Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Wasn't that an Adam Sandler movie?

Ladies, watch out! Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do. All it requires is a little bit of fake-gay marriage on his part.

Imagine if two straight men got legally hitched (emphasis on straight). No expensive ceremony, no grueling engagement process, just signing the contract. Then, they go on and live their separate lives as bachelors. Because of their legally married status they ... Cannot get remarried legally. This means if they get married with a women, come divorce time she will be unable to legally claim any of his property as they are not legally married. Bigamy and polygamy is illegal so all marriage contracts signed after the first are not recognized as valid by a court of law.

Oh, you sly dog you. Such a clever idea. And so original!

36 comments:

  1. Is it really that hard to just ... not marry a woman? (I know, I know, MRA logic is not like our Earth logic.) And if bigamy's illegal aren't they just screwing themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how he notes that bigamy is illegal but fails to realize he would be breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And assuming he committed bigamy, and his heartbroken partner sued him for fraud (which I think you can do under these circumstances), it of course would be all her fault as well.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess he never heard of palimony.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's clever! For a ten-year-old, that is.

    He should open an encyclopedia and look up "fraud". And then "punitive damages".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry, for back-to-back comments, but I mean, wow. I don't know what's more disturbing -- the possibility that "ac101202" is a small child hanging around MGTOW sites or the possibility that he is an adult of extremely low intelligence who is contemplating reproducing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Two funny posts in a row, the Jezebel/Dworkin one was chuckles, too.

    So this guy thinks some court would look at that situation, and *that's* what they would get out of the whole thing? ROFLMAO. Like someone here already said, please look up "fraud".

    "See, your honor, she just *thought* we were married. Heh heh. Get it? I really fooled her! She's not too bright, found her in a Jezebel comment section."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, this is a good idea for men to do. This way independent women can't rape men and force us to support them. 70% of divorce is initiated by women. Women are the majority of those who divorce and abandon their family.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Palimony....yes, independent women under law are entitled to be supported by a male provider under common law marriage but this would be void if he were already married to a male friend.

    I've already thought this out. I am for gay marriage as I plan on marrying my long time friend from childhood. We have already agreed on it. This way I can have a relationship with an independent liberated woman.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Does anyone else here have any ideas on how to escape women's bigotry and oppression of men by forcing men to support a woman and her family?

    How do you escape the double standard that "female liberation" has created? Is there any way that women are able to survive on their own without a man supporting them or is it true that they are incapable and will surely parish on their own?

    Will women ever be independent and self supporting or will men have to carry them on our backs like we have since the beginning of time? Any suggestions? Feminism sounds good in theory but I don't think women are capable.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com

    Hit me up ladies, I'm itching for a debate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why would anyone want to debate a moron?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Why would anyone want to debate a moron?"

    Excellent point M. Why WOULD anyone want to debate a feminist?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I like how it's just tossed out there, like silly, fickle ladies divorce on a whim just so they can steal money from their unsuspecting husbands.

    I'm sure you'd prefer a system like in Japan, where most old ladies despise their abusive, drunken husbands and wish they could divorce, but would be destitute if they did so, after being basically forced to be housewives. Yes, it's so much better for women to stay in abusive situations out of a fear of homelessness than it is to *gasp* initiate a divorce!!

    What man wants to remain married to a woman who doesn't want to be married to him? I mean, unless she's basically become your indentured serv--oh wait ...

    ReplyDelete
  15. bwec said 'This way I can have a relationship with an independent liberated woman'

    In your dreams mate. They see you coming a mile away and run like the clappers...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "70% of divorce is initiated by women."
    -I LOLED.

    Meaning what? Gee let's see all the things we can extrapolate from that statistic, true or not, Let's make it a game. I know that it's rude to suggest a blog topic, but wouldn't that be funny if the topic was that quote, and "discuss" and then the game is to get into the comment section and make it other 100+ thread where we project onto and extrapolate out of that statement, loads and loads of BS and we'll see how funny it gets. This is why I cannot respect MRAs. They have absolutely no desire to make any sense at all. Actually from their communication styles, one can immediately see abuse and gas-lighting tactics. They have vicious passive aggressive/denial styles of attacks. That stat was one of them. It's similar to what a troll does. I guess it's no secret that MRAs are just trolling feminists. (duh right?)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Over on the Happy Bachelors Forum, a fellow calling himself ac101202 has figured out a sneaky way that guys can escape you gals doing that whole marrying-a-dude-and-divorcing-him-and-taking-all-his-money thing you ladies like to do.
    So the fact that 50% of all marriages, women initiate over 75% of divorces, and that only 3.6% of all men are the recipients of alimony warrants zero scrutiny.
    @Boo
    Meaning what? Gee let's see all the things we can extrapolate from that statistic, true or not, Let's make it a game.[...]Actually from their communication styles, one can immediately see abuse and gas-lighting tactics. They have vicious passive aggressive/denial styles of attacks.
    Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can I coin a term here?

    "Fratrimony".

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. IR: So the fact that 50% of all marriages, women initiate over 75% of divorces, and that only 3.6% of all men are the recipients of alimony warrants zero scrutiny.

    Of course it warrants scrutiny. Clearly, far too many women STILL give up their education, career and employment prospects to become full-time butlers/secretaries/nannies/mommies/cooks/maids/incubators/unpaid workers to their husbands, eventually finding themselves in a situation where the choice for survival is between a lifetime of thankless servitude on the one hand and collecting alimony on the other. Since alimony is virtually never awarded to people who are fully capable of self-support, the disparity between male and female alimony recipients demonstrates that there is still a major double standard in social expectations as to who is expected to give up the most DURING the marriage.

    Moreover, traditionalist men who pine for "old-fashioned" women should be educated that nothing in this world is free. Marry a woman with a career and good job prospects, and you won't have a servant at home cooking dinner every night and ironing shirts -- but in the event of a divorce, you won't have to worry about alimony. On the one hand, marry a woman who will make waiting on you hand and foot her full-time job -- and you may very well have to pay her back wages if she ever decides she's sick of picking up after you. Also, marry someone of your own socioeconomic background; the greater the socioeconomic disparity, the more costly your divorce will be to you. This, again, goes back to the idea of no free lunch: if you snag someone who is a lot poorer than you but otherwise way out of your league, don't be surprised at the course of action she will take once she realizes she can have your money without having to put up with your sorry old ass. If you decide to treat marriage as a terse exchange of sexual and domestic services for financial support in a set-up of vastly unequal power between the partners, make sure you can stand the taste of your own medicine -- because rest assured, the tables WILL be turned if and when circumstances change. In sum, "old-fashioned" men should understand that the good old days, when you could take a woman, take her money, use her up and then kick her to the curb (or make her iron your mistress' lingerie) are over; quit whining and suck it up. If you can't form an equitable partnership with someone you will treat as a human being, rather than a home appliance, then my best advice would be "don't even bother".

    As for women filing 75% of divorces -- again, scrutiny should be applied to particular circumstances. I realize most MRA's are way too stupid to understand nuance, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, the marriage is over long before the divorce papers are filed. The party who files for divorce isn't necessarily the one at fault for the breakup of the marriage -- but rather, it's the party who has the most to lose from maintaining the status quo. Again, this is an issue of double standards. In our society, still, a man can simply walk out on his wife and minor children, withdraw his support completely and move in with a mistress -- with little to no social opprobrium to accompany such behavior; in fact, any vitriol is far more likely to be directed at his wife. But when the wife files for divorce, to claim that the marriage broke up because of her, and not because of her indifferent, absent, philandering husband, is utterly ridiculous. This is not to say this is the situation in every case -- this is to say that the statistic tells us nothing about whose fault it is; only that women still stand to lose the most by remaining in troubled marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo...

    No, it doesn't. Research suggests that self-identified feminists are more likely to be in a stable long-term relationship than women who identify themselves as non-feminist; and men involved with feminists report a greater degree of sexual and emotional satisfaction than men involved with non-feminists. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm) And this makes perfect sense, if you think about it. All these MRA's whining about their bankrupting divorces, and their bitchy ex-wives, and how all this is supposedly the fault of feminism should stop and think for a moment about the fact that their ex-wives, after all, weren't feminists. With rare exceptions, MRAs' hatred of feminism and women predates their marriages, and when they married, it was almost without exception to women who identified themselves as non-feminists or even anti-feminists BECAUSE they identified themselves this way (and probably still do). So clearly, if you marry someone who shares your values about feminism being awful and evil, and this person screws you over -- then perhaps feminism isn't the problem; maybe it's the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  21. IR most women do not proclaim themselves feminists, and even declare they are not. Or when they feel history requires they give the word a nod, they then do everything in their power to show they are not threatening females to male testicular sensitivity. This is rampant in mainstream feminism. Malicious lying about relationship prospects has usually been the man's prerogative. I do not understand how the opposing patrons of this blog put any bad human behavior is somehow some core flaw of feminism and directly stems from feminism.

    Now on to the video, "does that pass the initial smell test with you?" The guy starts the video with saying, "How could that statement be possibly be true?" The first thing he takes issue with is an article based on a study. Many articles based on studies are crap, I always advise people look at the original study.

    How does PineGrove know so many feminists? It makes me LOL. Then he launches into something interesting. Feminism has done nothing according to Bernard. Only "talented women" are the ones who should be credited with advancement (no example given), so again we see feminism ONLY a force for evil in these men's minds. How is that possible? Next:" So if the woman doesn't side with the radicals..." There was no mention of "radicals", the statement was "eschewing feminism" as a movement. Bernard threw the word Radical in there on his own completely, just slipped it in.
    If it's such a radical branch of society you people can't be blaming every action of every women on feminism. LOL, oh here comes a lulzy part... he's talking about feminists being lesbians. Ok.. then he says out of the blue they are "their strategy is to play on the female lust for status, something we as males, just don't understand."

    LOL he then goes on to put forward an incomprehensible theory that they then, "traduce the status of men in society and raise their own status in the process, and that makes them, in their mind, more attractive as romantic partners for other women."

    Can someone please give us a real life example of what that would look like? What? Lesbians want to lower men's status to look more attractive to females? How do they do this, and what does this mean? Am I going to be a lesbian if I hear how low men's status really is...You know, like a lesbian spin on the world infiltrates my brain so that I'm no longer attracted to males and it's more clam for them?

    ?? o.0
    And don't forget, men don't understand "status" LOL. He appears to be rating women at 4:15 into by a number scale, is this correct? I have had a couple of drinks. I will never live in a world where this man's rating system of women affect me or my political, personal or philosophical inspiration or aspirations in any way. This man makes me LOL But I guess we're addressing stereotypes. To him a neg stereotype is a 2.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I went through that whole pingrove video and wrote something, and I always copy it, but it kept telling me it was too big, which seems weird, so I cut a part out and saved it for two comments, I would not post the first part, and the second part I copied does not make sense with out the first part.
    Here is part II for what it's worth.

    There is tons of social pressure on women to not associate themselves as feminist and play up attractiveness. Your shaming tactic...
    "Feminists are such pleasant, intelligent, and honest people who are always smiling. Feminism does not make women into vitriolic, caustic wretches who have to maliciously lie about their relationship prospects, noooo... "
    Who are always smiling... [citation for relevance needed] Intelligent, clearly. I mean from the samples here on manboobz we dance circles around you jerks on logic and clarity, not changing the subject, getting nebulous and personal, throwing down a victim card, the list goes on. 'Honest', you know I'm completely honest, in fact I'll bet you have a problem with such candor and try to shame it. I fail to see a dishonest use of stats here on this site either, unlike standard MRA DV stats, which I have moaned about here sufficiently.

    Then we have this "vitriolic, caustic" charge. When people lie about such vital issues as domestic violence and societal status, then there are instances when you will draw caustic wrath upon yourself. If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol. Are these same people dealing out their caustic manners on everyone they know on a regular basis? I know a man that does that, and it's because he's concerned with all the suffering on the planet. And, he's right.

    Even if feminism were to cause a caustic turn of phrase to horrible people, what of it? I don't need to be nice to people ruining the planet, especially when they somehow expect niceness for me or ironically use it against our gender as a weapon because they know our gender is pressured by those tactics. It's called a dishonest ad hom tactic.

    So my original statement has not been addressed there was instead, AS USUAL some attempt to change the subject to something completely irrelevant, like you wanting me and an entire gender to smile at you. And the link you posted has NOTHING to do with "maliciously lie about their relationship prospects".

    ReplyDelete
  23. No matter WHAT I try to post, unless it's this one line, it's telling me it's too large.

    ReplyDelete
  24. booboo, I don't know what's going on with that; some sort of weird blogger glitch. I've run across that in the past, but at least some of the time when it gives me that message it does actually post the comments.

    There was one comment from you in the spam filter and I unblocked it.

    Thanks for your patience!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Based on my understanding of most current law-a man who marries another man is still liable for any equitable division of property if he marries a woman later if he marries the woman in a state that prohibits marriage equality.

    So Matt marries James in MA to avoid having half of his assets seized in the event of a divorce-he never seeks a divorce and moves to Tennessee where he marries Petunia. The two of them build a company (in his name) that is worth 50 million dollars.

    He stops getting along with Petunia and cheats on her with Zara. Petunia finds out about this and initiates the divorce, seeking 50% of assets accrued during marriage. Matt files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)6-failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted due to the prior marriage to James. Problem is that Tennessee does not recognize marriage equality and his marriage to James is not valid, motion is denied and assets are equitably distributed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't most states have a presumption of validity of the subsequent marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  27. booboonation said...
    "No matter WHAT I try to post, unless it's this one line, it's telling me it's too large."

    lol
    And I though artificial intelligence was not for another 50 years!

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol."

    I.e. "If i believe you are an MRA, you're probably a misogynist by default and I will slag you any given opportunity when I feel like it"

    Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I will have to ask a family court judge Amused.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If men don't want to have to be 'forced' to support a family... why don't they just not have a family? Get a vasectomy so you'll never have children, and tell any woman you can convince to go on a date with you that you're not interested in marriage.

    Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ Amused:

    I hope you remain so (amused) under Shaira law in a decade or two.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Get a vasectomy so you'll never have children, and tell any woman you can convince to go on a date with you that you're not interested in marriage."---LVvS

    That's nice but you should see how a woman's face falls when you really have serious intent about this.

    I was flattered that there have been women out there that considered me marriage and family material. I personally really have no desire to raise children; marriage was intriguing for a long time, but since getting married (for men) isn't a good bargain in the US I have become more cynical.

    A woman that is truly interested in you may become quite frustrated if that choice/possibility of marriage and kids in the future is something you are down upon, and are adamant about avoiding.

    ReplyDelete
  33. No, it doesn't. Research suggests that self-identified feminists are more likely to be in a stable long-term relationship than women who identify themselves as non-feminist; and men involved with feminists report a greater degree of sexual and emotional satisfaction than men involved with non-feminists. (Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm)

    @Amused - Actually, women not in relationships and lesbians were culled from their study. Additionally, the methodology used was ludicrous at best. The original article is here, if you'd like to read it.
    Otherwise, here is an excerpt: "Participants who were not in a current relationship (129 women, 126 men) or who reported not being exclusively heterosexual (21 women, 14 men) were excluded for the analyses[...]"
    The Science Daily report was just some feminist trying to make her ilk seem remotely tolerable.
    How do you know anything about feminist relationships if you deliberately skew the tables from the start of the research?
    I'm sorry for embarrassing you, but you can't keep remaining ignorant.

    Now, moving on to boob:
    When people lie about such vital issues as domestic violence and societal status, then there are instances when you will draw caustic wrath upon yourself. If you are a horrible person that hates women,you deserve vitriol. Are these same people dealing out their caustic manners on everyone they know on a regular basis? I know a man that does that, and it's because he's concerned with all the suffering on the planet. And, he's right.

    So what you're saying is that your emotional state of mind is my responsibility. You can act like that, sure, but you're angry because you choose to be so. I will not take responsibility for your feelings or your actions, no matter how immature or inept you claim to be.

    ReplyDelete
  34. wytchfinde555: So what? Being open about the fact that you never want to have children or get married may shrink the pool of potential partners, but it's certainly preferable to fraud. I would assume that anyone who is bothered by how women's faces look when you tell them you don't want to get married (though I assure you -- it's not because they decided on the first, or second, or fourth date that they want to marry you) at some point performs a cost-benefit analysis. I mean, that would be the logical thing to do. If the cost of seeing your potential mates drop off in great numbers is unbearable to you, then perhaps you should think about taking the risks involved in the alternative. If the risks are greater than these costs, then, well, none of us can have our cake and eat it too. There are plenty of women not interested in marriage or motherhood; I'm sure there is one for you.

    IR: Women AND men not currently in a relationship or who are gay were excluded. As for the methodology supposedly being ridiculous -- I don't find that statement credible in light of your suggestion that lesbianism is inspired by certain political beliefs. That argument has been debunked over and over, to the point where it's not even worth engaging. Feminism does not make women lesbian, period.

    As I've pointed out -- all of you men who are angry about past relationships and how women behaved in them, all of you were involved with non-feminist women BECAUSE they identified themselves as non-feminist. And apparently it didn't work out as you expected it to. If any of you had brains, or allowed your brains to think rationally, you'd ponder that for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  35. A woman that is truly interested in you may become quite frustrated if that choice/possibility of marriage and kids in the future is something you are down upon, and are adamant about avoiding.

    Yes, because, and I know this may sound bizarre, but a lot of women (very often due to social expectations) want to have kids.

    I personally made up my mind in my early 20s that I was not going to waste my time building up a serious relationship with someone who didn't have the same life expectations as me. In my case, those expectations included children (but this is actually irrelevant, as other people might want to travel, or live overseas, or take up cattle farming and these are also things to take into consideration if you get travel-sick, or never want to leave your hometown, or are vegan).

    And you know what? The childfree guys I've known haven't whinged because I wouldn't date them, they've been thrilled that I haven't ignored their choices or lied to them in the hopes of Changing Them When We're Married.

    Which is all irrelevant, I realise, as MRAs don't actually perceive women as individual human beings with individual aspirations and desires which should be respected by their sexual or romantic partners.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Elizabeth, in the US, federal law prohibits any federal rights of marriage being given to same sex couples (look up DOMA for more on this). States that have their own same sex marriage laws only grant couples limited rights given by the individual state. On the bigamy issue, there is no case precedent on the matter as far as I know. The thing about overturning laws in the US courts is that it is generally done retroactively. While it might be possible for a person who has a same sex marriage recognition by a state to then sue in regards to a later marriage, it would be hard to get standing barring some barrier to divorce or an actual bigamy prosecution (the latter is very rare).

    In the absence of same sex bigamy cases, we can look at opposite sex ones, where the second duped spouse usually can collect fully in divorce as they were the victim of fraud and the opposing party was the one that violated the contract (because marriage counts as a legal contract). It would be unlikely that a person would be denied full collection in divorce based upon the other partner's previously unknown illegal bigamy, except perhaps in cases involving assests also claimed by the first spouse. A victim of fraud in contract negotiations is generally not denied the right to collect contractual benefits (or their equivalent) simply because the other party's fraud makes the contract void. Void contract is only a defense if the party acted in good faith which would certainly not be the case here or in any fraud case.

    Of course, everything above only applies to US law. I do not know what country ac101202 hails from, but it seems unlikely that countries that actually allow same sex marriage would let you utilize it for fraud purposes any more easily than with opposite sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis