and calls to "man up". Seems to happen whenever anyone dares point out the racket that women have going in society.

8:16 AM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

JG, I can't think of any nomenclature for subclinical narcissistic/anti-social personality disordered person, but there are plenty of who you describe. They are very self-oriented and willing to break the rules and laws to get what they want.

It would be difficult to distinguish between sub-clinical and very polished and adept deceivers in this category. The ones who are really good at it never get caught. Since they do not posess the brain hardware necessary to feel guilt, you cannot tell when they lie, even using computer aided facial recognition software (the government has some of that, it is supposedly classified) or more traditional lie detectors.

The DMSs do not help too much because they basically require that the personality pattern causes problems in the life of the person, and the sub clinical and really adept populations get away with most of it.

Then there is the whole point about personality disorders being much more difficult to measure than depression or schizophrenia or other diagnoses.

Did the book you referred to earlier have much on these folks? It is an interesting question, and I am sorry all I can add is to say how difficult it is to answer. I will check the web later today to see if anything good pops up.


9:21 AM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

I did find this slideshow of all things!

It has some interesting info among the gibberish. There is some hard research thrown in and it even mentions narcissistic men who use women, but omits narcissistic women who use men of course! It does seem to mention women in terms of sub-clinical borderline features.

Give it a look, it is at least interesting in parts.


9:33 AM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did the book you referred to earlier have much on these folks?"


I also read another book by Dr. Hare (as a co-author) called "Snakes in Suits". I don't know why I'm interested in that lately, because I don't have any more psychopaths in my life than usual.

9:42 AM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger Unknown said...

Rather disingenuous to conflate a maintenance order with alimony. Not at all the same. Plus, you realize men receive maintenance as well?

You continue to act as if the laws only work in one direction. I'm here as living testimony that in Missouri, they work both ways. In my divorce I got everything and full custody.

10:54 AM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

JG, this one looks pretty good.

The writing is not great, but the ideas ring true. Thanks for the book reference, I will look into that one. The topic is very interesting.


1:05 PM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Guys, on another matter. There is a man being accused of rape this morning in Baltimore. He has NO violence in his past. The case has a lot of strangeness, and right now all we have is a she-said-only account of what happened and no witnesses. In the comment section I'm pretty sure it's going to be me vs. everybody else. If anyone wants to jump in and assist I'd be grateful.,0,4590892.story

Go to bottom and click on "view comments" after reading story.

2:39 PM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Don't buy what I'm saying, ask some lawyer you know.

Alimony = spousal support = maintenance = whatever other word they come up with

Either believe me that it is really all the same - no matter what they call it - or ask a lawyer

I think Golddigger here is a lawyer - maybe she can explain it to you

4:49 PM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And I think about 1-2% or so of people who get alimony (or "spousal support") are men. But they don't get the same amounts and they don't get it for as long.

4:50 PM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I downloaded your file and briefly looked it over.

I'm starting to think that there should be some kind of classification like "corporate bully".

It's funny that personality disorders are viewed in terms of how the person with the disorder is hurting himself - and not how he is hurting others. Kind of like "I don't get ulcers - I give them".

5:03 PM, June 08, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I said, I don't practice law any more, and family law was never my thing in any case. But Oligonicella is right to say that the law in this area varies greatly from state to state. And you, JG, are guilty of imprecision as well as hasty generalization.

What I know about my state is what I memorized for the bar exam, which is that there are three types of support payments a court may order one spouse to pay another.

Alimony pendente lite is money paid temporarily to the dependent spouse while divorce or annulment proceedings are pending.

Spousal support is money paid for the separate maintenance of a spouse. It can be awarded at any time during the course of the marriage, even if no divorce proceedings have been or will be filed. The spouse seeking support must show he's incapable of supporting himself through employment of any kind, and must be innocent of any type of behavior that would be grounds for fault divorce. The standard is strict.

Alimony is alimony, and is only awarded after the divorce.

8:09 PM, June 08, 2011  
Blogger Ed said...

The marriages described in the Time article are all marriages in various stages of decline. None of the marriage types described correspond to a good marriage.

The many horror stories of divorce are likewise of no help in guiding anyone towards improving their marriage or avoiding a bad one in the first place.

Making a marriage work is possible! I attended my great-grandparents' 65th wedding anniversary party, I've seen it done.

For people of their and my grandparents' generation, divorce was virtually unheard-of and scandalous. For them, once you were married you stayed that way until one of you died.

It wasn't ideal, and it didn't help anyone of those generations make good marriages either.

So we know divorce sucks ass. Bad marriages also suck. So key questions: how to avoid entangling oneself within a bad marriage, and how to improve a marriage already in progress?

Helen asked whether giving up on romance is a better option. I've been reading some of the pickup artist blogs lately, and somewhat to my surprise I have read comments from men using the PUA techniques on their own wives and finding both partners in a happier marriage.

It's encouraging to see that there is some concrete advice out there directed at men that is actually helping them improve their marriages. To my mind that is preferable to the marriages described in the Time article, or the shrapnel of divorce.

2:21 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


What you are saying is that the court can order temporary alimony or permanent alimony.

Permanent alimony is also called spousal support or maintenance. Many states changed the word "alimony" to spousal support (or maintenance) to make it sound more gender-neutral, but it's the same thing. When deducting alimony from your income taxes, for instance, you are allowed to put all "spousal support" or "maintenance" payments in the box for alimony paid BECAUSE THEY ARE ALIMONY.

You are just dancing around the specific question and don't seem to have the moral fiber to give an honest answer. Frankly, I find that behavior disgusting.

2:58 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And of course law varies state-to-state, but Oligonicella made a specific statement about a specific state, Missouri.

There IS alimony in Missouri, but it is now called "maintenance". By the way, in looking around the Internet, I saw an older version of the exact same Missouri statute 452.335 word-for-word except it was titled "Alimony" not "Maintenance". So at some point, in keeping with the new trend of sounding gender neutral, someone went in and simply changed the word "alimony" to "maintenance".

3:01 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the judge orders you to pay "maintenance" under that statute, do you heave a sigh of relief and say "whew, glad I don't have to pay alimony, I only have to pay maintenance"?


3:10 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim from Missouri has a friend, Bill, visiting from another state and they are commiserating about their divorces.

Bill says that he really feels it's unfair - his wife cheated on him and now he has to pay her 1000 a month in alimony.

Jim says, "I'm divorced too, but we don't have alimony in Missouri!"

Bill says, "That's great!"

Jim says, "Yeah, I am paying 1000 a month to my ex-wife in maintenance, but I'm not paying any alimony!"

Bill says, "Maybe I'll move to Missouri!"


This edition of Moron Theater was brought to you by our sponsors

3:26 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moron Theater Part Deux:

Later, Bill and Jim go to a bar and meet Rick from Colorado. Rick's in town on business.

After Rick hears their tales of woe, he proudly says, "I'm not paying alimony OR maintenance!"

"Not even maintenance?" gasps Jim.

"Nope," says Rick. "I'm paying 1000 a month to my ex-wife in spousal support, but NO alimony and NO maintenance".

Bill and Jim just kind of slump in their seats. Some guys have all the luck. He's not even paying maintenance.

3:52 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now here's the real deal:

In a 1979 case, the US Supreme Court (Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979)) decided that it was unfair to have an alimony statute requiring men to pay money to women but not the other way around.

Other states (this was about a law in Alabama) then simply interpreted the alimony statute to be open to men and women, not just women. They simply kept the same statute, but noted that men could get "alimony" too. Eventually most of the states changed the statute titled "alimony" to the more neutral "spousal support" or "maintenance", but otherwise kept the exact same statute in place (same requirements). The change was made because the word alimony itself sounds sexist.

Now women can pay "alimony" (or maintenance or spousal support) to men as well, but it doesn't happen very often, I think in 1-2% of cases, but the kind reader can google that herself.

Alimony = spousal support = maintenance

4:12 AM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

Trey, you're a great guy. I mean, even if you are a single pole "Fender" type pick up lover, where I prefer double pole humbucking type pick ups. Ha! I'll bet it's tough to find a gig in Nashville when everyone is killer.

JG, not that it matters to you, but I truly enjoy reading what you have to say as long as you aren't angry when writing.

I don't quite know what's up this morning, I just felt like saying those things.

5:48 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JG, I’m afraid we must add poor reading comprehension to the list. Let’s go over it again:

First, I’m speaking only of the law in my state. There are three separate and distinct categories of support a court may order a person to pay to a dependent spouse or former spouse. You cannot use the terms interchangeably because *they are different things*. Please attend carefully. I will not explain this to you again.

Alimony is awarded to the dependent spouse AFTER THE DIVORCE has been FINALIZED. Usually it is temporary, but sometimes it’s permanent. And it’s always subject to modification or termination under certain circumstances.

Alimony pendente lite is temporarily awarded to the dependent spouse WHILE divorce or annulment proceedings are PENDING. That means the period of time BETWEEN when somebody has FILED and when the divorce is FINALIZED. That can take years.

Spousal support can be awarded to a dependent spouse when a married couple is living separately but NEITHER HAS FILED for divorce yet, or NEITHER INTENDS TO EVER FILE for divorce. Support can be awarded at any time during the course of the marriage. It’s nothing to do with divorce, though it often presages one.

Why would somebody pay to support to a spouse they don’t want anymore? You’d be surprised. Sometimes because it’s cheaper than divorce, sometimes religion, sometimes because they like each other but want an open relationship and to live apart, sometimes it’s because somebody’s gay and doesn’t want to come out, sometimes for the kids, etc.

Family law is an ugly business. The worst there is, really. It would be bad enough having it for a job. Horrible to have it for an obsession.

6:38 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ed, I second everything you’ve said. My parents love each other that way; and while my siblings and I gag every Christmas when Mom opens something from Dad and a lacy silk nightgown slithers out, it’s comforting to know that soul-deep love and undying passion aren’t fairy tales.

6:42 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The issue was with regard to the state of Missouri, and whether "maintenance" in Missouri is essentially equivalent to the general concept of alimony.

That's it.

That was the issue.

It wasn't about New York or alimony pendente lite or whether laws are different in different states (they are) or anything else.

If you don't think that maintenance is essentially equivalent to the general concept of alimony in the state of Missouri, then let's hear why.

As I noted above, Missouri Statute 452.335 used to have the heading "alimony" a few years ago. All of the provisions were kept intact, but the statute was renamed "Maintenance" at some point to join in the general trend of making laws gender neutral.

Otherwise, I don't care to hear your dissembling. You are throwing out bullshit because you are irritated that I am pointing out that some women really milk the system, and you feel impacted because you are likely a housewife (you "used to" practice law) who is leeching off a man.

6:44 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is like a woman saying she is not on welfare. When you asks how she pays for stuff without a job, she says, "Oh, I'm on public assistance". Oh, well, that's different.

A different name doesn't change what something is.

6:50 AM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger JJW said...

Getting married is a self-destructive act for a man. There is no upside. I have two trusted friends who have pledged to execute me if I ever indicate an interest in getting married again. My hope, though, is that if the thought occurs, I will have the presence of mind to eat a shotgun and thus save them the trouble.

For those who claim God (or the Easter Bunny or whatever construction of imagination) has given them the perfect marriage to the perfect woman: Just don't experience a business reversal or have a serious illness or go through any of the ugly trouble life inevitably hands out. When the money is gone, you'll discover very quickly that you are on your own. And always were.

Not wishing misfortune on anyone, just stating a fact.

7:03 AM, June 09, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Housewifery is a perfectly respectable job. It just doesn't happen to be mine.

If you really must know, my business card says Development Consultant. I work almost exclusively with anti-poverty charities in the city who can't afford to hire development staff of their own.

My little joke is that I'm a professional gold digger; and actually, that's exactly what I am. I've got a leprechaun's sixth sense for finding it, and I'm very good indeed a getting it. I took a big pay cut to do this, and, frankly, a status cut as well, but the psychic income I get more than compensates me.

The fact that I'm forever leaping into people's pockets, and that I cultivate relationships for the purpose of converting them into large financial gifts, doesn't bother me as it once did. My personal feelings are as nothing compared to the needs of the people I look after.

Oh, and the people who tease me about my "career suicide"? I never take it personally and they never walk away with out coughing up a serious pledge. It's just as expensive to match wits with me as it always was. It's just that now there's a point to it all.

7:33 AM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

captain, you are qouting statistic fact, not absolute truth. marriages still work, and just like heterosexual relations, we don`t need a parade.

and the successful marriages are ones where the partner dies...until death etc. and this allows the negaters to say, "just wait, she hasn`t made her move yet."

not the way i frame my life....and i`m not waving a banner for marriage, i don`t think that many men are equipped to be in a marriage, and shouldn`t try...that just further skews the stats.

the answer? i don`t have one. know thyself is a good place to start though, because, like robert plant says "it`s nobody`s fault but mine...."

7:44 AM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

br549, thanks dude. Really. I hope you know I hold you in high esteem as well. Really.

And I love any pickups! Humbuckers, lipstick, soapbar, PAF, they ALL look good to me!

And to be honest, there is NO chance of me getting a playing job in town. I am not good enough. There are pizza delivery guys, lots of pizza delivery guys that can smoke a tele. I like to play with friends for fun, and by myself for stress relief, but I have no delusions of competence or mastery.

One of my patients, this kid who was really, really depressed, shreds. I saw the video on youtube, it is insane. And this is a good kid, so once they grow up and learn some taste, it will be wonderful.

Do you ever check out PhilX on youtube? He demonstrates vintage guitars of all stripes and pickups. Lots of fun.

Thanks again pal.


1:11 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

JG, that is really a valid and important point. The DSM looks more at personal distress than interpersonal effectiveness or how damaging to other people the behavior is.

As a therapist, personal distress is basically required for anyone to work on changing. That is why I think court referred treatment, especially of an adult, is usually a joke.

I will think more about that.


1:15 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Off-Topic. Not that this is new, but this is what I learned from yesterday: When the media publishes the name, address, criminal history and mug shot of an accused rapist and absolutely nothing about the alleged rape victim we find that people automatically jump to these conclusions about the alleged rape victim:

1) She is white
2) She is young
3) She is a virgin
4) She is a student
5) She is permanently damaged for life.

JG will be pleased to know that I have been called a misogynistic woman hater by several Internet commenters. They all assumed about me:

1) I was male
2) I hated women
3) No woman ever gave me the time of day
4) I'm a horrible evil person

These rape laws have to change. They are so unfair. People who get accused of rape don't get a fair shake at all with the current system. I contacted my councilman and had a very unpleasant email discussion yesterday voicing my absolute displeasure, as he was interviewed by the paper and he supported the alleged victim. I'm not sure a rape even occurred. I think the "victim" is making a huge fabrication. I'm furious.

2:27 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

Scariest thing about rape statistics: Over 50% of reported rapes are fabrications.

Oh, they like to cite their projected stats, like 80% o0f rapes go unreported (how do they know? These are all projections).

I feel horribly for rape victims, but I'd like to strangle any woman who falsely accuses a man of rape. That kind of crying wolf deserves a sound body beating.

9:14 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

golddigger (hey, at least she is honest),

Men either need to stop knocking up women (condoms anyone?), or man-up and marry them when they do.

So women are not responsible for their own actions?

Also, anyone who says 'man up' is effectively admitting that women are inferior. Note that there is no 'woman up' slur, but there is a 'woman down'.

Anyone who says 'man up' to a man is attempting to swindle him. No exceptions.

11:16 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

JG, you are attempting to reason with people who have a vested interest in keeping their scam going.

Neither Cham nor golddigger will ever admit that divorce laws are anything but horribly lopsided against men.

The cost of this comes back to women big time in the long run, but women don't understand cause and effect very well.

A society that makes it unattractive for men to marry (which is usually a society where women have had 3-4 generations of voting rights), is a society that dies.


11:20 PM, June 09, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

golddigger wheezed :

Almost 50% of single parents with children that are going through a divorce fall into poverty afterwards. But that’s not all. Women on average experience a 73% drop in their standard of living during the first year following divorce. Men, on the other hand, enjoy a 42% rise in standard of living within the first year of divorce. Surprised? Yeah. So if women are divorcing for money, they sure are screwing it up.

What pure garbage. Bogus 'studies' concocted by feminists to hide the evil racket that is going on.

Women GAIN money from divorce. That is why they do not divorce in countries that don't make divorce profitable (such as USA pre-1969).

You have done a superb job of proving that women having the right to vote leads to the end of society.

12:21 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...


First off, what is the largest demographic group living in poverty in America today? Single-parent households. 36.5% of them live in poverty.

As it should be. Single mothers are so by choice, and should face the consequences of their decision.

12:23 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...

JG, you are trying to reason with someone who has built a life around swindling and ruining men.

You would have a better time being penpals with a Nigerian email fraudster, than with 'golddigger'.

Alimony = Child support = maintenence.

The important point is that the money is transferred only in one direction : from man to woman, even though the women is the wrongdoer in most cases.

12:26 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

Destruction of the family is necessary for the ends socialism wants in our country. Every minority type point of view has ended up in the liberal democrat camp, pulling them all together in an effort to make them the majority in the voting booth. That's my take, and I'm sticking to it.

6:10 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger br549 said...

Trey, in the days I lived in Johnson City, I worked Nashville a lot. I always found a couple hours for Gruhn when in town. Every single person who ever walked in that door when I was there, was a killer player. From people who you recognized immediately, to session players, to some kid fresh from the corner of his bed, but killer players all. I usually waited for a quiet moment before grabbing a guitar and giving it a test spin. I embarrass easily. Ha!

6:18 AM, June 10, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Destruction of the family is necessary for the ends socialism wants in our country.”

That’s very true. Today I’m working on a speech I’m giving Saturday, and I’m going to be talking about the future. I’m going to be talking about the burden civil society is going to have to shoulder in the next ten years if we want to avoid a very tragic, very dangerous situation developing in the heart of our cities. Because there’s simply no way federal, state and local governments can continue to provide human services at the level they have been. And while many government programs are unnecessary, and while it is government policies themselves that have created our worst problems, many of these services have become essential and must be delivered somehow.

The fall of the American family has greatly complicated all of this--perhaps even made it an impossible task. I’m very tempted to talk about that, but there’s little anyone can do about it now, and I fear to tread on delicate toes for no purpose. Truth-telling is a gross social sin, you know.

But the truth is, there was once a time when children, not the government, cared for the needs of their elderly parents--even if that meant taking them in and nursing them themselves. There once was a time when fathers provided for their children without complaint or court orders, and when they lived with them and modeled responsible male behavior to their sons. There once was a time when mothers were committed to being and staying married to the fathers of their children, and to looking after their children, and to modeling responsible female behavior to their daughters. Women used to understand that nothing in life is more important than family, and that a government check or a hottie du jour is no substitute for your children’s dad. And children used to secretly respect them for that. That’s why they cared for their own parents when the time came.

Of course, that’s best case scenario of our cultural past. But statistics don’t lie. The fact is, families stayed together because they needed each other. They were all they had in the world. So, bound by mutually reinforcing needs and obligations, their relationships--including with extended family--were paramount. Today, it’s a citizen’s relationship with the state that matters most. Family bonds are merely recreational. And optional.

But what happens when the state can no longer provide for peoples’ parents, or for their children, or for their unemployed, disabled, foreclosed upon selves? Where is the family that would have looked after them? It’s gone. And it’s not coming back.

8:17 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

Ain't Gruhn the bomb? I get high off the smell of the place! If I won the lottery, I would hire my best friend to go around the country with a wad of cash and have him buy old guitars for cheap while I kept doing my job.

Funny you should mention Johnson City, my daughter is up there for Governor's school. The rest of the family and I trucked up there last Sunday to spend time with her. We went to Elizabethton and poked around for fun. I will go up on my own next week and maybe take my daughter into the Smokeys to fish a bit.

I have a favorites tab that is labled "Guitar Porn" that has Gruhn and other vintage guitar sites that I look at when I need a little fun at work.

Have a great weekend bro.


9:42 AM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Off-Topic again. I'm in desperate need of some assistance. I want to reference a really good non-biased respected recent about false rape accusation study. What percentage of rape accusations are false??????? Ideally from a quality crime/psych peer-reviewed journal. It's me against 100 people, I might finally be gaining a smidgeon of traction on this. They're still hurling insults at me but not as much as yesterday.

12:06 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

trey, i have jammed with phil x a number of times while staying with another friend who was working on his album (von groove) at the time. phil`s a real guy who`s enthusiasm (mania) is contagious. phil bought my ampeg v-2 tube head off me when i was silly enough to part with such things...i now have the ampeg v-4 which is the 100 watt big brother to the v-2 and i will never part with it even though the transformer is smelling like it`s about to grenade.

phil is touring with bon jovi (aaagh!) right now i believe.

1:33 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger kmg said...


Google 'The False Rape Society'. That website has it all.

Also go to 'A Voice for Men' and contact Paul Elam, who runs a radio show.

3:33 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger TMink said...

Dr. allistair, wow. That is so cool. Outstanding even. He certainly has infectuous enthusiasm, loves to play, and loves great guitars. Or so it seems to me, and now is confirmed by you! I am quite happy and a tad jealou of you for this one pal!

I only feel sorrow for the guitars I have sold. So I no longer sell any. Not that I have too many to sell now, but you get the point.


4:09 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

and phil hounded me for ever to sell him my `81 dean...but i never gave in to that one. it still sits in my living room in desperate need of a fret job...what i learned most from phil was that on a les paul junior (the single pick-up one) if you roll off the tone to zero, the tone you get is like nothing else. indescribable actually. the closest i`ve ever heard is the solo from american woman by the guess who...with the amp right the notes sing forever.

prs make a les paul junior copy that is wired the same way as the old les paul juniors from the `50s and it does the exact same thing, though the gibson purists would grumble in their beards a bit....

7:09 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Almost 50% of single parents with children that are going through a divorce fall into poverty afterwards. But that’s not all. Women on average experience a 73% drop in their standard of living during the first year following divorce. Men, on the other hand, enjoy a 42% rise in standard of living within the first year of divorce. Surprised? Yeah. So if women are divorcing for money, they sure are screwing it up.

Women's (and thereby their children's - which they paid money to lawyers to get in the first place) standard of living doesn't go down following divorce because women get screwed in divorce court. Their standard of living goes down for any number of other reasons:

- women fight tooth and nail for houses, cars, kids, and other things that they can't afford on their own because of recurring expenses - like taxes, maintenance, and so on. Winning a house in divorce not only doesn't benefit women if they can't afford it, it actually hurts them because they're likely to go broke trying to do so because they lack reasoning skills;

- women are no longer able to live off of the men that they divorced. No matter how little or much women make, the overwhelmingly vast majority (about 75% when comparing working wives to working husbands and 66% when comparing all married women to all married men) of them marry "up". Thus, the hit to their standard of living following divorce is the natural result of being forced to live within their own means - which is what they supposedly want;

- women are shoppers. Women account for the vast majority of all retail purchases in this country. Anyone who's ever been to a single guy's house and almost any woman's house knows who is doing the shopping in this country. The more money you spend on crap the less of it you have to spend on things like food, utilities, housing, gas, car maintenance, and so on. There's a reason why we keep hearing stories about women eating catfood - and it's not because it tastes good.

Women win truckloads of money and assets in divorce court yet lose in life afterwards because women make stupid financial decisions. Men's lives improve following divorce because they no longer have a giant financial weight around their necks dragging them down; they're free to not only not spend money on a nagging bitch but also free to devote more of their time and energy to earning more money - which they can't do while they're married because some nagging bitch is always nagging and bitching about how much time they spend away from home.

8:29 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...


Here's an article entitled The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's "Two Percent False Rape Claim" Figure that was published in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. It debunks a particular claim made about false rape claims, which is that the figure is only about 2%. The article contains some great information that is has applications well beyond the issue of false rape claims.

Here's an article at entitled How Often Do Women Falsely Cry Rape?. It provides a very basic intro to the issue. In it, the authors reference a great study (which is also referenced by the Wikipedia article) from the Cambridge Law Journal which takes a look at almost all of the "studies" that have been done in the US, New Zealand, and the UK.

I can also email you a report of my own that I wrote for a university class on the subject. It's basically a more comprehensive analysis of the publicly-available data viz-a-viz the rate of under-reporting of rape than the ones done here, here, and here. While I cannot guarantee the accuracy of my math (I didn't check with anyone from the math department before I turned it in), I believe it to be correct. Assuming it is correct, the content of my paper utterly demolishes the 95%-of-rapes-go-unreported claim. In it, I very briefly mention how false rape claims relate to the under-reporting rate. If you want it I can send it to you (and for anyone here who is great at math, if you'd like to check my math to see if I've done it correctly before I start passing it around, let me know).

I'd also recommend going to The False Rape Society. The site is entirely devoted to the issue of false rape claims and has done an excellent job of cataloging and analyzing the stories.

Let me know if you need more help (I might join in your conversation over there).

9:13 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

Men either need to stop knocking up women (condoms anyone?), or man-up and marry them when they do.

No, women need to man-up. It's time for women to act like women instead of spoiled little brats and take responsibility for their own decisions. Virtually 100% of women who have babies (I'm making an allowance for women who are imprisoned in dungeons, impregnated, and, because they were imprisoned in dungeons, forced to carry the baby to term) want to have babies. Women who don't want babies simply don't have them. Period. There are over a dozen different forms of birth control (which are available in even more brands) available to women (not including abortion) and only two for men (one of which is one of the least reliable forms there are).

Put a plug in it or stop using it, and if you do use it you better be ready to have that abortion if you are actually serious about not having kids. Women are the ones who have the babies so the onus is on them to prevent them from happening until they (the women) are ready to have them.

9:23 PM, June 10, 2011  
Blogger MarkD said...

I was fortunate enough to find a girl who left her parents, country, culture, language and friends to be with me. The responsibility was large, but the burden light, no, nonexistent.

Thirty five years later, I can't stop smiling. Sorry, guys. Somebody wins the lottery. It was me.

There are more winners out there. I've siblings on their first marriage, and I've siblings where it just didn't work. Find somebody you like, a lot, who feels the same way about you. There is some vital, but useless advice.

If I had the answers, Dr Helen would be out of a blog.

10:47 PM, June 10, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Women on average experience a 73% drop in their standard of living during the first year following divorce. Men, on the other hand, enjoy a 42% rise in standard of living within the first year of divorce."


No. They don't.

That figure comes from Lenore Weitzman. You can google yourself what happened after she published that figure. She herself now admits that her "research" is simply wrong.

There weren't small errors here and there. There were massive fuck-ups that can only be explained by the fact that she had an agenda and a half.

Also, a woman can appear to be poorer on paper but not be. If she finds a new boyfriend with more money and moves in with him - and then only works part-time instead of full-time - she appears to have less income, but she has a better lifestyle. As one example of many.

And the "researchers" in this area all seem to have an agenda. They don't want to consider that a new boyfriend is propping up her lifestyle, but the also don't want to acknowledge that court-ordered payments of money to the ex-wife may be reducing the lifestyle of the ex-husband.

Golddigger doesn't care about any of this, she just mindlessly repeats these debunked figures.

10:57 PM, June 10, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MarkD sez: "Thirty five years later, I can't stop smiling. Sorry, guys. Somebody wins the lottery. It was me."


Why do people write shit like this?


11:00 PM, June 10, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's time for women to act like women instead of spoiled little brats and take responsibility for their own decisions."

How can a girl possibly fail to take responsibility? It's not as if she can simply refuse to be pregnant. She's got to do something, even if that means killing it. There's no "none of the above".

"Virtually 100% of women who have babies...want to have babies."

You're clearly not that stupid; you're being deliberately obtuse. You know that's not true. Do girls who give their babies up for adoption want to have babies? If so, why do they give them away?

As for your 8:34 post, I don't entirely disagree with anything you’ve said, except for this foolhardy notion that women "lack reasoning skills". Don't keep making that mistake. I've watched the flawless execution of countless feminine plots and so have you. Just because you didn't recognize them as such doesn't mean they weren't brilliant, it means they were.

Think of it like this. Traditional male reasoning is like formal logic. It's two dimensional and follows the Laws of Thought. This type of reasoning is highly useful in real world applications and it's why men excel at science and math. I myself am fond of it. But relationships play out in three dimensions. The third dimension is emotional logic and that's a woman's world.

So when a man and a woman interact, a man tends to assume it's a two dimensional board because that's how he thinks--only back and forth. And he's good at back and forth. But a woman (or a man who thinks like one) assumes the play is up and down as well as back and forth. Because why wouldn't it be? And as a matter of fact, all her best moves are flyers. She's Sun Tzu in the air.

When a queen takes a king, she always takes him from above. He thinks she "lacks reasoning skills" and never sees it coming.

12:07 AM, June 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You can be manipulative and especially sexually exploitive without having reasoning skills.

It's funny - men here are talking about women exploiting them - and to watch out for it, especially with regard to marriage - and you are going back and forth between denying that exists and almost bragging about women exploiting and manipulating men.

12:57 AM, June 11, 2011  
Blogger J. Bowen said...

How can a girl possibly fail to take responsibility? It's not as if she can simply refuse to be pregnant. She's got to do something, even if that means killing it. There's no "none of the above".

Yes, actually, women can refuse to become pregnant. Since you're obviously not aware of this organization or any of the forms of birth control, how they're used, or their efficacy, here's a nice little link to a site with some information about them:

But wait. I forgot. Pregnancy happens to women and not because of deliberate choices that they make. I forgot about that. Women are merely inanimate objects that are acted upon by idiotic, irresponsible men who want nothing more than to get their rocks off.

With proper use of at least one form of female birth control (and especially hormonal birth control), a woman has a slim chance of getting pregnant. With proper use of more than form of female birth control, a woman has an even slimmer chance of getting pregnant. With proper use of multiple forms of female birth control combined with the male making proper use of the single form of non-permanent birth control that is available to him, a woman has an almost non-existent chance of getting pregnant. *Proper use of hormonal forms of birth control means abstaining from drugs (including cigarettes), certain medications, maintaining a healthy weight, and doing/not doing other things that are known to negatively affect the efficacy of hormonal birth control.

How about you take a step into the 21st century dear. Women's liberation supposedly happened decades ago. Again, it's time for women to start taking responsibility for...well...anything.

Do girls who give their babies up for adoption want to have babies? If so, why do they give them away?

You're a lawyer? I'd hate to be any of your clients.

A major television network once ran a campaign with an unforgettable tagline in an attempt to distract its viewers from the fact that it was running reruns. The tagline ran as follows (or very near to it): if you haven't seen it, it's new to you. It's as true right now as it was then. You've obviously never seen this, so it's going to be new to you. It might take you a while to read (I have serious doubts that you're a lawyer), so give yourself some time. Are you ready for it? Here it is:


Here's a quick summary of the decision: women have the right to choose to get an abortion. Want to know what that means? That means that they can choose to have a baby and they can choose to not have a baby. Thus, with the rare exception of the prisoner who is impregnated by her captor and then forced to carry the baby to term, 100% of women who give birth did so because they wanted to give birth. If they didn't want to give birth, then they wouldn't have. PERIOD. What a woman does with a delivered baby after she willingly carried it to term is completely irrelevant. The baby is there because she wanted it to be there. There is no other legal or scientific explanation for its existence. There is absolutely no escaping the fact that women can choose to get an abortion or not get one. It's the law. In some circles, the legal concept is referred to as the woman's right to choose. Ever heard of it?

And by the way, how do so many women make it into their 30s and 40s without having kids? Are millions of women simply refusing to have sex for decades?

2:48 AM, June 11, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

J.Bowen, I'll be happy to look at your paper. You can email it to me at chamgreen102 at I'll be reading your links that you posted today. So far, with the 100 angry people at me, one of them is willing to reluctantly give me the benefit of the doubt that the alleged rapist may be not guilty, one reluctantly admits the alleged rapist deserves a fair trial and several have suggested I should be hung right next to the alleged rapist, as quickly as possible. It's going to a long summer I can tell.

7:21 AM, June 11, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

re; golddigger vs. jg.

legal and scientific....

legal; a series of boundary structures to limit behaviour.

scientific; theories, proven or otherwise, that attempt to describe reality.

and that is all there is?

it seems to me that there were human societies before science and law, and women having babies outside of scientific and legal structure.

9:02 AM, June 11, 2011  
Blogger Dr.Alistair said...

and markd? i`m only 10% of the way there, but i know what you mean.

i found someone i like a lot and feels the same way about me.

and jg asks why we write about this shit?


and i agree that 95% or more of women would rip your heart out and show it to you while it still beats....yet he wants it to be 100% and can`t bear to think otherwise.

that says more about him than anything else....

9:07 AM, June 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:17 AM, June 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:20 AM, June 11, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:25 AM, June 11, 2011  
Blogger Cham said...

Hey, look, it's taken me 4 days. I got one, I got one!!!!!! Commenter 2pook shakur wrote this morning on the rape discussion:

cham really makes some good points against the witch-hunt going on here..

innocent people get formally charged all the time, and his name, address and picture should never be published like this honestly..

innocent until proven guilty is an incredible principle which most countries do not have and both an accuser and victim should be left completely private until all the legal details are sorted out.."

One down, 99 to go. It's happening!

10:27 AM, June 11, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home