• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Wahoo

Is Marriage Contract now fraudulent?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

Marriage is a contract between two people and the State. 

In the past a woman 'sells' her sexuality and breeding to a man who 'sells' his surplus labour. She provided the children and he provided shelter and food.  He owned her sexually. She owned him physically.He becomes a beast of burden. The man owns the children  because they were the product of the contract and he had paid for them. If a woman fucked outside the marriage then she was deemed 'at fault'. If you breeched the contract you were penalised.  The same applied to the man.

Then along came the feminists They shouted and screamed and demanded that divorce should be 'No blame'.   The contract became stressed. Feminist stated that to claim fault did not take into account complex human interactions. Result.....a woman can cash-in the marriage early. And the man is left with a huge financial burden. He has to still provide for the partner who has broken the contract. This amounts to slavery. The man gets non of the property or rights that the contract was based upon. The woman claims that the children are hers and he has to work like an ox to provide for them.

in other words the Contract is fraudulent. 

 

No man should ever consider getting married today. There are no upsides....just a hanging sword above your head.

 

Actually, a lot of the pressure for no fault divorces came from the legal profession (who saw fees) and men (who back then were usually the ones caught porking the secretary).

feminists had little to do with it originally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Wahoo said:

Marriage is a contract between two people and the State. 

In the past a woman 'sells' her sexuality and breeding to a man who 'sells' his surplus labour. She provided the children and he provided shelter and food.  He owned her sexually. She owned him physically.He becomes a beast of burden. The man owns the children  because they were the product of the contract and he had paid for them. If a woman fucked outside the marriage then she was deemed 'at fault'. If you breeched the contract you were penalised.  The same applied to the man.

Then along came the feminists They shouted and screamed and demanded that divorce should be 'No blame'.   The contract became stressed. Feminist stated that to claim fault did not take into account complex human interactions. Result.....a woman can cash-in the marriage early. And the man is left with a huge financial burden. He has to still provide for the partner who has broken the contract. This amounts to slavery. The man gets non of the property or rights that the contract was based upon. The woman claims that the children are hers and he has to work like an ox to provide for them.

in other words the Contract is fraudulent. 

 

No man should ever consider getting married today. There are no upsides....just a hanging sword above your head.

 

The rules changed is all but men generally took a while to figure it out. 

1.  Never marry or cohabit with a woman who is poorer than you. 

2.  Never agree to a stay home Mom arrangement.  If she quits work then you must too. 

3.  Never have a joint account. 

4. Never buy anything for her or for the house.  All purchases must be shared. 

5. Always get a dna test done at the birth of every child.  Do not sign the birth certificate without it. 

6. Be prepared to walk out with half an hour notice at all times.

7.  Say goodbye to romance.  This is a business deal. 

8.  Be very familiar with local family law with regard to property rights. 

9.  Convert to Islam.  They offer a better deal.

10.  Work with the hot/crazy matrix.  There are no unicorns. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the quickie divorce come at about the same time as the no fault divorce.  One of the justifications being it helped to prevent more extreme ways of getting out of an unsatisfactory marriage.

Whether it was encouraged more by men or women it all seemed to happen as feminism gained momentum.  Before that marriage was pretty much for life partly I guess because the male was generally the breadwinner apart from religious considerations in those days - there were exceptions of course.

Edited by twocents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A marriage is between a man and woman, the state or church are not party to it nor do they make it happen, they are just witness to it for the avoidance of doubt

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, wherebee said:

Actually, a lot of the pressure for no fault divorces came from the legal profession (who saw fees) and men (who back then were usually the ones caught porking the secretary).

feminists had little to do with it originally.

Just coincidence that it was rushed through parliament just in time to facilitate the break up of the young royals' marriages without making their dirty laundry public?

Edited by Hail the Tripod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Panther said:

A marriage is between a man and woman, the state or church are not party to it nor do they make it happen, they are just witness to it for the avoidance of doubt

Tell that to the judge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MrPin said:

Does nobody here like women?:o

The thread is not about women but about marriage (and cohabitation is going the same way).  Most men on here like women; if not DOSBODS.

@Snow bird's list is a good one and if you read mumsnet you'll see a lot of support / pressure for women to get these things which evidences how right they are.

The mantra tends to go "You are now a family so what's his is now all yours".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snow bird said:

The rules changed is all but men generally took a while to figure it out. 

1.  Never marry or cohabit with a woman who is poorer than you. 

2.  Never agree to a stay home Mom arrangement.  If she quits work then you must too. 

3.  Never have a joint account. 

4. Never buy anything for her or for the house.  All purchases must be shared. 

5. Always get a dna test done at the birth of every child.  Do not sign the birth certificate without it. 

6. Be prepared to walk out with half an hour notice at all times.

7.  Say goodbye to romance.  This is a business deal. 

8.  Be very familiar with local family law with regard to property rights. 

9.  Convert to Islam.  They offer a better deal.

10.  Work with the hot/crazy matrix.  There are no unicorns. 

 

I'm impressed by how romantic you are snowy. Do you buy flower on the first date?

 

xD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uptherebels said:

I thought there was no difference now between say, a couple married for ten years, and a couple who live together for ten years. Have I completely got that wrong?? 

Whilst there are noises about making these equivalent, and the rejection of marriage means it's inevitable IMO, the legislation hasn't yet been enacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Whilst there are noises about making these equivalent, and the rejection of marriage means it's inevitable IMO, the legislation hasn't yet been enacted.

So if you live together, and maybe 'own' a home together, then split up, what happens? If one has reduced or given up work, and the one is putting away savings, filling a pension etc. Does the partner have no claim on this? 

I was convinced it was the same as being married. I must have dreamt it! 

Edited by Uptherebels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Uptherebels said:

So if you live together, and maybe 'own' a home together, then split up, what happens? If one has reduced or given up work, and the one is putting away savings, filling a pension etc. Does the partner have no claim on this? 

I was convinced it was the same as being married. I must have dreamt it! 

"Common law" spouses do not have the same rights. So on the flip side if you are a woman and have a child do not give up work without a ring on it - this is advice frequently given on Mumsnet when mistaken women think they have the same rights as married couples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Uptherebels said:

So if you live together, and maybe 'own' a home together, then split up, what happens? If one has reduced or given up work, and the one is putting away savings, filling a pension etc. Does the partner have no claim on this? 

I was convinced it was the same as being married. I must have dreamt it! 

I had somehow gained the same understanding as you. Seemingly mistakenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/cohabitationrights.html

Live with a partner for two years and you're stuffed....unless you both opt out via independent solicitors.

And we're not considered 'grown-up' enough for legally binding pre-nups in this controlling country.

The result from this is more misery for women as partners won't commit...particularly if they are single mums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wahoo said:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/cohabitationrights.html

Live with a partner for two years and you're stuffed....unless you both opt out via independent solicitors.

And we're not considered 'grown-up' enough for legally binding pre-nups in this controlling country.

The result from this is more misery for women as partners won't commit...particularly if they are single mums.

If patriarchy is the bogeyman, universal single motherhood is the solution not an unfortunate side effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

If patriarchy is the bogeyman, universal single motherhood is the solution not an unfortunate side effect.

Probably for the wealthy academics and campaigners who support these things but it's a hard old life for a non-wealthy single mother.

They are happy to sacrifice the welfare of women as long as it supports their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Frank Hovis said:

Probably for the wealthy academics and campaigners who support these things but it's a hard old life for a non-wealthy single mother.

They are happy to sacrifice the welfare of women as long as it supports their cause.

Quite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

Probably for the wealthy academics and campaigners who support these things but it's a hard old life for a non-wealthy single mother.

They are happy to sacrifice the welfare of women as long as it supports their cause.

Who cares about the mothers - or, for that matter, about the fathers? I care about the kids.

Anecdotally, as I move more clearly into the "middle aged dad" category, and we meet other parents socially -  I get the kids coming up and talking with me - and I'm getting better at guessing which ones are from divorced households. There's a "hopeful puppy" look in their eyes. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

Probably for the wealthy academics and campaigners who support these things but it's a hard old life for a non-wealthy single mother.

They are happy to sacrifice the welfare of women as long as it supports their cause.

Also worth mentioning that many of the sorts who support these things most vocally don't actually have kids. It also struck me the other day how many of the countries in Europe have childless leaders - Ireland, Germany, the UK off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JoeDavola said:

Also worth mentioning that many of the sorts who support these things most vocally don't actually have kids. It also struck me the other day how many of the countries in Europe have childless leaders - Ireland, Germany, the UK off the top of my head.

I don't think I'm being overly defensive because I don't have children myself but I don't think that matters.  I don't hold with the "skin in the game" argument.

People with children want the better life for their own children first; whereas those without children generally want a better life for all children.

A family friend used to run nights at a local youth centre; he had no children but him and his wife wanted to do something for them.  The parents with children generally just dropped them off or sent them and didn't stay to help.  They weren't as concerned about doing something for all the village children as a childless couple were.

I think that having children only makes you really concerned with the future for you own children.

If you are a billionaire then your own children have an assured future on a private island so you can wreck it for everyone else; eh Soros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.