I think in a recent thread it devolved into the tired argument that women use their sexual appeal to control their "kept men."

I believe it simply isn't true. My mother was accused by my sister as being an accessory to my father's child molestation crimes using this argument.

It could be porn. It could be rape. Whatever, it is a tired argument and one that rarely if ever holds true in my opinion. Like Michael Jackson said, "Just beat it." And this argument gets beat time and again like the old grey mare. She just ain't what she used to be so beat her again and again with the accusation that she withholds sex for control.

In my opinion one of the things that leads to the confusing assessment that women want control in their relationships is that it can't be reduced to a gender. Women aren't objects like porn magazines. People are people.

The mythical ideal of romantic love is the enemy here. The expectation that partners are mentally and sexually completely faithful and that their partnership was contracted by the stars is a huge pile of sand to build said partnership upon.

LDS Corp may think that any penis of a certain again can connect to any vagina of a similar age as long as they are both well endowed and it will work. But they don't disabuse people of the fantastical notion that heavenly relationships are real. Why? Because their myths of family are bolstered by these equally ridiculous ideals surrounding people partnering and producing offspring.

The facts as I see them are somewhat simple.

People can have successful partnerships without seeing their partner as their sexual ideal. They can express themselves sexually in diverse ways without breaking up their partnerships. And holding fast to ideals of sexual attraction, human pairing, familial relationships doesn't lead to success in these things. So, maybe a wife would like to have an ideal husband who doesn't look at porn and may act out when that happens. And maybe a husband would like an ideal wife who is both his sexual epitome and makes a damned good mother and may act out when that doesn't happen.

Reducing human relationships to easy theories (she controls him with sex) from equally simple assumptions (she is supposed to be his sexual ideal for him to be faithful) is just plain wrong and can lead to misogyny. Same for misandry and even misogamy.

If having polygamy in my family has taught me anything it is a wide variety of human pairings are possible and to try to understand them with simple theories is dangerous in its reduction. It can lead to thinking you know something about people because they sometimes behave badly towards each other.

Actually, men are more apt to "mate guard"(controlling a partner) than women since it is an evolutionary advantage in higher density human societies.

"Given these tradeoffs, males allocate less to dependents and less to competing for additional mates as the number of competitors increases. In these models mate guarding proved to be the fitness maximizing strategy under a very wide array of parameter conditions."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23403

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

Sounds like men tend towards not producing much offspring, no helping them as much as they could, and trying to control their access to sex.

anyone who doesn't believe that women control men using access to sex should contact me Directly, my email is public here.

Yes, divorce is a means of controlling access to sex.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anyone who doesn't believe that women control men
> using access to sex should contact me Directly, my
> email is public here.

From my [admittedly female] perspective, it is not that women are "controlling men," but that women/females of all ages are retaining control over their own, female, bodies.

One of the things that many female immigrants (of all ages, from infancy on) to this country need to learn is that males do NOT control female bodies in North America, and that THEY (the female individuals involved) have the inborn, and the legal, right to control their OWN bodies. This is often an extremely tough lesson to teach across the cultural barriers involved.

In my opinion, you are misperceiving what is actually going on here. You seem to be assuming that a man's desires (for a female stranger, a female date, a female coworker, a wife, a daughter, a female cousin, a neighbor, etc.) are more important, and more valid, than are that female's desires.

If I have misperceived your words, I apologize--but this is what you appear to be "saying."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 11:26PM by Tevai.

Tevai is right. Divorce is a way to control access to sex like suicide is a way to abscond from a torturer.

That is an overstatement, of course, but both statements presume that another party has some right, some control, over the victim and the victim's body. That is fundamentally wrong. In fact each man and each woman has complete control over his or her own body and fate. At no point does an individual lose that right. If he or she wants to refuse physical access to someone, he or she is fully free to do so.

Conversely, if the other party is unhappy with the situation, he or she should find a better relationship. Sitting around and feeling sad, deprived, mistreated is irresponsible. Get up and leave.

But don't act like marriage confers a right to access. That is slavery.

Divorce or the threat of divorce?

I've known divorced guys that have done just fine in terms of finding a partner, even if they were in a sorry financial state. In my experience, it's a rare man who can't find a partner (but I live outside the Moridor, so there's that.)

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, divorce is a means of controlling access to
> sex.

A piece of paper prevents it? Is this a contractception? It could prevent considering marriage? Nope. Divorced people have remarried.

Interesting, having been someone who never got married (or yet) I have often considered marriage to be two apes in a box, as in two Homo sapiens in a house. I think it can work, there can be happy marriages and people can learn to get along and work out their sexual desires and the difficulties of communication in a relationship that lasts for years or decades. As for me I have no idea if I will ever marry.

As this thread hints at, I do think there is a disconnect between romantic love fantasies based on the movies and the reality of the biology of our sexual natures. However, despite the arguments of the book Sex at Dawn, I can't wrap my head around not getting jealous and mate guarding when I am dating. It just seems like a natural reaction to me. The whole idea that jealousy might just be a cultural taste as some argue just doesn't sit right with me intuitively.

I am not sure that if I knew another guy was having sex with someone I am dating, and that made me feel jealous and angry, is simply a cultural taste I developed. I also think *most women* would be troubled by a guy who would have no problem with that. It seems far more likely that I am biologically designed to not be okay with that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2019 08:32PM by wonderfull.

"The whole idea that jealousy might just be a cultural taste as some argue just doesn't sit right with me intuitively."

It isn't really jealousy. That is a misconception. It is mate guarding. You want to maximize your abilities to express yourself sexually in the social context (over population of both potential partners and competitors) at the same time limiting the risks that your partner will reduce your abilities to express yourself sexually.

It is risky to attempt to lure other partners in a society of monogamy. You are protecting your fitness while reducing your risks. IT feels like jealousy because you want to blame external things and this is rational because external things are making you feel sexually insecure.

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

SUMMARY: According to a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice, in the last 12 months more men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at men. Men were also more often the victim of psychological aggression and control over sexual or reproductive health. Despite this, few services are available to male victims of intimate partner violence.

Those men should leave their abusive relationships—just like unhappy women should.

You've posted this before. And it has been debunked.

what you posted. The lds men controlled me in so many ways.

cl2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what you posted. The lds men controlled me in so
> many ways.

I am happy you are in a much better situation now.

:)

controlled by mormon men. I "love" how they teach us from young children to be submissive to an older man taking us into a room and asking us about things like masturbation. I have to say that the bishop before this man and the bishop after this man didn't do that. They were nice people. I never felt intimidated or afraid when I went to see them. No intrusive questions.

But I did go through a lot of emotional I consider rape over my situation with my gay boyfriend. I never went back to the leaders over the subject once we got married. I realized just not that long ago that I married him partially to survive as those men were destroying me.

But I tend to give up my power to men and SO I don't get remarried, I don't live with my boyfriend. I do live with my ex, but he doesn't dare treat me like he used to. We live is it parallel lives for the most part. He is downstairs and I"m upstairs. He pays for the house right now. About time. I did for 20 years. But I know my weaknesses when it comes to men, so I make sure I keep going to therapy when I need it to figure out how to maneuver through my relationship with my boyfriend and it has worked. Even my boyfriend will tell me, "go talk to Dave."

Thinking about the insanity of growing up mormon as a female blows my mind. Who in their right mind would subject themselves to that. AND thankfully, my parents listened when I left the church. My dad even told me his issues with the lds church and my mother never told me to go back. She didn't want me to.

I would say that MOST women are on the receiving end of control at least the ones my age and older as we were raised that way. Men were in authority over us. Luckily, I have met men who weren't that way and they were men I worked with, so I knew them well. They are still my friends, those who are still alive. I was just reading some letters one Catholic man wrote me. He was more like a grandfather. I saved all his letters. He died 34 years ago.

I realized as I typed this that my issues with mormon men and the lds church, how it is set up, has nothing to do with priesthood. I never wanted it. The abuse by men in mormonism and their priesthood seems to give them the right they think to do so, but having the priesthood as women won't fix that. It is a pervasive attitude that the men have the power. They could give the women the priesthood, but they will NEVER give them the power.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2019 09:21AM by cl2.

I'm at a loss as to why people can't "graduate" themselves from church in the same manner that you graduate from school. Exactly how much moral instruction does any one person need? Either it took or it didn't. I understand that many people like the community and social aspects of church, but it seems that Mormon church authorities have done their best to drain that away.

they don't teach the right kind of morals. I've always been the way I am. Mormonism didn't make me a better person. By the time they are 20 in mormonism, they tend to have them convinced they NEED the leaders. I thought I did in terms of getting to be in the CK WITH MY FAMILY, the family I was planning on having. I didn't take into consideration the reality. It took me a long time even with what I was going through to realize they were full of BS. This board helped convince me of that. I still thought I had to respect the leaders when I got here.

cl2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lds men controlled me in so
> many ways.

This is why they will never acknowledge women as equals in their authority. They would lose their security and sense of control over their own sexual organization.

The women seem to think that if they get the priesthood, they would have some authority. Nope.

Wendy seems to have some authority. Ha ha ha! Only in her mind.

My issue with this discussion is the same one that I have with those who feel that metoo went to far.

There seems to be no baseline for a woman's actions. This environment doesn't allow for a woman to simply be herself and have her own emotions. Everything she does is directly related to the men and others in her life.

When women are granted the same independence of thought and action as men we can have this discussion.

This is right.

The two parallel assumptions underlying this thread are

1) Women have an obligation to serve men in general, after entering a relationship, or after marrying.

2) Women are a function of men and men's needs.

Both statements are utter nonsense. If a man is not happy with a woman, he should leave the relationship and not complain about her being inadequate.

If a man cannot be self-sufficient, that is his problem and no one else's.

and I'm female. I posted about it before. My boyfriend was fired for sexual harassment and I know he didn't sexually harass anyone. Someone wanted to fire him so they found a way to do it. I worked with him. I know him well. Dated him in my 20s and 14 years now from age 47 to 61. I can very much say I was sexually harassed. I almost lost my job over it. Finally, the fired the guy who harassed me, but what he did other than sexual harassment was much worse. Thankfully, too many people had worked with me before and he didn't win in sabotaging me, besides his boss catching him doing what I had told his boss he did.

BUT my brother has been sexually harassed and raped. My son has been sexually harassed. It goes both ways. My boyfriend has also been sexually harassed.

Even if men have the priesthood in the lds church, there are good guys and bad guys and the men even are treated abusively. Don is one of those. They don't want the priesthood. My dad never thought much of the priesthood. It was more of a pain to him. My brothers never wanted to pass the sacrament, collect fast offerings, go on missions. My disabled brother is the only one of my parents' children and grandchildren who went on a mission, and my disabled brother was called gay the whole time he was on his mission. My mother didn't tell me for 2 years. I KNOW he isn't gay and I got him a therapist to talk to.

Elder Berry was sexually molested as a kid.

This is not just about females. It is about society as a whole.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2019 12:49PM by cl2.

I don't really want to superimpose anyone's specific experience onto my general statement. I'm sorry that people have harmed you and your's. There are some in my family that have done some very shameful things and others who have had terrible things happen to them.

I only mean to say that the scales are weighted against women. I welcome any correction, even an over-correction. In my view the pendulum of inequality is still on a downward path. Setting aside Mormonism, in the past few years in the US our society has fought against reason. During metoo we elected a president who is virtually identical to Harvey Weinstein. There are literally a half dozen examples where our society risen to fight reasonable progress, from racism, individual identity, sexism, and others we can't make a step forward without resistance.

Mormonism lives in the extreme but the attitudes that make good extreme Mormons exist in others as well.

I hope that makes sense.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think in a recent thread it devolved into the
> tired argument that women use their sexual appeal
> to control their "kept men."
>
> I believe it simply isn't true.

Women are as likely, or far more likely to exhibit jealousy and controlling behaviors.

Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 387-407.

Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246.

tag something as "misogyny" and you don't need to look at the facts, you can dismiss it as woman-hating and ignore the research about what actually happens as opposed to your preconceptions.

HWint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tag something as "misogyny" and you don't need to
> look at the facts, you can dismiss it as
> woman-hating and ignore the research about what
> actually happens as opposed to your
> preconceptions.


I didn't say that. Look at the facts. Try to demonize the entire female sex. That is misogyny.

Humans are not so simple. Unless simplicity appeals to your brain.

Both men and women are at risk for sexual violence. But the facts are, women are at a greater risk than men.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/consequences.html

Nearly 1 in 5 adult women and about 1 in 7 adult men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime.

About 1 in 6 women and 1 in 12 men have experienced contact sexual violence from an intimate partner (this includes rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, and unwanted sexual contact)

10% of women and 2% of men report having been stalked by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

About 35% of female IPV survivors and 12% of male IPV survivors experience some form of physical injury related to their experience of relationship violence.

About 1 in 6 of homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner

Over 40% of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by an intimate partner

Children might become injured during IPV incidents between their parents. A large overlap exists between IPV and child abuse and neglect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2019 10:52AM by Devoted Exmo.

In domestic physical violence, women are the primary targets. In domestic psychological abuse, men and women are equal targets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876290/

Men are more likely to report crimes against them. Does that offset the lack of resources offered to make victims?

Total physical violence, men and women are equally targets, but the perpetrators are vastly male.
https://www.quora.com/Who-is-more-likely-to-be-the-victim-of-a-violent-crime-men-or-women

To me it raises the question, is emotional abuse better than physical abuse?

I believe it to be an incorrect notion that since men usually have a stronger musculature, they are better able to defend themselves. Maybe they are, but what are fists against a weapon? What if they are too frozen with shock to respond to an attack?

Testiphony (can’t login) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me it raises the question, is emotional abuse
> better than physical abuse?

As a person who experienced both I would say it is like being locked in an oven and slowly cooked versus being burned repeatedly.

When you know the hurt is coming it is both worse and better - worse because like being burnt you know it is coming. Whereas slowly roasting in neglect, verbal pecks, repeatedly being downplayed and ignored is like fighting to be recognized as an existent person.

Seen it so many times. I have been sexually assaulted by a woman on the street, and when I've told anyone I get derision... Even got told by sonwone that I should have enjoyed it.

I've known plenty of battered husbands. Many don't report it and the police are less likely to act around here if a woman hits a man or throws things at him.

Your personal experience aside there is plenty of data in this thread that debunks this claim.

"Him" has been attacking me in some other threads, and I generally think he is much like diapers and politicians in the Mark Twain quip. But there is some truth to his observation that men often get knocked around and that the police and courts often don't take it seriously.

His broader assertions about women getting favored treatment throughout society is nonsense, but this particular imbalance is real--DV conviction rates are something like 10-1 nationally--and should be addressed.

Even a broken clock. . . twice a day.

For my work I manage a fairly large facility that runs into issues on pretty much a daily basis. One of the things that keeps me sane is the idea that we don't have to solve every problem right now. What we do have to solve is the problem that is preventing us from accomplishing our daily/weekly objectives. Other issues can wait until those things are resolved.

In my view, any inequality that exists that favors women, minorities, children, elderly, and so forth can wait.

Put another way, the scales are weighted so heavily in favor of the white man that I'd have a hard time wanting to tackle that before other more pressing issues.

Agreed. I just want to acknowledge facts no matter what the source. But when it comes to priorities--like gender inequities and whether the BSA might suffer from a false claim or two--you are certainly right. One should prioritize the solution of problems based on their urgency.

This isn't even close to being true. A preponderance of data shows that women and children are more likely to suffer financially and emotionally in divorce.

Look up Father's Rights. Women regularly alienate children (i.e. keep children away from the father to estrange them), use them as pawns, poison them against their father with all kinds of falsehoods etc.

My friend's wife took the children away one day, he never got to see them for nine months (one of them is three - so that was a huge chunk of her life, time goes slower for children) and yet he paid out tens of thousands (he's not rich)... She has never worked during the entire marriage and now lives off his money and her mother's. He had to get a lawyer to force them to let him have access. The reason for the separation? He complained when she went through hundreds of dollars in two hours on clothing.

This kind of thing happens all the time. If he took the children away from her for nine months, he would have gone to prison.

That story isn't just anecdotal, I see it happening all the time.

Oh and by the way, take a look around you not at the "data". How can data quantify completely subjective court judgements. Seriously, Jacob, stand up for other men and look around you!

Women are treated like dirt in some parts of western society but they have the whiphand over men in divorce, custody and alimony.

The beauty of my "data" is that it doesn't lie to me like my perception of things does all the time.

I'm a divorced man and I know full well the lack of employment opportunities that exist for me that doesn't exist for my ex. When we were younger she stopped going to school to look after our daughter. When we were a little older she stopped working because my salary was sufficient. And when we were a little older she stopped wanting to be married because of my lack of faith and my acceptance of our daughter's path in life.

Now she has no way of earning more money because she doesn't have 20 years work experience like I do. Now she rely's on a man who she no longer loves because she stopped going to school for that man. She is dependent on me. Do you think she likes that situation? Because I know she doesn't. She tells me on occasion how difficult it is for her to live the life she's now living.

And on top of all that data shows that this situation is the most likely scenario.

Did you know that about 75% of the women and children on welfare are from divorced families. That isn't just the Us by the way, it is the US, Canada, Europe, all the places in "Western Society" that are supposed to be better than this.

Divorce is statistically hell on women and children. On men it is statistically kind of hard.

Do me a favor and look up the definition of anecdotal. I think you'll find that your phrase "I see it happening all the time" is a pretty accurate description of the word.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do me a favor and look up the definition of
> anecdotal. I think you'll find that your phrase "I
> see it happening all the time" is a pretty
> accurate description of the word.


And do me a favor as well. Take a look around you at other men, and support them when they need it. Stop supporting discrimination against your own gender. Gender equality means fairness to men, not just women. Women deserve equal pay, men deserve equal rights in divorce courts.

The reason you don't see it is because you turn a blind eye to it. Think of all the custody battlea you see... Who gets the kids? Women the vast majority of the time. When did you last hear a woman moaning she had to hand over her pay to an ex-husband who refuses to work?

Women get the money. Women get the kids. Women get to do things men don't like abducting the children and taking them away from their father for months or even years. A man does that and he goes to jail.

Men are discriminated against all the time in these circumstance. Battered husbands aren't taken seriously. Sexual assault on men is laughed off. Do you know of any shelters men can hide from stalkers or violent female partners?

I guess the problem is one of identification. Jacob, a caring man with children, identifies with humans in general and hence looks at the data to see what is really happening. You identify as a man and hence only care about men and aren't interested in the facts.

I know for sure whom I would want as a father, a neighbor, a friend.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the problem is one of identification.
> Jacob, a caring man with children, identifies with
> humans in general and hence looks at the data to
> see what is really happening. You identify as a
> man and hence only care about men and aren't
> interested in the facts.
>
> I know for sure whom I would want as a father, a
> neighbor, a friend.

Well, you're not my neighbor and are not a real friend to any men if you support any of this. Gender equality means that.

I wouldn't support a woman being paid less, and I don't support working men being bilked to pay out for someone's luxuries.

Many men don't want to get married these days, and that's why. If Jacob is "a caring man with children", why would the law allow Jacob's children to be taken away from him? I'm sure he'd change his tune. (No idea whether he is married, SSM etc but that's not the point).

Women get custody in NINETY PERCENT of cases in the USA. But I guess as a self-identifying human you think that's fair. The mother has to be in prison, severely mentally ill or a junkie to stand a chance of having the kids taken away. All a man needs for the kids to be taken off him is a wife who disagrees, commits adultery or maybe just wants a change.

NINETY PERCENT. There is no way in hell that is fair. No wonder male suicide rates are so much higher than female ones.

> I
> don't support working men being bilked to pay out
> for someone's luxuries.


I hate to cherry pick, but....


Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious?

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I
> > don't support working men being bilked to pay
> out
> > for someone's luxuries.
>
>
> I hate to cherry pick, but....
>
>
> Jesus fucking Christ. Are you serious?


Are you denying divotced men pay out vast amounts of alimony each year? How many women do this for ex-husbands? Did Paul McCartney ever get paid any money by Heather Mills or was it the other way round?

Did my father get his bank accounts frozen during his divorce or did hos ex-wife? What do you think? I'll give you a clue: he had to live rent free at a friend's at the time.

Oh and how can you justify how only 10% of men gain custody? How would you like that to happen to you?

How many men do YOU know who ever won custody? How many women do you know who pay money to ex-husbands? Few in either case no doubt.

My ex threatened me with the promise of "extreme retaliation" if I even contacted an attorney. He had been verbally abusive to both me and our child for over a decade. Since he never lifted a finger to take care of any of our child's needs, I had (wrongly) assumed that he would not want custody. He did. I hadn't given a second thought to child support. I didn't want or expect a penny from him, though he made considerably more money than I did. I just wanted to be AWAY from him, because the only verbal interaction in our house was criticism from him and attempts at self-defense from me.

He finally agreed to the divorce I had wanted for years, but HE got custody of the child, and it broke the hearts of both me and my child. He was an absolute SOB, and I will never forgive him for all the pain he caused.

Really?

Over half of the divorces in the US result in shared custody, so the 90% figure you keep using is insane.

But what are you going to get when you rely on divorce data from the w(t)f firm of divorce attorneys?

Your logic is flawed.

Male suicide rates are higher than female rates across the globe. US divorce law (which you don't understand) does not raise the suicide rate in Albania or Angola.

Truth is that you can't always rely on stats. How can there be reliable stats on unreported crimes, or people illegally in a country? Or even the success rate of Alcoholics Anonymous? There are no decent stats on any of these. There is no way to collect them. The same applies here.

I can only go by what I see and J suspect it's the tip of the iceberg.

But here's some info for you -
https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/

96. 90% of divorced mothers have custody of their children.

97. Over 79 percent of custodial mothers receive a child support award, while just under 30 percent of custodial fathers receive one.

There is other info on that page, some displaying benefits to men and others to women. But men's place post-divorce stinks.

Him Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth is that you can't always rely on stats. How
> can there be reliable stats on unreported crimes,
> or people illegally in a country? Or even the
> success rate of Alcoholics Anonymous? There are no
> decent stats on any of these.

Surely you jest. There are good statistic means to find answers to these questions subject to statistically measurable levels of confidence. Perfect? No. But pretty damn good.


----------------
> I can only go by what I see and J suspect it's the
> tip of the iceberg.

Statistical data is far better than "what I see and . . . suspect."


-----------
> 96. 90% of divorced mothers have custody of their
> children.

That is a strange figure. Does it mean that men only get custody 10% of the time? Impossible because almost all divorces have shared custody of some sort.


-------------
> 97. Over 79 percent of custodial mothers receive a
> child support award, while just under 30 percent
> of custodial fathers receive one.

Child support is awarded from the higher-paying parent to the parent with more childcare responsibilities. So if men are paid more than women--which is the case--they will almost always pay more child support--which is appropriate.


-----------
> . . . men's
> place post-divorce stinks.

So does women's. In some ways men fare worse, in others women do worse.

I've had a few girlfriends over the years. Some of them were fine women. Others not so much. But I've never married... Why? I used to get asked that all the time in the church. Because I would have to trust a woman absolutely that she would never bankrupt me, destroy me or make my own children despise me as a kind of revenge.

Sometimes, I feel I'd love to have children, sometimes not. I'd love to meet a soulmate I could trust like that. But why would I put myself at so much risk?

I don't think any of these women were abusers. But I have known a number of men who were assaulted by women. Most of them never reported it.

Him Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've had a few girlfriends over the years. Some of
> them were fine women. Others not so much. But I've
> never married... Why? I used to get asked that all
> the time in the church. Because I would have to
> trust a woman absolutely that she would never
> bankrupt me, destroy me or make my own children
> despise me as a kind of revenge.

There is always that risk. It goes both ways.


------------
> Sometimes, I feel I'd love to have children,
> sometimes not. I'd love to meet a soulmate I could
> trust like that. But why would I put myself at so
> much risk?


I seriously wish you'd had the chance to enjoy a loving marriage and children, both of which are perhaps the greatest joys life has to offer. But they do bring immense risks.


------------
> I don't think any of these women were abusers. But
> I have known a number of men who were assaulted by
> women. Most of them never reported it.

I have observed the same things. There are great inequities in the way DV and divorce are handled and they need to be ironed out. So we agree on all those things.

But Jacob is correct in saying the data (which are pretty good) should inform the priorities for reform.

Yes, you're right. It does go both ways. But whatever the result, if she decides she wants divorce for whatever reason (even trivial ones) then it will almost certainly go against me thanks to my gender. She will get most of my money, maybe my house. If she has more money than me, I won't get much of hers, if I end up in a bad place financially.

Even pre-nups aren't watertight. So marriage isn't attractive to me. The only woman I would have ever considered it with is back in her home country. She was willing for me to move there, but not for her to move here permanently (even though she did live here for a while). So that was one sided too.

I knew men who killed themselves after divorces due to the sheer pain it caused them. I know others whose children are being estranged from them right now. I know another low paid man who had to hand over a year's wages to a woman who battered him (no kids there thankfully). I don't want to be in such places.

Almost everything you say is true. It does happen. Virtually all those things also happen to women as well.

Relationships and marriage are a minefield. Nevertheless, for a lot of people they work out well.

We can argue about data, but on an individual level everyone has to make his or her own choices.

Him, good luck. You aren't really supposed to point out what you did.

When someone here generalizes that men are jerks and controlling and abusive, it usually goes unchallenged. Patriarchy, abuse by priesthood leaders, etc. Women just sweet innocent victims.

If someone mentions that women can also do bad, then you get an argument.

Most people are indoctrinated in the feminist religion. And there is a lot of money and power involved.

Erin Pizzey opened the first women's shelters, in England, long ago. She soon discovered that the women were violent also, but when she dared to share that, she was attacked. She received death threats and moved to the U.S. After further threats and harassment, she had to leave the country.

So women need to be the victims and men bad. Interesting talk she gave:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dnNGF4NaKQ

straw man, as anyone who has read the foregoing exchange would know.

But hey, don't let that get in your way!

Wow. Such great observations and commentary, about how the notion that women control men with sex is completely inaccurate and incorrect .......

Are you another one that can't get a date?