Why is the marriage contract so difficult to get out of ?

[Clint EastwoodParticipant 323]

There’s this thought that has struck me in the last hour or so.

Why is the marriage contract so difficult to get out of?

It’s a piece of p~~~ to get into, but you have to jump through so many hoops if you want to escape. It takes such a LONG time to complete, even if it’s amicable.

It all smells strangely feminine, like ultimately, at the top of the legal pyramid, is some fat, miserable,ovulating bitch of a queen bee, pulling the strings and laughing her four-chinned head off !!!

Rant over. 🙁

Stay vigilant. They're everywhere.

[Anonymous 54]

Because the average guy would leave after six months.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Clint Eastwood wrote:

Why is the marriage contract so difficult to get out of?

Forget the marriage contract for a moment.

Have you ever told a woman to LEAVE, or GET OUT when you simply didn’t want her around? She will refuse simply because you don’t want her there. Women don’t leave relationships or marriages peacefully. They will even expect to be PAID TO F~~~ OFF. It’s like getting a camel out of a tent.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Because if the marriage contract was purely voluntary and there were no undue penalties for a man exiting it, our society could not forcibly transfer wealth from men to women… women would have to literally continue to work for it.

Imagine that marriage is like getting a job for women. They polish up their resume, do a few interviews, put on their best look and talk up their abilities and what they’re going to do for the company… but then once they get the job and the contract is signed, they go to their new office, maybe put in a few weeks or months of effort until the ink dries, then put their feet up and start doing nothing.

If a man did this, he would expect to get fired and lose all the benefits of his employment. But women (and manginas) have written the laws so that a woman can do this and expect to still get paid. She can put her feet up, bad mouth the owner, run off the customers, embezzle funds, burn down the building and THEN quit and STILL the company has to pay her. In fact, they have to give her half the company’s value in some cases, plus a severance plus full pay with benefits.

If this were true in business, nobody would EVER hire a woman… yet men still marry them every day. That’s how powerful the promise of pussy is to thirsty men.

Make the marriage contract fair and the value proposition just isn’t there for women any more. Most of them marry knowing they can get the payout whenever they want. Take away the payout and they would most likely all go professoinal, offering the promise of sex to the highest bidder day by day.

p.s. Women who married men who were broke and took you to the cleaners in the divorce, you’re doing it wrong. Go home and slap your momma for not teaching you how to woman right.

[~BSParticipant 3266]

it was made difficult historically because of the single income household and the concept of “fairness” to the exwife. post wall she’ll be fugly with 0 work experience so little chance of her making it on her own.

nowadays it’s difficult for different reasons, basically the government, courts, attorneys, and women want to feed off the man’s assets and income.

"He didn't marry until now, so he won't ever do it. Think about it, why would a man like him ever marry? It's too late to catch him. " ~some cunt

[HitmanParticipant]

the longer the marriage,
the longer it takes to get out of.
.
be as civil as possible,
women have a ” what have you done for me lately” mindset.
.
be very calm and don’t fight with her,
just don’t.
then in a few months all she will know is that you are a good guy.
stay the course,
never go back with her.
but the nicer you are,
the quicker and cheaper it wil be for you.

[foghornleghornParticipant 3449]

The main reason is because the people helping you get out of the contract have a vested interest in keeping the divorce process going for as long as possible. Watch Divorce Corp to get a good idea of this. The entire family court system is rigged to literally suck the wealth out. The longer they keep it going the more money for everyone of these bastards.

[Mr. SpockParticipant 10907]

It’s designed to keep you shackled. I was one of the guys who knew his marriage wasn’t working but stayed in it over 3 years longer because I couldn’t stand the thought of losing everything I had worked for up to that point and having to start over again. Another thing was the whole spousal support thing. We had no kids yet I was literally paying half of my paycheck in spousal support because there was such a wide gap between what each of us made. When we first got married it was only a few grand. By the time I decided to grow a pair and leave, the gap had widened to a 40K difference. The thought of moving into a s~~~ hole while going through the divorce made me cringe and I’m not going to lie, I actually thought of staying.

Feminism isn't about equality with men, it's about leverage over men.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

~BS wrote:

it was made difficult historically because of the single income household and the concept of “fairness” to the exwife. post wall she’ll be fugly with 0 work experience so little chance of her making it on her own.

nowadays it’s difficult for different reasons, basically the government, courts, attorneys, and women want to feed off the man’s assets and income.

I agree. However…today with “equality,” and women holding more college degrees then men, these laws just don’t make sense anymore. My “wife” is equal to me until the divorce hits…then she is some helpless little damsel that can’t be responsible for herself? The system is a joke. Luckily as a man we have the option to simply not marry, and then these laws become irrelevant.

[Rolling Tin FistParticipant 484]

That’s the nature of a trap: easy to get into, tough to get out of.

"Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another" - H. L. Mencken

[AttonParticipant]

This is why we have dual citizenship makes it all easy.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[BadgerSwagParticipant 70]

So, last night she asked if I had any plans and I explained only tentative plans to go to a wine tasting. She said she thought we could go out. Not the conversation came that we needed to discuss our relationship. THAT was out of character as I’d tried with no success. Being civil, I agreed. At dinner she asked if I wanting to stay in the family (I.e. Making it about me vs. the family, which I corrected this was only between the two of us) or go off to the single life (implying chasing other women). My response started with “I am not after that single life.” Then, she relaxed, until I followed up quoting Stealth. “But I also don’t want to be married to you. It sucks being married to you.” I said, “I do not want an uncaring, unsupportive, empty, vindictive, sexless, marriage, which is what I’ve had. And I do not wish to go pursuing another relationship that will likely be every bit as disappointing. “I’ve already told you what it would take to reconcile, and you’ve not done one part of it. You’re only asking again hoping the list changed. It hasn’t. I’m left with the conclusion that reconciliation is only possible if completely on your terms and that isn’t acceptable. Therefore, I don’t see how there can be any hope of reconciliation.” I avoided any detail items, leaving no room for wiggle. Not a fully educated MGTOW, yet, but making progress.

[Chuck WowParticipant 141]

Society in general benefits from men being married – higher income taxes because married men need higher wages to support a family – many men need to work overtime or a second job.

Spending more money on housing, food, cars, gasoline, medical, clothing, baby items, education, etc results in more taxes paid to the government and profits to the corporations that control the government.

[TwistParticipant]

Beer wrote:

Luckily as a man we have the option to simply not marry, and then these laws become irrelevant.

Regardless of how many times I hear this, I still marvel at its simplistic brilliance.

Bravo!

[Psl47Participant 678]

Ill just leave this here

.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

You’re fighting four thousand years of tradition.

The Code of Hammurabi (1754 BC) declares
a man must provide sustenance to a woman who has borne him children, so that she can raise them:
137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.[2]

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Author]

Posts