FPNI

OMG! I didn't know it was a website and went and looked. It makes GD seem normal in comparison. Of course I'm just reading the really fucked up posts.

Oh look, another guy who thinks we should have as many he man woman hater threads as humanly possible, but God forbid someone call you in your misogynistic bullshit.

I see neither of you have the balls to tag me on your call out either.
Typical.

Perfect example of why MGTOW is so pathetic, and why I jump in these shit shows sometimes. So sorry to break up your echo chamber.

I feel ya. I'm just here for the trainwreck.

It's totally crazy that these guys think they should be able to have these threads with no push back. The same characters post the same thing over and over, but I come in and I'm "the guy that always starts shit". Give me a fuckin break. I've never even started a thread on it.

The sad part is some of the MGTOW stuff is okay. They make some good points. Then they go if the deep end with shit like CT1 said above.

lol.  what do they identify the united states government as?

I probably go too far the other way with it honestly. Lol. I can't stand being single. Love doing stuff with my SO, and my female friends (most of which, my friends, are female, lol), shopping, etc.

I'd go bonkers without my girls. :P

ETA: My views on "legally" getting married... yeah, I'm not a fan of marriage as state institution. But a monogamous "marriage-like" relationship, I am very much for.

Being married can you give you something.

However,

Being single gives you options. It's true.  You can do whatever. ONce you marry, you lose tons of choices.

All in all, most marriages fail, over 50% and 80% of these are initiated by women and in 80% of the cases, kids go to the woman.

So, you are more likely to divorce than not and more likely to lose your kids than not and women overwhelmingly initiate divorces.

And if kids are not an issue - you are way past 40, or your mate is.. then what can she bring to the table?

I don't agree with all tenets of MGTOW but they do make tons of valuable points.

I engaged in a bitter custody battle that lasted for EIGHT years. Spent a pretty penny and in the end got the kids but I felt like I was put through a meat grinder.

here is a free advice, if you want kids, adopt. And do it alone.

Yes you can. yes you can.

getting married and having kids is actually one of the least reliable ways of getting kids. I ended up a single father with a child - and my case is the best case scenario type. Lots of men lose everything, money and kids and sanity.

Men boycotting marriage is an entirely sane and correct thing to do until divorce laws are changed. Those who haven't been through a brutal divorce have no idea what they are talking about.

Men not marrying: How deep does the problem go? by Karen S.

Marriage boycott is the only correct answer to this disaster.

My main disagreement with MGTOW is their refusal to have kids. Why the hell not?

Reality check: You don't need marriage or a woman to have kids. This is 2018, not 1955.

have kids and yes you can raise them just fine - alone. The feminazis have claimed for decades that they can do it alone but guess what, so can we.

Yes you can. Yes you can. Just repeat that.

Being a single father is infinitely better than going through a nasty divorce / custody fight.

Fucking poundmetoo has a lot of men scared, that with super high divorce rates and losing your ass in alimony and assets is changing the way a lot of men approach relationships.

Behold, the bounty of feminism

correct and from the female perspective it's almost impossible to find a viable mate who wants to marry and then have kids, etc. A viable mate is 1:1000.

Dating sites is like digging in a trash bin hoping to find a 3-course meal. For both genders.

Divorce laws are the reason, no sane man wants to implicitly sign one by marrying.
When you marry, you don't just marry the woman, you also marry the courthouse.

Couldn't agree more. I hate government involvement in a relationship. I love being in a committed relationship though.

I think he was on the offense here, as well as being correct.

One of my young male family members is super focused on building an empire. When I talked to him about marriage he simply said "Why would I want to risk losing half of everything I own?" He figures sex dolls will be the shit.

OP better have (always very-expensive) Long Term Care Insurance.

what a narcissist means by "unconditional love"

Truth = misogyny.

k.

Marriage today is one of the most dangerous activities a young man can engage in. More dangerous than drugs, alcohol and juggling running chainsaws.

Wow. Brass tacks.

Relationship stages with a narcissist

Arfcom: loads of divorce threads, "EJECT NOW", complaints about feminism, "women have the upper hand in court", redpilled on #metoo, etc.

Also Arfcom: Women are literally fucking gold and men who reject the bullshit to focus on themselves instead of chancing it with women are all dumb fat trolls.

Fucking bi-polar shit up in here.

That's what I thought too.

There is a credible report from the front lines, from the trenches.

It's really much worse than the MGTOW describes.

When you say women are play things and all women are whores, yes it's misogyny and it's also not truth.

K?

Way to misrepresent what's being said.

If it weren't for being horny I'd never go through the insanity of modern dating.

TBH a lot of the things I see every day make me want to be a hermit.

One of my relatives moved from the bay area way to the middle of bumfuck nowhere, I always laughed at him but now it kinda makes sense.

I wouldn't say women are play things, I may even argue the opposite. Women use men as a means to an end and they seem plenty willing to man-hop in the pursuit of a goal rather than any genuine interest in the men themselves. They're much too dangerous on a social level for me to ever give them the label of "play thing" and I'd say those with that mindset are putting themselves at risk.

As for the other bit, it's a crude way of phrasing it but I don't disagree in principal. See point one.

Interesting point.

Very true.

I'm 31.  I have vowed to never get married, and never have kids.  I love 'em both...but not enough for them to ruin my life forever.  Until the "justice" system gets it head out of its sexist ass...this boy ain't playing ball.

I personally work with a guy who's wife cheated on him...and HE lost the house and custody of 3 kids.  Between child support and alimony...he works 2 jobs and barely makes ends meet.  How the fuck does that make any sense?!

It makes sense because somehow it got worked into our system that women are always the victim and courts happily roll with this narrative. Seen it plenty. I have no way to quantify it but it's obvious to anyone that hasn't sewn their eyes and ears shut that women not only have the upper hand in court but they have its backing the vast majority of the time.

No, no, no. You can still *have* kids. Just not in the marriage format.

Hint: Surrogate motherhood, or adoption. Why would you turn down that possibility.

Marriage and having kids the conventional way is one of the most reliable way of losing your kids and then paying CS which goes anywhere but the kids.

The nutjob ex is not obliged to spend CS on kids, and even if you prove this and bring this to court, they don't care. Absolutely.

have kids without a female

If they can, so can we.

Spent 50 grand on a surrogate ... or whatever. Divorce  + custody fight will cost you much more not just financially but mentally.

Listen to this guy. He knows what's up.

I went through a custody fight that lasted for almost nine (9) years, yeah my nutjob ex was that insane.

Parental alienation, denial of contact, got me fired from 3 jobs and when I could not pay CS, as she expected, filed in court to put me in jail.

Eventually my posterity got tired of her courts, fights with multiple boyfriends, calling police and picked me as the primary parent.

That's exactly what a lot of your fellow red pillers would say. And do say. In this thread and others.
And again, you are basically saying AWALT which is demonstrably false. It's also pretty much the definition of misogyny which is what your initial problem with me was.

Yep. I lived through it as the "posterity" except it was just over 16 years. Been there, done that.

I am a single father.. I have 100% primary custody, residential, and legal we split, but de facto, I make the key decisions.. and it took me almost a decade of warfare to get to that point.

I've had multiple false POs against me. I have been kicked out on the street at 11PM on a cold November night.  That's how it all began. I have been accused of everything one can come up with.

Kids rarely accept some court approved schedule, like 50/50 or 80/20 or whatever. They usually pick a winner and a loser and a winner in their eyes is the victim, not the aggressor.  It does not matter what the court says, the kids are mentally absent with that person.

My son sided with me because he saw how abusive NJ EX was. When a spouse begins warfare against his/her partner, he / she in fact begins a war against the kids, too. And the kids react by picking the side that's attacked, that's victimized. Sometimes it's the father, sometimes not. Divorce is the ultimate child abuse and the person who initiates it is the abuser. 80% of the time it's women.

Meaning if you file in court against your wife, who is largely innocent, and unfairly so, kids are likely to come to her defense, the act of divorce is parental alienation, you can lose your kids. My nutjob still has no idea why she lost the kids. My ex created a problem out of nothing just because she wanted to upgrade and kids can see through all the BS.

Anyway, to get back to the kids issue.. See I got primary, and I am single father and that's the best outcome you can hope for in terms of courts. The best. But you can have that outcome almost for free if you (1) you never get married (2) find a way to get kids anyway.. lots of kids to be adopted in various eastern European countries or China or whatever, so you kill multiple birds with one stone  - do a good deed that helps you, too. Maybe the surrogate path is one to be explored, had I known this thing would become such a cluster-f ot the 9th degree, I would have definitely either adopted or paid a surrogate, since that's what I ended up with anyway. But you save 10 years of emotional roller-coasters, courts, lawyers, finances, false protective orders and such.

Marriage is just a total fiction. Maybe it worked in 1955. Today is not 1955 however.  Or 75, or even '95.  Not even close and the social landscape has changed dramatically.

It’s almost as if there are multiple posters here with different opinions.

It’d be great to get married one day but I doubt I’ll ever do it under current circumstances. Too much to lose in the event of a divorce. The trouble is going to be finding a good women willing to commit but is ok with no marriage.

And this is what a reasonable approach looks like that recognizes the issue with modern marriage while not calling all women play things and money grubbing whores.

I looked into it briefly a couple years ago.  Several sources said that one has a better chance of dying in a plane crash than for a single male to adopt a child.

"While it’s legal and becoming prevalent, single-parent adoption still isn’t easy. The most desirable children–babies, toddlers, and other young kids with no medical or mental health issues—often go to two-parent homes. Single people find themselves looking at older kids if they want to build a family. While this is not as much the case as it once was, there is still often a stigma against them when it comes to adopting newborns or other young children.

Then, there’s the issue of approval. Getting approved for adoption is a complicated process for all prospects, but it can be even more challenging for the single person. Single parents must be able to prove they can provide for the child financially and are able to spend time with the child without a second parent involved.

It’s even tougher for men who wish to adopt, as their motives are scrutinized closely. They may meet all the criteria and still be turned down as adoptive parents. Single people are asked about their lifestyles, dating interests, and other personal questions to ensure they are good candidates as parents."

"Today, you can adopt a domestic child from any state. However, not all countries will accept a single person for international adoption. There are agencies both here in the US and around the world which will only accept couples for adoption. A single person’s application will automatically be denied just on the basis of marital status."

Blue: Because they're right.

Red: Experience and science says otherwise. Women are branch swingers. They may "be" with one man but their goal, driven by the entirety of human evolution, is not to settle with any one man but to look for the "best", the one who will provide the highest quality children, best chance of survival, etc. They "branch swing" from man to man in a continual attempt to upgrade. True loyalty from the female side of the equation is largely a fiction manufactured by modern society. Not only that, but multiple loyal mates means women have multiple providers, helping to ensure both her survival and the survival of her children. Biology precludes women from having a singular sense of loyalty.

where there is a will, there is a way.

and whichever way you pick, it will be infinitely less complicated than getting stuck in courts for 10 years. Infinitely cheaper too.

International surrogate. Outsource it.

It beats standard marriage where you are living on top of a volcano that can blow up any minute or going with this MGTOW / vasectomy route. If you want kids but don't want marriage, there has to be a way. That does not endanger your life and  mental health.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having kids, it's the method of how that I am questioning.

I thought this was a thread about some new type of welding I hadn’t heard of.