Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) - yay, or nay? (illegal, revolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A better way for me to express the "relationship failure-rate" would be the probability that a person will have only one sexual-partner in her lifetime.
I would assume that nearly everyone in the pre-industrial era had only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. While today, I think we can safely assume that almost no one has only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. And presumably, every sexual-relationship has a chance of ending in child-support.
The problem with using marriage as a reference-point, is that fewer and fewer people are getting married. And of the small percentage who do get married, and especially the ones who stay married, are hardly representative of the average.
I think you would agree that there is a huge difference between spending your money to raise your own child the way you think he ought to be raised, and writing a check to someone else to raise your child.
This might sound bad, but if I was to get a girl pregnant, that is MY kid. It is an extension of me. I'm not going to allow some woman to ruin my kid while taking my money. And certainly the courts tend to favor women.
I never said it was. But should it be?
It's not "some woman", it's the mom. Most fathers don't want full custody or even joint. They can still spend quality time with the child and act as a role model if they are mature enough.
It's not "some woman", it's the mom. Most fathers don't want full custody or even joint. They can still spend quality time with the child and act as a role model if they are mature enough.
I might just be selfish, but I refuse to have someone else raise my child. Either it is till death do us part, or I want nothing to do with you.
I've seen too many failed relationships, and messed-up children that result from it, to want any part of that.
Regardless, who cares about MGTOW anyway? They aren't bothering you. They want nothing to do with you. They will die and there will be no trace of them till the end of time.
As I said acceptance and modus operandi have change dramatically. History shows us people have always been promiscuous, had affairs, been unfaithful, fell in love, fell out of love, married, divorced, etc. Its nothing new. Are we dating more, sleeping around more, divorcing more, length of marriages/relationships becoming shorter, sure.
Is it such a bad thing? Our entire world has changed. Relationship dynamics will change with it. Its called evolving.
I might just be selfish, but I refuse to have someone else raise my child. Either it is till death do us part, or I want nothing to do with you.
Then you need to pair with a woman who agrees to be the breadwinner while you agree to be a stay at home parent. Or find a surrogate and raise your kid as a single parent.
The courts favor women in custody because women are the ones who care for their child.
When we see more fathers taking an active roll in parenting from birth courts will have no choice but to treat custody differently. This means sacrificing income for flexibility. Equally taking time off work for sickness and appointments, adjusting or reducing hours to take kids to/from school/daycare. Being the ones who stay up with a sick child, meet with teachers, go to activities, feed them, teach them, take them shopping, etc. etc. The things you actually see few fathers doing although it is becoming more and more common.
A better way for me to express the "relationship failure-rate" would be the probability that a person will have only one sexual-partner in their lifetime.
I would assume that nearly everyone in the pre-industrial era had only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. While today, I think we can safely assume that almost no one has only one sexual-partner in their lifetimes. And presumably, every sexual-relationship has a chance of ending in child-support.
The problem with using marriage as a reference-point, is that fewer and fewer people are getting married. And of the small percentage who do get married, and especially the ones who stay married, are hardly representative of the average.
I think you would agree that there is a huge difference between spending your money to raise your own child the way you think he ought to be raised, and writing a check to someone else to raise your child.
This might sound bad, but if I was to get a girl pregnant, that is MY kid. It is an extension of me. I'm not going to allow some woman to ruin my kid while taking my money. And certainly the courts tend to favor women.
Are we dating more, sleeping around more, divorcing more, length of marriages/relationships becoming shorter, sure.
Is it such a bad thing? Our entire world has changed. Relationship dynamics will change with it. Its called evolving.
Evolving denotes something good. Why is this good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
The courts favor women in custody because women are the ones who care for their child.
Look, I'm also biased in favor of women. And I don't see anything wrong with there being a bias in favor of women when it comes to children. But that isn't the point.
Let us separate the people of the Middle-Ages into two groups...
In one group, you have basically the peasants. And in the other group, you have everyone else.
In simplest-terms, you can consider this to be the cities vs the countryside.
The people who lived in cities were generally the aristocrats, soldiers, high-ranking members of the Church, foreign diplomats, merchants, and professionals. The people in the medieval cities weren't markedly different than the people in today's cities. And certainly, medieval aristocrats were notoriously unfaithful, every city had numerous brothels, and the soldiers were at best promiscuous, and at worst a band of rapists.
But, these represented a relatively-tiny portion of the overall population. And since the vast-majority of the people were peasant farmers who did not live in the cities, I think I can say with conviction that divorce was almost non-existent, and premarital-sex was incredibly rare among the rural peasant.
To put it another way, the medieval-peasant lived a life pretty similar to the Amish. Except unlike the Amish, they were the vast-majority of the population, and weren't surrounded by a bunch of degenerate "outsiders".
Evolving denotes something good. Why is this good?
Look, I'm also biased in favor of women. And I don't see anything wrong with there being a bias in favor of women when it comes to children. But that isn't the point.
Evolving doesn't necessarily denote good. Why is it bad?
It is good because more people marry for love/want instead of need, less pressure to marry, don't have to stay in abusive, dysfunctional, unhappy relationships. There is opportunity to discover compatibility instead of just taking the first one that comes along. Sexual freedom.
Isnt all those things what MGTOW claim to be all about? No commitment, no pressure, doing your own thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Look, I'm also biased in favor of women. And I don't see anything wrong with there being a bias in favor of women when it comes to children. But that isn't the point.
If its not the point why the continuous comments about courts favoring mothers in custody? Actually, that is not a bias if the parenting/care taking are unequal.
Let us separate the people of the Middle-Ages into two groups...
In one group, you have basically the peasants. And in the other group, you have everyone else.
In simplest-terms, you can consider this to be the cities vs the countryside.
The people who lived in cities were generally the aristocrats, soldiers, high-ranking members of the Church, foreign diplomats, merchants, and professionals. The people in the medieval cities weren't markedly different than the people in today's cities. And certainly, medieval aristocrats were notoriously unfaithful, every city had numerous brothels, and the soldiers were at best promiscuous, and at worst a band of rapists.
But, these represented a relatively-tiny portion of the overall population. And since the vast-majority of the people were peasant farmers who did not live in the cities, I think I can say with conviction that divorce was almost non-existent, and premarital-sex was incredibly rare among the rural peasant.
To put it another way, the medieval-peasant lived a life pretty similar to the Amish. Except unlike the Amish, they were the vast-majority of the population, and weren't surrounded by a bunch of degenerate "outsiders".
It's harder to know before since record keeping wasn't nearly as robust as it was now, but I don't think the peasants were quite like you think necessarily. Right after the Middle Ages, for example:
"In England, for example, after the Reformation churches started keeping records of marriages and baptism in each parish. Scholars have connected them to determine when, in relation to marriage, the first child was born and, depending on where in England you are in the 16th century, between 10 and 30 percent of women were likely pregnant at the time of their marriage. Many more must have had sex before marriage and not gotten pregnant. It may be that it was fairly common for people to have sex before marriage, and they got married when the woman got pregnant. In church court records we can often find stories about women who were pregnant and claimed that the man had married them or had promised to marry them, and they asked for that promise to be enforced. So, the common people are not sticking strictly to the «no sex until marriage» rule."
Let us separate the people of the Middle-Ages into two groups...
In one group, you have basically the peasants. And in the other group, you have everyone else.
In simplest-terms, you can consider this to be the cities vs the countryside.
The people who lived in cities were generally the aristocrats, soldiers, high-ranking members of the Church, foreign diplomats, merchants, and professionals. The people in the medieval cities weren't markedly different than the people in today's cities. And certainly, medieval aristocrats were notoriously unfaithful, every city had numerous brothels, and the soldiers were at best promiscuous, and at worst a band of rapists.
But, these represented a relatively-tiny portion of the overall population. And since the vast-majority of the people were peasant farmers who did not live in the cities, I think I can say with conviction that divorce was almost non-existent, and premarital-sex was incredibly rare among the rural peasant.
To put it another way, the medieval-peasant lived a life pretty similar to the Amish. Except unlike the Amish, they were the vast-majority of the population, and weren't surrounded by a bunch of degenerate "outsiders".
Marriage among peasants was normally not a legal thing, more of a promise to each other. Records indicate that many only got "married" after there was a pregnancy, so there was premarital sex. Divorce was also not easily tabulated since there were not many that were married by the church thus there were no records. All one would have to do is say that they were not married and they were not married.
Quote:
Now, once we get to a later period, there are baptismal records. In England, for example, after the Reformation churches started keeping records of marriages and baptism in each parish. Scholars have connected them to determine when, in relation to marriage, the first child was born and, depending on where in England you are in the 16th century, between 10 and 30 percent of women were likely pregnant at the time of their marriage. Many more must have had sex before marriage and not gotten pregnant. It may be that it was fairly common for people to have sex before marriage, and they got married when the woman got pregnant. In church court records we can often find stories about women who were pregnant and claimed that the man had married them or had promised to marry them, and they asked for that promise to be enforced. So, the common people are not sticking strictly to the «no sex until marriage» rule. There has hardly been an era when they did. But it’s very hard to hear the voice of your average person, except sometimes in the church courts records.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
