One of the two pillars of an OLTR Marriage is that both parties have a legal, logistical, and enforceable barrier between their personal finances. (The other pillar is that you should be allowed to have sex with whomever you like, whenever you want, within a few simple ground rules. But that’s a topic for another day.)
Under a TMM model, a man legally combines all of his finances with his wife. Doing such a thing, regardless of how sweet, virginal, or nice she is, is an utterly insane proposition in today’s modern era for the following reasons:
1. When she eventually gets bored or irritated with you and divorces you down the road, or when you divorce her, or when she catches you cheating on her and then divorces you (and odds are higher than around 76% one of these scenarios will eventually occur), under community property laws, she will be “entitled” to receive half of all of your money, or more, in addition to the massive legal expenses you will incur.
Have fun busting your ass, working for years, only to hand it over to a woman you’re not going to see anymore.
2. When you get divorced, she might be entitled to alimony payments from you on top of all that. And that will be on top of child support if there are any children involved. Some guys seem to think that child support somehow replaces alimony, or that alimony and child support are the same thing. Ohhhhh no. She can easily get both. (Read this for more information.)
Alimony is especially likely if you make a lot more money than her or if she’s the stay-at-home wife many of you right-wingers fantasize about having someday. That stay-at-home wife is more likely to receive alimony from you post-divorce than a wife with her own income. You guys either don’t understand this or tend to forget it. That’s why, if you stupidly insist upon having a TMM, it’s much better for you if your wife continues to work and earn her own income.
If you encounter some kind of financial problem after the divorce and don’t pay the alimony, you will be arrested and thrown into jail. And the courts won’t give a shit about your reasons regardless of how legitimate they are.
Sound fun?
3. Combining your finances with a woman isn’t just about getting divorced. During the marriage, if she screws up her credit, gets into trouble with loans or creditors, or has any problems paying her taxes, the government and/or creditors can, and often will go after you to pay her debts or back taxes.
Even in those cases where you are not legally required to pay these things, it will take hours of your time to clean up, your credit report will be screwed up for years, and you may even have to pay attorneys thousands of dollars.
I personally know two married men who had problems like this; they did nothing wrong but their financially incompetent wives screwed up with debts and/or taxes, the creditors went after the husbands, and the husbands went through all kinds of hell cleaning up the mess.
Have fun with that.
4. If you share bank accounts with your wife, and most TMM husbands do, any screw-ups she causes with the bank are going to be things you will have to pay for and clean up.
Back when I was traditionally married as a young beta male, I was like every other stupid husband and shared a few checking accounts with my wife at the time. I used the usual beta bullshit excuses about how it was more “convenient” to do this.
My wife at the time would regularly whip out her debit card and just buy things without checking the balances of the accounts first. As you might expect, she would overdraft the checking accounts on a semi-regular basis.
Not only did this cause many serious arguments and emotional damage to our marriage, but over the course of several months/years, I spent literally thousands of dollars in overdraft fees because of this. One overdraft fee was easily $35, and if you have three or four that all come in at the same time, you get dinged for each one, all in the same evening. It adds up fast.
Eventually, I received a letter from my bank declaring that since “my” accounts were being overdrawn so often, if it continued, they would permanently close the accounts and my name would go on a permanent watch list which would make things difficult for me to open bank accounts in the future.
At that point, I had finally had enough. I closed down the accounts and started new separate accounts, each one in our own names. Then I told the wife she was free to overdraft her own account all she wanted, but any overdraft fees would be her problem. This made her so furious that this was one of the several catalysts that eventually blossomed into our divorce.
All of these things are the kind of problems you’re exposed to when you combine finances with your traditional, monogamous wife.
Is it worth it?
Unless you enjoy pain and drama, no.
For you men over the age of 35 who want to settle down with a woman, you need to do an OLTR Marriage instead, where your finances are 100% legally and enforceably separate from hers. (Men under age 35 should not live with a woman they are romantic with, married or not. You’re not ready yet, for numerous reasons.)
Note that I said legally and enforceably separate. Just moving in with your OLTR and keeping separate accounts isn’t enough. She can break up with you years later and complain to a judge that she needs financial assistance, and in our new left-wing world, she might get it. From you.
The topic of exactly how to establish and maintain separate finances from your OLTR wife is a long and complicated one, so today I’ll summarize what I have done in my marriage to Pink Firefly. I will not be able to give you detailed financial specifics (read this if you want to know why) but I can give you a general overview. (I’ll have much more to say about this next year when I publish a book (or course) on Alpha Male 2.0 marriages.)
It’s important to understand that keeping legally, enforceably separate finances from your wife does not mean you just sign a few papers and then you’re all done. As many attorneys have closely advised me, you must maintain certain aspects of your financial life for the rest of your life in order to keep things legally, enforceably separate. Many men establish these financial barriers at the outset of their marriage or cohabitation, but later get lazy (as is so often the case with men in OLTRs) and stop doing what they need to do to keep things enforceable, and blow the entire thing.
So here’s what I did, and continue to do:
1. PF and I signed a shitload of paperwork, equivalent to an enforceable prenuptial agreement, drawn up by two different attorneys (one checked the work of the other), approved by PF’s own attorney (a legal requirement), notarized and witnessed. This was done two months before she moved in with me and over a year before we had our wedding.
Doing all of this cost me $2500 in legal fees. If you think that’s a lot, I suggest you scroll back up and re-read the four problems men have in marriages when they don’t do this, and add up how much all that costs. That $2500 could easily save me well over a million dollars in the long-term, making it perhaps the the best $2500 I’ve ever spent. I paid it with a smile on my face.
2. Pink Firefly and I have nothing joint financially. We have separate checking accounts, cell phone accounts, cable bill, savings/investment accounts, business entities, and so on. The lease on the house is under my name, not hers (though she is on the lease as someone living in the house). Everything is either in her name or my name. There is literally nothing in both of our names, and never will be.
3. All of her bills are paid through her own accounts, and all of my bills are paid through mine. I don’t pay her bills through any of my accounts, nor the reverse.
4. If/when I want to give her money, I can, but there is a particular financial procedure under which I do so. (I can not describe it here. Sorry. Again, read this if you want to know why.) Some of you guys seem to think that you can’t take care of your wife financially in an OLTR Marriage, and this is incorrect. You can; it’s just a little more complicated.
5. My attorneys review my documents and financial practices once every two years (I’m about to do it next month) to ensure that A) the documents we signed are still legal and enforceable based on new laws that may have been passed, and that B) how I’m managing my finances isn’t screwing up legal enforceability.
6. I have several layers of legal and international asset protection, stuff no one will be able to touch, no matter what happens.
7. As those of you who read my other blog already know, I’m getting the hell out of the Collapsing USA in January 2021. I’ll still spend several months a year here, but I won’t live here, and I won’t have any assets here, and will have residencies and citizenships in several other countries. American laws won’t really concern me at that point (though I will still follow them while I am here; Alpha Male 2.0s can’t break the law). So if something horrible were to happen years down the road, I’ll be just fine.
I have to pause here and state that internationalizing your finance or doing five flags is not a requirement of Alpha Male 2.0 nor OLTR Marriage. It’s awesome, and it’s Alpha 2.0 to the extreme, but it’s not required. I’m just saying that I’m doing it, for many reasons I’ve discussed many times before at both of my blogs.
I know what some of you are going to say; all of this seems complicated or too much work. Again, I invite you to scroll up and re-read the four things you’ll be in for if you combine your finances with a woman in the Western world and in the modern era. Nothing I have talked about is more complicated than regularly fighting with your wife over financial issues, going through a divorce, losing half your stuff, getting your financial life destroyed, paying alimony or going to jail, and/or dealing with angry banks, creditors, or the IRS. That’s what normal married guys go through, and since so many guys go through this crap, you now think it’s “normal.”
It might be normal, but it sucks, and you don’t want any part of that bullshit.
It takes some work, but you get used to it. PF and I have been doing all of this for so long that it’s normal to us now. And remember what I said about marriage /cohabitation being only for men over 35. Younger guys shouldn’t do any of this stuff; you’ll fuck it up.
Or just don’t move in with or marry a woman. That’s always an option too (though most men over 35 will eventually want to do this in some form or fashion).
Want to talk to other guys working on Alpha Male 2.0? Join the new Alpha 2.0 Forums HERE and/or join the Alpha 2.0 Facebook Group HERE. They are both FREE to join!
I’m coming to a town near you in 2019 to do the least expensive Alpha Male 2.0 seminar I’ve ever done. I’ll be in 18 different cities in the USA, Australia, Canada, and Europe. If you want to come to a low-cost seminar to learn how to improve your financial and woman life, click HERE and get your tickets! The next cities coming up are Las Vegas, London, and Berlin!
One of the two pillars of an OLTR Marriage is that both parties have a legal, logistical, and enforceable barrier between their personal finances. (The other pillar is that you should be allowed to have sex with whomever you like, whenever you want, within a few simple ground rules. But that’s a topic for another day.)
Under a TMM model, a man legally combines all of his finances with his wife. Doing such a thing, regardless of how sweet, virginal, or nice she is, is an utterly insane proposition in today’s modern era for the following reasons:
1. When she eventually gets bored or irritated with you and divorces you down the road, or when you divorce her, or when she catches you cheating on her and then divorces you (and odds are higher than around 76% one of these scenarios will eventually occur), under community property laws, she will be “entitled” to receive half of all of your money, or more, in addition to the massive legal expenses you will incur.
Have fun busting your ass, working for years, only to hand it over to a woman you’re not going to see anymore.
2. When you get divorced, she might be entitled to alimony payments from you on top of all that. And that will be on top of child support if there any children involved. Some guys seem to think that child support somehow replaces alimony, or that alimony and child support are the same thing. Ohhhhh no. She can easily get both. (Read this for more information.)
Alimony is especially likely if you make a lot more money than her or if she’s the stay-at-home wife many of you right-wingers fantasize about having someday. That stay-at-home wife is more likely to receive alimony from you post-divorce than a wife with her own income. You guys either don’t understand this or tend to forget it. That’s why, if you stupidly insist upon having a TMM, it’s much better for you if your wife continues to work and earn her own income.
If you encounter some kind of financial problem after the divorce and don’t pay the alimony, you will be arrested and thrown into jail. And the courts won’t give a shit about your reasons regardless of how legitimate they are.
Sound fun?
3. Combining your finances with a woman isn’t just about getting divorced. During the marriage, if she screws up her credit, gets into trouble with loans or creditors, or has any problems paying her taxes, the government and/or creditors can, and often will go after you to pay her debts or back taxes.
Even in those cases where you are not legally required to pay these things, it will take hours of your time to clean up, your credit report will be screwed up for years, and you may even have to pay attorneys thousands of dollars.
I personally know two married men who had problems like this; they did nothing wrong but their financially incompetent wives screwed up with debts and/or taxes, the creditors went after the husbands, and the husbands went through all kinds of hell cleaning up the mess.
Have fun with that.
4. If you share bank accounts with your wife, and most TMM husbands do, any screw-ups she causes with the bank are going to be things you will have to pay for and clean up.
Back when I was traditionally married as a young beta male, I was like every other stupid husband and shared a few checking accounts with my wife at the time. I used the usual beta bullshit excuses about how it was more “convenient” to do this.
My wife at the time would regularly whip out her debit card and just buy things without checking the balances of the accounts first. As you might expect, she would overdraft the checking accounts on a semi-regular basis.
Not only did this cause many serious arguments and emotional damage to our marriage, but over the course of several months/years, I spent literally thousands of dollars in overdraft fees because of this. One overdraft fee was easily $35, and if you have three or four that all come in at the same time, you get dinged for each one, all in the same evening. It adds up fast.
Eventually, I received a letter from my bank declaring that since “my” accounts were being overdrawn so often, if it continued, they would permanently close the accounts and my name would go on a permanent watch list which would make things difficult for me to open bank accounts in the future.
At that point, I had finally had enough. I closed down the accounts and started new separate accounts, each one in our own names. Then I told the wife she was free to overdraft her own account all she wanted, but any overdraft fees would be her problem. This made her so furious that this was one of the several catalysts that eventually blossomed into our divorce.
All of these things are the kind of problems you’re exposed to when you combine finances with your traditional, monogamous wife.
Is it worth it?
Unless you enjoy pain and drama, no.
For you men over the age of 35 who want to settle down with a woman, you need to do an OLTR Marriage instead, where your finances are 100% legally and enforceably separate from hers. (Men under age 35 should not live with a woman they are romantic with, married or not. You’re not ready yet, for numerous reasons.)
Note that I said legally and enforceably separate. Just moving in with your OLTR and keeping separate accounts isn’t enough. She can break up with you years later and complain to a judge that she needs financial assistance, and in our new left-wing world, she might get it. From you.
The topic of exactly how to establish and maintain separate finances from your OLTR wife is a long and complicated one, so today I’ll summarize what I have done in my marriage to Pink Firefly. I will not be able to give you detailed financial specifics (read this if you want to know why) but I can give you a general overview. (I’ll have much more to say about this next year when I publish a book (or course) on Alpha Male 2.0 marriages.)
It’s important to understand that keeping legally, enforceably separate finances from your wife does not mean you just sign a few papers and then you’re all done. As many attorneys have closely advised me, you must maintain certain aspects of your financial life for the rest of your life in order to keep things legally, enforceably separate. Many men establish these financial barriers at the outset of their marriage or cohabitation, but later get lazy (as is so often the case with men in OLTRs) and stop doing what they need to do to keep things enforceable, and blow the entire thing.
So here’s what I did, and continue to do:
1. PF and I signed a shitload of paperwork, equivalent to an enforceable prenuptial agreement, drawn up by two different attorneys (one checked the work of the other), approved by PF’s own attorney (a legal requirement), notarized and witnessed. This was done two months before she moved in with me and over a year before we had our wedding.
Doing all of this cost me $2500 in legal fees. If you think that’s a lot, I suggest you scroll back up and re-read the four problems men have in marriages when they don’t do this, and add up how much all that costs. That $2500 could easily save me well over a million dollars in the long-term, making it perhaps the the best $2500 I’ve ever spent. I paid it with a smile on my face.
2. Pink Firefly and I have nothing joint financially. We have separate checking accounts, cell phone accounts, cable bill, savings/investment accounts, business entities, and so on. The lease on the house is under my name, not hers (though she is on the lease as someone living in the house). Everything is either in her name or my name. There is literally nothing in both of our names, and never will be.
3. All of her bills are paid through her own accounts, and all of my bills are paid through mine. I don’t pay her bills through any of my accounts, nor the reverse.
4. If/when I want to give her money, I can, but there is a particular financial procedure under which I do so. (I can not describe it here. Sorry. Again, read this if you want to know why.) Some of you guys seem to think that you can’t take care of your wife financially in an OLTR Marriage, and this is incorrect. You can; it’s just a little more complicated.
5. My attorneys review my documents and financial practices once every two years (I’m about to do it next month) to ensure that A) the documents we signed are still legal and enforceable based on new laws that may have been passed, and that B) how I’m managing my finances isn’t screwing up legal enforceability.
6. I have several layers of legal and international asset protection, stuff no one will be able to touch, no matter what happens.
7. As those of you who read my other blog already know, I’m getting the hell out of the Collapsing USA in January 2021. I’ll still spend several months a year here, but I won’t live here, and I won’t have any assets here, and will have residencies and citizenships in several other countries. American laws won’t really concern me at that point (though I will still follow them while I am here; Alpha Male 2.0s can’t break the law). So if something horrible were to happen years down the road, I’ll be just fine.
I have to pause here and state that internationalizing your finance or doing five flags is not a requirement of Alpha Male 2.0 nor OLTR Marriage. It’s awesome, and it’s Alpha 2.0 to the extreme, but it’s not required. I’m just saying that I’m doing it, for many reasons I’ve discussed many times before at both of my blogs.
I know what some of you are going to say; all of this seems complicated or too much work. Again, I invite you to scroll up and re-read the four things you’ll be in for if you combine your finances with a woman in the Western world and in the modern era. Nothing I have talked about is more complicated than regularly fighting with your wife over financial issues, going through a divorce, losing half your stuff, getting your financial life destroyed, paying alimony or going to jail, and/or dealing with angry banks, creditors, or the IRS. That’s what normal married guys go through, and since so many guys go through this crap, you now think it’s “normal.”
It might be normal, but it sucks, and you don’t want any part of that bullshit.
It takes some work, but you get used to it. PF and I have been doing all of this for so long that it’s normal to us now. And remember what I said about marriage /cohabitation being only for men over 35. Younger guys shouldn’t do any of this stuff; you’ll fuck it up.
Or just don’t move in with or marry a woman. That’s always an option too (though most men over 35 will eventually want to do this in some form or fashion).
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
That was my wife to a “T”. She did this before I married her, yet I was dumb enough to marry anyway, yet at least smart enough that I told her she always overdrafts her own account so I’m not putting her on one with me. I also kept her off of my loans and leases but mainly because her credit score actually hurt us when combined and banks would suggest we only put loans under my name.
Ultimately, I did have to provide a way for her to pay for things with my money, so I shared a credit card with her. When she bought things and couldn’t provide a reciept or explanation, I took the card away, and eventually this type of stuff along with the cheating, lead to our divorce.
I’m always amused by the reaction of most females to this concept. They act all aghast like “how dare you would even suggest this to a woman!!!” I’m sure they view it as an existential threat to their precious security and also know they don’t have you by the balls financially. This is also why they push so hard to get a TMM when dating because just dating makes them nervous. The power tilts in your favor as a guy while dating but then shifts to her after TMM. Of course we all know around these parts once you give her what she claims to want, she’s no longer as into you or attracted. It’s a funny little paradox which your system does a great job circumventing.
Essentially keep everything separate same as you do personal finances and a business entity, right?
I assume, just like with an LLC for example, any comingling of finances can “pierce the corporate veil” and open up your assets in a suit?
Only if you start off the relationship like a normal guy: boyfriend/girlfriend, neediness, territoriality, monogamy, drama, jealousy, etc. Then yes, when you drop this on a woman she’ll be horrified.
But I, using my system (FBs/MLTRs/OLTR), have literally never received any backlash from a woman when I described any of this. That includes Pink Firefly, HBM, and at least three or four other women in my past, of all ages, including younger girls and women way over 33.
The response was mostly in the vein, “Ehhhh… well…. yeah, okay, I guess that’s fair. I guess I would feel the same way if I were in your shoes.” They don’t love it, but they accept it.
But yes, if you try to explain this to a normal monogamous girlfriend, you’ve already set the wrong stage, and she’ll have a nuclear bomb go off in her brain.
It’s all about the foundations you lay with a woman before you get serious.
Yes, very similar.
Correct. Though a corporate veil can be pierced for many other reasons.
The most common critique I see for keeping your finances separated is what will you do if you have different income levels or savings once you’re retired (especially if she has zero savings)? Seems like you would have to break up or end up footing the bill if you wanted to do something that she couldn’t afford to do on her own.
Amen to that! I wholeheartedly believe so. Take notes guys!
I wasted too much time and energy living with women before 35. If before 30 a “girlfriend is a dream killer”, then living with a girlfriend or wife before 35 is like a nuclear holocaust of your dreams.
I think BD has given himself maximum cover. However, I submit it’s not enough if he remains in Washington:
https://www.mckinleyirvin.com/family-law-blog/2013/february/rights-when-ending-intimate-committed-relationsh/
After a certain amount of time, the courts will entertain palimony claims even in friendly states like Washington.
If you want the highest level of protection, do no marry them, do not live with them, do not call them your wife, and do not assume your open marriage documents are potentially no better than buffer.
The problem is not potentially giving her half. The problem is giving her half and absorbing the costs of litigating the whole mess that come out of your half, leaving you potentially bankrupt.
Wow, that sounds disgustingly entitled. How did she even rationalize being “furious”? How do you rationalize it except by flat-out saying “your money is my money, how dare you prevent me from misusing your, I mean my money as I please” lol.
Um, because that’s what they do.
https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2011/12/05/chick-logic-it-starts-early/
If I were in this situation described above, I would have just told the wife and kids I’m going out of town for the weekend with some long-time friends and sneakily hitched a plane out of the USA to a country where the US Govt can’t get me(probably to Asia, gotta take advantage of that growing Asian money) while completely changing my identity. This will cause financial and emotional turmoil with the wife and kids when they eventually find out, but acceptable losses must be made; a plane ticket out of the Collapsing USA is much cheaper than a divorce in the Collapsing USA. Besides, the wife deserves it for blowing my hard-earned money on stupid shit 😉
You need to re-read the article. I never said “Never, ever pay for anything you wife does or wants.” I said to keep finances 100% separate.
Those are two very different things.
I will not remain in Washington. I’m outta here in less than 18 months.
Only if you’re a moron and move in with a woman without signing anything. The docs we signed and filed protect me specifically from CIR statues.
Correct. But as I’ve said a thousand times, most men well over the age of 35 are not going want that, so saying that kind of thing is somewhat useless unless you’re on some kind of MGTOW site.
This is exactly the kind of thing a young man who’s never been married says.
What if we kept a low or regular income tax track in the country your ex resides and another full developed one in another one, out of her reach/knowledge. Thus, she will only get a low percentage of what you have.
I am realizing while I write, that somebody may think local tax include external assets. That is true. It is just that local Justice cannot reach them but you can still operate them legally.
BD, I think that many of us, at some point, could think that if we paid for something, we should be respected, thanked, or whatever.
That is VERY bad for men.
I think you stated something on the matter un your books or blogs, but I think that when you decide to spend money on a woman, or your family, you should make a conscious promise to yourself that you will be outcome independent about it.
This goes from buying her dinner on a first date and being OI about getting laid or not, to paying for her education or business and being OI about if she leaves after being succesful.
If you cant be OI then dont buy dinner or anything.
Something that makes me uneasy is the possibility of laws changing in the future. If under a new law my activities suddenly become a “marriage-like relationship” and/or it suddenly becomes “fair” and “just” that the woman be entitled to way more than I think she should be entitled to, I have no recourse.
Even criminals are exempt from punishment if what they did wasn’t a crime when committed, but close relationships with women might get less protection than criminal acts!
It might be easier in places where laws define what happens in what cases in a strict way as opposed as leaving it to a judge to apply vague terms such as “a fair and equitable manner”. For example, several years ago my country has changed the definition of community property for cohabiting partners, and the courts seem to be consistently applying old terms to property acquired when the old law was in force. But “fairness” can change in a heartbeat in common law systems, and I can’t imagine a judge saying, “Before 2020 (the date of the X v. Y ruling), such and such was fair, but now it’s no longer fair”.
This is good advice of course. Would be more challenging with children. Doable, according to your previous articles, and your unchained man book. In theory anything is possible, but women take full advantage of having children to ask for everything under the sun. It takes full fledged unflinching 2.0 mindset to pull it off.
Lol at paying 2500 (I’m sure my mind would change if had BD type money). I would rather accept the risk of having a woman taking me to court without having been married. Only the most hard core women would try to sue a man they weren’t legally married to.
Then again I plan on moving in with her, and either having a PO box or other residence. So good luck proving we were together as husband and wife. Anything can happen, but good luck with that.
Typo
If there ARE children involved under number 2.
I addressed that in item #4 here.
Yes. My exact message was that if you ever choose to spend any money on a woman for any reason (particularly before she has sex with you), then you need to consider that money:
1. Gone forever (even if she says she’ll pay you back… she won’t).
2. Is in no way at all guaranteed to provide you with sex, kindness, long-term commitment, or loyalty. Do not expect any of that. Give her the money with zero expectations of these things, or don’t give her the moeny at all.
Women are not men. Don’t treat them as such.
Correct. That’s why you need to review your paperwork with an attorney on a regular basis.
Now you’re being paranoid. Your wife won’t be paying attention to these laws. It’s not like the law will change on Monday and she’ll file for divorce on Tuesday.
Instead, when you do your review, you’ll find the law changed a few months ago, you amend the paperwork, and you have her sign it again. That’s it. Thinking she’ll immediately want to divorce you on the spot while the pen is in her hand is venturing into the 2% Rule.
Incorrect. Children have nothing to do with any of this. Child support and child custody are completely unaffected by these things and are completely separate issues.
Incorrect again. When you sign docs and move in with her you won’t have any kids with her yet. It won’t be part of that particular discussion at all.
If she changes her mind after you have kids, fine, but that’s her problem; she’s signed what she’s signed. (She still gets child support if you get divorced though; there’s no getting around that.)
Then I hope you have no money and never plan on having any. I prefer not to risk my money.
Fixed; thanks.
@Duke: You have a lot to learn about women.
If marriage didn’t favor chicks so much they would be more against it than ANY MGTOW dude.
I’m never getting married at all ever. Not only do I think it’s the most antiquated concept ever, I’ve also seen too many of them break down with life being absolute shit for everyone involved. Hooked up with too many divorced single moms who actually made more money than the loser dudes they were with, so the whole thing BD writes about here is reversed: The dude is getting alimony from the chick lol.
As bitter as most MGTOW sound, they are spot on when it comes to how piss poor divorce laws are. And the thing is, targeting the chicks who take advantage of them is pretty stupid: They’re supposed to take advantage of them since that is what life is about: Taking advantage of opportunities (and certain people who have nothing to offer). As BD has written before, men have the power to change all this shit but still refuse to because “this chick’s different.” LMAO.
“4. If/when I want to give her money, I can, but there is a particular financial procedure under which I do so. (I can not describe it here. Sorry. Again, read this if you want to know why.) Some of you guys seem to think that you can’t take care of your wife financially in an OLTR Marriage, and this is incorrect. You can; it’s just a little more complicated.”
Without going into any specifics on your particular arrangement, could you describe an example procedure to follow (even if different from yours). In particular for an arrangement with totally separate finances while the man still supports the woman / pays (almost) all living expenses.
I don’t care what men over 35 want, and that’s not my point. This is not protection. You just believe it’s protection.
Protection is not “marrying” them and moving in within a state that doesn’t recognize common law marriage. Oddly, like California. As long as you don’t “Marry” them you are off the hook.
Your “wife” has grounds to litigate on the basis of “unconscionability”. If you had not married her, this would not be a problem, because she would have no standing to litigate anything at that point. Your fear should not be losing in court. Your fear should be getting sucked into a protracted legal battle that you are probably going to win, and yet be stuck with the costs associated with that litigation.
I’m aware you are out of here in a couple of years, and have no assets here. That solves a lot of problems. But you are not most men. Most men will not do adequate research in their local jurisdiction to figure out what is or is not gonna get them snapped. Even the ones that do will make mistakes. Attorneys screw up and give clients bad advice all the time. Sometimes it’s not bad and it turns out to be wrong.
Back OT:
If you must marry someone, your advice is as solid and actionable as one could ask.
My exes Croatian grandmother reputedly used to quip “It’s amazing what men will do for a two inch square piece of fur.” I’m sure it was even funnier in her native tongue.
This kind of financial arrangement will not work if you have kids with your wife and you live with your wife and your kids.
If your wife is working full time, she will not agree to taking on “90% of child rearing responsibilities” (which you advocate in your book) – nor would this be fair. If your wife is a stay at home mother (and especially if she agreed to give up her career for the kids you both wanted), not having shared accounts will absolutely create resentment and result in drama, no matter what you get her to agree with. You can’t have it both ways.
Or rather, which conditions must such an arrangement satisfy? Which provisions of law pose the most threat? What not to do? Is it the possibility of “Your Honor, the defendant has been paying me the average of $XXXX each month, I grew accustomed and dependent on that, and it’s fair that I keep receiving the same amount”?
Can anyone who’s seen such situations chime in on this? Is cohabitation sizeably less risky than marriage? I currently don’t want an OLTR and never want to get married, but I’ll probably want an OLTR past 30-35 and am likely to get very tempted to have a live-in OLTR when I’m late thirties or older. If divorce hazards (financially, legally, psychologically) are a 10, how high would you rate the fallout risk of cohabitation without marriage? 4, 6, 8?
@Joelsuf: AFAIK you’re about 10 years older than me, have you experienced a significant increase in temptation for serious LTR or live-in GF or marriage (but presumably have kept successfully dismissing it) past age 30?
My view is that the perception of equality as “we do things 50-50” is very mistaken. Fairness means that we’re two responsible adults who are 100% free to agree to or walk away from a deal, whether it distributes a task 50-50 or 95-5. So what is “fair” is whatever we, as adults capable of making uncoerced choices, willingly put up with. I don’t know if one can “have it both ways”, but the answer seems to be yes since, out there in the real world, women and men both get it both ways in one arrangement or another, and the GF or BF puts up with it (or not, and that’s the point). If it’s so unfair that the partner thinks it’s an unacceptable deal, they, well, walk away. It’s immaterial to call the arrangement unfair if the person was physically unhindered from terminating/rejecting it but didn’t.
If someone, somewhere does accept such a deal *and* doesn’t make drama for it, that particular arrangement is fair, it just happens to not conflict enough with whatever their psychological dispositions are. The only judge is the facts, ie are there people out there who do. It’s just tautologically unfair for those who reject it. And hey, it’s fair game to try to persuade these people that they’re getting a bad deal and to get them to feel bad about it and start rejecting such deals. Free flow of ideas.
So you’re able to run “girl game” where the goal might be a TMM where the husband can’t even occasionally bang a girl he’s attracted to, and gets financially and psychologically destroyed if he wants to divorce – you have your cake and eat it too, and he as an adult puts up with it and in a way “deserves” the consequences – , and men are able to run “guy game” where the goal is sexual and financial autonomy and potentially minimum time investment with the kids, they have their cake and eat it too, and if a woman does agree to such a deal (I don’t know if your actual claim is no woman EVER would, or just a statistical statement – if it’s merely statistical, then it hardly matters: all a man needs to find the 10% or 1% or 0.1% of women who will). Though, if we’re dropping all scruples, true “guy game” would be one-way monogamy I suppose. Maybe.
The difference is you’ll probably find 50 or even 90% of men willing to take your deal, while men have much worse odds, but this is not new, the rules of the sex/dating marketplace have always been lopsided in one way or another (which isn’t necessarily to say we have it “harder”, but we need to play much more or a numbers’ game).
@Antekirtt
If you read my comment again, there is no moral judgment in my comment other than a claim that it is “unfair,” which is factually correct, pertaining to a woman who works full time and also agrees to 90% of child rearing logistical responsibilities. Caleb has many articles vilifying women who “want to get it both ways”; I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of his advocating exactly the same for men.
To be clear, I am not “getting it both ways” in my future marriage. I am pledging to only fuck my future husband as he pledges to only fuck me, until we both decide otherwise. If I continue to work, me and my husband will split responsibilities of child rearing, housework, and finances. If I quit my job, I take on child rearing and housework, but my husband 100% shares his finances with me. Very fair.
You are also exactly right that there won’t be many women who will take Caleb’s above finance separation deal and agree to bear the man’s children and stay with him. The hotter and smarter the woman, the more likely she won’t take the above deal – she has other options to take a lot fairer deal, or even a deal lopsided to her favor. He’s setting his audience up for failure – most of his advice applies to only two types of men, (1) men who only want temporary relationships and do not desire pair bonding or a chance to harmoniously cohabit with the mother of his children; or (2) older men who has “been there done that” and wish to have no more children.
Who the hell makes join accounts these days anyways?
That’s contradictory. He’s already made it clear what his target audience is, and it is very close to the two types you described: he says you shouldn’t seriously pair bond before you’re older anyway, that you shouldn’t have kids unless your desire is 8+ “and even then…” because it’s a shit deal, that MLTRs and FBs typically can’t last very long though with a good LSNFTE return rate (IF the guy does things right), etc, etc. So on HIS terms he isn’t setting his audience up for failure: he’s made it VERY clear that (1) it only applies to a minority of men, (2) of this minority, only a small fraction will do it right and reap the benefits.
Functionally speaking, the alpha 2.0 as CJ recommends won’t have kids, won’t pair bond till he’s 35+, and won’t have sub-OLTRs that last a continuous 4+ years. There’s definitely a lot he gives up on, but that’s not the same as “failing” to achieve a goal you actually intended to aim for.
That’s exactly the definition of unfairness that I disagreed with you on. Fairness is equality of agency and accountability, not equality of whatever transaction is agreed upon. In my view your judgement is definitely moral in nature.
In my perception, he’s vilifying them – or not – to the same extent that you’re making a moral judgement (or not) when you say it’s “unfair”. Neither of you uses vitriolic vocabulary or claims women (or men) to be inherently bad for doing that.
We have already disagreed on the idea that OLTRs and TMM are not symmetrical, in that OLTR for a woman, while suboptimal, is not as horrible as TMM is for a high sex drive, independent-minded man. I don’t think he’s advocating “exactly the same for men” because in terms of degree, there is a very large difference. It would take an unusual definition of hypocrisy for what he advocates to be hypocritical – again, see my previous comment on what I consider to be a fair deal as opposed to a deal where both parties get 50-50.
Failure is not finding anyone at all to accept the deal, not having to sift through many people most of whom will refuse. These are two very different things. If the demographic Caleb is targeting is small, and the subset that will correctly apply his stuff even smaller, they *don’t need* a large percentage of women to be okay with the deal. CJ has had two or three OLTRs out of hundreds of women he’s had a first date with, it took him years to get each one, and he’s fine with that. That’s not a failure, it’s success built on a very high failure rate. Again, two very different things. If the failure rate is built into your very expectation of how the project will play out, it doesn’t in itself constitute a failure.
@Antekirtt
Also, if “minimum time investment with the children” is what you want (or what you think what the height of “guy game” entails), I firmly believe you *should not* have children for the sake your future wife, children, and most importantly, yourself.
No, not publicly, because it would contain specifics. I will talk more about that in the SMIC Program.
Speaking very generally, you’d have to find a legal way to pay her without commingling finances and in a more business manner.
Great. Then don’t worry about it for yourself while you’re young and then smack into a wall when you hit 35+. I’m running a blog here and a large part of my audience is over the age of 35, therefore I care.
That is not my advice, and if you think it is, you need to work on your reading comprehension. I advise many more steps be taken well beyond that.
Correct. Your goal is to not be one of them. And if you read this blog, now you have no excuse.
I already addressed that issue in a comment above.
You mean you as a Dominant wouldn’t agree to it. I know. But many women would (and have offered). But that is off-topic for this discussion.
Yes. But there are still risks.
Depends on the country and state/province. Every region has different laws.
Just about 90% of men who get married.
@Antekirtt
Interesting points. We will agree to disagree on the “morals” of two different types of relationships. Do note that I wasn’t calling OLTR itself “unfair”; I was calling the situation where a woman is working full time and also signing a contract she will be responsible for 90% of child rearing (for children both the woman and the man wanted) “unfair.” PF’s current *childless* relationship with BD, while likely suboptimal, is “fair” – which is why they have a high chance of a long lasting relationship. My future marriage with my boyfriend is also completely “fair”. Caleb’s relationship model ventures into “unfair” category once children are introduced, even with incredibly “submissive” women.
Caleb did not have children with any of his OLTRs past his divorce. My original comment was on the feasibility of the men’s having children while having a harmonious pair bonding relationship with the mother of his children, while sticking to the financial separation above.
You are, of course, free to try – but I’m willing to bet good money it’s unfeasible. This is another one of those things we cannot debate with “facts” as the statistics regarding this does not exist.
@BD
Dominants won’t agree to it, because it’s unfair. Submissives may agree to it at first, then will get fed up with the unfairness of the situation and will either start giving you drama. Independents won’t want to have kids, period.
It’s actually very on topic as it goes to the feasibility of what you advocate.
A hilarious comment. You clearly have no idea what an independent is which is evident with your style of writing. In my experience someone finishing a sentence with “,period” has no idea what they are talking about. This because there is no need to make it so dramatic and extreme and unusually is a sign lack of confidence in what you are saying.
It’s a matter definition. If the idea is that I do all I can to “avoid those pesky children”, then yes. If I actually make sure I’m there for them as a father, support them, give them a sense of values, BUT avoid kid-related chores (change diapers, wake up at night for crying baby, school stuff) 90% of the time, then I disagree with your conclusion.
Honestly, that’s not something I’m very committed to debating – beyond the points I made earlier. I still disagree – not as in, I’m 180° to your viewpoint, but I disagree nonetheless – , but I’m mostly interested in (1) nonmonogamy, (2) nonmono pair bonding; children come way behind that, because (a) I will try to resist the urge to have any, which will be easier if my siblings make me an uncle, (b) CJ already states it’s a shit deal and his guidelines are about mitigation, not making it a good deal. And on the “but what about society” level, most men won’t follow said guidelines nor completely refrain from having kids, and BD knows it.
It’s not as black and white. The trait of being independent is just data, a parameter, not a rock-solid prediction of life choices. It’s better to view things in terms of finite forces pulling in different directions. Whether the independence or the biological/cultural urge wins, or wins for a while, or gets to a compromise, depends on circumstances, and the comparative strength of those pulls.
Same as the degree to which a man is a 2.0 will lead to highly variable lifestyles and choices, or same as “a beta will always, always put up with his GF’s bitchiness or with her cheating on him while instructing him never to fuck other girls” is not an accurate sweeping statement about all betas. If “independent” is to be a sizeable/ meaningful category, it can’t be monopolized only by the archetypal über-independent who never, ever caves in.
Closer to 40 than 30, I still don’t see any point at all in pair bonding with a woman (and even less living under the same roof), except perhaps for reproduction and raising the offsprings, which thankfully most people do, there is no shortage of population, but I have no desire whatsoever to reproduce.
You can’t share consumables like money the way you can share non-consumables like tools. Instead, you divide money. Of course, most definitions of the F-word will imply that a housewife is entitled to a part of the husband’s earnings; have you decided upfront how large a part it will be? What exactly does “100%” in your sentence mean?
@Pseudonymous User
We’ll just have a shared account with both our names, and discuss big ticket spend together (mortgage/monthly rent, possible further degree for either of us, education for the kids, etc), this is what I mean by “100% sharing.” We will likely have one or two separate accounts for inheritance purposes, but all this will also be pooled and will be transparent once we have to care about it (hopefully won’t be for any near foreseeable future). It’s a lot simpler this way and a hell of a lot better than discussing what “percentage” we will spend towards each item of toddler-related costs. Good luck discussing and arguing with your wife about who “percentage-wise” pays for your children’s clothings and tutoring costs.
To calm the possible retaliation of “you’re financially ripping your husband off!!!!!”: As of right now (and for the time being before children enter the picture), I have a lot higher expected salary (I just graduated from grad school) than my fiance (who just started a startup with current salary of zero). He is older (and has had a very lucrative career for a little less than a decade so he has more savings than I do, obviously, but not by a margin. If I quit my job for kids, it will be a mutual decision between the two of us (see? we are very compatible in how we view life), and all my and my children’s spendings will come from our shared account.
Throughout our life, the “percentage” we each contribute to our family finances will shift depending on our life cycle – maybe I’ll end up contributing more, maybe he’ll end up contributing more. We both don’t give a fuck. Our objective is, for us together, to get to a stage where we both can live comfortably as a family without busting our ass off. We have no interest in splitting finances and going through ridiculous procedures to be able to support each other.
We both have no debts in our personal finances (we both come from well to do families, and we are both responsible with money – I have never had “overdraft” issues).
I have been incredibly lucky so far in my life to get to this stage – I am privileged to have supportive parents. I am not saying all women are like this, but I am saying the above scenario is a lot fairer than what Caleb advocates, when children are introduced.
Hi Sabrina! I had a feeling this one would bring you out!
I’m thinking of a few cases I’ve seen where a woman with significant property and family money decided to marry a guy with a lot less. Indonesian woman, western man. In the case I’m thinking of, the woman absolutely insisted on a pre nup, with strong backing from the family guardians. The man was cool, he wasn’t looking for a female provider. And the woman wanted a baby. The guy wasn’t fussed, but he was a bit older and made it clear that he wasn’t going to do childrearing. Granted, there would be housekeepers and babysitters, so the grunt work wouldn’t be as laborious as some other places. But still.
The woman was pretty clear that she was marrying a westerner because unlike an Indonesian husband, he would be much more likely to let her go ahead with her career and business. Indonesian men get a bit insecure about a wife who is more successful and richer. But she thought she could fit a kid in, too. The guy wasn’t doing too badly either, though. Just not the really big money the woman had.
So, who is being exploited here? It’s pretty much the model that BD describes. The woman is clearly an independent.
I think your viewpoint that this kind of thing is always exploitative of a woman is based on a lot of unquestioned assumptions about the role of men and women.
For sure, I can think of more cases where the roles are reversed. But I think you could ask yourself why you might feel differently about it when it’s the other way around.
Maybe I run in more conservative circles, but I imagine a scenario where I bring this up to her, and she appears to agree. Then soon after she invites me to have dinner with her family where they ambush me.
‘What do you mean that you are having my daughter/sister sign all these documents? Do you not trust her? This is not something a responsible man would do.’ Or whatever type of shaming language these type of people use. Then it would get awkward and I would leave.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s probably why PF hasn’t told her friends or family, even though it’s none of their business. But who knows, being from Portland, her and her family may be more progressive and they don’t care anyway.
This article does make me curious as to what exact documents are needed to protect oneself. Unfortunately this is classified information. How dumb that we men need expensive documents to keep our money.
@Incognito
Hmm your example made me think – I would actually agree with you an “Independent” woman and “Alpha 2.0” could make it work with children, if (and this is a BIG if) either a man or a woman (or both) have enough financial resources to “outsource” childrearing – i.e. have a full time nanny.
In third world countries (and a few first world Asian countries such as South Korea or Hong Kong), this is more feasible. In most western society, only an *exceptional* small percentage of couple could pull this off, and a high percentage of this is only possible with “family money”.
@Duke
PF and Caleb are not having children. That is literally the biggest reason why Caleb’s above system “works” long term. For PF, it’s a “fair” deal – PF and Caleb are compromising a similar amount. What her family thinks matters less if she deems it “fair”.
I am from an incredibly conservative family, but if I make a decision that I deem rational and I know I will be happy with, I tell (and have told) my family to politely mind their own business.
@Sabrina
Hehe. We like to think of ourselves as an emerging upper middle income nation. But no offence taken. One of the nice things about living here for a few decades is seeing how dramatically better things have been getting over the years. It’s not unrelated to the fact that things have got a lot worse in the developed world.
But I’m drifting off topic.
It’s not exactly outsourcing all aspects of child rearing. Just the least rewarding aspects of the process.
@Incognito
I didn’t know you lived in Indonesia – I meant no offense, and you are absolutely right Southeast Asia is an emerging market, increasingly so. In aspect of “childrearing/housework logistical responsibilities,” it is also absolutely true that in non-Western countries, labor cost is cheap enough a lot of it can be “outsourced”. I’m moving to Hong Kong very soon, and I am actually looking forward to being able to afford getting some help in housework (I wish I could enjoy cleaning as much as I enjoy cooking!).
It’s not a luxury you can afford in most Western countries, so most childrearing responsibilities (desirable and undesirable parts) will definitely fall on the couple themselves. Which brings me to…
Yes, and what is “least rewarding aspects” of childrearing to a man will also mostly be “least rewarding aspects” of childrearing to a woman. Changing diapers ain’t fun for anyone. If a woman does 90% of childrearing and housework a man and a woman both benefit from, the woman absolutely has every right to benefit 90% – 100% from whatever income the man brings to the family. Anything less than this is, indeed, “unfair”.
Of course, I am assuming both the man and the woman actively want children and pair bonding. I would never advise any woman to get pregnant with a man who does not want to be a father as much as she wants to be a mother. And guess what, most men want to be a father by mid-30s, and most women want to be a mother by late-20s (yes, there are exceptions to the rule). And the way most people manage finances in TMM (as I illustrated above with shared accounts) is a lot more realistic and fair (note I did not say optimal, I said fair) for both genders than Caleb’s in a marriage with kids.
@Antekirtt
Great. Whenever commenters or Caleb say “you will get bored with your beta husband and cheat on him” or “if you marry an alpha he will definitely cheat on you,” I will just copy and paste your above comment.
I am simply pointing out it is incredibly unlikely any women will agree to Caleb’s above “finance rules” when she is planning to have children with her partner. As Caleb himself never got his partner to agree to and stick to the “rules” while having children, I would ask him if he has seen anyone pull this off in real life.
@AlphaOmega
Actually, your comment is quite dramatic and extreme over a single word I wrote. I will amend my comment to “As Independents are female ‘mirror’ of male Alpha 2.0s, they are unlikely to want children, or at the very least unwilling to sacrifice their freedom or career success for doing 90% of undesirable childrearing responsibilities.” There you go. My point still stands.
Sabrina,
I did give you an example. I’ve got a few others, too. Yes, yes, outside the US. And I know this blog is mainly targeting western men. But there is no law saying they have to STAY there. In fact, reading this blog makes me realize that leaving was a really good choice. These things are possible if you want them. I can imagine it would be dramatically more difficult in the US.
I should admit that I’m in your small minority of men who have consciously and deliberately avoided having children. Full respect for others who make different choices.
Good luck with your move to Honkers! It’s a great place!
@Incognito
Yep, as always, I am more pointing out the lack of feasibility in Caleb’s advice to men in the Western society, which is his target audience. Honestly, structuring an OLTR marriage with children following Caleb’s advice to a T (having FB at all times other than your wife, no “shared accounts” with your wife, making the wife do 90% of childrearing work irregardless of her employment status, etc) is not only “unfair” to the women, but also a pure fantasy-land I do not see any man pulling it off in the Western society. I have been incredibly consistent in this criticism. I also wanted to illustrate how “shared accounts” system in traditional marriages can be completely *fair* – as I described how I foresee finances will be handled in my future marriage (and this is incredibly realistic compared to Caleb’s).
A man living in western society who is decently into self-improvement, and also not *want* pair bonding or children *ever* with a quality woman, is a complete anomaly – even Caleb admits this many times in his articles. I am saying any normal man who want a family with kids will not be able to pull Caleb’s model off, and Caleb is giving advice setting his audience (who is not the “anomaly”) up for failure. All good things in life come with a price – and a happy wife and kids is hell of a good thing that brings you great meaning in your life.
As I have repeated myself multiple times, this will be my last comment on the feasibility issue.
Thanks! I am very excited for the next stage of my life! 🙂
This is not the case, generally speaking.
This is the case, yes.
However the above discussion I see is mostly academic and highly hypothetical. In a real world if you have both partners working and making money you use some of that money to hire people to do your household chores and to do the undesirable parts of taking care of children – if you are the kind of parent who thinks like this. If one of the partners is not working then that partner does it. So in a real world there are none of the issues that so many seems to be discussing at length here.
I have a philosophy that even with all the safety features one might engineer into a bear trap, it can’t hurt me if something happens and it goes off unexpectedly if I keep my hands outside of it. Everyone has an acceptable risk tolerance. Following Caleb’s advice in this subject is outside of mine, and potentially going to get someone hurt.
I think the OLTR is a trap waiting to get snapped. And I’ll explain how.
Bro, I’m closer to 50 than you are and went through a far worse divorce than you did. I care just as much as you do, and went to the trouble to specify that I don’t care what someone wants when they want something they can’t have, as in:
“I want a pony!”
“I want to stay young forever!”
“I want SJWs to all jump in a lake!”
“I want to protect myself in a divorce and not give up half my shit!”
Well, tough cookies kiddo! The only way to avoid divorce is to avoid getting TMM or something that looks like TMM to the courts. Credit where credit is due, you avoided the first one, but didn’t avoid the second.
I’m unequivocally not stating that it’s your advice, it’s mine, and unlike yours, it will work 100% of the time. It also keeps you out of the courts. Your advice has real issues that any third rate Washington attorney will pick apart like a turkey on Thanksgiving. Let me demonstrate:
In my example, you can live with someone in California forever (and as screwed up as our TMM divorce laws are, this is one protection that we have you don’t), and if you don’t legally marry them, they cannot sue you for damages.
In Washington this won’t work, because the state recognizes the property rights of your OLTR wife in “committed intimate relationships”. I don’t care what documents she signed, or you took in front of twenty lawyers, the state recognizes “meretricious” relationships, which is a fancy word that means if it looks like a marriage and acts like a marriage the courts will treat it like a marriage.
https://www.kingcountyprobates.com/unmarried-couples
If it looks like a duck, and quacks, the court is going to treat it as a duck. In short, the court will consider several factors, including:
continuity of cohabitation
duration of the relationship
purpose of the relationship
pooling of resources (more on this one)
services for joint projects, and
the intent of the parties.
How many of those boxes does your OLTR check off? To my thinking, certainly enough if she wants to drag you into court.
Also, when you cite stuff like https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2017/06/01/your-responsibility-to-your-children/:
I hate to break it to you, but in Washington those parenting plans aren’t enforceable either.
Speaking very specifically, how would you do this and not open yourself up where it appeared that you were making monthly spousal commitments? The moment you write her a check or do a wire transfer or send her bitcoin you’ve provided support and she’s got you insofar as the court is concerned. I don’t care how many cut outs you use to get there, the court is going to take a dim view of this and it’s not going to fly.
What your plan does (brilliantly) is effectively render yourself judgement proof because 1) your income stream is completely decentralized and offshore 2) none of your assets are here and 3) the nature of your businesses do not require physical location. At that point you could have gotten TMM and it won’t matter, you’ve got nothing to collect or attach unless you move into a jurisdiction that you aren’t judgement proof. To me, that’s not an acceptable solution because it limits my freedom to go where I want to, but you could of done that alone and saved the $2500 and all the keystrokes. If she can’t attach it she can’t have it.
It’s also not terribly useful for someone who is already a plumbing contractor, or in farmer, or an attorney, real estate investor, own a house, or a car, or does anything else that you might need to physical or legal presence. I’d argue that’s most men over 35. You might consider writing an article for those guys on strategies to minimize their liability, because one of those non Alpha 2.0 types your legal strategy is going to really hurt.
Not to mention the constant risk that the laws might change underneath you, which is a certainty. You only have to look as far as the changes in the past decade regarding gay marriage/civil partnership laws to realize all this could change at any moment.
Look, I’m on your side. I’m not some MGTOW moron whos angry at women because they act like women. We are both INTJ/ENTJ and live in a world of facts. I’ve read your blog for years and we only disagree on like two things. That’s probably a good number.
Maybe we just like a different flavor of freedom.
@AlphaOmega
Even if you have some outsourced help, at least for the first 5-10 years of your child’s life, child-rearing work (“desirable” and “undesirable”) is equivalent to a full time job. So yes, for one partner to take over 90% of childrearing responsibilities and also have a full time job to contribute to family finances is “unfair”. If you have a screaming baby at night, either you or your spouse has to get up and take care of the baby, that cannot be outsourced.
In a real world, if both parents work, they pool their income, put it in a joint account, and no one signs a parenting plan that stipulates one partner takes care of 90% of childrearing responsibilities (I don’t even know how that would work). What I advocate is a lot realistic and closer to “real life” than what Caleb is advising men to do.
Yes, and in this case what is “fair” is for the partner who do 90-100% of childrearing and housework also benefits 90-100% of income the other partner earns through shared accounts (or “joint accounts” you somehow don’t think exist anymore). So yes, the housewife is “entitled” to her partner’s paycheck for her to spend on herself and their children. I would say the exact same if the gender is reversed.
Oh my god, no, no, 1000x no.
Women have a lot of leeway when they have kids, both from family, jobs, goverment, bosses, society, friends, etc, etc. What do men have? A gun pointed to our heads if we don’t follow the rules (and pay).
I’m not saying all men are angels…of course there is a lot of bad behaviors coming from fathers who pretty much don’t take care of their kids. But to say shared finances is fair when you factor in kids is a complete BS.
If you have a regular job, you can take a looooong license where YOU’LL STILL GET PAID even if you’re not working while raising a baby. “Oh, but I don’t have a job or that kind of benefit”. Then you should not have kids.
If you have a business, with the digital era, you can work from home and still take care of the child. “Oh, but I don’t have my own business”. Then you should not have kids.
It makes no sense that I should have to give my money away to raise kids with the woman of my choice. Bottom line is both men and women must be adults and take care of their finances, regardless of the situation at hand. This is one instance of feminism that I competely agree upon: equal rights, equal responsabilities.
Again, you have to be careful with definitions. If you mean that the claim “betas are boring” is relative just like being independent, then you may right. But if you’re trying to generalize to sexual boredom / the need for sexual variety, then in the western world you’re mistaken. Sexual boredom isn’t a claim about mere personality, it’s basic physiology, it’s a much stronger force long term, and more likely to make people cave in, esp in the western culture (but not just in the West, ohhhhh no) where there’s much less pressure against fulfilling it . Note that BD doesn’t deny that you may get sexually bored with an alpha too; it just tends to take longer and has somewhat lower odds, maybe. There’s a world of difference between “one of the two partners will eventually cheat” and “independents won’t have kids”; this isn’t about taking any claim of relativity and concluding that, yep, there it is, I can take any claim I don’t like and relativize it now (in which case the previous sentence can itself be relativized, hahaha). It’s all the more absurd that it can be destroyed by turning it against itself: “my BF will be faithful to me”, “Oh you mean relatively faithful, right?” All it takes is one cheat after six years and BD will be right. You’re pitting two very different probabilities against each other.
@POB
Reread my comment where I illustrated and clearly laid out how I foresee my finances will look like (shared joint account) with my future husband with kids. Please logically tell me how any aspect of it is “unfair”.
If you want to argue women who are not financially self-sufficient should not have kids – my argument is you, as a man, want to retain sexual freedom while refusing to do 90% of childrearing responsibilities, then you should not have kids.
If you want children and pair bond with the mother of your children, take responsibility and do it properly with full commitment. Or don’t have children and do not pair bond with a woman (or pair bond with a woman who don’t want children), and enjoy full freedom and bachelorhood for the rest of your life. You can’t take the only sweet parts of both and attempt to not pay the price of each decisions.
So true.
I was one of those guys that would NEVER cheat…Christian, confident high income beta, took commitment seriously, married a virgin traditionally minded girl, etc.
Until I did cheat, and ended up having 9 different affairs over the last 3 years of my marriage.
The denial of reality in the comments lately has been humorous to watch.
C Lo – You’re still not understanding that this blog and my advice is for the 1.1 million annual readers and not for you individually, and I’m not going to repeat it again, so I’m done with your topic unless you have anything new.
I understand that fine.
You don’t seem to understand that what you advocate won’t work if challenged in court, why it won’t work, or accept the fact the legislature in your state has made a public policy decision that your spouse cannot alienate their rights to community property beforehand.
I presented with the facts and cites – not so I can argue with you – so hopefully those 1.1M users will get curious and do their own homework, and discover these limitation of the strategy you discussed.
Not once is it mentioned in this blog is the concept of “procedural and substantive unconscionability”, and the limits of contract law in regard to prenups. I know because I searched before I posted this, so by your own directive, this is new.
On second thought, I think you do understand that. Either way, that’s your business. It’s your blog.
This is slightly OT, but I’ve never cheated. I always broke up with them first if I was mono, or if we weren’t exclusive, it wasn’t really cheating. But there’s no way to tell beforehand who can and can’t do what I did, so I think it’s reasonable to assume that everyone will either cheat or be cheated on sometime in the relationship.
Best you can do is hope it won’t happen. I hope Santa brings me a pony for Christmas.
If I was the attorney for a woman who’s man presented to me an opportunity to sign up for BD’s OLTR after going through two of his attorneys, I suspect he’d tell her to sign it and not sweat it.
If they split, he’ll just go petition the court to nullify the contract on the basis of “procedural and substantive unconscionability” and fix it on the back end.
It’s a free roll to her, no better, no worse, and no different than a TMM, at least in Washington.
Incorrect. It will indeed stand up in certain jurisdictions (though not most) and it’s up to each individual to do that research before he does it, or refrain from doing it. I have personally seen things like this stand up in court (the wife tried to challenge it and she failed). You are flat out wrong if you think this can’t work “anywhere.”
Correct, so you need to establish a legal framework where there is no community property in the relationship, which is exactly what I’ve done. Or have you personally reviewed the documents PF and I have signed?
But now we’re getting into the legal weeds, and you’ll just say that you “don’t care what I’ve signed” and that I’m screwed no matter what I do, which is incorrect again, and irrelevant since I’m leaving Washington State forever in less than 18 months.
Correct. I have said perhaps 200 times that what I’ve done won’t work in most jurisdictions in the Western world. It’s amazing that you seemed to have missed all of that, or you’re just angry about something and trying to argue just to argue, which is what this is starting to look like.
This is my last comment to you in this thread, since here we are, repeating ourselves yet again. Yes, nothing I’m talking about works and 100% of all men who live with a woman are screwed no matter what they do or sign or how they structure their finances. Got it.
What I take away from all this is that the safe-ish ceiling of commitment I should strive not to exceed is non-live-in OLTR. I can see myself being tempted to go beyond that, but I’ll try not to. Too much hassle and risk for modest returns. Till then I’ll do FBs/ MLTR/ high end MLTR for as long as possible. The price to pay is probably shorter relationships, but if I can learn the skills to have a high return rate, it’s fine.
@Antekirtt
On top of human nature, you have the Real Government of the West (comprised, surely, of the legal sector and the media) mad-bent on propagandizing women into misandry, particularly into ensuring no serene, close long-term relationships shall be a possibility.
Want to make sure everybody starts acting mean? Well, put it into their head than acting justly and — well, I am using this word since it’s still formally legal to — sweet is for losers, while the reverse for winners. Wanted results are sure to turn out. We see it all around us.
This blog used to talk a lot of societal programming, digging through older post will unearth a lot on the topic.
@SabrinaK
I will be absolutely thrilled to do the chores and take care of the kids if I get:
-Shelter
-Food (which I will cook!)
-Decent clothing
-TV, cable, internet and phone.
Also, I will provide sex every night and morning (after dinner and with the breakfast). Just dont wake up the kids.
I wont need free weekends.
Just treat me well and I Will be yours forever.
I am not worried about when the kids are grown, because I rely on getting a job then and leave, but sex will be always provided if you want.
@Federico
Great. Sounds fair to me.
If you are a woman you will have many takers, especially if you are young, kind, and attractive – you’ll be in decently high demand. The only aside I will say is, it’s not necessarily a great deal for you if you are a long-term thinker, as it will be very difficult for you to get a self-sustaining job after your kids are grown and your husband decides to leave you, you are around 50+, and you have honed zero skillsets. So my advice to women who go through that route is (1) make sure you have an self-sufficient employable skillset or (2) make sure you partner up with a man who appreciate you and won’t “dump” you for a younger model when the kids are grown (or before the kids are grown).
I am assuming you are a man who is attempting to be sarcastic. Now as a man, you have some issues as you won’t have as much takers, because “sex on demand” does not hold as high a value for women as it does for men (statistically and generally speaking).
Now, as you directed your offer to *me*, I reject your offer to “be mine forever” as I already have a man who provide a lot more value to me than what you offer. What you offer just don’t make the cut – I have much better options. You may be able to find some woman who will take you up on the offer, but she will likely not be very attractive.
It’s all about supply and demand.
Your first advice is good. Everybody must follow it.
Regarding the second one… Who knows what will happen!? Maybe he doesnt leave her, maybe he does. Maybe he dies. Maybe he is crippled and cannot work anymore.
The only way I see is the State leave people alone and let them have any agreement they want.
But that is not enough, because many of us will still opt for the actual regular marriage agreement. And that is because what Caleb says about SP, oneitis, etc.
But for those choosing other agreements, the State should enforce those agreements. (Wait, am I asking for the State to intervene!?)
So, the problem is us AND the State.
I was talking to you in a figurative way, as if you represented all women (that I would marry 🙂 )
But yes, I would do all the above and will be self confident and get a job when the kids grow.
And since Caleb likes movies, this concept is illustrated un Anne Hathaway’s and De Niro movie (I liked it despite the Disney ending, because I know Hollywood cannot show the real one)
“What you offer just don’t make the cut – I have much better options. You may be able to find some woman who will take you up on the offer, but she will likely not be very attractive.”
This is what men paying alimony should hace said.
“What you offer just don’t make the cut – I have much better options. You may be able to find some woman who will take you up on the offer, but she will likely not be very attractive.”
This is what men paying alimony think they should have said instead of “yes, I do”
Your response is my whole point.
Women know they dont like marriage that way BEFORE they marry. Men just whine when it Is too late.
@Federico
I think you meant self-sufficient, not self-confident.
Now, if you want to do the above and take the “traditionally female” role of being a stay-at-home parent, except with no financial protection for you when your spouse decides to leave you for any reason, go for it. I would be curious to know how it turns out.
I’m not sure how you will be self-sufficient when you spent decades taking care of your (and your spouse’s) children and doing housework full time when your spouse leaves you, compared to your spouse who has spent the same time making money and building up his/her career.
But if you want to, no one is stopping you. Find a female provider for yourself. It’s a free world.
Incorrect. Again, supply and demand.
In the real world, you cannot say that, because ability to provide is an attractive quality for a man, but rarely for a woman. In the real world, most men prefer to marry (and have kids with) a hot, young, and less financially secure women than less attractive, older, and more financially secure women. Most women prefer to marry (and have kids with) older and more financially secure men than younger, less financially secure but more physically attractive men.
There are exceptions to the rule, but as long as the rule holds true, a young, hot, stay-at-home mother-to-be will always be a lot more in demand than a young, hot, stay-at-home father-to-be.
Why is my statement incorrect?
We both agree women wont accept to support a man financially.
But men will.
And I say they cannot change their minds afterwards, no matter the reason.
I will absolutely. I once did. But I also worked. It works.
People shouldnt depend on alimony or whatever. Things happen. People change. Situations change.
What if a man dumps her wife and crossing the street? How would she support herself!?
The thing is she cannot accept (neither a man) that the ex leaves and live happily. Resentment for being abandoned can be fought with self-reliance (and confidence!!)
@Federico
You’re making me repeat myself. As a man, you cannot say to a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mother: “What you offer just don’t make the cut – I have much better options. You may be able to find some men who will take you up on the offer, but he will likely not be very attractive.”
You won’t be able to say this because a man who will financially provide for her and her children *will* generally be more attractive to her than you, who wants to be a stay-at-home father. I am not making a value judgement, I am simply telling you how things are.
You must have low reading comprehension skills, or not be reading my comments as I never stated this. Some women do accept to support a man financially, so you can seek out those women if you wish. I think I told you this twice.
As much as I love arguing for the sake of arguing, I think what you are trying to claim via these odd string of comments, is somehow prove (1) how women have it better than men, and that (2) it is unfair men have to financially support stay at home mothers after the kids have grown. So if you want to make your point, be more direct about it.
A quick answer to that is (1) No, women do not have it better than men. Sexually attractive and financially secure people with strong boundaries have it better than people who have less sexual market value and have weak boundaries; and (2) No, it is not unfair because the woman sacrificed her financial market power in her prime working age (30s – 40s) to take care of the children and household (that you both agreed to and benefited from), so it is altogether “fair” she benefits from your income.
Of course, in real life, it’s not “woman against man,” it’s just two individuals who love and support each other and their children.
1) I agree.
2) dont agree and think people should sign a prenup and the State enforce it.
And Sabrina, “some” is not a majority, so we DO agree on that.
Income, yes. Shelter, food, clothing, etc… But just that, and while the cohabitation exists
Maybe, if a man leaves a woman, and since being a housewife is a job, the State could enforce a severance payment of, I dont know, 1 of his current salary per every year of marriage. Maybe 2 salaries pero year?
Also, regarding woman are in a disadvantage, we must consider this:
A woman who has one child with three different men is entitled to a 30% of the income of each one of them. If those three guys had the same income, she gets almost the same money (90%) any of those guys make, but no having to work.
And alimony from the last one! That’s a 100%!
@Federico
Now you’re going into a la-la land of hypothetical legislations and weird, statistically unlikely hypothetical situations of a woman with three different partners who all fathered her babies.
I prefer to live in a real world and discuss realistic and feasible life plans, so this will be my last comment directed to you.
This is correct. But what I’m saying is it won’t even work in your jurisdiction.
What’s amazing is you keep putting words into my mouth that I neither wrote nor implied in order to wedge away from what I’m saying – I’m pretty certain your plan will fail, if…
This (and the part about being judgement proof) is correct. It’s also not practical if you are actively managing and growing your business. Example:
A guy has an apartment complex, with a arms reach management company, and all you did is collect checks. He marries somebody (guy, gal, TMM, OLTR, doesn’t matter) for a while and it doesn’t work out and he gets left. Because he owned it before he got married and he didn’t do much with it (a passive inventment) it remains his and not subject to community property laws.
Same scenario, but the guy actively manages the property, AND he’s got all those ironclad documents you cite. Guess what? The spouse is entitled to half of the appreciation from the date of “marriage” as community property.
There is no way around this, EXCEPT to never acquire anything of value, or manage something that appreciates, or acquire any property of significance. How pragmatic is that for most guys that are still working and building net worth?
Pragmatic enough for you that you saw fit to sell your house right about the time you got married!
Probably, but not necessarily. Those decisions are going to be driven by your local jurisdiction (which you can choose, because you can choose where to live), or the jurisdiction of where ever your ex moves to and establishes residency (which you can’t control) when she eventually dumps you (looking at you SabrinaK). So, if you got needy and must marry that one special girl whos not like the rest, and don’t want to get taken to the cleaners, you might be able to get away with it depending on where you live. Being retired would help too. Being really really rich wouldn’t hurt either.
The attorney you want to hire on consult for this should be the most aggressive divorce attorney in your area. They know all the tricks on how to extract value, so they are also the best versed on what not to do. But understand that all goes out the window if you move and establish residency somewhere else. It might not necessarily be worse, but it’s certain to be different.
On a personal note, thank you for posting. Making men like you aware of the issues and why are precisely why I’m arguing about this. I’ve seen it happen a couple of times where a guy gets scorched in divorce, puts himself back together again, does his homework and gets bad advice, gets “safely” married, she dumps him, and it all comes apart because the first attorney was happy to collect the retainer and pump the client full of smoke on stuff that was specious.
Always remember, both attorneys and doctors don’t have a normal business like a electrical contractor. They call them a practice for a reason – they are practicing on you!
Please don’t refrain from the topic YOU brought up. Men who want kids need to address they will loose some of their freedom, I don’t disagree with you. Just don’t use it as an argument about money, because it’s not.
EMOTIONAL commitmment to the kid? Of course!!! FINANCIAL commitment to his or her well-being until adulthood? Absolutely!!! FINANCIAL commitment to his or her mother? I’m sorry, but no. The 60s are way behind us, get over it.
We are talking finances here, not lifestyle. You’re clearly changing the subject and interjecting to validate a flawed argument. No, there’s absolutely NO reason to give my money away to a self-sufficient adult just because she had a kid with me. She must do her homework and plan ahead to have kids, as much as I will if and when I want them.
If you don’t have anything concrete to say about why I should have joint finances and give my money away to the mother of my kids, I think we are done here.
I can give you a list of men who 1) never had children, 2) never cheated on their wives, 3) supported their wives through an advanced degree, and after they 4) went to work at salaries in excess of their husbands 5) divorced them.
And broke them for the trouble.
Kids just make the already bad post divorce worse.
Add me to the “with kids” list.
@POB
You are making me repeat myself. I was consistently talking about finances in a situation where you have children with the woman.
If the mother of your children is doing 90% of childrearing responsibilities (which is what Caleb advocates) and housework (that benefits both of you), yes, she is entitled to 90-100% of your income. She is sacrificing her earning power for her family (and very likely this is a decision you made together).
If the mother of your children is working full time and contributing to household income, then you are responsible for 50% of childrearing responsibilities (pleasant and unpleasant) and housework. Caleb does not advocate this model in his Alpha 2.0 framework because this does not “maximize freedom.”
In both these cases, it is a lot easier and realistic to have a joint account where you and your partner pool your income/inheritances. I have given you a clear, realistic example of this on my response to Pseudonymous User above that does not incur any legal fees.
You are just screaming without any logic that you are not financially responsible for your spouse under any circumstances. If she is a stay at home mother taking care of children and doing housework full time, she is providing value you benefit from, so you are financially responsible for her (and your children). This concept is fair no matter what “time” we are in. Besides, I wasn’t making a value judgment – I was saying if you offer anything less than this “fair” arrangement, no women are going to agree to “OLTR marriage with kids” as they have better options.
I dislike repeating myself, so please reread my comments.
Defacto, from experience, predivorce whats yours is ours, and what’s hers is hers. After divorce it’s exponentially worse.
I don’t think there’s any way to indemnify yourself away from this that will consistently work. If you get a passive income stream and use it to provide for household expenses, she’s gonna get at that stream of cashflows.
Sir, that’s a given.
Nonsense. You are a young, dominant woman. It’s totally your jam.
A 100% of your income? If you make anything more than a minimun wage, it would be more convinient to hire a full time Nanny.
This is incredibly sloppy thinking. You’ve written cleverer comments but with this one it’s mental masturbation of the worst kind, and btw, it still is even if you think the same when genders are switched. A hardcore socialist would probably applaud though: let all labor be 100% equivalent! If I did X hours of this, I’m entitled to what you earned from the same number of hours of work! And apply it even at the level of the family too, yay! And if she’s sacrificing HER income, she’s entitled to 90-100% of MY income, huh? not to an amount equal to the hypothetical income SHE would be making if she were working, but MINE – the spouse who would be earning more anyway, since it hardly ever is the higher-earning spouse who drops their job for childrearing – how convenient. And that’s without even getting into (1) what I said about what equality is and isn’t, and about consensual 50-50 or 90-10 arrangements, (2) how income is actually built up over the years and decades and not just earned on the hour, and how naive it would be to assume that saved time scales up linearly.
Damn Sabrina, you have to decide what you want (and I’m always calm, don’t worry). Are you 100% an independent woman (as your talk says) or do you want a man to take care of you? Because you can’t have both (that’s called a paradox BTW).
No, we don’t. We owe her shit. She’s a full grown adult who pretty much is capable of making her own decisions and living with the consequences. She’s trading having more money and freedom to raise a kid, but guess what…so are we!
50% of childhearing? No, I’m not. Small kids are way more dependant on women, everybody knows that. It’s called nature. Housework? I’m more than happy to pay 50% for housecleaning once a week, as long as she pays her 50% too!
You’re clearly victmizing and still don’t bring any reasonable argument to the table, because it’s YOU who wants to have the best piece of the cake without any drawbacks. Mine and other guys arguments are simple: “we don’t want to be fucked in the ass and have our lives completely screwed by a resented woman after a divorce.”
Yours are: “men just want to have fun and avoid any responsability with the family, so we must lock them financially in some fashion so they can pay us some form of tribute for allowing them to experience our amazing womanhood”. No thanks.
@POB
You don’t seem very calm. And I never said I am 100% an “independent woman,” that’s what your feelings are telling you from the tone of my comments.
I know exactly what I want, and exactly how my and my future husband’s finances will be managed via joint accounts when we get married, and when we have children. Unlike Caleb who is hiding behind his privacy, I have specifically laid out, high level, exactly what our financial situation will look like in this thread to my response to Pseudonymous User (of course I realize I am hiding behind anonymity).
If you want to criticize me for”victimizing,” reread my comment about my future finances and tell me exactly where it’s “unfair” to my future husband. We both deem it fair, long term.
Incorrect. In the hypothetical situation of her doing 90% of childrearing and housework, you are not trading any career prospects or freedom to raise a child.
Ah, the “nature” argument. What is also natural is for women to seek out men who financially and emotional support her and their children, everybody knows that. So if you want to follow your nature and only take part in small part of childrearing but also be protective and territorial about your finances to your family, it is altogether natural for women to reject you as a life partner. I am assuming that is what happened – no offense.
Now, what is “fair” and “natural” is different. I was arguing for what is “fair,” not for what is “natural.”
@Antekirtt
Now I can’t speak for all finances of all couples. In my situation, the hypothetical income I would be making if I were working is almost equivalent to my fiance’s. Although it is very likely I will be the higher-earning spouse when I get pregnant, it will still likely be me who will drop my career, and it will be a joint decision between me and my husband.
Guess what though – this all does not matter. If you think getting a woman to do 90% of chidrearing while contributing to household income by working full-time, while you not sharing your income with her (in case of a divorce) is “fair,” I am not going to further argue with you two because, although you are clearly wrong by societal standards, what is “fair” or otherwise is a value judgment. All I will say is you have failed to convince me.
The more important question is – do you think you (or any aspiring “Alpha 2.0”) can convince a hot and attractive woman (of childbearing age) you are currently in love with, and planning to have children with, to take your lopsided deal, and have a long term, no-drama, pair-bonding relationship with her that lasts even a decade or two (until children reaches adulthood)?
Good luck debating with your wife what “percentage” you will each pay for your children’s tutoring and clothings, and good luck getting your wife (who may have quit her job or changed to a more stable yet less profitable position to take care of your children) to sign documents every few years to ensure “legal, logistical, and enforceable barrier between personal finances.”
Oh, I think I said I’ll stop talking about the feasibility issue of Caleb’s “OLTR structure” with children. Oops. Seriously, I am with C Lo here (although for different reasons) – if you have rock solid (and unconventional) views about financial and sexual freedom, just don’t pair bond with a woman and have kids with her. What Caleb is suggesting is a fantasy that won’t hold up in real life when children are in the picture.
Honey, if you knew what I really thought, you wouldn’t write that.
Because there is a way to do this – if you want an Alpha 2.0 deal like this, all a guy has to do is move to California and not marry her. He can move in, make babies, whatever.
I’m sure there are other jurisdictions you could do something similar.
@C Lo
Hahahahahahaha. It’s so amusing you’ll suddenly change your stance to “this is unfeasible in so many jurisdictions!!” to “actually, it is feasible in some!!” I must be really getting on your nerves. 🙂
Depends on what “this” definition you are using. If it involves the word “marriage”, I never said or implied anything of the sort.
If by “that” you are implying somebody wanting a family, with a live in gal and kids, sure. Specifically, I’m advocating ‘shacking up’ in California if you are the sort of guy who wants a family. If she leaves you are on the hook for the child support, but you were gonna be liable for that either way when you fabricated a child, but you get to keep all your stuff. No lawyers. No court drama. The child support is almost always lower for non married guys too. And you probably won’t even have to have “the talk”. Just don’t marry her and it’s fine.
But, like I wrote and cited earlier, that won’t work in Washington. They treat cohabitation as de facto marriage. That’s no bueno.
I’m sure there are other jurisdictions you could do it, and others you couldn’t.
I think you’re awesome because you lack self awareness, and I find it amusing. Keep up the fight, girl.
If I was planning to take on the role of stay-at-home parent with a partner who wanted to keep finances separate, I would negotiate for a monthly stipend and retirement benefits. Why should I trust that he would continue to provide food, shelter and clothing to me after the kids were grown? What’s stopping him from starting a new family with a younger woman and leaving me behind? Bigamy is illegal here.
Luckily my childbearing drive is very low, so I’m doing what makes sense to me: marrying a confident beta who doesn’t want kids and tolerates me seeking alpha fucks on the side.
@dixie
Oh my god, a distrustful woman now! Internet is an odd place.
dixie, I am not sure why you would marry a man you keep separate finances and have to negotiate “monthly stipend and retirement benefits” with.
Most governments treat marriage as a long term (preferably life long) partnership, not a job. If you want no kids, do not have much trust in your partner, and desire a sexually open relationship, why get married at all?
As long as your finances were 100% separate and he was allowed to fuck other women on the side whenever he wanted, that would be acceptable under an OLTR model if he agreed to it before you two got married (which also means he would easily be able to afford such a thing, and a lot of men can’t; but they shouldn’t have children).
I certainly wouldn’t. That’s the big flaw in your plan. But expecting a certain amount of money during the marriage while you raised the kids would be acceptable.
This article is about how husband and wife keep finances separate. It’s not about now much money the husband gives the wife and under what conditions. That’s a completely separate topic. (And perhaps one I should write about in a future article.)
Hey, as long as the marriage isn’t monogamous, it has my seal of approval. Long-term monogamy doesn’t work no matter what you do.
It depends on what “full time” means. If she’s actually working 70 hours per week (workaholics like this aren’t super likely to want kids in such a phase anyway, if it’s a phase), kids probably aren’t even remotely on the table. If she’s actually taking that deal, that probably means her total workload is moderate, plus we would probably feel responsible for paying a good nanny if it does seem necessary for making things work.
Where you keep going into ridiculously unfair territory – and you’re probably fully aware of this – is when you invite the government into the party. “in case of divorce” means that instead of an arrangement solely based on, you know, the scope of the arrangement itself – ie time enough to raise kids – , you’re using original sin rhetoric: I’m gonna take advantage of government to take virtually all your future income if you ever decide to leave me, whether or not this has anything whatsoever to do with the matter at hand (kids). This is not how people who give a damn about fairness think, this is childish, my-morals-are-I’ll-do-whatever-I’ll-get-away-with grudge mentality to the extreme. A man’s leverage in relationships is simple: I make my needs known, and I’m capable of walking if you don’t fulfill your part of the deal (and if you already reject the deal I’ll also leave you be, no hard feelings). There’s hardly any symmetry between this and “I’m entitled to 50-90% of your future labor if you piss me off”. What the fuck does the spouse’s labor AFTER the two persons have terminated not only their child business but also their entire relationship have to do with anything?!? Yep, it’s just vindictiveness backed by the state, nothing more. “Fairness” means you get compensation, inside the scope of the deal we’re trying to make fairly, for what you’re giving up, and the compensation is something that is agreed upon by the people who make the deal, in real time – eg paying for groceries, for a full time nanny, etc – ; if someone fails that arrangement, then either (a) walk, (b) if not possible because of the nature of parenting (likely), then have a parenting plan that forces the spouse to get their end of the deal done – again, inside the scope of the arrangement. That is the only extent the law should have any say on the matter: force the two parties to hold their end of the deal or to separate by the rules they agreed to. Not enforce some eternally binding ransom plan going arbitrarily beyond the scale of the arrangement itself.
If you don’t like what I do, walk, and if I’m actually violating how we agreed to split the work and expenses (inside the deal itself, not after – with some caveats covered by such things as child support, etc – again, they’re specific to the deal itself), force me to via whatever we signed. This is what responsible adults do.
If you don’t like what I do, take advantage of an ass-licking state by holding a sword of Damocles over my head to steal the bulk of all my future labor even years after the entire thing this was about is already done with. This is what immoral, vindictive man-children do. But please, do keep feeding men’s confirmation bias to be even more misogynistic than you’ve accused them of being on this very blog. It should do wonder for gender relations.
So just to make it clear. Suppose rearing a child is equivalent to a full-time job and takes 160 hours per month.
Adam works 160 hours and earns, say, 1000 gold pieces per month. He also spends 16 hours parenting.
Eve does not have a job. She spends 160×0.9 = 144 hours parenting. She is entitled to 90% of Adam’s income.
Therefore:
Eve works 144 hours. She is entitled to 900 gold pieces.
Adam works 176 hours. He is entitled to 100 gold pieces.
Have I understood your math right?
Is your future husband a real person? Or do you still expect to find him in the future? (not trolling, just curious)
@POB
Yes, he is real. Not sure what I gain from making up fictional characters.
@Pseudonymous User
Your logic itself is faulty for two reasons:
(1) Your assumption of “unfairness” is driven by a faulty assumption everyone’s pay is equal per hour. In reality, tons of people work fewer hours and earn more money than others – the pay is based also on the value you generate per hour, not simply on the hours you work.
(2) Parenting *is* a full time job, and you’re not done at 6pm like normal jobs. especially if you do 90% of childrearing responsibilities.
(3) You are also also making everything incredibly simple by simply thinking of earnings per work – in real life, you need to factor in investments and inheritances if you want to look at tit-to-tat financial contributions of domestic partners.
I am not sure if your mother has worked. My mother has been a stay at home mother all her life (and my father is an attorney) – they have joint finances, and their marriage is going strong for almost 30 years (and I’ll bet good money, for life). If you value childrearing so little, did all stay at home mothers of our parents’ generation “free-ride” on their partners?
Again, marriage is partnership, not a job. If you want children, wish to outsource childrearing as a “job,” and want sex, adopt a child, hire a full time nanny, and have girlfriends who are ok with this situation/hire escorts for your sexual needs. This is a viable option for most men in the Western society but I don’t see it being a popular choice.
@Antekirtt
Actually, the industry I’m in (investment banking/management consulting) attracts workaholic men and women who work more than the hours you stipulated. Many women in this industry *do* quit their jobs or move to a more stable yet less profitable positions once they have children, with strong encouragement by their partners.
Unfortunately for women, the feasible period to have children (late 20s – mid 30s) coincide with the period where you should work very hard full time to maximize your career potentials. Not saying it’s “men’s fault,” it’s simply how it is.
Ok, you don’t want to get married, or get “State” involved in the process. Then don’t. I genuinely think men (and women) who are so dead set about financial and sexual “freedom” should not cohabit with an opposite sex (with a more “conventional” view on pairbonding and marriage) and have children. That’s why most (if not all) of my criticism is geared towards Caleb’s “OLTR”s, not on “FB”s and “MLTR”s.
On the topic of “you are making men more hate women by feeding into their confirmation bias,” men who already decided they are going to hate women, or already decided any pair bonding with women will not last, won’t suddenly change their minds no matter what I, an anonymous commenter, say. I have clarified many times I am commenting here for entertainment and to provide valid criticism of some of Caleb’s “rules,” not to do any “social good” of changing people’s minds. I will cease to comment on this blog when I no longer view it fun, or (more likely) soon when I start work full time and have to cut down my online forum time.
If you think that’s byzantine, wait till you see the courts do those calculations (after she dumps you).
Sabrina – Would you like to debate me regarding OLTRs in a dedicated Blackdragon Debate article? I haven’t done one of those in a while and even though I said I wouldn’t debate the topic of OLTR anymore, it’s pretty obvious from these comments that my audience would enjoy the hell out of it. The rules for the debate are here. If you’re down for it send me an email at theonlyblackdragon @ gmail.com
@SabrinaK
I trust my partner. I was speaking for a hypothetical woman who wanted kids with an Alpha 2.0. If she was being compensated for the lost career capital she might be more likely to agree to the arrangement, unless she had low self-esteem, was blinded by baby fever, or trusted that her kids would take care of her.
In our case, marriage made sense because we saw ourselves staying together indefinitely and wanted the tax benefits. He has a different idea of fairness than the rest of the guys in this comment section, or else a higher risk tolerance. I think we’re both at low risk for leaving the partnership, especially now that we’ve gotten past some of the early hurdles of non-monogamy.
Sabrina:
I stopped reading here
Fathers do parenting too. So charge for the time we are not around if you want. And discount the time you are not around.
Interested by the debate BD proposed.
Anyway Sabrina and BD clarified much of how women think (a woman you date will say she is not like the rest). Now I do not only know its not women’s fault – it isj how they are wired-, but I also understand how to act from now in.
Priceless.
@Blackdragon
Chill idea, I think I read through one of your debates – I’ll think about it and let you know.
My wife and I never had shared bank accounts at all. She would regularly overdraft her accounts in dumb ways (find a “great deal” that ended up costing an extra $35, buy a $6 pizza with $5 in the account, and so on) and eventually get them shut down. At one point she didn’t have a bank account and only got one back because her dad gave her a check for several thousand dollars and her old bank allowed her to deposit it if she let them take the old debt from it.
I have a friend who is going through a dead marriage now, who finally went to the bank and got himself removed from his joint bank account with his wife. His wife kept the account negative for several months and kept using it over and over. She would have her whole paycheck direct deposited and it wouldn’t even go positive. Somehow she would be around -$500 or something and still go to Burger King and spend $36 on a dollar menu item.
I will never share finances or anything else with a woman again. I am 40 and I will never even do the OTR thing, nothing. It’s all FBs or whatever. I don’t think I will ever need to pair bond and “settle down.” I did that already when I was young, Like BD, and got the stepson and all that too.
Most people don’t understand the concept of risk. I’ll try to give a graphic example:
Pedestrians crossing a certain busy intersections keep getting hit by cars traveling about 25mph, becoming seriously injured for extended lengths of time, occasionally fatally.
Pedestrians that wear yellow safety vests get hit 33% (low risk) and ones that don’t get hit twice as often (33%). Also, pedestrians who abandon the sidewalk and become motorists.
Pedestrians in the same scenario who remain motorists eliminate their exposure to being hit as a pedestrian when crossing the street.
What advice would you give to would be motorists who were considering ditching their cars? Buy a treadmill and stay in your car!
Also, this is a real example with it’s names changed to “pedestrian” from “married”. The injuries are slightly exaggerated.
Exactly. And you know how much the risk is and what you are getting into, should you elect to get out of your car and walk across the street.
Sabrina, you didn’t answer. In the example given, is Adam getting 100 gold pieces while Eve gets 900 consistent with your definition of fairness? If investment and inheritance concern you, assume both have neither (they’re Adam and Eve after all :-).
I was in a hurry and apologize for making the so many errors in the last post. I usually proofread before I push the button and I clearly didn’t.
@Pseudonymous User
Honey, I did answer your question in incredible detail, reread again.
In summary, your hypothetical situation of Adam and Eve’s arbitrary working hours and gold coins is clearly made up to seem “unfair” to you, but not at all close to reality: (1) the “hours” worked between Adam and Eve and the value generated for the two or them is not proportional (my goodness – you would start crying at the “unfair” concept of passive income); and (2) Adam getting 100 coins while Eve getting 900 coins is incredibly arbitrary; I’m advocating putting all 1000 coins in one bucket for both Adam and Eve to use.
As I said to Federico who wanted to talk about what child support would look like for a women who each had babies from three separate men, I also do not want to further go into a rabbit hole of your hypothetical Adam and Eve with no other assets other than gold coins.
I’m trying to get to the meaning of “If a woman does 90% of childrearing and housework a man and a woman both benefit from, the woman absolutely has every right to benefit 90% – 100% from whatever income the man brings to the family.” Speaking about “putting all coins in one bucket for both to use” does nothing to clarify the above, but together these statements strongly suggest an arrangement where the woman withdraws the vast majority of the contents of said bucket. Is that right? Is the man only entitled to 10% of what he himself earns? (This is a yes/no question, equivalent to the one I asked above. I would appreciate a response starting with “yes” or “no”.)
@Pseudonymous User
No, of course not. I never said the breadwinning partner is entitled to 10% of his/her income while stay at home partner is entitled to 90%. If you genuinely thought that’s what I meant, you need to improve on your reading comprehension skills.
Reread what I said when I clarified what “sharing 100% of finances” mean. The breadwinning partner puts his income in an account in a “joint account” and husband and wife spends from it (and discuss “big ticket items” together).
Just like you “share” children and joys of parenthood and family, you “share” income. Most of these “spendings” will be for the things the couple enjoy together as a family anyways (vacations, eating out, education for the children, etc). In functioning families, it’s very unlikely one partner spends 90% when the other spends 10%. As this is a model most families adhere to (it’s very likely your parents used this model to raise you), I am not sure why I need to lay out such basics again and again.
Was the following written by an impostor? This blog does not authenticate posters in any way (a rare thing nowadays).
However, come to think of it, the above quotations are not contradictory. The statement consistent with both is that the man is entitled to strictly less than 10% of his income. Is this your position? Or it could also be that we’re using different definitions of the term “entitled”, maybe that’s the main source of misunderstanding?
@Pseudonymous User
Oh dear, you are really grasping at straws.
Yes, when I said the stay-at-home partner is entitled to 90-100% of breadwinner’s income if she does 90-100% of childrearing abilities, I meant she is entitled to the joint family account where she and her husband can both spend from, not that she herself is entitled to 90% of his income while he is entitled to 10%. Capice? I’ve repeated above like a million times for you, but glad we cleared that up.
Sabrina, dont be upset ir we make you repeat something. And please dont judge our reading comprehension skills.
We dont want to win the argumento or debate. We just want to know before Hans what woman really want so as we can say no or at least dont whine afterwards
You have a lot to learn about women. A LOT.
COMPLETELY IGNORE WHAT WOMEN SAY ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT, AND ONLY PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY DO.
“Do that, and 50% of your woman-problems will vanish overnight.”
I had to make a decision recently with a woman, who said she wanted someone to be “a partner” but every time I gave her a chance to act like a partner all I got was drama and arguments, and in the end, nothing got done. After a couple of times I quit asking and withdrew.
I suspect what she knew my kryptonite was I actually wanted a partner, and she was using that knowledge as bait. Sooner or later, you have to trust your own gut and decide “this isn’t working for me” and quit wasting your time.
If you do it upfront, she will waste less of your time because she’s either gonna get with the program or she’s gonna be gone. Both are wins for you.
Overtly, she is saying what is yours is mine, what is ours is mine, and what is mine is mine.
Ask any divorced guy who ever had a joint account how that went when things got sideways.
Scusa, non capisco completamente. The way this is worded leaves much to imagination. What does it even mean “to be entitled to a joint account”? To be entitled means “to have a right to certain benefits or privileges” (M-W), but a joint account is merely a tool, one of many ways to organize funds, not a benefit or a privilege. By the benefit/privilege in question, you undoubtedly mean the right of the woman to withdraw up to a certain amount from the joint account, and you go to great lengths to avoid quantifying that amount.
You amended your position from “yes, she is entitled to 90-100% of your income” to “not that she herself is entitled to 90% of his income”. I take it that she will only find it acceptable if he committed to putting at least 90% of his earnings into the joint account. If he were, for example, to systematically spend 15% of the money he himself earned the way he saw fit without consulting her, this would infringe on her right to use the account as she would be unable to withdraw as much money from it as she’s entitled to. Or in other words, she demands the veto right on spending all but 10% of his income. Sounds fishy unless clarified.
If big purchases have to be unanimous, why have the joint account that large at all? He would just finance all big expenses out of his own account, as simple as that.
You will likely respond “good luck finding a woman that will consent to such an arrangement, most will reject it or at best fight it”, and probably that’s true. I’m however interested in why that might be true.
By the way, please do consider that debate proposal. If you and BD decide to answer the same clearly defined question, that will let you make your point known without going in circles, as seems to be the case in this thread.
Real life examples from my marriage and a joint account:
Wife overdrafts account by $5 on a $50 purchase “stocking up”, causing overdraft fees of $35.
Her – “But we needed it and it was a good deal”
Husband spends $120 on a new set of computer speakers so he can better hear the lecture of the online class he’s taking that will probably net $1500 the first month of extra free cash. Husband checks account, there is more than $500 available.
Her – “Why are you wasting that money?”
I could do this for WEEKS. Joint accounts are for suckers.
I know traditional relationships (married Catholic people) that work and never have money problems. One spouse runs the books and pays the bills, the other one is on an ALLOWANCE and has expected things that need to get accomplished out of the allowance money. Like pay for groceries. The genders aren’t important, strict rules on expectations and responsibilities and boundaries are if you want to be successful as a couple and not implode financially.
And there’s only ever one responsible one. The allowance makes them both responsible.
Because “that’s just what you do”; and also, those men are saps that don’t pay attention to other men’s experience because “this chick is different” or “you don’t understand, we have connection” or she’s “that one special girl”.
But you knew that.
They want to believe they want a partner. If you offer then what they want to believe they want, they immediately know it’s not what they want -> cognitive dissonance -> hysterical arguing + drama to make you lose control, get angry, and forget what it all was about with a light conscience.
They totally, absolutely don’t want a partner.
I don’t think you can say that, at least with that certainty. My ex wife had a good 12-14 years where we were quite the power couple. I had her back and she had mine, for a while. I know more than a few other couples who act that way. And I’ve actually dated a couple of women who had what it took but just didn’t work out.
I think a lot of guys want a woman to take care of him (I’m serious), like a mother. And others want a really submissive one that you can order around. But there is a third kind, which is an independent woman.
And if can’t find who is self sufficient financially, healthy, with a decent diet, low drama, and no kids, I’m just fine by myself. Better nobody than somebody who’s a bad fit. Rather than be frustrated by the chase like in years past, it’s kinda fun nowadays. The world is full of decent women, and it’s simply a numbers game to find em. And it’s fun sorting through them.
@C Lo
Actually, what I am saying is: what is yours is ours, what is mine is ours, and what is ours is ours.
I have clarified, at least in my situation, I will be putting what is “mine” into the “shared account” also, and he will be spending from it with no qualms whatsoever, what is “mine” will be more than what is “his” for some time, at least until he gets his business up and running.
You cannot say this with certainty at all. It looks like from your personal anecdotes that you were indeed the responsible one, and your spouse was not. But your ex-spouse is not all women.
@Pseudonymous User
If either partner want to “systematically spend” 15% of monthly income, I would say that is a “big ticket expense” and they will be consulting each other about the said expenses. *Both* partner gets veto right on spending extravagant amounts.
As I said, I find your logic increasingly not close to reality – what husband or wife “systematically spends” 15% of income alone and not expect a “veto” from their partner? Consider the family income is 100k a year. If the wife wants to spend 15k on her handbags every year, yes, the husband has every right to veto that, for good reason. If the husband wants to spend 15k on his fishing gear every year, yes, the wife has every right to veto that as well, for good reason. My point is, both partners get veto powers, but just the partner who is acting as a breadwinner.
Hopefully, you know your spouse enough before you marry them to know both of you are financially responsible. If one of you is hopeless with money (men or women), yes, probably best she/he is on “allowance.”
Just to throw a wrench in the whole discussion: more and more women are deciding to start a family on their own, without a father, which is becoming more socially accepted (at least in the West).
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/14/no-stigma-single-mothers-denmark-solomors
The argument that the man should share 90% of his income as the woman sacrificed her income potential for two decades is not holding up.
Most women are biologically wired to want to have and raise children at some point. Men biologically want to impregnate a lot of women (which is not very practical in today’s world, mind you). The raising of children is more of an ideological calling.
Also, it is not reasonable to compare the pre-1950’s nuclear family situation with the modern family.
Housewives did not have access to dishwashers, washing machines, Roomba’s, etc.
Maintaining a household was, in those days, indeed a full-time job and one could argue that the work of housewives was underappreciated.
As the above example shows, more women believe that they can be the breadwinner and the childminder by themselves. What they have done is diminished the value of maintaining a household.
The argument can be made that it is a dangerous slippery slope to underestimate the value and time required to raise children and that children need both feminine and masculine input. I would agree. However, we are currently discussing whether a man automatically owes the woman at least 90% of his income if the couple decides to have children.
Interestingly enough, it is a lot harder for men to be a single dad. First, because they can’t have children of their own biologically. Plus, there is less incentive and more social stigma on single dads.
The invention of the artificial womb would be a necessary step to balance the genders. However, I can imagine there will be a lot of pushback from women and governments (on behalf of women).
In this regard, I am actually very happy with the recent acceptance of transgenders. They will be the key in pushing legislation for the artificial womb, to allow men that have transitioned into women to have their own children. Once the technology is there, making it available for biological males is a smaller hurdle.
@Liquorice
Ah, The Guardian articles – gotta love them. I roll my eyes whenever they want to feature another “ethnic” or “vegan” dish recipe or some transgender overweight couple’s love story – as much as I advocate for LGBT rights and multiculturalism, The Guardian really is “hyper liberal.” Now my political views aside –
Incorrect. You clearly only read the title of the article, not the article itself; that article clarifies these women are not being single mothers by choice because they “believe they can be the breadwinner and the childminder by themselves”: 90% of women surveyed in the country’s nine public fertility clinics wanted to have a child with a male partner. “The majority say that becoming a solomor was Plan B […] Two thirds had been in a relationship and wanted to become pregnant but their partners weren’t ready.”
So these women are being solo parents not because they *want* to, they waited too long with a man who clearly did not want to (or “weren’t ready”) be a father, which, honestly, is on them for wasting time with a clearly incompatible partner. But nevertheless, these women did not “diminish the value of maintaining a household” – they wanted it, but they couldn’t get it.
Transgenders and men and women who *actively* want to become a single parent *out of choice* are, I speculate, such minuscule fraction of a population that I do not think it’s worth discussing right now. As a man, do you *want* to have a surgery to bear children of your own? I guess all the power to you if you do.
If you are arguing that the “ideal” (or “nature’s calling”) for most men is to impregnate a lot of women but not to raise children – in the modern world, there are a way to do that: be a sperm donor, and never cohabit with a woman. I do not see that many men choosing this option (and not regretting it forever) either. The fact is, at least at some point, the vast majority of men (mostly before the age of 40) and women (mostly before the age of 33) *want* to actively have and raise children.
But I have a specific question.
What is that reason?
Not a fan of The Guardian either – left-wing tripe – so every single time a leftist source collaborates my arguments, it only makes them harder to dispute of both sides of the coin coincide.
It is by choice as they could have chosen a man who makes less money and/or has a lower social status to do the childrearing and home making.
Instead, inner hypergamy required them to have an alpha male with higher income, who has tons of options, or a physically strong alpha male, who does not do pair bonding and children, commit as these men have the most desirable traits to create offspring.
But that was not the point why I posted the link. My point is that:
1. Women want children more than men, therefore, men should use this as a bargaining tool to not accept a monogamous marriage with the risk of losing 50%+ of their stuff if it goes south.
2. The value of childrearing and homemaking has gone done thanks to modern conveniences. Women and the left agrees (The Guardian is hyper left) as it is clear that a woman rather combines childrearing and a career than marry a beta male beneath her.
I am more thinking of contraception in a lab with an artificial womb outside of a human body. A full biological child where the man will get all legal rights to the child so they cannot be separated by court order.
This would also be very good for society, as it would increase the amount of high quality men that want to pair bond with a woman and raise a child (or two) after their goals and mission has been completed, and thus increase the strength and versatility of the world’s gene pool.
Of course, women should retain their freedom as well and maintain the option of choosing high quality seed from top males if they are willing to go down that route.
There have been too many cases where a sperm donor still ends up being charged with child support. This would be fine but not for 100+ kids. This risk would be higher with high status males whose seed would be in higher demand.
But yes, a possibility in the future is that men can (and should) directly market their seed to independent women. If the laws change, it could be a very fruitful endeavour for those who have above average genes.
No. The fact you conflate those three – even a little bit – proves my point.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
Definition of yours
: that which belongs to you —used without a following noun as a pronoun equivalent in meaning to the adjective yourthis book is yours
Definition of mine
: that which belongs to me —used without a following noun as a pronoun equivalent in meaning to the adjective myYour eyes are brown and mine are green.
Definition of ours
: that which belongs to us —used without a following noun as a pronoun equivalent in meaning to the adjective our
This is a wonderful example of how manipulative people will play games with words and boundaries in order to take advantage of you.
Readers beware.
Hey everyone! Great ideas and comments! I tried posting earlier but for some reason it’s not working – hopefully this works. Most of these are in response to SabrinaK (thanks for sharing your perspective).
I would be interested in any additional info/data/anecdotal accounts of people in OLTRs that have kids together. Thanks!
In this situation wouldn’t the mother be entitled to 45-50% of the income? Technically they would both be sharing the income (and the amount of time worked) ~50/50.
Ideally the mother and father would pool/share resources (time, energy, money) fairly/optimally for the good of their family, right?
I think this is what concerns a lot people going into relationships. Ideally a great relationship should be a short-term & long-term win/win for bother partners, including (if/when) the relationship ends. Isn’t this a good framework?
Some people go into relationships not looking for win/win (ie “lopsided in their favor” which would probably “create resentment and result in drama”), and that’s probably not a good receipt for long-term success for either the man or woman … or the relationship.
Basically a lot of men are looking for types of relationships that insure that they are fairly treated (if/when) the relationship ends b/c there’s tons of occurrences (last 10-20 years) where the woman, de facto, ends up taking advantage of the man financially.
Yes, there are certainly guys that are trying to take advantage of the woman (that’s no good either!), but most just want to make sure that the woman isn’t take advantage of them. In other words, they’re looking for a win/win.
The US legal system seems to not currently always be insuring fair outcomes for divorces – what options do men looking for fair, win/win relationships have? Or at least the least bad options?
(And yes, the “open” part of a OLTR is a big subject, too. But that’s maybe for a different comment)
Thanks!
And he is 100% ok with paying you 90% of his income using the terms you stated on your comment?
That first part is very disturbing for a man in this day and age who, on top of that, makes a lot more income than you do (which seems to be your case). Do you let him read this blog and the comments? Do you talk about that subject with him using both points of view? Is he aware of the risks (financial, legal and emotional) he is taking following that path?
This seems like a very good idea, as long as it’s really separate. I’ll look more into that in the future and try to figure out the legal aspects of that arrangement.
Now this seems like a good idea, but my guess is, on a court of law, all of it could be seized if the woman decides to get a divorce.
What you’re not getting is that men are at a perpetual marital disadvantage with the current societal and legal rules. We are at the mercy of judges, family courts and an absurd law that does not treat people right. I was never arguing from an emotional stand point, but from a practical real world point of view.
Your arguments are very articulate and thoughtful, and on the surface they seem ok. But underneath it they are not fair for any man living in the western world in 2019, sorry.
@POB
My fiance is not my employer, he is not paying me anything. I’m not sure why you would ever want to make your wife your employee (well, I guess Caleb is doing that now…I’ll never understand this. Sounds like a recipe for drama and disaster).
And I am not “using” 90% of his income as I clarified multiple times above. We put both our income in a joint account. As of right now, we already have a joint account for a mini-“side business” we have together (that is outside our normal work). When we get married, we will simply put our income into the joint account.
Incorrect. If you want to respond to my comments, learn to read them before responding. I make more money than my fiance (from now to reasonable future) as I work in banking whereas he just started his own business (with no salary). I’ll be putting my money in our joint account. Maybe (hopefully) he will make more than I do in the future (especially when I have kids and the kids are young).
I’ve shown him this blog. I don’t “let” him do anything, he’s his own man. He thinks manosphere is a waste of time (as he has had conventional dating life with near zero issues
Yes, he knows exactly how we are going to put our both money in our joint account, it’s not a very difficult concept. This is a model both our parents used when they were raising us. Seriously, for commenters here who are acting so flabbergasted at the concept of joint accounts, how did your parents manage their finances?
I (and I think, most women) do not want to marry anyone who thinks with certainty that our marriage will end in divorce. My fiance clearly does not – we both have parents, who live in Western/Westernized society, whose marriage is going very strong. If you do think for *certainty* pairbonding won’t work “until death do us part,” make this *clear* to the woman who wants to marry you, and hopefully far before she gets too attached. Then she can make her own decisions about cohabiting and having kids with you.
@Liquorice
Do you have children? You want to use your own potential children as a bargaining tool? Women want children *faster* than men, but majority of both men and women want to have and raise children. I don’t usually make value judgments but…my goodness.
Actually, if you think this way, just don’t cohabit with a woman and raise children with her. If you believe you won’t regret this decision for the rest of your life, I do not see an issue with this.
@bluegreen
Thanks for respectful comments! 🙂
Yes. Perhaps my language of “entitled” was misleading, I just mean the wife can spend from the joint account for herself and for their children (just as much as the husband can). I don’t mean the wife should spend 90% of her husband’s income (nor I do not think this even happens).
Actually, I did learn from participating in these discussions some men are fucked in divorces, especially when they marry women who are vindictive and financially irresponsible. Just as there are many women fucked in marriages, especially when they marry men who are assholes.
A simple way is: seriously date your potential partner for a year or two before deciding to get married. Make sure you’re marrying a kind person who cares about your happiness as much as she cares about hers. (And do the same for her). Make sure your view on finances and life are compatible. Make sure you’re marrying a person who is willing to put in the work to last as long as possible. In other words, in your terms, make sure you have a partner who is into “win/win” scenario as much as you are.
Many, many people make marriages work. The author of this blog and many commenters here have had a terrible experience with divorces and is determined never to go through it again, which I understand. But reading into their experiences and assuming all marriages won’t work is letting others failures dictate your life.
But the $64,000 question is: How to make sure these views will consistently translate into actions for the entire intended duration of the marriage?
Consider this scenario: She has views compatible with mine. She’s very sincere in that. I marry her. Four years pass. She switches her views to different ones (caused by childbirth, by social pressure or something else, doesn’t matter). She believes these new things with equal sincerity.
How do I ensure this does not happen?
Many, many people survived the death camps. Unless you give a proven recipe for how exactly to make things work, this type of argument does not hold water.
Why do you keep misrepresenting the views on this blog AND repeatedly placing undue emphasis on statistically insgnificant examples from your direct entourage? (1) you haven’t been told it’d certainly end in divorce, but that there was a high chance (can’t remember how high, I remember 76% but it could include another case), and that marriages that don’t end are themselves not necessarily happy.
https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2015/11/16/what-life-long-marriage-really-looks-like/
Even if it were 25% it’d still make marriage a bad idea, considering the stakes. (2) statistics are what matters.
https://alphamale20.com/blackdragonblog/2018/12/24/playing-lifes-odds/
This blog beats you even at the anecdotal level, since it gets reports from literally thousands of couples about both TMM and nonmono relationships, except it doesn’t just rely on anecdotal evidence, but the actual outcomes of TMM in the western world overall. Seriously, the repeated references to “rando friend with a happy marriage” like a mantra are embarrassing.
@Pseudonymous User
My argument was (1) keeping separate finances with zero “joint accounts” while (2) your partner takes 90% of childrearing responsibilities for children you both decided to have together was unfair and also not work long term. Giving “allowance” to your partner (unless he/she has proven him/herself to be incredibly financially irresponsible) will not go well, especially if the said partner gave up his/her earning power for childrearing due to the power differential between someone who manages the purse strings and someone who is in mercy under it. You went on a long tirade about hypothetical Adam and Eve discussion to argue how this was somehow “fair.”
Now, you’re changing your argument to “well, I guess your way is fair but what happens in a divorce?” If this was your question all along, you could have just been direct about it and ask it.
Pairbonding is for people who go into a relationship thinking they will be together for life. If you believe for certainty (or even with “high probability” for Antekirtt) that the relationship won’t last, you basically have to tell your partner “hey, my value system is that all relationships are temporary. Including this one with you. So I am structuring my life and relationship with you with an assumption you and I won’t last.” Not sure if any women will decide to have children and stay with such a man.
And of course, what Caleb is suggesting in this article is even more ridiculous because what he’s basically saying is akin to “Having a business partner and splitting equity is incredibly dangerous. [long discussion about dangers of splitting equity]. But for semblence of stability and emotional support of having a business partner, dangle someone long enough so he’d want to be your business partner, do all the important aspect of your business on *your* terms, and just *call* someone your business partner (and encourage someone into thinking he really is one), and act like you are splitting equity without really giving him equity for payout time. I can’t share exactly how you do so due to privacy issues.”
I suspect Caleb is “supporting” Pink Firefly as an employee, because she just quit her job and *legally* is his employee (and not “legally” his wife – or maybe she is, I don’t know). Not sure mixing personal life and professional life would be a good idea (I think Caleb himself said not to sleep with a woman who work for you/who you work with), but I guess we’ll see.
It’s not just for me, it’s the entire thesis of this blog and the opinion of many commenters around here. And as I said, even if it were a medium probability, it’d still be bad. You don’t put enormous stakes on 50 or 70% odds, you put low or medium stakes. If divorce rape is barely a worst case scenario, you’d better have 98% chances or better to not have one. It isn’t the case. Indeed you are admitting to putting effort into making sure the fallout is extremely harsh, further strengthening the point that accepting your kind of deal is very bad risk management.
It’s not a value system, it has no moral aspect other than what you project into it: it’s a propositional attitude. It can be “true” or “false” (or true to a degree, etc), it can’t be “good” or “bad”. Either the probabilistic claim is correct, or it is not. You can criticize it in terms of truth or falsehood, and you can argue with the conclusions drawn from it (in terms of life decisions, etc), but you can’t attack it as a “value system”, because it isn’t one. See my previous comment (and answer its points if you think you’re actually making sense).
I never said anything like that.
If my prospective partner is such that no allowance will go well with her, she will settle for nothing less than unlimited ability to spend my money, why should I decide to stay with such a partner?
Again you say “thinking” instead of at least “having reasonable grounds to believe this will happen”. People don’t tend to object to insurance of various kinds, why is divorce insurance met with such animosity?
That’s true, women don’t like it when men verbalize facts. BD suggests working around this by doing more and talking less. It’s been working fine for me so far.
Well, BD has long argued against having business partners, so there’s no inconsistency.
Let’s return to this though:
You didn’t answer the question I asked above. What do I do, as a man, to guard against the possibility that the woman goes into a relationship thinking one thing, and then starts thinking another thing, just as earnestly?
C Lo, what are the two things you disagree with Caleb on? Also, thanks for your information. Sounds like you’ve got a legal background and are quite knowledgeable about divorce law. Just to confirm, are you saying prenups are useless for protecting community property in a “committed relationship” state?
@Antekirtt
I am still very unsure what you mean by my “feeding into confirmation bias” of men reading this blog. What I am advocating is simple, feasible and fair (and widespread), what Caleb is advocating is complicated, pretty unfeasible, and unfair (when children are involved). I have illustrated exactly why I believe that latter. I would love for you to quote me and exactly argue for my saying anything that is “abusive” or “unfair” to my partner.
Err, if someone thinks all (or most) relationships are temporary and that they don’t last, it *is* a value system. With that said, I never “attacked” someone having an opinion like that, I’m simply saying I do not share such an opinion, and that I think majority of women (especially women in their 20s) will not have children with a man with that value system. Because that value system is typically called “baggage” in layman terms.
All I am arguing for is to communicate to your partner that you have that value system. I think pairbonding is for life, and I sure do communicate that very directly to people I date long-term.
I clearly don’t agree, but maybe it is bad “risk management” for a specific type of men who marry a specific type of women.
What I am saying is Caleb’s particular “superior” alternative method of “risk management” – i.e. keeping separate account at all times with your partner while your partner does 90% of childrearing responsibilities – is not only unfair, but also not feasible. As Caleb is making money advocating his method and I am not, I have no obligation to come up with another alternative system for men’s favor – but I retain a right to criticize it. 🙂
You never define “fair” though. All you say is that Caleb’s approach is likely to be met with disapproval by women, which is of course true. But why on earth is anything short of 90% “unfair”?
Thx for your replies Sabrina, and I’m sorry if I pissed you in my comments, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m pretty sure you and your man have discussed these things in exhaustion, and I’m sure as a beta he accepted all your “fair” proposals without questioning his future or well-being should you decide to leave him, but I still cannot see it as “a good deal” to any man living in 2019 under our current (very flawed) laws and society.
I’m also sure that you’re a dominant woman, thus your beef with all the advice Caleb is giving to men who want to be really free (and should avoid having anything serious with a woman of your personality, because it would make everybody involved miserable). This is not a critic and I’m not trying to diminish you or sound like a douche…quite the opposite. These are facts.
Don’t believe me? Exhibit A:
A submissive with an Alpha partner would be very uncomfortable in that scenario. The Alpha would be even more uncomfortable than her. There are exceptions of course, but as always the exceptions prove the rule.
This is what YOU, as a dominant, thinks all other women want and need. But there is a lot (I mean A LOT) of submissives out there who are more than happy to take the blunt work of child bearing, and need a man to take total charge of other aspects of their lives while they raise their kids. And they can do that without being a doormat wife, without taking all the hard-earned money the guy made in his entire life and without compromising her values or needs.
You would never accept that, I get it, but there are regular awesome beautiful women who would. And would be very happy with it. I know because I’ve seen it in person with women I dated. I’m not making this up.
Just to finish my comment above, I’ll reproduce what Caleb wrote about your type of personality:
I rest my case.
@BD: a comment of mine from almost a day ago isn’t showing up.
@POB
Don’t worry, you didn’t piss me off, you’re a random person on the internet 🙂
Most of your comments can be summarized with “You’re a dominant and your boyfriend is a beta, no true Alpha’s will get married with you and accept your arrangement.”
My “beta” boyfriend you are talking about probably made more money than 1% of the population in his banking career before starting his business, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen him single in his adult life since graduating from college (I’ve known him in my social circle for some time). And he is, and will continue to be, happier than 90% of the commenters here – I’ll make sure of it – he does for me.
In the thread discussing Why Women Leave You, I left a long comment about the nuances of alpha/beta and dominant/submissive scale. I suggest you read that. I think of myself as a “mild dominant” and my fiance as a “confident beta”; while my fiance thinks of himself as an “mild alpha” me as a “mild submissive” (after reading Caleb’s article about Three Types of Women). Who knows who’s correct, and who the hell cares – the fact is, we both have personalities that are not extreme, and compatible with each other.
You, a “true Alpha,” can shack up and have babies with unicorn women who are:
Sounds like a male version of a “submissive Alpha” to me. A woman who “does not compromise her values or needs” are Dominants, not Submissives. If a woman lets a man (or anyone else) “take total charge of other aspects of their lives,” she is by definition a “doormat”.
Now – if there are so many unicorn women out there, is your current woman one of them? Why didn’t any of them cohabit with you and have babies with you while strictly having “separate finances,” “non-legal, non-monogamous marriage,” and doing “blunt work of child rearing”?
Regardless, I wish you the best with your unicorn submissive women. 🙂
Whatever, I’ll rewrite the comment that didn’t get through, or a version of it anyway.
You’re deliberately going back to points we’ve already discussed at length and acting like I didn’t give my rebuttals.
No, it is not, and I explained exactly why. Just because you’re running out of counterarguments doesn’t mean that repeating yourself or acting like stuff hasn’t been addressed is gonna make you right.
Layman terms mean nothing. We’re here because laypeople suck at judging this stuff. If most women will consider this as baggage, then (1) okay, it’s already been pointed out literally dozens of times that no man needs even 2% of women to be on board with this, let alone most, (2) just because someone says they don’t like something, doesn’t mean they’ll actually reject the deal. Almost every deal we make has an element we don’t like. What we do at the end of the day is what matters, not how much we reee at it first. In other words, facts, statistics. See my previous two comments, which you’re far from having addressed.
Correction: pairbonding urges are a state of mind that involves the desire for that state of mind to continue forever, and for continuing to think it plausible or even certain. It’s self-feeding, it’s evolutionarily built to convince the person carrying that desire to strongly believe there’ll never be an end to it. A state of mind is not the proof that the state of mind is for life, it is merely a very powerful, and circular, delusion.
Stop amalgamating things, and consider separating your points more, even when they’re linked. It will make you look less deceptive. If the only problem you have with a certain method of risk management is an allegedly unfair division of labor, then your problem is with the latter, not with risk management. Indeed you’ve at least indirectly admitted, multiple times, that you are applying risk management too. Again, you speak a lot about fairness but at the end of the day you just relish that you can apply whatever-I-can-get-away-with morals, ie “we both do risk management but since societal programming is on my side, I can do it with far, far greater risk to the man while telling the man that his own, far less unfair strategy, is the worse one. Coz the mindless majority will cheer anyway.”
This has been a leitmotiv in your comments: more or less directly, you keep going back to “I don’t need to prove X logically, nor to prove that Z is fair, because the fact of the matter is many women agree with me anyway, and the law will back me too”. Either you’re here to argue logically, or you’re just happy with a status quo skewed in your favor – and the knowledge that men who feel they owe happiness to themselves will be doing what’s necessary to counter this in their individual lives. By not taking a retarded deal.
Nope, you have to define “obligation” first. What you’re saying is that you have less incentive to defend your views, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have an argumentative burden to do so. If you offer no better bethod, CJ’s way is de facto the only game in town, so you lose by default, no matter how flawed you think the method is. You have “no obligation” in the sense that if you lose the debate, you don’t lose money (as an aside, either does BD, but I’m humoring your premises here), so you kinda don’t give a fuck, but that just means you don’t give a fuck that you’re wrong. Within the discussion itself, you still lose, because criticizing something without giving an alternative simply means “OMG the only system that’s been offered is definitely flawed”.