Don't Marry

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


with 5,018 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

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.

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.


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

5,018 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The teacher, Anna Andersen, is serving an eight- to 12-year prison sentence after pleading no contest last year to sexual abuse of a minor. Andersen was a teacher at Freedom Elementary School, and the boy was one of her students when the abuse began.

    The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of the boy against Laramie County School District 1, Superintendent John Lyttle, school principal Chad Delbridge and others. The suit seeks unspecified compensation and punitive damages.

    The law firm representing the boy declined to comment, and both Lyttle and Delbridge said they couldn’t comment on pending litigation.

    The suit contends Andersen began to “groom” a 12-year-old boy in her class for a sexual relationship that began in the late spring or early summer of 2012. The relationship continued even after the boy moved on to a separate junior high school, with Andersen meeting and being seen with the boy almost daily on or near the grounds of Freedom Elementary, the lawsuit said.

    Lyttle and Delbridge became aware of the relationship in late 2012 after a number of teachers and staff at Freedom expressed concerns to Delbridge about Andersen and the boy, it said. Delbridge met with Andersen several times in the ensuing months, but he took no action against her and did not notify police or the boy’s guardian of the situation.



    Anna Andersen is a pedophile

    May 7, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    • ssomeone should kill you for your clear hatred of women.


      May 16, 2016 at 10:21 pm

      • Go to Hell.


        May 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

      • Great article and so true. The majority of women today are garbage.


        May 28, 2016 at 7:53 am

  2. Well a Career woman are the Worst ones of all to get married too since they’re so very high maintenance, independent, selfish, spoiled, greedy, and so very money hungry these days which they will Only want the Best and will Never settle for Less. And many of us Good Single Men have been Really Ruined by these women already Unfortunately. Quite a Change in the women of today compared to the Good old fashioned women of years ago that are all Gone now which many of them along with their men had to Struggle to make ends meat which today they Definitely Are Very Spoiled And Selfish.


    May 8, 2016 at 5:48 am

    • Many female teachers these days in the neo-Victorian Anglosphere come to class only to fuck their students, like this one here:
      Utah teacher who had sex with three of her students blames their parents saying they had strained relationships with the boys and defends her ‘risque’ clothing from jail

      Brianne Altice is serving between two and 30 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of forcible sexual abuse
      In 2013, Altice, 37, had sexual contact with three male teenage students at Davis High School in Salt Lake City, Utah
      One of her victims and his parents have filed a lawsuit against her and the Davis School District
      Altice responded to this suit in a letter submitted to the court saying the boy’s parents never attended parent-teacher conferences
      She also said that the boy had a strained relationship with his parents that she was trying to help him repair
      Altice also shot down claims she wore risque clothing in the classroom saying there were no complaints about her work attire

      The female child predator blames the 15-year-old male students for fucking them. She needs to be shot or run over with a car

      Brianne Altice is a Bad Teacher who fucks her students

      May 12, 2016 at 1:28 pm


    Mary Kay Falauu was a VICTIM of a PREDATOR student. The teacher had the EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT of an eight year old child—and her student VILLI FALAAU TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HER.

    HER STUDENT COMMITTED RAPE. The student should have learned not to impregnate his female teacher. He looks content that he had sex with his teacher.



    May 16, 2016 at 10:19 pm

    • Forget the bullshit. She loved every moment of it.after all women are BUILT TO TAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Boy George

      May 19, 2016 at 7:54 am

    • Alice how dumb are you?


      May 28, 2016 at 7:55 am

  4. Professional dancer, Sarah Doucette, was one of the false accusers in the Jian Ghomeshi trial which took place in Canada. The Canadian government have been openly intimidating, harassing, and ultimately, censoring anyone who states such opinions in public.

    Sarah Doucette, like any other privileged middle-aged white woman in Toronto, resorts to playing the victim while having the government and armed thugs in blue shirts and handcuffs to censor anyone for calling out her shit.

    The Alberta wildfires should have affected these Toronto femicunts rather than the innocent oil rig workers.

    Fuck Kathleen Wynne Lesbian

    May 18, 2016 at 6:55 pm

  5. Boy George says: About Gordy Stefulic

    May 19, 2016 at 11:28 am
    Word is that Gordy Stefulic is a lesbian.She prefers to lick women as opposed to sucking men.
    Click to Edit – 3 minutes and 9 seconds

    Boy George

    May 19, 2016 at 7:52 am

  6. Je déteste le mot ALLÉGUÉE quand Gordy Stefulic a été reconnu coupable. Ce fut cette culpabilité qui lui a valu au TSAA où le contact avec les élèves et les parents était peu probable. Même là son incompétence est évidente. Au moins Chris Bolton a démissionné.

    Justice vient lentement







    L’ENQUÊTE DU COMITÉ DE L’ONTARIO COLLEGE DES ENSEIGNANTS, conformément à l’article 26, paragraphe (5) du Collège de la loi Teachers 1996 Ontario (la «Loi»), Lois de l’Ontario, 1996, chapitre 12, a ordonné que le ci-après de la matière décrit en ce qui concerne la conduite ou les actions de Gordana Anne Stefulic, certificat No176236, soit renvoyée au comité de discipline de l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario.

    IL EST ALLÉGUÉ que Gordana Anne Stefulic est coupable de faute professionnelle au sens des paragraphes 30 (2) et 40 (1.1) de la Loi en ce que:

    (A) elle a omis de respecter les normes de la profession, contrairement à l’Ontario
    Règlement 437/97, ​​le paragraphe 1 (5);

    (B) elle a abusé un ou plusieurs élèves physiquement, sexuel, verbal, psychologique ou affectif, contrairement au Règlement de l’Ontario 437/97, ​​le paragraphe 1 (7) et engagé dans l’abus sexuel d’un ou plusieurs élèves de nature définies dans les sections 1 et 40 (1.1) de la Loi;

    (C) elle a omis de se conformer à la Loi sur l’éducation, Lois révisées de l’Ontario de 1990, chapitre E.2, et plus particulièrement l’article 264 (1) (c) de ceux-ci ou les règlements pris en vertu de cette loi, en contravention du Règlement de l’Ontario 437/97 paragraphe 1 (15);

    (D) elle a commis des actes que, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances serait raisonnablement considéré par les membres comme honteux, déshonorant ou non professionnel, contrairement au Règlement de l’Ontario 437/97, ​​le paragraphe 1 (1Cool; et

    (E), elle a eu une conduite indigne d’un membre, en contravention du règlement de l’Ontario
    437/97, ​​le paragraphe 1 (19).


    1. Gordana Anne Stefulic (le «membre») est un membre de l’Ordre de l’Ontario

    2. Pendant toute la période, le membre a été employé par le Toronto District School Board
    (Le «Conseil») en tant que principal à [XX] School (l ‘ «école») en Ontario.

    3. Au cours de l’année scolaire 2007-2008, le membre a accordé et / ou autorisé étudiant n ° 1
    et Étudiant n ° 2, deux étudiants de sexe masculin du Conseil de moins de seize ans, entrée
    et / ou l’accès à sa page Facebook et, ce faisant, a permis à l’élève n ° 1 et Étudiant
    N ° 2 pour accéder à des contenus inappropriés et / ou de la vue, y compris:

    (A) Une image photographique d’une personne de sexe masculin sans chemise, vêtu d’un maillot de bain Speedo et intitulé «repas du jour»;

    (B) Un dessin montrant une femme nue montrant ses seins et un homme nu tenant une chaîne qui a été attaché à son pénis bien doté.

    4. Au cours de l’année scolaire 2007-2008, le membre,

    (A) permis un étudiant et / ou aux étudiants d’avoir accès à un ordinateur portable personnel dont elle savait ou aurait dû savoir qu’ils contenaient des images à caractère pornographique ou à caractère érotique, qui semble représenter les jeunes adolescents de sexe masculin;

    (B) autorisé un étudiant et / ou les étudiants d’avoir accès à l’ordinateur de la classe dont elle savait ou aurait dû savoir qu’ils contenaient des images pornographiques et / ou des images et / ou des images de corps nus dessins animés violents;

    (C) a demandé et / ou autorisé étudiant n ° 3, l’élève n ° 4 et n ° 5 des étudiants, les étudiants de sexe masculin, de lui donner un massage; et

    (D) n’a fait aucun effort pour dissuader ou empêcher un étudiant et / ou les étudiants de chercher à lui masser le dos.

    LE COMITÉ DE DISCIPLINE TIENDRA UNE AUDIENCE en vertu des articles 30 et 32 ​​de l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants Loi 1996 de l’Ontario, de décider si les allégations sont vraies et si Gordana Anne Stefulic est coupable de faute professionnelle. Une copie du règlement de procédure du comité de discipline et du comité d’aptitude professionnelle sera fournie sur demande.

    LE COMITÉ DE DISCIPLINE REPONDRA le jeudi 14 Février 2013 à 09h00 à fixer une date pour l’audition de cette affaire. Le Comité se réunira au 12ème étage des bureaux de l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario 101, rue Bloor Ouest, Toronto, Ontario.


    Si vous le souhaitez, vous ou votre avocat peut communiquer avec avocat de l’Ordre pour discuter de la planification d’une date d’audience pour déterminer si une date pour l’audience peut être convenue. Si une date pour l’audience peut être convenu, conformément à l’article 4.02 (2) du règlement de procédure du comité de discipline et du comité d’aptitude professionnelle, l’audience aura lieu à la date convenue.



    SI LE COMITÉ DE DISCIPLINE TROUVER VOUS COUPABLE de faute professionnelle, vous êtes passible des peines prévues à l’article 30 de la Loi.

    Un membre dont la conduite est à l’étude dans les procédures devant le comité de discipline peut examiner, avant l’audience, toute preuve écrite ou documentaire qui sera produite ou tout rapport, dont le contenu sera donné comme preuve à l’audience. Vous ou votre représentant

    peuvent communiquer avec le bureau de Caroline Zayid de McCarthy Tétrault SENCRL, srl, avocat de l’Ordre dans cette affaire, à Suite 5300, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower, Toronto, ON M5K 1E6, téléphone 416-601-

    Date: Janvier 14,2013

    Michael Salvatori, EAO
    Registrateur et chef de la direction
    Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario
    12e étage, 101, rue Bloor Ouest
    Toronto, ON M5S 0A1

    À: Gordana Anne Stefulic
    [XX] [XX]

    ET: Calderoni Steer Wanderon McTavish & Smith LLP
    2 Sheppard Ave E
    North York ON M2N 5Y7
    Dale Stump, Procureur de la

    ENTRE :




    McCarthy Tétrault SENCRL, srl
    Suite 5300
    Toronto Dominion Bank Tower
    Toronto, ON M5K 1E6

    Caroline R. Zayid
    Tél. 416 601-7768
    Fax 416 868-0673

    David E. Leonard
    Tél. 416 601-7684
    Fax 416 868-0673

    Procureurs de l’
    Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario

    # 12685381

    Grim Reaper says:


    May 21, 2016 at 7:29 am

  7. “Sex Obsessed” Teacher is apparently back in the classroom to fuck some students!

    She cried using feminist logic, and now she might have sex with your minor son in the classroom!

    Cecilia Sanossian might get away with having sexual intercourse with little boys___Somebody should investigate and stop her before she molests another minor student.

    Cecilia Sanossian is a predator teacher

    May 23, 2016 at 8:28 am

  8. Andzej
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    #26 Apr 15, 2016
    Like you recommended I went to the website and found her. How the pfuc did she make principal with such weak degree qualifications? I thought Canada had high academic standards. Tell you here in the Ukraine teacher training is a bit more stringent.
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Paris, France
    #28 Saturday May 14
    Helen wrote:

    Hell no! She has retired from the TDSB under what appears to be a dark cloud. She knew that she would never be promoted to head office because of seksual adventures with under age students so in a huff she not only retired she also cancelled her teaching certificate. Go to and search for Gordana Anne Stefulic and you will see her qualifications etc.
    Lets face it the TDSB is not entirely blameless! They really and truly abandoned Gordy Stefulic when she was down, so much so that she had to be allowed to move out of ECI to complet the few years she needed to qualify for a full pension. She had to be able to afford all that Lithium prescribed for her. She is now wasting away a slave to the bottle.
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Paris, France
    #29 Saturday May 14

    Giselle Basanta
    Toronto, Canada
    #2 Jul 3, 2008
    I represent the Toronto District School Board and have been instructed to address the damage caused to the reputation of one of the Toronto District School BoardÂ’s principals, GORDY STEFULIC as a result of the erroneous information you have posted to this web site.
    I am duly notifying you that you have posted offensive, defamatory and harmful information to this web site.
    The Toronto District School Board has determined that this information is FALSE as attributed to GORDY STEFULIC.
    The Toronto District School Board is requesting that you delete this offending and inaccurate information immediately.
    It is imperative that you remove this information as the earliest opportunity as it has been reproduced and re-posted on other websites. The offending and inaccurate content is of the most serious concern to the Toronto District School Board and to Principal Stefulic and is negatively impacting on the school community and the PrincipalÂ’s ability to carry out her statutory duties.
    Govern yourself accordingly.
    Giselle Basanta
    Associate Counsel
    Toronto District School Board

    tuna fish

    February 25, 2016 at 8:03 am


    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Paris, France
    #32 Saturday May 14
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Los Angeles, CA
    #35 Thursday May 19
    Boy George says:

    May 9, 2016 at 11:32 am
    Word is that Gordy Stefulic is a lesbian.She prefers to lick women as opposed to sucking men.
    Click to Edit – 7 minutes and 9 seconds

    Come from another web site
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Flowood, MS
    #36 11 min ago
    pino wrote:
    Wow she taught me way back she had a nice azz
    But miz vivian mavrou does NOT have a nice ass.
    Vivian Mavrou is the vice principal @Martingrove Collegiate.She constantly goes around the building harassing us for sitting outside the classroom. She is constantly coming on to my BF.She is a crotch watcher.Please pass this on so others will be careful around her.
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Maringrove Beast
    Flowood, MS
    #37 6 min ago
    Vivian Mavrou is the vice principal @Martingrove Collegiate.She constantly goes around the building harassing us for sitting outside the classroom. She is constantly coming on to my BF.She is a crotch watcher.Please pass this on so others will be careful around her.
    Reply » Report AbuseJudge it!
    Maringrove Beast
    Join the community
    Flowood, MS
    #f1 1 min ago
    Some women have a nice ass.Miz Vivian Mavou of Martingrove Collegiate in Etobicoke clearly does not. Ask Randy the principal! She just sits too much. She will never make it to the TSAA or even to becoming a pricipal because she does not have “what it takes”. Crotch watching is not a rquired qualification. Hr students are posting bout her! Here is one from a site on the internet.

    But miz vivian mavrou does NOT have a nice ass.
    Vivian Mavrou is the vice principal @Martingrove Collegiate.She constantly goes around the building harassing us for sitting outside the classroom. She is constantly coming on to my BF.She is a crotch watcher.Please pass this on so others will be careful around her.



    May 29, 2016 at 8:44 am

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 209 other followers