Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

Ugly men encourage cheating

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

If bad genes would put one sex off, it’d be the party that would have to carry them. Tend them. For decades. You know, the one putting money down if this is a gambling analogy.
Much better not to shack up with the uggo in the first place, which is what women have been doing (avoiding ugly men) since parental set-ups ended. Putting an end to arranged marriages is one of the most eugenic things to ever happen, second only to giving r-types the Pill and other abortfacients.

They’d be most likely to miscarry such children regardless, so a naturalistic fallacy doesn’t apply. This is a reversal of a dysgenic societal pressure with freedom of choice, not a natural pressure. There is a real-world consequence to mating (marrying) such low-quality men that used to be disposed of in endless wars: lower fitness than the parents, a biological death-knell.

There are more bachelors than ever because women aren’t forced to marry anyone who’d support them. If the woman can do it better for herself (given equal opportunities), the man is too poor quality to deserve fecundity. Men purchase rights to a woman’s reproductive decisions with marriage, that’s literally the whole premise. Monogamy had to be imposed to avoid unrest and rebellion against rulers, because it’s better for low-quality males (they actually get to breed and don’t ‘resort’ to rape – not an excuse) and worse for all females, since the natural exclusion (men used to be kicked out of the tribe at age) of the shit-tier doesn’t occur to the gene pool either they or their children and grandchildren will marry into… Naturally, the uggos in question hate this. Inferiority in humans is often connected to misogyny, despite how women are the life-giving, less violent and kinder sex (aliens would view those as objectively superior traits). Happy men don’t have to take anything out on women (displacement) because they are secure.

Narcissism and other personality disorder is always preceded by insecurity.

It reminds me of the bad husbands who complain of sexless marriages. Anyone with an ounce of empathy or life experience with women, happy couples, would laugh at such a concept, since sex in a marriage is a symptom, an outcome, a barometer. As in, they expect not to change but their marriage to improve, magically, for purely selfish reasons. Like it’s them + sex toy, no union, no greater labour required from the ‘master’ of the house. Rarely do the men in such marriages carry just their financial weight (the one entailed in the vows, also why pre-nups are anti-Christian since you swore until death you’d be responsible). Incompetent men used to be screened before they could marry, in the courtship stages interacting with the parents. Now, divorce is common because courtship has been shortened and too superficial. If they can’t be married, successfully, the marriage cannot continue. It’s a job. Rather than correcting their fellow men, to be capable husbands and fathers, they complain about women being shallow (projection). I suppose it’s the r-selected urge to appease other men and avoid real conflict, which they know women are too good to really instigate. Wife-beaters aren’t sneered at from sexism, it’s because a man hitting a woman knows it isn’t a fair fight. He knows his risk of death is almost nil. That’s cowardice.

Damaging the one human you swore to protect? Evil.

Hypocrisy doesn’t work long-term. Only an anti-honour culture like ours would think this.

You don’t deserve shit. Like, does a fat SJW deserve a 6ft model with a 6-pack because she got bullied for years? Exactly, it’s shit, you know it’s bullshit, sit down and stop.

You cannot be entitled to a human. They’re autonomous. An atheist cannot expect a Christian. A slut cannot expect a virgin. You get your level. That’s the red pill – you deserve what you get.

So technically, unequal pairings encourage cheating. Common sense?

Disturbing trend where abusive manboys use redpill as their excuse

https://www.reddit.com/r/twoxchromosomes/comments/2u1bez/so_tonight_i_dumped_my_boyfriend_for_being/

Saying things like “all women are children” and “need to trained” is old-fashioned 4chan sexism.
It’s terrible when feminists physically/mentally abuse their boyfriends too. Duh.
They’re polluting the movement. It’s a disturbing trend because eventually the rot will overcome any movement, and these are emotional abuse tactics from narcissists getting off on the control and outright sociopaths latching on to PUA tactics that won’t fly in court, as which point they’ll point to the likes of us for philosophical grounding.

This is our reputation they’re ruining.

Interesting comment;

As a man, I find the red pill kids pretty amusing. It’s pretty obvious it stems from resentment, bitterness, and probably a feeling of loss of their gender identity now that the sexes are becoming more equal. If your identity is dependent on how others treat you, and they change, you’ll be lost.

Similar happened in the 70’s as a response to second wave feminism, where guys started celebrating machismo-ism and misogyny. It’s why popular comedians at the time were misogynist assholes like Chevy Chase and Rodney Dangerfield, why a lot of guys thought getting drunk and living hard made you a real man. Even truckers became a celebrated thing, as a modern version of the cowboy. A very popular book at the time was “Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche”. Well they were fools, because quiche is delicious!

What the red pill kids don’t get, ironically, is if you must define yourself thru others and how they treat you, then you’re not a man, in either the classic or modern sense. If you must act “alpha” and need others to treat you as such, it is because you are not “alpha”. Being a man, being an adult, means no one defines who you are but YOU.

What they don’t get is that their ancestral males deserved respect and showed it to women. Who returned it by choice. Trying to revoke female choice demonstrates your low quality, it is Affirmative Action for weak men, thinking a Patriarchy could get them laid (quite the opposite, it guards women and you’ll be lucky to get one woman, a wife).
An alpha male isn’t a dick.
He isn’t a user or abuser or a loser. 

There are two types: the bachelor and the husband.
Neither is a prick. If you can’t get a woman by being yourself, if you need to copy other men, you are not a man. You’re a boy playing dress-up.

Calls to take away the rights of women are really nothing more than an affirmative action program for weak and beta men. Desirable men don’t have a problem getting married. source

PUA is a con against omega males buying into a cheat code for sex.
> never trust a woman
> girls were mean at school
> be “too smart” for Ponzi schemes and Get Rich Quick
> read PUA material
> there can totally be a cheat code for sex
> with any woman
> in the world
> because women aren’t people
> what free will
> who could resist you with the magic spells in PUA
> utter the words
> practice the words
> ignore myths you like e.g. men’s looks don’t matter
> buy expensive courses and books
> become a douchebag
> still be ugly, but now on inside too
> repulse normal women
> attempt to treat average women like free hookers
> come up against shit tests and bitch shields all of a sudden
> all women hate you
> don’t worry, it’s really a test
> they can’t really hate you
> you did what the course told you to
> and the course runner has such a great marriage
> oh shit moment
> never get a good woman
> double down in desperation
> never have a hope in Hell of keeping a woman for a serious length of time
> be emotionally broken from a head full of lies
> be emotionally abusive as if you own a woman
> she leaves
> this keeps happening
> wtf guys moment of doubt
> other guys lie and say it’s working for them
> get angry
> be alone
> get worse over time
> blame women
> women made you like this
> you didn’t have a choice
> the world is against you
> the system is against you
> you’re so lonely
> considering rape
> because never trust a woman
> hate women
> end up social pariah or in prison somehow

Again, Media Violence doesn’t cause Real Violence.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/14/video-game-violence-a-scientific-consens

This includes books, music, games and even porn. In fact, porn access causes rape rates to plummet.
This has always been the consensus. The people who said otherwise were self-interested researchers and lying feminists. They kept lying and saying it was settled to stop scientific enquiry that would prove them wrong.

In fact, when you count all forms of interpersonal conflict, in relationships women are more aggressive than men.

 

Warning signs you’re dating a loser

http://masksofsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/warning-signs-youre-dating-loser.html

It’s equal opportunities losers, male AND female.

  1. Rough treatment
  2. Quick attachment and expression
  3. Frightening temper
  4. Killing your self-confidence
  5. Cutting off your support
  6. The mean and sweet cycle
  7. It’s always your fault
  8. Breakup panic
  9. No outside interests
  10. Paranoid control
  11. Public embarrassment
  12. It’s never enough
  13. Entitlement
  14. Your friends and family
  15. Bad stories
  16. The waitress test
  17. The reputation
  18. Walking on eggshells
  19. Discounted feelings/opinions
  20. They make you crazy