"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists

[King Arts]

It's logical considering I've heard plenty of horror stories from before no fault divorce as well as examples of people finding any marrying someone more compatible with themselves who is a good step-parent for their children. I'd put up the Dadvocate's family as an example of this, with neither of them hating their exes.

Yes someone can be a good stepdad or stepmom, but surely you understand that kids are better with a stable home. That means not moving every week from one house to another right? Even if the divorced couple are stile amicable with each other.

No, I don't need you as a middle-man. I've already told you I'm basically done with you because of your constant anti-liberty stance on basically everything. Go found some theocracy on some isolated Pacific island somewhere where you and other weirdos like yourself will be happy.

LOL. Aren't you being kinda unreasonable and delusional here? I have not brought up religion here, and I don't think anyone else on the other side has either. Mrttao is an atheist Jew, and Marduk has bitched about my confessional politics before. They still support this even with secular reasons. So blanket calling your opponents theocrats is both uncivil and a red herring.

Those are some very different scenarios
If I was king, my word would be law. I would write up a comprehensive reform without needing to compromise with anyone about anything. all I would have are advisors.

If I was a senator, then by definition I would be one of many, compromise would be a given.
However, I cannot imagine the other side ever giving us an inch in compromise. As such, the only time we could possibly enact a change would be when we have a solid majority such that we don't even need to listen to the other side. Because demonrats never compromise.
Any compromise would be between me and other conservative senators.

I do agree that the situation for childless couples is different compared to if there are children involved.
The barriers to divorce with children should be significantly harder than divorce without children.

In the case of childless separation. well my only issues with it is that it is a vehicle for divorce raping men. and people violating oaths.
Ban common law marriage, ban alimony, respect prenups, and a few other things would have to be part of such a compromise.

although it still irks me that we are encouraging people to be filthy liars who just take then break oaths at a whim.

To be fair even if you were king or dictator your power isn't absolute. The king of Saudi Arabia can't decide one day to make the state religion satanism and go completely against Islam. He needs support of other people to not get couped.

From what we do know of those other societies, it gets you absolutely bonkers and definitely toxic intra-family politics with parents and relatives favoring *their* blood related children over the other children in the same family, and even if not, constant suspicion and accusations of them doing so.

But most of what we know from those other societies(besides Mormons) are from the rich and the kings and empeors and sultans. So of course for that position harem politics could lead to civil war, and the leader should probably be monogomous. But for lower ranking people the negative effects might not be drastic.

Yep.

Either they have someone already lined up or they've already cheated.

To be fair it's not cheating if the rules the couple set for themselves allow it. It is adultery but it might not be cheating if that makes sense.

 

[Captain X]

Yes someone can be a good stepdad or stepmom, but surely you understand that kids are better with a stable home. That means not moving every week from one house to another right? Even if the divorced couple are stile amicable with each other.

You understand that in many cases that the child does not move back and forth between parents, right? The reform I call for explicitly calls for it, with the person who applied for the divorce losing custody and being limited only to visits.

LOL. Aren't you being kinda unreasonable and delusional here?

No.

I have not brought up religion here, and I don't think anyone else on the other side has either.

It's been brought up. And where it hasn't, it's pretty obvious that this is the main motivation behind it, particularly from yourself in other threads on other topics.

 

[Marduk]

But most of what we know from those other societies(besides Mormons) are from the rich and the kings and empeors and sultans. So of course for that position harem politics could lead to civil war, and the leader should probably be monogomous. But for lower ranking people the negative effects might not be drastic.

We don't know? Speak for yourself.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292358998_Psychosocial_Impact_of_Polygamy_in_the_Middle_East

Intersecting bonds: a perspective on polygamy's influence in Arab Middle East family firm succession | Emerald Insight

Intersecting bonds: a perspective on polygamy's influence in Arab Middle East family firm succession - Author: Moustafa Haj Youssef, Jahangir Wasim, Ioannis Christodoulou, Robert Reinhardt

www.emerald.com

The Politics of Family Cohesion in the Gulf: Islamic authority, new...

Introduction The modernizing projects of Gulf states have been predicated on the idea that traditional cultural and religious values can be clearly dissociated from modern social and economic pract...

journals.openedition.org

Polygamy is a major factor in the utterly insane clan politics of ME countries, which in turn are a major destabilizing factor for the countries in general.

 

[King Arts]

You understand that in many cases that the child does not move back and forth between parents, right? The reform I call for explicitly calls for it, with the person who applied for the divorce losing custody and being limited only to visits.

So then you are punishing no fault divorce but still allowing it.

After all if the one who applies for divorce loses custody then that is a disadvantage. That means you are more with us. Heck what you said is reasonable and is something I’d agree with and think is a great compromise.

No

It's been brought up. And where it hasn't, it's pretty obvious that this is the main motivation behind it, particularly from yourself in other threads on other topics.

lol you are being unreasonable.

No one brought up religion. Again Marduk and Mrrtao aren’t religious so that’s not their motive

As for it being the motivation of others so what? Many others also oppose rape, child killings, and cannibalism because of religious reasons. I mean if it wasn’t for religion many would be all for the LGBT pride parade groomer thing. If we say we are against that stuff because it’s a sin will you go all
“Shut your filthy mouth I don’t want to hear about your religion it has no place here!”

That seems kinda crazy.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Polygamy isn't just immoral, it's socially destabilizing. No society with polygamy can ever be stable, let alone prosperous.

 

[Scottty]

Polygamy isn't just immoral, it's socially destabilizing. No society with polygamy can ever be stable, let alone prosperous.

Well, depends how you define those words. Some African societies have gone on for centuries stuck in primitive, with some men having a collection of wives, other men being sent off to die in inter-tribal wars, or something.
The basic problem is that there are roughly an equal number of men and of women born each generation - so for every man who gets to own two women, there's one man who gets none.

Which is why polygamy mostly features in violent societies were lots of men die in war, and having a strict one-wife-only rule would mean loads of women being left single, which means less babies born, which means your tribe shrinks in size and gets weaker...

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Which is why polygamy mostly features in violent societies were lots of men die in war, and having a strict one-wife-only rule would mean loads of women being left single, which means less babies born, which means your tribe shrinks in size and gets weaker...

Quite the opposite. Polygamy means that lots of men die unmarried because some fat, decadent noble is hoarding women like trophies. Which is why these societies always suck.

It's not much of a surprise that the monogamous societies like the Romans and Greeks, and later Christians, became the guiding light of human civilization.

 

[Captain X]

So then you are punishing no fault divorce but still allowing it.

I think of it more as discouraging. If people really want out, they still have a way, but it would cost them, and their spouse would be protected from divorce-rape.

After all if the one who applies for divorce loses custody then that is a disadvantage. That means you are more with us. Heck what you said is reasonable and is something I’d agree with and think is a great compromise.

Well at least we agree on that.

lol you are being unreasonable.

No one brought up religion. Again Marduk and Mrrtao aren’t religious so that’s not their motive

Honestly it makes their position that much more unreasonable. But as far as religion, well, I know you well enough from other discussions you've had here.

As for it being the motivation of others so what? Many others also oppose rape, child killings, and cannibalism because of religious reasons. I mean if it wasn’t for religion many would be all for the LGBT pride parade groomer thing. If we say we are against that stuff because it’s a sin will you go all
“Shut your filthy mouth I don’t want to hear about your religion it has no place here!”

That seems kinda crazy.

I hold individual liberty above all else, and you hold your religion above all else.

 

[Marduk]

As for it being the motivation of others so what? Many others also oppose rape, child killings, and cannibalism because of religious reasons. I mean if it wasn’t for religion many would be all for the LGBT pride parade groomer thing. If we say we are against that stuff because it’s a sin will you go all
“Shut your filthy mouth I don’t want to hear about your religion it has no place here!”

That seems kinda crazy.

Because it is a shitty argument. Only some of the people who already agree with you will agree with it. You think the people who wave the rainbow flag give a single flying fuck about what you (and usually anyone else too) thinks is a sin? For half of them it will be just a confirmation that they are pissing off "the bigots" and so are on the right track.
You think anyone who does take Christian religion seriously enough to let it decide their opinion of rainbow flag politics doesn't know it's a sin already?
The leftists are however famous for turning around such shitty arguments into own advantage by painting the other side as religious zealots with no good argument for those of different belief.
Just like in immigration debate, they would rather equate all the opposition to it to some fringe group of neonazis, put them on TV even, rather than show anyone on the right with better arguments (some years ago they loved using the infamous Westboro Baptist Church in the role of religious zealots of choice).

 

[DarthOne]

Because it is a shitty argument. Only some of the people who already agree with you will agree with it. You think the people who wave the rainbow flag give a single flying fuck about what you (and usually anyone else too) thinks is a sin? For half of them it will be just a confirmation that they are pissing off "the bigots" and so are on the right track.
They are however famous for turning around such shitty arguments into own advantage by painting the other side as religious zealots with no good argument for those of different belief.

It’s almost as if there’s no point in trying to negotiate or talk with the rainbow mafia!

 

[Jormungandr]

It’s almost as if there’s no point in trying to negotiate or talk with the rainbow mafia!

There isn't.

The Rainbow Tumour cannot be reasoned with. It cannot be bargained with. It will not stop unless you conform to their demands and delusions (yes, I cribbed the speech Kyle Reese gave to Sarah, so sue me. ).

It's gotten so bad that even older gays, Bi's, and lesbians are now saying their campaigning in their youth was a mistake because of what it resulted in now. They wanted acceptance and equal rights, not what's basically homosexual domination of the West and mental illness run rampant under a false aegis.

 

[Marduk]

It’s almost as if there’s no point in trying to negotiate or talk with the rainbow mafia!

If you want to make them sweat, you have to tell them some heresies of the sacred science, preferably ones from the most cunning of heretic scientists.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

It's better for children to endure parents who can't stand each other than for their parents to be able to divorce and maybe marry someone who is more compatible with them? I've heard plenty of stories of children finding a better mother or father in a step-mother or step-father. And again, what if there are no children?

They don't remarry successfully and most step mothers hate other people's children and will emotionally abuse them to drive them out of the House.

Most divorcees do not find function in relationships again, it's why most are multiple divorcees.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Would you guys(if you had power as a president, king, senator, etc.) be willing to compromise and allow no fault divorce for couples without children, if you were able to ban it for those with children? Can you say yes or no, and your reasons for doing so please.

@Captain X There ya happy?

Sure if it's in the first two years of marriage.

 

[Skitzyfrenic]

My former step mother (her and my father were each other's second marriage) is now old and gray and on her seventh marriage.

 

[Cherico]

My former step mother (her and my father were each other's second marriage) is now old and gray and on her seventh marriage.

after the 3rd one you should probaly start wondering if the problem is you.

 

[DarthOne]

after the 3rd one you should probaly start wondering if the problem is you.

Women? having self awareness? In this day an age?

 

[Cherico]

Women? having self awareness? In this day an age?

Reality hates being ignored and will punch you in the face until you pay attention to it.

 

[DarthOne]

Reality hates being ignored and will punch you in the face until you pay attention to it.

Yeah, but will it be soon enough for the rest of us?

 

[Cherico]

Yeah, but will it be soon enough for the rest of us?

For us no, we will get to live through the very worst of the suck, our children will likewise live during bad times, our grandchildren might live during better times though that's who we fight for.

Its never fun being the generation that lives through the bad times but these are the cards we have been dealt.