Don't Marry

Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

Essay

with 4,913 comments


The intent of this website is to help educate men about
the realities of today’s modern marriage. Please pass the word.

Why Modern, Western Marriage Has Become A Bad Business Decision For Men

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what they may be getting into when they marry a Western Woman. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them to communicate frankly their concerns and expectations regarding marriage with their potential spouses. The secondary aim of this essay is to enlighten women to a few of the reasons why increasingly larger numbers of successful, eligible, unmarried men, who would otherwise prefer monogamous long-term relationships, are turning their backs on marriage.

Society typically paints a negative stereotype of men who hesitate, delay, or elect not to marry.

They are labeled as either:

A) Womanisers who are unable to participate in a long term relationship, or
B) Selfish, childish or irresponsible men who can not take care of themselves or another person.

No other explanation is ever explored.

The cost of proclaiming your undying love

In University, in professional sports, in politics, in the workplace; women have the same educational and professional career opportunities as men. Contrary to commonly believed feminist propaganda, women do indeed get paid the same salary as men, given that they are willing to work the same types of jobs as men, and work as many hours as the men do. Despite this reality, many women come into marriage with very few assets, and often are saddled with substantial quantities of debt. In general, men are the ones who save and invest. Don’t believe me? Count the number of women of marrying age that you know who subscribe to financial services magazines or newspapers. A significant number of 20-something and 30-something women spend all of their disposable income on luxury rental apartments, upscale restaurants, frequent exotic vacations, leased cars, spa treatments, and excessive amounts of clothing, purses, shoes and accessories. Yet ironically, in the media, men are the ones who are portrayed as reckless, irresponsible spendthrifts.

When marriage enters the picture, double standards and financial imbalances leave responsible men to pick up the slack and fix the mess she may have made of her finances. Men are forced to spend their hard-earned savings, or take out an usurious loan, on a diamond ring. Women justify this relatively recent, mid-20th Century ritual, which was spawned by a brilliant 1940’s mass-brainwashing campaign launched by DeBeers, by insisting that a man wants to buy her a diamond and that it makes him proud to be able to proclaim his love and affection towards her in this fashion. Granted there are some men who may be inclined to declare their commitment to a life-long partner in this way, but there are plenty of men whom seek a lifelong partnership and commitment who have no interest in buying diamonds. What choice do these men have? None! To many young men, the ring, catered wedding, and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel is an unwelcome land mine on their journey towards adult financial stability and independence. To add insult to injury, he is now locked into a lifetime of insurance payments for this grossly overpriced jewelry. Contrary to popularly held belief diamonds are not rare at all, but instead are common and inexpensive. Their high price is due to their supply having been artificially manipulated. Some men are more concerned with realising their dream of owning a home and becoming financially stable enough to begin a family and responsibly provide for their welfare. Men worry about these matters, because, ultimately, it becomes their sole responsibility.

The purchase of the diamond ring is a predictor of things to come. Immediately after buying it, the man may be rewarded with bridal demands to finance all or part of a lavish wedding, depending upon the size of his bank account and the ambitions of his fiancée. The average costs of today’s Western Weddings frequently exceed that of a house down payment or, in certain parts of the world, the entire cost of the house itself. If a man enters a marriage having saved up a down payment for his dream home, it can suddenly be snatched right out from underneath him. Many men may object to spending such a large sum of money on what is basically a very expensive one-day, four-hour party. He also will be spending a year of his life planning it, when he could use the same time to further his career or education. However, what a man wants is really not of any concern anymore at this point in the proceedings. His wants, desires, hopes and dreams are ignored almost in their entirety. Her opinions regarding the wedding are frequently non-negotiable. A wedding is no longer an event that is equally for the bride and groom. As many of today’s Bridezilla’s will gleefully remind you, “Today is MY day!”. This gives her licence to become selfish, irresponsible, demanding and childlike. A man who balks at spending his entire life savings, or shouldering a five-figure debt load, for the ring, catered wedding and honeymoon in an exotic locale at a five-star hotel, can and will be labeled as a selfish cheapskate or not a “Real Man”. If a woman leaves such a man for him suggesting that they try to keep their costs under control, she would have the full support of everyone around her as she dumped him.

“She can do better”, “Clearly, he doesn’t love her”, “He doesn’t deserve her”, and similar sentiments will be muttered in quiet circles just out of his earshot. This is a sign of her good self-esteem and healthy self-image, and a sign that she won’t settle for anything less. She is the poster girl for the Modern, Independent Woman.

Imagine if a man demanded equal treatment and asked that she buy him a new bass boat, and a two-week bear hunt in Siberia as a condition of marriage. This would be viewed as absurd, yet women do it every day. Modern Western Marriage is supposedly an equal partnership, isn’t it?

The injustices go from bad to worse when children enter the picture. If he can afford to carry the entire familial financial burden, the woman may now elect to stop working entirely. She will often make this decision regardless of how he may feel about it. The day she stops working is the day that all of her past financial baggage unequivocally gets tossed onto his shoulders. If the woman has racked up substantial credit card debts, these are now his payments to make; if the woman has not bothered to pay off her student loans, these become his responsibility; if she owes an enormous sum on her luxury car note, it is up to him to pay it off. Irony of ironies is that he is now paying for her degree and she isn’t even working anymore! Can he object? Can he say: “No Honey, you made your mess, and it should not be my job to clean it up. You knew that you wanted kids even before you met me, and you should have planned ahead.” No, he cannot. The payments can’t be deferred until she is once again able to continue repaying them herself, not if he wants to retain a clean credit rating to get a loan for their dream home. If he even suggested that she return to work to pay off some of her own debt load, he opens himself to criticisms of being an unsupportive husband and bad father who is endangering the welfare of his children. Now the noose tightens and the responsible husband compensates for the mother’s freewheeling and irresponsible past, and begins slowly to pay off her old debts. In the most twisted turn of events yet, the debt he is paying off may often be on credit cards used to finance Vacations, Hotel Rooms and Christmas gifts shared with previous husbands, boyfriends, fiancés and lovers. Caveat Emptor! This is the reward for today’s man who works hard, makes sacrifices, plans ahead, and invests wisely. By getting married to the typical Modern, Western Woman, the man is certainly susceptible to being railroaded into this situation, because it is completely acceptable within today’s gender roles and societal norms.

Marriage can mean career slavery

Anyone who says, “Slavery is dead” clearly has not contemplated the predicament of the average Western Husband, where a good paycheck can mean career slavery. Merriam-Webster’s English Dictionary defines slavery as “…(T)he state of a person who is a chattel (an item of tangible movable or immovable property) of another person.” If the husband earns enough to support both of them, he would be hard pressed to make an argument to preserve equality and have her continue working as he does. If the wife decides to stop working, the man who has been left holding the financial bag finds his options very limited. He may find himself working in a career that he hates, for abusive and exploitative management, excessively long hours, in a position that is physically dangerous or demanding, in an organisation that has no growth potential, far away from home. At this point, considering the corner he’s been painted into, he is often powerless to affect any positive, meaningful change in his own life. He may have been harbouring delusions that once his wife was able to return to work, he would be able to gain some flexibility to rectify some of the shortcomings in his own career. Perhaps changing careers or accepting a lower salary at a different firm in exchange for better hours, a shorter commute, or more fulfilling work. Nevertheless, the distinct reality is that he will continue to shoulder the financial responsibilities of his family alone. His reward for working hard and getting ahead is to become trapped into his career, and become a specialised beast of burden to an emotionally and financially dependent family. Does it really pay to work hard anymore and apply oneself to his full potential?

If she stops working, she may never work again.

There are many debates about the merits of a stay-at-home mother vs. a working mother. My goal here is to simply educate the prospective husband on frequently unseen risks he is taking on when he agrees to accept 100% of the financial burden to allow his wife to stay at home. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage.

Every parent will agree that staying home with children is backbreaking and often mind-numbing labour. Many new fathers may concede that it is much easier to go to work than to stay at home with several children. However, the greatest imbalance in efforts and contributions to a marriage can manifest once all of the children are of school age. The house is now empty from 8am-3pm. The wife has 7 hours to herself while the kids are at school and the husband is at work. After a few years of hard work at home, many wives may feel entitled to “kick back” and take it easy. The good, supportive husband, however, has worked those same years, has done his 50/50 of the housework, and is still working just as hard to support the family once the kids are in school. His workload has not diminished, and it may have even increased as her expectations rise. He is rarely afforded the same option to scale back his daytime efforts.

What motivation does the modern wife have to return to work? Very little. For several years now, the man’s salary has been enough to live on. Otherwise, she would have been working to make ends meet. Unless tight finances dictate that she must return to work, the husband really has little say in this matter. The wife can hide behind many different excuses in order not to work, despite having little to do from 8am-3pm. Among the commonest are:

“I’m busy with the housework”
It is easy to exaggerate the labours of daily housework. Yet how long does it take to throw clothes or dishes into the washer, and remove them later? Vacuuming can be done in 1 hour a week. Grocery shopping is another hour per week. A decent meal can be prepared in under an hour. Does all of this add up to 7 hours a day? The lie that housework is hard, time-consuming drudgery is no longer as persuasive as it may have been in the past, because in an age of later marriage, many men are already experienced in cooking, cleaning, and general housekeeping and know that it doesn’t take that much effort or time. Humourously, not every stay-at-home-wife even performs all of these duties.

“I can’t find a job”
She has been out of work too long, and therefore is unable to find a job. This may be true, but many men do not consider this risk when they agree to support her while she “temporarily” stops working. Hopefully now they will, and can make a more informed decision. Many wives may use this as a convenient scapegoat to stop looking for any job at all. The next section describes how this can be used against him in the event of divorce.

“It doesn’t pay for me to work”
In the short run, the expenses of returning to work such as gas, lunch, clothes and day care may not make it worthwhile for her to return to the workforce. This may be true, but does that justify her playing tennis, drinking lattes and ‘catching up with her friends’ while her husband toils away? Many couples may be too shortsighted to thoroughly and comprehensively think through this issue. Initially, the cost to benefits ratio may not be ideal, but her returning to work will improve her job skills and network of contacts and over time the return on investment will improve. More so than strolling through the local mall every afternoon and window-shopping for new window treatments. Over time, as her career gets back on track, and she becomes qualified for better jobs, her salary should also improve.

It should be duly noted that some working wives view their salary as “personal spending money”, and still expect the man to pay all or most of the bills. Western Women are often heard to claim that, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s his is ours.”

Even more unfair double standards that favour wives

Cheating
If a married man cheats, he’s the scum of the earth. He is a selfish jerk that has jeopardised the family unit, done his ‘thinking with his little head’, and disrespected his wife and children. However, when the woman cheats, she’s portrayed as the victim of an insensitive and inattentive husband. “Poor thing, he ignores her. It is for her empowerment, to boost her ego. She deserves it after bearing and rearing his children.” It’s good for her self-esteem. Worse, her cheating is portrayed as the man’s fault. If he works long hours to provide for her and the children, he works too much. If he is tired at the end of the day from 13 hours of manual labour, then he doesn’t compliment her as much as she wants. Into this vacuum of conflicting expectations steps the first man who “makes me feel like a Real Woman again…”. You read that correctly; the man who is scrambling to pay the mortgage and car payments and is working double shifts to pay for the consumer goods she demanded to have is now considered a negligent and emotionally abusive husband. The man who may be working two jobs to allow her to be home with her kids is now considered a candidate for Domestic Violence.

When a woman cheats, the first thing people ask is what he did, or more often, didn’t do, to drive her into the arms of another man.

When a man cheats, no one ever asks the same question.

When a woman cheats, the reaction will be; “Oh, poor thing, I guess her husband couldn’t get the job done in the bedroom”.

When a man cheats, no one ever stops to think; “Oh poor fellow, his wife was horrible in bed.”

Let’s not forget what happens if a man were to leave his wife for a younger woman. This will become fodder at the coffee shop for months. It is automatically assumed that he is a shallow sex maniac whose only motivation was to be with a younger woman. The possibility that his wife was of a generation of women who were taught to hate men and that younger women do not, that she was lazy, or a reckless spendthrift, or verbally or physically abusive, or grossly overweight, or an incompetent mother, are rarely considered and are often totally ignored. The myth is that the only reason a man leaves his wife is to be with a younger, more attractive woman. Never mind if she is a better match for him and a more supportive, nurturing mate.

Pre-Nups
If a man insists on a Pre-Nup, he is selfish and unromantic. However, when is the last time a woman who demanded a Pre-Nup was called “unromantic”? On the contrary, if a woman requests a Pre-Nup, she is being fiscally responsible, sensible and looking out for herself. (Note: If your fiancée refuses to sign a Pre-Nup, she has just shown her hand. Best to leave now.) Why is it that a woman can refuse a Pre-Nup, and it is accepted by society? In reality, the man should be outraged that she is after a legal contract, and not love.

What is astounding is the hypocrisy of the usual reaction towards Pre-Nups. Women can conveniently assert that a man is unromantic if he suggests a Pre-Nup. After all, how can a man pollute true love with the signing of legal paperwork! However, what is a marriage licence? Nothing more than a legal contract entered into between the man, woman and local and state government authorities. A woman does not seem to balk at signing this legal paperwork, which entitles her to at least half the assets a man has accumulated as well as half of everything he earns in the future, and obligates him to support her in perpetuity in the event of a breakup. Why aren’t men allowed to note how unromantic this contract is? The distraction of bridal magazines, place setting selection, floral arrangements, wedding dresses, receptions, wedding showers, and honeymoons have clouded the legal reality of what men are getting themselves into. Marriage is as much an unromantic legal contract as a prenuptial agreement is.

Initially, Pre-Nups were devised as a way to protect women. Nuptial agreements were popularised in the 19th century, mostly to protect heiresses from marrying men who were “out for their money”. Until the Married Women’s Property Act of 1848, under English Common Law, a woman’s property, upon marriage, was usually transferred to her husband.

“Stupid, Irresponsible” Men
Men are severely abused in our media, quite frankly. Just watch any TV commercial or sitcom and see how they portray men as idiots, dolts, or well intentioned, if bumbling, buffoons. If women were portrayed in commercials in the same fashion, “Women’s Organisations” would have a fit. If it weren’t for their wives in these shows and ads the men would be lost “animals”, unable to feed themselves or perform even the simplest of tasks. Other commercials make it appear that men act without thinking, only responding in an impulsive and irrational manner, and that the wife is the brains of the family. Even many women will agree that women often are the ones who act upon emotions and make judgments solely based up on emotional attachments and not logic or reason. Almost every “couples budgeting” article will portray the woman as the one who has to rein in the man’s childish spending, when in truth it is usually the woman who cannot control her expenditures.

Job Loss
If a husband loses his job and is having trouble finding work, the wife is completely and totally justified in threatening to leave him. However, can you imagine the reaction if a husband threatened to leave a wife who was in the exact same position? He would be vilified! If a man loses his job, the woman is justified in resenting the fact that the financial burden lies on her. He is no longer a ‘good provider’. When is a man allowed to resent this very same predicament? If a man is laid off and cares for the household and kids while the wife is working, he may be accused of not pulling his weight! Yet this is exactly the same situation that women demand more recognition for with each passing year! No matter what role the man plays, he loses!

Traditional Roles
It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to demand that a man make a certain salary, drive a certain car, live in a certain part of the city, have a certain job, have the ‘right’ manners, talk a certain way, walk a certain way, behave a certain way, have a degree from the ‘right’ University and dress in a stylish fashion, to be deemed “marriage material” and be able to provide her with the stability she feels she deserves. If a man demands his wife do the cooking and cleaning, he can now be labeled old fashioned and sexist. If he asks her to carry her weight financially, just as he does, he may be criticised as an inadequate provider. If a man insists that his wife honor the conjugal requirements of the marriage contract, he can and will be accused of sexual abuse, sexual assault or rape.

To add insult to injury, some women have gotten so pampered that they not only quit their jobs the day they find out they are pregnant, but they then go out and hire as many nannies, cooks, gardeners and pool boys as their husband can afford. Many Western Wives stay at home and hire someone else to rear the kids and clean up, while they drink lattes and go shopping all day with other pampered “stay-at-home” mothers. Does it pay to work hard and get ahead anymore, if this is how your hard-earned money is squandered?

The concept of the pampered wife is a relatively new one. Most of Western Civilisation was primarily an agricultural economy even up until the 1920’s and 1930’s. Western Wives contributed to the well being of the household by helping on the farm. A man needed a wife as an equal partner. It was not until the 1950’s that the first generation of Western Wives, first in The States and later in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, began to emerge as dead weight. Perhaps this coincides with the spiking of the divorce rate in The States, and later Europe and the other English Speaking Nations, and the rise of Feminism. Perhaps men have become tired of giving so much, while getting so little in exchange.

Divorce

43% of Western Marriages end in divorce, and 70% to 93% of these divorces are initiated by women.

All men should consult a legal professional before marrying, and understand the implications of divorce, because the chances are 1-in-3 that they will participate in one whether they like it, want it, inititate it or not.

Upon divorce, all assets accumulated during and prior to a marriage are subject to division. It has become, simply put. a licence to steal. Even if the woman has not worked in years, and has spent the intervening decade(s) shopping and lunching from 8am-3pm, she is entitled to half, or more, of everything the man worked for during the course of the marriage. Is this fair? How many people would ever agree to a job contract that stipulated that in the event of separation that one party would have to return 50% of the gross amount of everything in the pay packet? No one in his or her right mind would knowingly sign such an agreement. Yet Western Men unknowingly agree to the exact same insanity each time they sign their marriage contract!

“Assets accumulated prior to a marriage are exempt from a divorce”. In theory this is true, in practice it is not. If funds from an account are commingled or combined, it can become marital property. How do funds become commingled, or mixed? If even the smallest sum from a prior account is spent towards the marriage, all of that account will now be considered marital property. Buy your child a lollipop from your own account, and a good lawyer will take one-half of it for your ex-wife when you divorce. If a woman moves into a home the man owned prior to the marriage, it is not safe from divorce. If she so much as hangs up a sheet of wallpaper, puts up draperies, paints a wall, or installs a light fixture, the home is now classified as joint marital property, and is now subject to equal division. Worse actually, the man can be ejected from the home if she makes a false claim of domestic violence, physical abuse, verbal abuse or child abuse. Where is the equality and fairness?

Note: “Equal Division” is also somewhat of a misnomer. Often, she can get upwards of 70% – 90% of the assets, while the man gets the majority of the debts! She gets all of the benefits, he gets all of the responsibilities. This, of course, is just and right and is his reward for working so hard all of those years. He can afford it; she can’t because she was not working.

If you pamper your wife, it can be used against you

Imagine that in the spirit of generosity and kindness that you gave a beggar a hot meal. A generous act, indeed. Now imagine your reaction if that same beggar sues you in court. He is petitioning the judge to have you keep providing him with the food that you gave him willingly, freely, out of a big heart. The judge orders you to keep feeding the homeless man meals, indefinitely, forever, because he has become accustomed to eating those meals! This is categorically absurd, yet this happens to Western Men in divorce court every day. Instead of thanking you for paying her bills for all those years, what you get is the privilege of being legally forced to pay her bills forever!

After having children, many women demand to quit working and stay home. Before the kids came along, many of these same women may have been in careers they hated, working long hours, and enduring long commutes. It is the man’s generosity and dedication to his own career that enables her to walk away from her own career. During a marriage, a man with a stay-at-home wife might work long and grueling hours in order to support her. He will pay the mortgage, the property tax, grocery bill, phone bill, cable bill, Internet bill and electric bill. He also pays for her car, gas money, clothes, and vacations.

As one final slap in the face, the man may be punished for working hard enough to allow his wife to have the luxury of staying at home with the kids. As noted above, after the children are in school, the wife may enjoy a life of leisure and relaxation that is afforded to her by her man’s hard work. In the event of divorce, he will be legally obligated to support her for years or decades to come. Because she stopped working and led a life of leisure, the ex-husband is now responsible for supporting her, forever! History has a tendency of rewriting itself. Originally, a woman may have had a career that she may have hated, and was begging to leave. Western Women often “play” at work and career for a few years after University, and then when they near 30 or grow tired of the workplace they seek out a man to “take her away from all of this”, whatever “all of this” may be. In fact her desire to leave the world of work may have been her motivation to have kids in the first place. But now, in her eyes, and definitely her lawyers eyes, she “gave up” her career for her man and his kids. She is now “owed” all of her “lost income”. His gift of leisure and support to her has now become twisted and is viewed as her sacrifice! Another way in which the situation is turned against him is that he will be characterised as being threatened by her having her own career, and that he forced her to quit her “lucrative career” and stay home with the children. Her lawyer will now attempt to convince the judge that he wanted to “oppress” his wife and “keep her down”. Truthfully now, how many men do you personally know that are upset at having a wife that earns a good living? Many of these misleading stereotypes still run rampant in our society, and are routinely used to the woman’s advantage during a divorce. As a result of her not working, regardless of whether she was minding the home or not, she remains a financial liability.

Generous, caring men who spoil their wives should certainly think twice about how this generosity can later be used against them. The phrase used in divorce court is “She has become accustomed to a certain lifestyle”. A husband’s reward for spoiling his wife today is the legal obligation to spoil her indefinitely, forever. Buy her a luxury car today, and you may be obligated to buy her luxury cars after she leaves you for another man! Yet, imagine a husband that became accustomed to eating a home cooked dinner, or regular conjugal visits. Now imagine the courts obligate the ex-wife to continue cooking for him and sharing her bed with him and his new girlfriend each night, despite being divorced! Inconceivable, but it happens the other way around every day!

The ultimate insult, however, comes when the man loses half or more of his life’s assets even when she has decided to leave him. Yes, a wife can unilaterally decide to kick a man out of his own home, and have the courts force him to continue paying the bills, while she is sleeping with her new boyfriend in the very house the husband worked so long and hard to buy! She can, and often does, spend her alimony check on gifts for her new boyfriend or lover! How is it that the legal system supports a woman who feels entitled to this?

The risks are clear, yet what exactly are men getting out of marriage? Many times, the reasons men get married are unfounded.

Many of the traditional reasons why a man gets married are a myth.

“I won’t die alone”
Wrong. The simple fact is that one spouse WILL die alone. Visit the hospital and go to the terminally ill or cardiac departments. Few people have the time to sit with an ill relative all day and all night. Yes, you may get visitors, but they aren’t having the same thoughts as you are. You’re contemplating your mortality, while they’re wondering what food the hospital cafeteria offers. In the end, even with a loving and supportive family, most of us will leave this world alone, unless you both die simultaneously in an accident of some kind. Your spouse may die fifteen years before you, or you may be in the hospital for your last year. Ultimately, we all die alone. Married or not.

“I won’t grow old alone”
Not necessarily. A marriage can self-destruct at any time. Your partner may initiate divorce at age 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 or 70. Many married people end up in the same position (alone) as if they had never married at all. Now they enter their twilight years broke, as a result of being stripped of half or more of their life’s assets, losing half their retirement and pension funds, and being assessed alimony payments. Experiencing financial devastation from one divorce often may preclude a man from ever marrying again. This is a common observation of many middle-aged Western Women. Q: “Where are all the men?”. A: “He is broke from the divorce settlement, alimony and child support payments.” Thus these women don’t find him marriable, and he grows old alone and poor.

Men are led to believe that not marrying implies only one destiny; that of a solitary monk in a cave, a shunned loner. However, life is not so black and white. Not marrying does not mean you cannot continue to date or have meaningful relationships throughout your life. There are plenty of single people in all age brackets. A bad marriage can be the loneliest of institutions, because most of your emotional outlet and companionship is concentrated into one person who gives back nothing in emotion, affection or support. Young men in their 20’s and 30’s should be more aware of the alternatives that exist in life. They should be aware that marriage is a choice, and is not the only path life has to offer. An informed decision is less likely to be one that is later regretted.

“I’ll get regular sex”
Not from Modern, Western Women. Access to regular sex is the oldest and the most frequently cited reason to marry. Many men now know that Modern, Western Women frequently stop having sex after just a short time of being married. There are plenty of “sexless” marriages. Talk to a few married couples that are honest about their relationship. One or both partners may stop wanting sex after kids, or the sex may be as infrequent as once a year or once every six months, or the wife may only have sex when she wants the husband to buy her something, take her somewhere, or remodel the house. Read the honest opinions of married men on the Internet. Most Western, Married Men will have more sex with their Western Wives in the first six months of their marriage than they will in the next 40 years. Lastly, it remains to be seen whether sex with one exclusive partner for forty years or more is even a natural act, or just a man-made convention. In many Western Nations, the wife is no longer required to have sex with her husband. She can deny him at any time, for any length of time. She can, if she wishes, deny him sex forever and there is nothing that he can do about it. In fact, if he insists that she honor her end of the marriage contract by being available for sexual relations, he can and will be accused of, charged with, and arrested for Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault or Rape.

Marriage is hardly a guarantee of regular sex, as many people are led to believe.

“I’ll have someone to cook and clean for me”
Not necessarily. While a Modern, Western Woman is perfectly justified in quitting her job in the name of staying home with the kids, she can also demand that the husband pay for a cook, a maid, and a nanny. This leaves the man to earn the money, and leaves him to pay for maintenance of household and children, while the wife gets to play at being a housekeeper. Today’s woman is empowered by not performing the traditional housewife duties, regardless of whether she is working or not. If a husband asks that his wife perform traditional household duties because she is not working, he will often be labeled sexist, abusive or controlling, even if he is doing his “traditional role” of paying all the bills, providing for his family, and performing the traditional manly duties of vehicle repairs, maintaining the lawn and house upkeep.

“I have to be married to have kids”
Not anymore. Her ovaries do not physically need a contract at the government center in order to be fertilised by your sperm. Cro-Magnon man had children long before lawyers invented marriage contracts. Often, you do not need to be married in order to share health benefits. You do not need to be married to designate your partner on a life insurance policy. You do not need to be married to own a dream home together. It is ironic that responsible parents who raise a healthy family, but never actually sign marriage paperwork, get less respect than divorced parents or married parents who are ineffective, inattentive or incompetent.

-Having a lifelong, faithful, committed relationship has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Owning a beautiful dream home together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Rearing healthy, happy, and successful children has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Building a family and life together has nothing to do with being “married”.
-Growing old together has nothing to do with being “married”.

In fact, recent changes in cohabitation, partner and marriage law have proven that the only tangible consequence of marriage is having a formalised separation process that usually requires the talents of an attorney.

You do need to be married in order to throw an extravagant four-hour party, and share the same last name.

You do need to be married in order to involve the state and government in your romantic affairs.

You do need to be married in order give away half of everything you own.

Besides that, marriage does nothing more than introduce lawyers and social workers into your life. These are people that otherwise would have nothing to do with your life or your relationship.

Men need to stop and ask themselves:

“Why exactly am I getting married? What exactly does marriage mean to me in today’s world? What is the benefit to me to get married?”

It is no longer a lifelong commitment, because it can be reversed overnight on her unilateral whim.

Marriage was originally created as a way for families to merge land, property, political power and influence; perhaps people should return to viewing it as just that and nothing more. The rest of it is fake modern TV Fantasy and Tabloid Gossip and Hype polluting the minds of today’s impressionable youth, and a way to keep the multi-billion-per-year wedding industry chugging along. Perhaps the only criteria should be to ask oneself: “How excited am I for us to merge our finances and assets?” When all the fluff and hype are boiled away, that may be the only remaining reality. Spend a day in divorce court, and you’ll see exactly what is real and tangible and lasting about marriage. You’ll see women who signed the marriage contract under romantic pretenses who are now expert laymen attorneys who can cite case law. Bouquet throwing ex-brides now embroiled in warfare to get everything that is coming to them and more! The rest are myths, lies, bold unsubstantiated promises, and maybes. “For better or for worse…”

The Western Divorce rate is 43%. It is higher in some parts of the world such as California, Great Britain and Australia. In Japan the recent change in pension law may have many pensioners out on the street. In India new changes to dowry law have men being threatened by their wives. Consider the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay; Men who don’t want to lose 50%, women who know they can’t support themselves alone. Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these “forced marriages”, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity, no sex, or sleeping in separate beds or separate rooms. I estimate the percentage of happy and monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture, investment or loan? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday through marriage.

Written by dontmarry

November 21, 2008 at 4:44 pm

4,913 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. from ratemyteachers.com about Ms Vivian Mavrou

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    3

    Textbook Use

    2

    Exam Difficulty

    Jun 13, 2015

     0  0

     Flag

    3

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    2

    Knowledge

    5

    Textbook Use

    1

    Exam Difficulty

    Apr 02, 2015
    What can I say. Useless is a good word. Can’t think of anything positive to say. Check back next week.

     0  0

     Flag

    1

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    5

    Textbook Use

    1

    Exam Difficulty

    Nov 02, 2014

     0  0

     Flag

    1

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    1

    Textbook Use

    5

    Exam Difficulty

    Dec 17, 2013
    Received information from staff that Vivian is being represented by the Principals’ Council in trying to find out who are making the posts. Vivian is behind the scenes with her cronies in trying to monitor the internet.
    You guys be cautious on what gets logged online because Vivian and her cronies are trying to force the posters in court.
    This woman is something else.

     0  0

     Flag

    5

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    5

    Textbook Use

    3

    Exam Difficulty

    Dec 14, 2013
    She used to raise marks to make herself look good.

     0  0

     Flag

    3

    Easiness

    3

    Helpfulness

    3

    Clarity

    3

    Knowledge

    3

    Textbook Use

    3

    Exam Difficulty

    Nov 14, 2013
    “Coach Ford often came to the showers”
    Now if you put the above complete with quotes in Google then you will see why Rob Ford’s real problems are just beginning.

     0  0

     Flag

    1

    Easiness

    5

    Helpfulness

    5

    Clarity

    5

    Knowledge

    5

    Textbook Use

    1

    Exam Difficulty

    Oct 30, 2013
    I don’t care what you guys say about her. She is the man. she bumped my english mark from a 64 to a 70 after my english teacher said no just so I could meet the requirements for my Uni course I was accepted to.

     0  0

     Flag

    2

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    2

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    Aug 07, 2013

     0  0

     Flag

    1

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    2

    Knowledge

    Aug 06, 2013
    The vice principal has issues she should seek counselling and desist from spamming forums about some fictitious co-worker who knows her and how she would never invite that bully into her car.

     0  0

     Flag

    1

    Easiness

    1

    Helpfulness

    1

    Clarity

    1

    Knowledge

    Aug 01, 2013
    Google Vivian Mavrou under images if you want to see a lot of funny mavrou-memes.

    martingrove bully

    November 8, 2015 at 2:33 pm

  2. Brilliantly written. I have been married and divorced once. It was a mild divorce but I learned alot. I have also learned that if a woman truely love you she will stay with you despite not getting married. These western princesses that leave their man that the “love” because they wont marry the them and go find some other sucker to marry them are only in love with being married and having their little fairytale wedding. Then after time they realize they really didnt love their sucker husband and take half his shit because she is “entitled” to it.

    Erik

    November 9, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    • Yes, unfortunately divorce is sad when things just don’t work out the way when you walked in. I’ve done marriage/divorce and the divorce cost a lot of money…

      It also seems that if you find a woman that is as accomplished or more as you are, then she already has her own “Stuff” and doesn’t need “your stuff”. If you went to University, don’t go out with a high school grad – she’ll never be able to support herself at the level you provide, thus you get stuck with the bills when she decides she needs more attention from a man than you can give (because you’re working and paying the bills!)

      So even doing the right thing can cause complaints from vulturing women… Be careful, stay safe..

      Last few years I’ve had much higher standards and expecting the women to be as or more accomplished as I have done. And guess what, a lot less complaints and she splits the wine and dinner tabs, and a good time is had by all, not just one getting stuck with the bills and complaints. It works – patience and expectations and if she does random complaints, leave before it gets too serious.

      .

      Gulliver

      November 9, 2015 at 3:11 pm

      • “If you went to University, don’t go out with a high school grad – she’ll never be able to support herself at the level you provide, thus you get stuck with the bills”

        Sadly this is lost on most ultraconservative MGTOW anti-feminist types. They want a traditionalist underachieving wife but then want to bitch and moan about having to support her.

        MRAs are stupid

        December 22, 2015 at 5:18 pm

        • Women are the ones who want to be supported by a man. No man nowadays is interested in marrying some deadbeat woman who can’t support herself. Woman wish they could have the luxury of staying home but that luxury is pretty much extinct.

          FemiNazis are stupid

          December 23, 2015 at 12:56 am

        • You wish an ultraconservative MGTOW would support your loser ass.

          Keith

          December 23, 2015 at 12:57 am

        • “Sadly this is lost on most ultraconservative MGTOW anti-feminist types. They want a traditionalist underachieving wife but then want to bitch and moan about having to support her.”

          And this is lost on most ultraliberal FEMINAZI anti-MRA types. These “women” want to assert their rights but they want someone else to pay for their responsibilities.

          They fuck losers, get pregnant and expect the state to pay for the abortions of the kids they don’t want. They also expect the state to pay for the kids they decided to keep. And do they take responsibility for their stupid actions and bad choices? No. They blame the state and men for not providing more funds to support their reckless decisions. They bitch and moan about how they have no money because the welfare, the alimony and the child support are not enough. They bitch and moan about having to clean, cook and support the kids. What did you think having kids involved? Lying on your fat ass while funds and housekeeping services come pouring in?

          Go to Hell Where You Belong, Cunt! and Feminists Are So Fucking Idiotic!

          December 23, 2015 at 11:37 am

  3. In December 2008 a distraught Iranian mother living in a poorer area of Toronto contacted me regarding documents that a Toronto school (Perth Avenue Public School in Parkdale) would not release to her. These papers related to the tests and assignments of her six-year old son. The mother informed me that her son was a high achiever and was accustomed to receiving A and A plus. She wanted to know what he was doing wrong on his assignments to reduce his grades to the C level; Her requests to the school for his papers were ignored.

    As a curious citizen and a professional, I made calls to Perth Avenue’s Principal, Nardaya Dipchand. These calls were never returned. Suspicious, I left further messages at the school, to no avail. Meanwhile, the mother claimed that her son was showing signs of anxiety, sleepwalking, calling out the teacher’s name in his sleep, was depressed and did not want to return to school.

    In 2009 a Spelling Bee was held at the school. The boy in question won the contest for his class and represented his class in the finals (the boy was in Grade 1 and the school went up to Grade 6). The mother informed me that her son had subsequently won the Spelling Bee for the whole school, and this was supported by other students. The Trinidadian Principal, however, ignored the results of the contest and awarded the top prize to a little Jamaican student !

    While the boy’s symptoms increased, my suspicions and concerns increased as well.I began leaving messages with the Coordinator of the Spelling Bee, Lindsay O’Connor, who predictably did not return my calls. With everything seemingly out of control, I turned to the respected Toronto District School Board (TDSB). I spoke to the Head Council , Grant Bowers. Bowers and I had worked together years earlier when he retained my services

    to discover the author of racist , threatening notes/letters addressed to teachers. I thought that Mr. Bowers would be interested in my dilemma and the school’s obvious coverup and would certainly return my calls; I was wrong on all counts. I began to leave messages with other departments at TDSB, and they continued to ignore me. In June 2009 I received a letter from Grant Bowers that threatened me. (FIND TWO LETTERS FOR WEBSITE). Mr. Bowers informed in the letter that I would be arrested if I continued to leave messages and that a warrant had already been prepared for my arrest! He also ordered me not to contact the parents in the Parkdale neighbourhood!

    Subsequently, an 11 Division police officer began calling my business ordering me to either cease my calls to the school and the TDSB or turn myself in to the station. On one occasion I implored him to do his work and investigate the child abuse that I suspected was occurring at Perth Avenue PS. This only fueled their fire, and he left three more threatening calls in my answering machine. On June 10, as a result of the warrant, my colleague wrote a letter to School Trustee, Maria Rodriguez, asking her to explain why a warrant had been issued for me and what was going on at Perth Avenue PS with regard to the Iranian boy and suspect abuse on behalf of the Principal and certain teachers.

    I have been working for over 20 years digging out documents that other parties attempt to suppress but the situation at Perth Avenue seemed ever so much more important since it involved my suspected abuse of a child who lacked the ability to speak for himself. I should not have had to call these institutions when they are supposed to be there to defend the children.

    On July 9, 2009 at 6:00 am a fleet of police cars arrived at my home/office in Shelburne, Ontario (90 minutes from Toronto) and literally knocked the door down and proceeded to cart both parties (my associate and myself) out of the house and back to 11 Division. We awaited bail for 48 hours. During this time we became aware that the mother had also been arrested. Draconian conditions were set at the bail hearing two days later: we were forbidden to have a computer and fax machine in our home/office as we had also been charged with “threaten death” these bizarre and baseless charges would be withdrawn at trial.

    Donner Yukon

    November 10, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    • feminazi TDSB and ryerson university hates anyone who criticizes their feminazi mafia

      Fuck Ryerson

      December 18, 2015 at 3:52 am

  4. This is the most uneducated bullshit I have read all morning and I congratulate the author of the post on that account, because more than half the fucked up shit I read on personal blogs is damned awful.
    Go, you! Yay for complete stupidity! And if this is derived in whole or in part from some “non-Western culture” you were born into, fuck that, too! Fuck it and the horse it rode in on as we “westerners” like to say. You don’t want a partner. You’re a user and an idiot. How many teeth do you have? Got a banjo? Let’s hope your sperm is of poor quality and count so you can’t reproduce, because how boring would that be?
    Fucking idiot.

    Nate Hayden

    November 29, 2015 at 5:15 am

    • Your post made absolutely no sense whatever. You are just another frustrated idiot contributing to the bullshit you complain about. Go back to your basement and stay there. You have nothing to offer. You wish you had a banjo and teeth instead of roaches and loneliness. Sick pervert, who do you think you’re fooling?

      Slate Kate

      November 29, 2015 at 11:31 am

    • Notice that Nate rhymes with “ovulates” which explains a lot.

      Brian

      November 29, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    • Aww,no Thanksgiving date again? No sucker to buy you expensive shit for Christmas? LOL! Troll harder, lurker!

      Little Big Dave

      November 30, 2015 at 3:17 am

      • Sorry Dave, lurker here. I didn’t write the post you’re referring to.

        I lurk. Its a lot more fun.

        Although, I see the person called Susan Nercher is hiding under a new username.

        The Lurker

        December 2, 2015 at 4:06 pm

        • Yeah, as if you don’t lurk under different usernames. Are you in love with Susan Nercher?

          The Lucky

          December 4, 2015 at 4:26 pm

        • Lurking is fun? Well, when you don’t have anything else, I suppose it’s better than thinking about how your life went wrong. Personally, I think it would be more fun if you actually get a life but that would take too much work on your part, eh?

          The Lucky

          December 4, 2015 at 4:36 pm

  5. ar Anonymous bloggers

    I am the legal counsel who represents Dr. Brooke, Alexandra Hogarth of the Ryerson University- Ryerson Medical Centre . If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct this letter to your lawyer immediately and notify us of such representation. You are hereby directed to stop defaming of DR. BROOKE’S character and reputation as a woman.

    DR. BROOKE is an educated, respected medical professional in the community and represents the Ryerson Medical Centre for the past 5 months. She has spent countless years serving the community in her profession and building a positive reputation in Canada. She has also be honoured by various social clubs for outstanding work with helping medical patients.

    It has been learned through this thread and a YouTube video entitled “Ryerson University student arrested by student doctor and Toronto Police for having nightmares” that you have engaged in spreading false, destructive, and defamatory rumors about her which is not acceptable and tends to damage her reputation in today’s society.Under Canadian laws, it is unlawful to engage in defamation of another’s character and reputation.

    Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease and desist your unlawful defamation of our client and provide us with prompt written assurance within seven days that you will cease and desist from further defamation of my clients character and reputation.

    In the event you fail to meet this demand, our client reserves right to pursue all available legal remedies, including seeking monetary damages, and court costs and legal fees. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, criminal libel is subject to an imprisonment term of at least two years.

    Please be advised accordingly. Your libellous, misogynistic and hateful comments about Dr. Hogarth should be condemned with the fullest extent of the law used against you.

    Ryerson University
    Legal and Administrative Department
    In Representation of Dr. Brooke Alexandra Hogarth.

    Legal Notice, to remove defamation

    December 9, 2015 at 5:28 am

    • LEGAL NOTICE

      You have been committing crimes for years. Here is a list:

      Illegal social security database searches
      Libel chill
      False representation of legal counsel
      False claims of being people you are not
      Posting legal threats as fake counsel
      Posting defamatory comments about African Americans
      Posting defamatory comments about Muslims
      Posting defamatory comments about President Obama
      Posting threatening comments about various groups including men, blacks, Muslims
      Posting defamatory comments about the United States of America
      Posting threatening comments about the United States of America
      Posting pornographic comments about children
      Attempted virus attacks
      Hateful, misandrist comments
      False claims of misogyny to cover up your misandrist comments

      There are many more. Many complaints have been filed against you by various persons. You have been warned numerous times and yet you continue to flagrantly commit more crimes. When you are arrested and tried, you will not be able to assert any valid legal defenses since you continue to break the law despite repeated warnings and opportunities to desist from illegal activities.

      More complaints will be filed.

      Legal Notice of Crimes Committed

      December 10, 2015 at 6:43 am

      • Guess what you imbecilic fool? You are making defamatory comments about this writer(yes, I used your sad excuse of logic) and clearly you don’t know what FREEDOM OF SPEECH is. There was no overtly sexist or racist claims made in the article, just an inference by you. You have no right to revoke a right to free speech because your client was offended or portrayed in a negative way. This whole article is exposing double standard misandry in western society and you are trying to make it disappear because someone was offended or it “de-famed” someone. Guess what? Trump is being de-famed, so is Hillary and so does everyone who mentions anything controversial. There is a right to criticism. I can’t believe you are a lawyer and are this delusional and ignorant. You vampires survive off of drawing out cases and sucking people dry of their money. Legal thieves are what you cowards are.

        John

        December 10, 2015 at 4:35 pm

        • Of course she is not a lawyer. She is just an idiotic loser. As if Ryerson University won’t be contacted to see if they really posted that threat?
          How stupid can she be? Is it really worth going to jail by committing crimes JUST to stop a blog that speaks out against misandry?

          Against Misandry

          December 11, 2015 at 4:03 am

          • the lesbian attorney for Ryerson University useds t send legal notices when she was representing gordy stefulic at the tdsb

            toronto is tha feminazi hellhole of a city

            Fuck Ryerson

            December 18, 2015 at 3:48 am

    • fuck you giselle and fuck ryerson! fuck dr. hoe-garth & her misandry against that male patient! fucking nazi doctor sent an innocent student to the mental hospital because he was a male student

      what else goes on at ryerson university you want to censor from us you legal bully! Doctor Alexandra Hogarth should have her license revoked because she clearly does nt respect the rights of everyone & she shows misandry bias

      Fuck Ryerson

      December 18, 2015 at 3:51 am

      • giselle and brooke should call the police on u and have u forcibly sedated with tranquilizers for ur misogyny and sexist hatred against women. toronto females are above islam and muhammad u potential school shooting terrorist are u elliot rogers?

        Kathlyn

        December 21, 2015 at 10:58 pm

        • The police have been called and complaints have been filed against you for your misandry and posting of child porn. Do you use tranquilizers against innocent little boys? Do you think you are a god who has the right to molest young boys?

          Keith

          December 23, 2015 at 12:50 am

  6. The Ryerson University student health clinic sounds like a feminazi hellhole fuckery

    Fuck Ryerson

    December 18, 2015 at 3:46 am

    • u need mental health becuause u sound like another potential school shooter

      Kathlyn

      December 21, 2015 at 10:56 pm

      • You need to go to jail for posting a detailed description of how you raped a young boy and then claimed that it was a just a joke under different names.

        Keith

        December 23, 2015 at 12:48 am

  7. Doctor Alexandra Hogarth using the same old Bolshevik tactic of labelling a man mentally-ill despite he was calm & assuring that he wouldn’t harm any1:

    NOTE TO MRAS: THE VIDEO IS BANNED IN CANADA. FEMINAZIS CENSOR!!!

    Comment:

    What a lying bitch! For speaking your mind, she (doctor hogarth) finds that you are mentally insane. What the fuck is wrong with her?! She is clearly not trained properly. This is absolute tyranny at it’s worst. At least there is evidence of him being perfectly sane and normal, with that stupid bitch calling the cops on you just for your political views. There is something wrong with the Durham [TORONTO] Police department. Those morons probably say you have Schizophrenia and are telling you to take Meds. That is extremely unfair what they are doing to you,

    DR. ALEXANDRA HOGARTH ABUSE OF POWER ON VIDEO

    December 18, 2015 at 3:57 am

    • ur a misogynist. toronto females are goddesses. we spit on your Islam god because islam oppresses women. u and muhammad can kiss my butthole. my colleague brooke is a smart woman u sexist pig

      Kathlyn

      December 21, 2015 at 10:55 pm

      • Shut up, you misandrist child molestor. You should apologize for the child porn you posted against innocent boys. You should be treated like a cockroach.

        Keith

        December 23, 2015 at 12:46 am

      • Misandrist pervert. Toronto feminists are sewer skanks. Men deposit sperm in their holes to relieve their frustration right before they dump their worthless asses. You are just amusement parks. You are so ugly you probably don’t even get any attention. You wish someone would kiss your butthole. Brooke wouldn’t want you either, you perverted, misandrist cockroach.

        Go to Hell Where You Belong, Cunt!

        December 23, 2015 at 11:27 am

  8. You don’t have to pay credit cards not in your name or someone else’s loans. Don’t gild the lily.

    Horn

    December 19, 2015 at 11:42 am

  9. i’ve known brooke for many years. the sexist pigs are telling lies. the male student tried to rape her in her clinic and she called the police. so what? a woman should be treated as a god higher than muhammad, jesus and moses because my body creates life. you should apologize to brooke and kiss her anus for your defamation and misogynist comments against a woman

    Kathlyn

    December 21, 2015 at 11:01 pm

    • You know nobody. You have no friends. That’s why you lurk on this blog posting perverted filth. You keep talking about tranquilizers and anuses. What do you do to the innocent child victims of your rage and perversion?

      Keith

      December 23, 2015 at 12:52 am

    • A woman’s body does not create life. A man’s sperm creates life. A woman’s body supports life until birth and with so many skanks and sluts having abortions ON TOP of the bitches who kill their children (women are more likely than men to kill children), it’s safe to say that women destroy life. You should apologize to all the aborted babies and children killed by angry, perverted cunts like you. You are not a god and you are not higher than anyone. You are a piece of sewage.

      Go to Hell Where You Belong, Cunt!

      December 23, 2015 at 11:22 am

  10. The writer is 100% correct, excellent analysis. Best article about this issue I have read, well written and organized. For those men that still want to go ahead and get married, good luck, but the odds a seriously stacked against you.

    Unknown

    December 23, 2015 at 8:14 am

    • You aren’t unknown.

      Watching

      December 23, 2015 at 1:11 pm

  11. Toronto is a crappy city filled with lesbians, feminazis and pedophiles. Fuck Toronto.

    Pierre

    December 26, 2015 at 7:59 pm

  12. Help!!!!!!!!!! My 10 inch black vibrator keeps giving up the ghost just as I am about to cum. What can I do? Is there one that runs on 120V?

    Poopi

    January 3, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    • If you don’t know how to handle a vibrator, then you need more help than anyone on a blog can possibly give you.

      Practical

      January 5, 2016 at 8:07 am

  13. Relax. Breasts are not sexual. They are used for breastfeeding:

    I am distressed that your sexism is labeling women as monsters. You are the Monster.

    Female teachers in Canada are allowed to breastfeed their students in class. Get over it you pervert. Breasts and nudity are not sexual. You need to get laid.

    Allison

    January 14, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    • You are the monster. No one said anything about breasts. You posted a child porn story about how you assaulted a young boy. That will never be forgotten, you sick, perverted bitch.

      Shut Up Perverted Cunt

      January 14, 2016 at 9:55 pm

    • If cunt teachers are permitted to indecently exhibit themselves in class, then it’s going to be a matter of time that someone’s parent will snap out and use lethal force against you pedophiles.

      Doug Clarks

      January 17, 2016 at 12:19 pm

  14. Toronto females have a duty to feed our children and our students. Who are you to judge if a student needs to be breastfed by his teacher? Your perverted mind thinks that female teachers are predators.

    Breastfeeding saves childrens’ lives:

    Go back to the desert where you came from if you find a woman’s breasts offensive. The students should be lucky that their female teachers are feeding them in class.

    Allison

    January 14, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    • Stop posting pictures that feed your perversions. We all know what you are. Female teachers breastfeeding students is a sick perversion. Students who are molested and sexually assaulted are not lucky and only a child molester would think otherwise.

      Shut Up Perverted Cunt

      January 14, 2016 at 9:58 pm

  15. What do you find offensive about a woman breastfeeding? A woman’s breasts are not for your perverted fetishes. Our breasts are there to feed children. You cannot stop us from breastfeeding children you Moslem.

    It is a golden era for the rights of children and women in Canada. Our breasts and our bare bodies are what our students request, and we shall not have you Moselems interfering with the progress of education in Canada.

    There are already measures in place where female teachers will be allowed to breastfeed in class. The male students should not look at us like sexual objects. It is our choice to breastfeed during instruction time in the classroom!

    Allison

    January 14, 2016 at 5:22 pm

    • You are a pervert. When is this child molester going to be arrested? How many complaints have to be filed? She is getting more brazen. If a man had done this, he would have been arrested by now. Keep your breasts and bare bodies away from innocent children, you fucking child molester!

      Shut Up Perverted Cunt

      January 14, 2016 at 10:00 pm

    • Those pictures will help catch this pervert. https://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/report

      Justice Will Be Served

      January 15, 2016 at 1:34 am

    • Are you the pervert in that video??????Why the fuck are you naked with a child? How come YouTube is allowing such a video on their platform????

      Doug Clarks

      January 17, 2016 at 12:17 pm

  16. Fucking Canadian female pedophiles are displaying their nakedness to kids and publishing their videos….Hopefully karma comes back to use lethal force on those pedophiles.

    Doug Clarks

    January 17, 2016 at 12:21 pm

  17. Hey check out this site.Its about the feminazi types like here

    http://martingrove.canadian-forum.com/

    Lynne

    January 18, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    • The forum looks like it hasn’t been active for quite some time. Many female teachers in that hellhole called Toronto sure look like they fuck their students a lot.

      Tim Israel

      January 19, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    • Toronto is a feminazi paradise. Ensure that you share this article with your students so that they don’t need to restort to getting molested by their female teachers in order to meet with the opposite or same gender:
      http://tomenunite.blogspot.fr/2015/12/reader-submission-random-shitty.html

      Tim Israel

      January 19, 2016 at 3:46 pm

  18. Sexual violence (SV) is a significant problem in Toronto. SV refers to sexual activity where consent is not obtained or not given freely. 75% of Canadian women experience SV, but most victims are female teachers. The person responsible for the violence is typically male and usually someone known to the victim. The male students leer at female teachers for the way they are dressed. This is misogynist because a woman should not be sexually assaulted for what she wears.

    Mandating the teaching of affirmative consent to male students is important because they do not know that if their female teacher tells them to stop, they should stop.

    Our political party will stop sexual violence by increasing the legal age of consent from 16 to 27 years of age. This will allow women to focus more on education and prevent teenage pregnancies.

    An 8-year-old male student should know when to respect his female teacher when she decides that she does not feel like engaging in sexual activities.

    Respectfully yours,
    Canada’s NDP. 300 – 279 Laurier West Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5J9.
    General information. Phone: 613-236-3613. Toll Free: 1-866-525-2555

    National Democratic Party

    January 20, 2016 at 8:11 pm

    • Women sexually assault men on college campuses, on a regular basis. Each year, according to an estimate in a literature review, roughly 19 to 31 percent of male college students experience some kind of unwanted sexual contact, and researchers say the vast majority of that is perpetrated by women.

      Cindy Struckman-Johnson, a psychology professor at the University of South Dakota, has studied male victims of sexual assault since 1985. Studies showing widespread sexual coercion and assault by women against men, on college campuses and elsewhere, have trickled in consistently for decades, but they haven’t entered the public discussion of sexual violence, she explains. “It’s so contrary to the stereotypes of female behavior,” Struckman-Johnson says. “When you talk to the general public, there’s the idea that this can’t happen. They just can’t put it together.”

      For many feminists, questioning claims of rampant sexual violence in our society amounts to misogynist “rape denial.” However, if the CDC figures are to be taken at face value, then we must also conclude that, far from being a product of patriarchal violence against women, “rape culture” is a two-way street, with plenty of female perpetrators and male victims.

      How could that be? After all, very few men in the CDC study were classified as victims of rape: 1.7 percent in their lifetime, and too few for a reliable estimate in the past year. But these numbers refer only to men who have been forced into anal sex or made to perform oral sex on another male. Nearly 7 percent of men, however, reported that at some point in their lives, they were “made to penetrate” another person—usually in reference to vaginal intercourse, receiving oral sex, or performing oral sex on a woman. This was not classified as rape, but as “other sexual violence.”

      Researchers in Michigan determined that “49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers.”
      Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, “A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).

      In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed “greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households.”
      Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, “Household Family Structure and Children’s Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).

      Act now, pay later: “Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong.”
      Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, “Family Interaction” in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)

      The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.
      Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.

      80% of rapists are raised by single moms. Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.

      63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
      90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
      85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)

      A telephone survey conducted in 2010 for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 43.8% of lesbians reported having been raped, physically abused or stalked at some point by an intimate partner; of these, 67.4% reported the perpetrator or perpetrators as being exclusively female.

      The misandrist laws should be changed to promote fathers’ rights and to protect innocent children from the physical and sexual abuse of children by mothers, which is rampant.

      Respectfully submitted,
      Citizen for the Protection of Children

      National Children's Party

      January 20, 2016 at 10:18 pm

  19. Sexist Moslems worry that exposure to adult nudity at a young age might cause kids to become sexually curious before they’re ready. As Moslems puts it, “it may trigger them to explore, and that may be the beginning of early sexuality.”

    While several losers share Islamic views, the vice prinicipal of a Toronto high school points out that “not everyone looks at a body and think ‘sex.'” And we believe that the exact opposite is true: that focusing too much on modesty makes sex taboo and can lead to a fixation on it.

    As she puts it, “some of the most modest people I know are the most promiscuous. I guess because sex was also a naughty thing in their households. Sex was not a taboo subject in our classroom growing up, so nudity’s not a big deal.”

    To some, female teacher nudity is simply “natural.” A leading LGBTQ activist believes that making a big deal in either direction is what’s really damaging. As Alixa H. expresses it, kids learn to feel ashamed of their bodies and of their sexuality when female teachers always hide their own bodies, especially when it would be normal for them not to, such as when changing for swimming classes: It is all [about] how we feel [about] it and present it to our kids, and what we have in our hearts to teach them about the world.

    A female teacher and her naked body is not sexual. We need to teach our children that nudity is not something to be ashamed of. Female teachers in Toronto should be nude around their students to teach them proper boundaries and healthy sexuality.

    A female teacher should teach students the following way and help prevent rape culture

    Breasts are not sexual. The male students should learn how to respect a woman

    Donna

    January 21, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    • Child molestors always try to claim that their prurient interests in children are not sexual. They try to claim that they care about children and want to do what is best for them. They try to win the trust of children and others by claiming that their sick activities are not sexual and are actually a benefit for the children.

      Traits of child molestors:

      Offenders can be the most unsuspected people: Unfortunately, many Christians still believe that they can spot a child molester simply by appearance. They are most often on the lookout for the “creepy looking” guy who hangs out at the park or outside of the school. First, all adults should be concerned and take action to protect children when they see such a person. However, do not allow that limited stereotype to identify those in our community who may be a danger to our children. I heard a child protection expert once say, it’s not the guy sitting alone at the party that we should be most concerned about, it’s the one hosting the party. A prosecutor illustrated this point by asking prospective jurors, Can you tell me what a burglar looks like? This question often helped jurors understand that child molesters cannot be identified by appearance or social status. In all of the years as a child sexual abuse prosecutor, physicians, computer programmers, financial advisors, teachers, and even a child sexual abuse investigator were prosecuted! Focus on the behavior, not looks or economic status.

      Offenders are not strangers: Another unfortunate stereotype is that most offenders are strangers to the child. We must be vigilant in protecting our children from interacting with strangers. However, it is common knowledge that most children are not sexually victimized by strangers. In fact, one study found that only 10 percent of child molesters molest children that they don’t know. We must come to terms with the heartbreaking reality that those who pose the greatest risk to our children are within our families, churches, teachers and circle of friends.

      Offenders often prey upon trusting and vulnerable young people: In order to sexually victimize a child, an offender will first have to gain access to the child. As a result, offenders spend much time planning and executing what is commonly known as the “grooming” process. This is the process which the offender gains access to the child in order to develop a trusting and/or authoritative relationship. Once such a relationship has been created, the perpetrator is often free to abuse. Offenders often access children by, 1) exploiting the already existing position the offender has with the child or the child’s family (this can include family members, teachers, friends, coaches, youth pastors, etc.), or 2) intentionally placing themselves in a position where the offender is able to target a child and begin to lavish that child with attention, gifts, and “love”. This can include targeting a “troubled” child, a child lacking a positive adult role model, or even a child who has similar interests. Both categories of access allow offenders to openly target the vulnerabilities of children in gaining their trust and silence. We must be vigilant in protecting ALL children.

      Offenders minimize their criminal actions: There is a very disturbing article by a former youth pastor and convicted child sexual offender. Not once did this person acknowledge that his grooming and subsequent sexual contact with a child in his youth group was criminal and reprehensible. In fact, he repeatedly referred to the sexual victimization of this minor as a “relationship” and compared his actions with the adultery of King David. It wasn’t until the end of the article that I even realized this person had sexually abused a child! This offender was so focused on himself that he seemed completely oblivious to how his crime will forever impact the victim in all aspect of her life. Perhaps he doesn’t really care. He ends the piece by writing, Sooner or later, all things come into the light (i.e.. Be careful because at some point you will get caught!). This article was a sobering reminder of another very disturbing statement from another offender that was recently published by a church.

      We have seen an era where sex abuse allegations against women have been ignored or ridiculed. Yet, we begin to see that women may not only molest children as much as men, but even more than men. If women commit 3/4 of all child abuse and neglect, murder 2/3 of all children killed, why is it that popular cultural theory of women as abusers can not accept that women commit more than 1% to 5% of the sexual abuse. A well reviewed nationwide study of youth guards by the U.S. D.O.J. turns that number upside down.

      The DCFS information shows that 69% of sexual abuse by mothers was of their foster or subsidized-adoptive daughters. In contrast, 14% of the sexual abuse by fathers was of their foster or subsidized-adoptive sons.

      Feminism has sold the Western World on the most improbable of concepts that women commit sex offenses only because they are forced to by some man or that some man has exerted some as yet defined ‘mind control’ over perfectly sane and intelligent women to commit atrocious acts against children. Neither of those myths has any base in reality when the mass of child molestations by women is reviewed.

      You are posting these pictures because they sexually arouse you. That is what child molestors do. You are trying to claim that your interest in children is non-sexual but everyone knows it isn’t. You are trying to claim that female teachers parading naked in front of children in the classroom is non-sexual and is for the benefit of the children but we know that is not true. You are using misandry and anti-Moslem sentiment to justify your sick perversions but it isn’t working.

      You are angering many people and we know who you are. We will not allow your filth and perversion to invade our communities. You have been given many warnings and opportunities to desist but you have become more brazen. That is working against you. You reveal more of yourself when you post. We are alerting our communities for our children’s sake.

      The Protection of Children is Paramount

      January 21, 2016 at 7:50 pm

  20. Awesome write up. Been married and thankfully divorced. Poor as a result, but don’t care. Now I educate men young and old about Western culture women; that they are nothing more than a severe distraction on their journey through life. Waste time with marriage and men are asking for trouble. Be done with marriage for it is nothing more than a bad dream.

    men

    January 21, 2016 at 7:18 pm

  21. Dr. Alexandra Hogarth appeared to have violated the rights of Ryerson University student Steve Katsikaris. She filed ludicrous criminal harassment charges and had York Regional Police to enter his home without first showing a warrant!

    Toronto is a fucking horrible city for men!!! Avoid that city at all costs!!!

    Ryerson University Feminazi Hellhole

    January 25, 2016 at 3:01 pm

  22. Nudity is not necessarily sexual. It’s just something that is. It’s the human body in its purest and most vulnerable form – why would that be sexual?

    These Jewish agencies, and social media company policies, like many city statutes and public ordinances, privilege male-dominant heterosexuality, conflate women’s naked bodies with indecency and sex (a bad thing compared, for example, to allowable rampant violence), and insist that those bodies (and sex) be held in reserve, distributed and consumed according to patriarchal rules.

    Female public nakedness as protest or social commentary is not new and is critical, expressive and censored speech. A female teacher should be displaying her nakedness inside the classroom to teach male and female students that the body is not something to be ashamed about. Female nudity is effective against protests such as Egyptian activist Aalia Magda (also in exile) posted pictures of herself naked to protest Shariah law and censorship.

    There is nothing wrong if a female teacher, doctor or childcare worker when she strips naked in front of children. The children are not complaining. The children should be respectful when they see their female teacher’s breasts or vagina in class. Her body parts are not sexual. It is capitalism and the patriarchy which are sexualizing the female teacher.

    There will be less mass shootings in school if more female teachers were teaching the classroom without any clothes on. The male students will no longer be sexually frustrated. A male student will become more positive in life if he is able to have sexual intercourse with his female teacher.

    Laura

    January 31, 2016 at 11:52 am

    • Nudity in front of children who are not old enough to consent is sexual. Feminists are the biggest perverts. They cry about rape culture and the patriarchy but women are the ones who are more likely to assault and kill children.

      Anyone who proposes that adult nudity in front of children is good for the children is nothing but a pervert trying to justify her own sick urges.

      As University of Virginia Professor Brad Wilcox pointed out back in 2013: “From shootings at MIT (i.e., the Tsarnaev brothers) to the University of Central Florida to the Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s ‘list of U.S. school attacks’ involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.” His observation is largely ignored.

      In contrast, conversations about black-on-black violence often raise the link between broken households (or fatherless homes) and juvenile delinquency. But when the conversation turns to mass shootings, we seem to forget that link altogether.

      Now, this isn’t to say that every single mom is doomed to raise a mass shooter. Not every kid who grows up without his father will turn into Roof, and not every mass shooter grew up without his dad. Mental instability can be a product of any number of factors. But to ignore the link between a mass shooter and his fatherless childhood would be to simply ignore the facts. On CNN’s list of the “27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History,” seven of those shootings were committed by young (under 30) males since 2005. Of the seven, only one—Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho (who had been mentally unstable since childhood)—was raised by his biological father throughout childhood.

      STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN, PERVERT!

      Sylvia L.

      January 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm

  23. What are the requirements for using this entire essay/article for a book on the same topic?

    James

    February 10, 2016 at 2:45 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: