Some conservatives want to ban no-fault divorce

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

22 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Incel

Some people just aren't as fortunate as you, worms. Not everyone can be a 40 something year old balding paralegal with subpar health.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,952]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I wonder what his side of the story is 

Sure, but based on the knowledge that he has his own place and she is sharing a room with the kid, Fock him. 

[RLLD 4,143]

6 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Yes, and I know of two couples personally that have to do this; live together because they can't afford to live apart. They are divorced and live under the same roof. I'd say that it takes a certain kind of couple to be able to actually do this - how do you date and move on? You'd need complete and total emotionally detachment.  

The article that you posted really does sound like it's not really on the women though, because it notes that the men cannot afford to purchase the homes either and neither want to go bankrupt or fock up their credit for the next 10 years. That and the housing market is garbage. Again, it would take a very special kind of couple that has their emotions I check if they are going to continue to stay together but apart and not destroy their children or themselves in the process. If a couple makes this work without fighting or anger, then that's great. 

I am not sure what "road" you're referring to when what process started? The process of getting married?  Maybe I am missing something here. 

 

I don't know what you're seeing. That if they wanted to, women would tough it out? Or women really ARE just in it for the financial stuff? What am I missing? 

 

 

My original point was that women were leading the way on filing for divorce in part because of the financial rewards that accompanied that outcome.  Men were less inclined because the outcomes were disproportionately negative for them.

So when the recent shift of fewer women filing for divorce was raised, I simple pointed out the the economics of leaving the marriage were no longer as much of an incentive and hence we see a more equitable split.

This was misinterpreted as some kind of "dig" on women.  And if you feel that way I understand, but is there really anything wrong with that reason being part of the calculation? Rather than interpret it as a negative I see it as rather pragmatic.

Now, we can have documented evidence suggesting my assertion has merit, its not just "me" saying it.

It might end up being true that some of these folks stay together for the long term as a result, they mend the fences.....isnt that a great story?

[TheNewGirl 1,354]

4 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

I wonder what his side of the story is 

Doesn't matter. 

It's all her fault. 

[TheNewGirl 1,354]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

My original point was that women were leading the way on filing for divorce in part because of the financial rewards that accompanied that outcome.  Men were less inclined because the outcomes were disproportionately negative for them.

So when the recent shift of fewer women filing for divorce was raised, I simple pointed out the the economics of leaving the marriage were no longer as much of an incentive and hence we see a more equitable split.

This was misinterpreted as some kind of "dig" on women.  And if you feel that way I understand, but is there really anything wrong with that reason being part of the calculation? Rather than interpret it as a negative I see it as rather pragmatic.

Now, we can have documented evidence suggesting my assertion has merit, its not just "me" saying it.

It might end up being true that some of these folks stay together for the long term as a result, they mend the fences.....isnt that a great story?

And my original point was the reason WHY women file more than men is rarely financially driven.  Do they file in part because of financial rewards - maybe. Or maybe it's just that him making more money makes it easier for them to leave if they are seeking support.  perhaps they figure they CAN make it on their own without the second income or whatever. And I agree that when they begin to go through the divorce process ,many find out that this isn't the case. Hence the reason to stay living together, or going to court to take the man for whatever she can. Do some women take advantage? Absofrickenlutely. Do some men take advantage? Absofrickenlutley - but probably not as often simply because women tend to have less financially. 

I guess I just don't know anyone personally that's filed for divorce just so they can financially benefit from it - because everyone I know that's gone through a divorce has ended up worse off on both sides. I guess that's where I falter in this argument, I can't picture anyone getting married just to get divorced and be better off. I know it happens, but it's something that my character (maybe?) can't picture. Like these young women with children on social media who are looking for a young fit guy that makes 6 figures and she will never have to work. They are out there, of course. 

Your assertion does have merit, however, I'd be curious about those relationships. I am gathering that there wasn't much abuse happening there in order for the couple to remain in the same house. Going back to my friend living with her father, there is literally NO way they could live together. Ex was far far too controlling. He literally contacted his lawyer when he found that she took a jar of sourdough starter. True story...and he's never baked a loaf of bread in his focking life. 

I think it would be great if couples stayed together and worked things out; divorce of any couple makes me sad, I hate to see it happen. I also don't want to see couples forced to stay together. I believe greatly in the family system of having two parents, scientifically children turn out better the majority of the time when they are from responsible two parent households. 

In the end, I think you and I really do agree on a lot of this stuff. I mostly take issue when men put the blame on women, because that's something women have been dealing with for centuries. It's rare that men actually do any introspection and ask, "Why does she want to leave?" It's usually, 'Yeah, she went crazy and left me." 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

9 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I guess I just don't know anyone personally that's filed for divorce just so they can financially benefit from it - because everyone I know that's gone through a divorce has ended up worse off on both sides. I guess that's where I falter in this argument, I can't picture anyone getting married just to get divorced and be better off.

I was likely not entirely clear.   I don't think people file just for financial benefit. 

I submit that there is an incentive associated with that factor that leads to more divorces.  And my link supports that.  The current financial climate is challenging, and due to this factor there is a movement of people who were down the road to divorce now adjusting; at least considering co-habitation.

The tilt of reward for divorce financially benefitting women, and hurting men.....is a driver for the disparity in filing.....more women than men doing the filing.  My point being that we again see government interference leading to unexpected outcomes.

The notion that women are in the wrong for leading the way in filing due to financial factors is not a negative

Being pragmatic about pursuing an end to a relationship is not wrong, its simple common sense.

So.....would it help if there were NOT this financial incentive for divorce, sure.....  is it some big deal, I guess not.  If you are unhappy, just end it. 

But are you really unhappy? Have you really tried? Put in the work to mediate? To give in a little, work together? If all it takes is a little financial disincentive to agree to co-habitate, then maybe you were not as unhappy as you first thought.

JMHO

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

I think many people here are looking at this with the wrong perspective.  I agree with a few that said the "Why" is because kids raised in a 2-parent home are more likely to be successful that those in a 1-parent home.  The reason why I think many here are looking at this from the wrong perspective is that you're too old.  Most people here are my age an older and I think 90's is the target group of this no fault ban.  People our age are past the somewhat past this point.  I know a few here have said that have kids around 10 years old (give or take), and I think while you are a target group, you aren't the primary target, it's 90's.

I think some of us/you, are too old to understand what's going on with the younger generation.  The VAST majority of relationships are found online, not in person.  When you can go from relationship to relationship with a swipe of your phone, you're more likely to do that.  We're finding more and more girls and guys are with well over 10+ partners before they hit 25 years old.  When you consider that people aren't getting married until 29/30, you're looking at a potential of 15+ partners.  Willing to bet that most marriages that last, have much lower body counts.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think many people here are looking at this with the wrong perspective.  I agree with a few that said the "Why" is because kids raised in a 2-parent home are more likely to be successful that those in a 1-parent home.  The reason why I think many here are looking at this from the wrong perspective is that you're too old.  Most people here are my age an older and I think 90's is the target group of this no fault ban.  People our age are past the somewhat past this point.  I know a few here have said that have kids around 10 years old (give or take), and I think while you are a target group, you aren't the primary target, it's 90's.

I think some of us/you, are too old to understand what's going on with the younger generation.  The VAST majority of relationships are found online, not in person.  When you can go from relationship to relationship with a swipe of your phone, you're more likely to do that.  We're finding more and more girls and guys are with well over 10+ partners before they hit 25 years old.  When you consider that people aren't getting married until 29/30, you're looking at a potential of 15+ partners.  Willing to bet that most marriages that last, have much lower body counts.

You sound like a puritan.

Which is fine. You’re certainly entitled to have your own opinions and beliefs, and to instill those in your children and so forth to whatever degree you can.

Some would accuse your attitude as slvt shaming but I actually tend to agree more with you than the hedonists.

That said, the issue is trying to enshrine those puritanical beliefs in the law. That’s crazy

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

10 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You sound like a puritan.

Which is fine. You’re certainly entitled to have your own opinions and beliefs, and to instill those in your children and so forth to whatever degree you can.

Some would accuse your attitude as slvt shaming but I actually tend to agree more with you than the hedonists.

That said, the issue is trying to enshrine those puritanical beliefs in the law. That’s crazy

What's wrong with slut shaming 

[RLLD 4,143]

Just now, iam90sbaby said:

What's wrong with slut shaming 

The facsinating thing about slut shaming is that its not really a male-centric action.  Women do it to each other.  Women can be rather vicious when it comes to character assassination. But then again that is their main outlet for anger and such.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You sound like a puritan.

Which is fine. You’re certainly entitled to have your own opinions and beliefs, and to instill those in your children and so forth to whatever degree you can.

Some would accuse your attitude as slvt shaming but I actually tend to agree more with you than the hedonists.

That said, the issue is trying to enshrine those puritanical beliefs in the law. That’s crazy

LOL, puritan.  I never said or even suggested that I think everyone should be virgins.  I simply said that most people think a body count of 10+ by the age of 25 is too high.  Just do some web searches on the topic.  Also, I'm not slvt shaming anyone... in fact, I never mentioned any gender because it applies to both (yeah, I said "both").  I'm simply pointing out what's happening in society.

I'm also on record as saying that marriage doesn't belong in the government's purview to begin with... which makes "no fault" a non-issue.  It also removes the government from being involved in same-sex marriages as well.

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

Just now, RLLD said:

The facsinating thing about slut shaming is that its not really a male-centric action.  Women do it to each other.  Women can be rather vicious when it comes to character assassination. But then again that is their main outlet for anger and such.

I see women gas each other up and none of them have any shame in having 20+ partners 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

What's wrong with slut shaming 

The concept is that you’re calling them sluts because they’re sexually active women, whereas you would not use the same term for a sexually acting man. Or if you did, like calling a guy a man wh0re or something, that’s really more of a compliment whereas with a women you’re insinuating that she’s damaged or diseased or something.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, puritan.  I never said or even suggested that I think everyone should be virgins.  I simply said that most people think a body count of 10+ by the age of 25 is too high.  Just do some web searches on the topic.  Also, I'm not slvt shaming anyone... in fact, I never mentioned any gender because it applies to both (yeah, I said "both").  I'm simply pointing out what's happening in society.

I'm also on record as saying that marriage doesn't belong in the government's purview to begin with... which makes "no fault" a non-issue.  It also removes the government from being involved in same-sex marriages as well.

The very concept of having some “body count” that you track and want to know about in romantic partners is puritan. Also incel language, FYI.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

The facsinating thing about slut shaming is that its not really a male-centric action.  Women do it to each other.  Women can be rather vicious when it comes to character assassination. But then again that is their main outlet for anger and such.

This is true.  The feminists love to say that men are the biggest slut shamers, and of course the left picks the ball up and runs with it to tack it on to being misogynists when in fact, women are the biggest slut shamers.

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

The concept is that you’re calling them sluts because they’re sexually active women, whereas you would not use the same term for a sexually acting man. Or if you did, like calling a guy a man wh0re or something, that’s really more of a compliment whereas with a women you’re insinuating that she’s damaged or diseased or something.

Well that doesn't happen to men because it's harder for men to get laid.  Any average woman can go to a bar and pick some desperate dude up. Men have to make themselves presentable, have a good income, be attractive, etc.. that's why it's applauded when men have a high body count and it's the opposite when it's a women, because it's easy

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

The very concept of having some “body count” that you track and want to know about in romantic partners is puritan. Also incel language, FYI.

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Its always the low t dudes that say sh!t like that. Guy is prolly the ugliest mfer here

[IGotWorms 4,057]

I wish you guys had some actual feminists here to debate over this.

Me, I just don’t care enough, other than to get a chuckle out of what sad little boys you are

[iam90sbaby 2,493]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

I wish you guys had some actual feminists here to debate over this.

Me, I just don’t care enough, other than to get a chuckle out of what sad little boys you are

Hey, I agree with you, getting rid of no fault divorce is stupid. But can you quit being a level 100 simp?

[RLLD 4,143]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I wish you guys had some actual feminists here to debate over this.

Me, I just don’t care enough, other than to get a chuckle out of what sad little boys you are

Amusingly, I would anticipate that a feminist would also likely resort immediately to the ad hominem.  Of course, that would be right out of the gate though. hate is hate....

[IGotWorms 4,057]

16 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Hey, I agree with you, getting rid of no fault divorce is stupid. But can you quit being a level 100 simp?

More incel words

[Ron_Artest 1,076]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

More incel words

the incel movement is really odd.  They hate women because they won't sleep with them, but they refuse to masturbate.

[listen2me 23 1,827]

Child support is cool.  Anything for the kids.  Its too bad a good chunk of that money is usually not used on them.  And the dad pays half their way anyway before the check is even mailed.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

14 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

the incel movement is really odd.  They hate women because they won't sleep with them, but they refuse to masturbate.

It’s the women’s job to please them. But only them and no other dudes along the way

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

43 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Amusingly, I would anticipate that a feminist would also likely resort immediately to the ad hominem.  Of course, that would be right out of the gate though. hate is hate....

In today's America, a Feminist = Leftist.  So, "I make the rules, and you follow them".

[jerryskids 6,574]

1 hour ago, iam90sbaby said:

Well that doesn't happen to men because it's harder for men to get laid.  Any average woman can go to a bar and pick some desperate dude up. Men have to make themselves presentable, have a good income, be attractive, etc.. that's why it's applauded when men have a high body count and it's the opposite when it's a women, because it's easy

Women are programmed to be much more selective in their partners than men.  If a caveman gets a cavewoman pregnant, he can just move on.  If the cavewoman gets pregnant, she's got a multi-year commitment (cavebaby) to deal with.  So a woman's instinct is to make sure she likes the guy and he is likely to stick around before sleeping with him.

This flies in the face with the sexual liberation movement, which for every subsequent generation attempts to convince girls that they'll be happy if they sleep with a bunch of random doods.  From what I've read, they aren't happier with that behavior.  One link:

Quote

If you are on the proverbial market, as you rack up phone swipes, first dates, and—likely—new sexual partners, you might start to ask yourself, Is all this dating going to make me happier with whomever I end up with?

In other words, are you actually getting any closer to finding “the one”? Or are you simply stuck on a hedonic treadmill of potential lovers, doomed like some sort of sexual Sisyphus to be perpetually close to finding your soul mate, only to realize—far, far too late—that they are deal-breakingly disappointing?

Well, sociology has some unfortunate news!

Over at the Institute for Family Studies, Nicholas Wolfinger, a sociologist at the University of Utah, has found that Americans who have only ever slept with their spouses are most likely to report being in a “very happy” marriage. Meanwhile, the lowest odds of marital happiness—about 13 percentage points lower than the one-partner women—belong to women who have had six to 10 sexual partners in their lives. For men, there’s still a dip in marital satisfaction after one partner, but it’s never as low as it gets for women, as Wolfinger’s graph shows.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

Also, women slut shame because if another woman is slutty, that puts pressure on them to be slutty, and they don't want to do that.  See above.

[RLLD 4,143]

31 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

In today's America, a Feminist = Leftist.  So, "I make the rules, and you follow them".

Correct.  And do not dare even ask a question at all.  If you question...then you are <insert>phobic. Nothing less that total capitulation is OK.

[TheNewGirl 1,354]

2 hours ago, RLLD said:

I was likely not entirely clear.   I don't think people file just for financial benefit.  Ok. 

I submit that there is an incentive associated with that factor that leads to more divorces.  And my link supports that.  The current financial climate is challenging, and due to this factor there is a movement of people who were down the road to divorce now adjusting; at least considering co-habitation.  Ok. 

The tilt of reward for divorce financially benefitting women, and hurting men.....is a driver for the disparity in filing.....more women than men doing the filing.  My point being that we again see government interference leading to unexpected outcomes.  I agree. 

The notion that women are in the wrong for leading the way in filing due to financial factors is not a negative.  Ok. 

Being pragmatic about pursuing an end to a relationship is not wrong, it's simple common sense.  Yes, I agree. 

So.....would it help if there were NOT this financial incentive for divorce, sure.....  is it some big deal, I guess not.  If you are unhappy, just end it.   I agree. 

But are you really unhappy? Have you really tried? Put in the work to mediate? To give in a little, work together? If all it takes is a little financial disincentive to agree to co-habitate, then maybe you were not as unhappy as you first thought.  I agree. 

JMHO

  

[League Champion 1,896]

On 11/27/2023 at 10:42 PM, thegeneral said:

Wait til he finds out they look at porn!

Look at this Liberal Winner! Anyone you know? 

 

 

[nobody 2,567]

1 hour ago, League Champion said:

Look at this Liberal Winner! Anyone you know? 

 

 

That's a fertile ass female

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

That's a fertile ass female

Also known as a cvm dumpster.

[League Champion 1,896]

Just now, nobody said:

That's a fertile ass female

Her snizatch must look like the grand canyon. Liberal chicks are disgusting 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

9 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Also known as a cvm dumpster.

She might’ve been cream pie-worthy in her younger days

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,846]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

She might’ve been cream pie-worthy in her younger days

You shouldn't talk about your mom like that.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

15 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Women are programmed to be much more selective in their partners than men.  If a caveman gets a cavewoman pregnant, he can just move on.  If the cavewoman gets pregnant, she's got a multi-year commitment (cavebaby) to deal with.  So a woman's instinct is to make sure she likes the guy and he is likely to stick around before sleeping with him.

This flies in the face with the sexual liberation movement, which for every subsequent generation attempts to convince girls that they'll be happy if they sleep with a bunch of random doods.  From what I've read, they aren't happier with that behavior.  One link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

Also, women slut shame because if another woman is slutty, that puts pressure on them to be slutty, and they don't want to do that.  See above.

I think you just proved 90's point with this post, and backed up what I said earlier.  Women aren't happier being wh0res because it's a net negative for them because men don't want wh0res.  They don't want virgins either.  There is a middle ground.  The dating app generation is full of women who all target the same small percentage of men and it's the same jerk off's they keep banging.  If the majority of women are looking for that, then by the time they're clock is about to expire, all the good men are gone and they end up settling.  These are the most likely candidates for divorce.  The thing is, this is the majority of younger women, not the minority.  We are already experiencing a divorce rate that is over 50%, if the next generation or two are more likely to get divorced, you're looking at hitting 60 to 65% divorce rate.  That's a horrific outlook especially when we know of all the statistics involving crime and poverty of kids in a single-parent household.

[jerryskids 6,574]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I think you just proved 90's point with this post, and backed up what I said earlier.  Women aren't happier being wh0res because it's a net negative for them because men don't want wh0res.  They don't want virgins either.  There is a middle ground.  The dating app generation is full of women who all target the same small percentage of men and it's the same jerk off's they keep banging.  If the majority of women are looking for that, then by the time they're clock is about to expire, all the good men are gone and they end up settling.  These are the most likely candidates for divorce.  The thing is, this is the majority of younger women, not the minority.  We are already experiencing a divorce rate that is over 50%, if the next generation or two are more likely to get divorced, you're looking at hitting 60 to 65% divorce rate.  That's a horrific outlook especially when we know of all the statistics involving crime and poverty of kids in a single-parent household.

I don't think I ever contradicted your earlier post, or the point that online swipe dating changes the dynamics of dating.  If you think I was, please clarify.  IMO we are discussing a mechanism which contributed to my initial point.

Quote

I find this very sad.  I have a son with a serious girlfriend, and if he decides that she is the right one, I hope he proposes, she accepts, and they begin the wonderful process of building and sharing their lives together.

I view no-fault divorce like other freedoms such as abortion, and entitlements like welfare.  They are helpful and necessary in extreme situations, but in general we should avoid using them.  Unfortunately, we have lost the moral fabric of our society, in our ever-increasing move towards hedonism.  Just as people scam the system to get welfare, and have abortions for convenience, people will get divorce because they just aren't happy at the moment.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

50 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't think I ever contradicted your earlier post, or the point that online swipe dating changes the dynamics of dating.  If you think I was, please clarify.  IMO we are discussing a mechanism which contributed to my initial point.

 

Earlier, you seemed to be saying that 90's was too young to understand what marriage was like.  I believe his point, based on his point of view of the dating world, was more accurate of society than yours (and mine), is.  I believe him thinking banning no fault divorce was more apropos to the younger generation and the future.  We're older and in long term committed relationships with fellow X'ers (or older in your case????).  Now, if I misunderstood your assessment from earlier on, my bad.

 

No fault divorce is pretty much on par how the Conservatives deal with life/society, and it's why the leftists hate them for it.  A ban on No fault divorce is a stance from, 'we know there will be some bad things, but we also believe that the good vastly outweighs the bad'.  The left hates that because they live in a fantasy world where they think everything can be fixed by government.  Getting rid of no fault divorce does more to remove the government from marriage and puts onus on the individual to be more responsible for themselves instead of using the government as a get out of jail free card.  All conservatives should be for this... so should moderate democarats, libertarians and centrists.  The only people who should be against this are the far left activists.

[jerryskids 6,574]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Earlier, you seemed to be saying that 90's was too young to understand what marriage was like.  I believe his point, based on his point of view of the dating world, was more accurate of society than yours (and mine), is.  I believe him thinking banning no fault divorce was more apropos to the younger generation and the future.  We're older and in long term committed relationships with fellow X'ers (or older in your case????).  Now, if I misunderstood your assessment from earlier on, my bad.

Gotcha.  I'm an X'er by the way, by a few years.

I think he is too young (and unmarried) to understand what marriage is like.  I think he is also, like you said, more attuned to the "reality" of the current dating world, and that you are correct that no-fault restrictions will more likely affect his generation.  I think that that reality is unfortunate and that we as a society are losing sight of what a true commitment to a union is, and replacing it with a hedonistic approach, which was my initial point.

Basically, lots of things can be right.