- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sat 21st January 2012

Bigamy should be legal

Filed under: General — Vman @ 1:14 pm

Either a marriage contract in New Zealand should be overhaulled to require man and wife to committ to each other or else Bigamy should be legal. We can’t have the current situation which is hypocracy.

New Zealand marriage laws make no sence unless you view it as a contract to extract money from men and give it to women.
Under New Zealand law there is nothing romantic or lasting about marriage. There little to no actual committment except foe the higher income earner. This is usually the man. The marriage contract committs him to many years of massive fiscal responsibility. The other party to the contract hold little if any risk. This is usually the woman.

In 75%-85% of cases the woman will terminate the contract and in return she will receive a very large payout. Usually much higher than she would have been able to achieve had she never been married.

There is no crime or punishment for a woman to cheat on her husband. In theory this applies to men as well. He most likely has assets and income at risk but there is no crime and in theory no punishment if he cheats on his wife. In fact marriage laws have been designed to allow for a misstress to be part of the contract.

Make no mistake this contract is there only to determine how much of the assests can be taken from the man and given to the woman. It does not matter if she was having sex with another man the entire duration of the marriage.

Therefore why is it that Bigamy is illegal?
A man or a woman can live with another lover during their marriage. This is no crime at all. It happens very often.
Why is Bigamy illegal?

Under NZ law Bigamy is fraud and it is punishable by up to 7 years in jail.

Why is sleeping with another lover while you are married no crime at all yet Bigamy could see you locked up for 7 years?
You could kill someone in New Zealand and serve less time in jail than a Bigamist.

Let me tell you why it is illegal in New Zealand.
It has zero to do with morals.
It has everything to do with finacial contracts.
If a man marries a woman and she sleeps around. The wife can leave him and take more than half of what he has and more than a quarter what he earns in the future.
If a man marries a woman and she sleeps around. Then the wife divorces him and claims half of all he has, but she discovers that her husband is also married to someone else then woman #1 has a conflict of cliam with woman #2. The more money woman #1 takes the less that woman #2 can take.
The whole reason bigamy is illegal is because it creates a conflict over who can take than man’s assests and future income.

An Auckland man has claimed Bigamy:
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/bigamist-claims-family-pressure-led-confession-4695674

His first wife seperated from him and moved to Australia with their kids. (no obligations under marriage for her). Rather than wait 2 years he got married again. (up to 7 years jail for him).

76 Responses to “Bigamy should be legal”

  1. Get a grip says:

    The law that applies to men applies to women.
    If a woman has more assets the man will benefit from this also.

  2. Hans Laven says:

    Good thinking Vman. It is a strange inconsistency that marriage contracts are almost totally empty and not contracts at all, there is no punishment but often great reward for breaching partnership promises, and the law protects the right of partners to be unfaithful (and thereby condones and encourages unfaithfulness), but being married to more than one partner is treated as a serious crime. Bizarre.

    Get a grip (#1): Umm, that happens sometimes but it’s quite rare, and men benefiting from women’s money was certainly not the intent of our relationship property laws. The reasons it is rare for a man to benefit from current laws include:
    (i) Women tend to marry up, i.e. they look for partners with more wealth than they have. The wealthier the man, the more handsome he becomes. As Warren Farrell suggested, try advertising as a man in the personal column or dating site for a partner saying something like “Nice, honest, gentle, strong, handsome man on an unemployment benefit seeking financially secure woman”, and see how many replies you get! Men on the other hand don’t tend to care much about a woman’s financial position.

    (ii) Women with wealth will almost always get legal contracts or ‘trusts’ to protect it, especially if they partner with a man of lower wealth. We even see advertisements urging parents to set up family trusts in order to ensure their DAUGHTER’S inheritance doesn’t have to be shared with some male partner, even though it’s mostly sons who lose their wealth to female partners.

    (iii) Women are likely to abandon a relationship in which a wealthier man obtains an agreement to opt out of standard relationship property laws. Women tend to believe they are entitled to share their man’s wealth and that if he doesn’t cooperate then he isn’t properly recognizing her role as home-maker etc; i.e. women like the current relationship property laws but only when they stand to profit.

    (iv) Chivalry continues to extend to all corners of our society, so lawyers are more likely to encourage women to go all out for as much as they can get from the men they have left, whereas they are more likely to urge men to be fair and considerate concerning their ex-partners’ assets. Similarly, Courts are likely to favour women whether trying to get money out of a male or trying to stop a male getting money from them.

    That is the reality.

  3. Skeptic says:

    In a sense the state already allows a kind of bigamy for women.

    Every husband in NZ already shares his wife with another ‘husband’ that will provide for and protect her

    – the state.

  4. Skeptic says:

    Get a grip,
    Really?
    Get a grip.

  5. rc says:

    The law that applies to men applies to women.
    If a woman has more assets the man will benefit from this also.

    Ha ha! I suppose you have a point – if that point was it’s good to laugh out loud every now and then.

  6. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear RC, yes, if the woman has more assets and the man has borne a few children and spent more time bringing them up, even then maybe?????
    I have seen this happen once, an older couple had similar amounts of assets, but chose to live together in the woman’s house, for convenience to lifestyle. There may have been some psychiatric issues, probably a little sharper than in most older marriages, perhaps due to the husband’s wartime experiences. Three years and a little bit later, the wife had had enough and asked the husband to leave.
    (So who really made the decision?)
    I waited with baited breath, what will happen? Will the husband walk away and not ask for anything? It seemed, from the little that I knew, that this would be fair and proper, at the very least.
    Alas, this husband was not going to miss his opportunity.
    As the wife had shared her property, but the husband had not shared his, her property was to be shared out, but not the husband’s.

    I think that this aspect of the legislation is stupidly cruel, as it disincentivises sharing and rewards outright selfishness.
    The wife was only just able to buy another house, with what she had left.

    Anyway, the “judge” was able to use discretion to soften the blow a lot, but it was still very unpleasantly cruel on the wife. (Do you have much confidence that you could benefit from similar discretion?) It seems like an awful lot of discretion, I haven’t seen so much used previously.

    This law provides wasteful incentives, for people with low incomes and assets and disincentivises caring relationships (which could reduce the Government’s social welfare costs, if one party later needed support).
    What tends to happen, is that the person receiving the windfall, wastes it fairly quickly and is then in a position to start the cycle again!
    Whenever the division results in an effective wage, more than about 2x (after tax and living expenses) what that person could have earned through their own work (opportunity cost), then this act starts to be wasteful.
    In my opinion, the division should only be of what has been earned during the relationship, to avoid splitting up assets brought into the relationship. Parliament suggested prenuptionals would solve this issue, so they said. However, they didn’t acknowledge that the randomness of “judges” and the greed of legal-workers would scuttle this.
    It could be socialism, robbing rich to give to the poor.
    It could be seen as robbing poorer couples, to give to richer legal-workers?
    Given that some/much of the transfers ends up being wasted, it really weakens families and just boosts discretionary spending.
    Try working this out, in Paul McCartney’s situation!
    However, the largest effect of this act, is to incentivise lots of cases to go to caught and give it a try. Prenuptial agreements get turned over regularly and apparently fairly randomly.

    Thus people cannot negotiate, with any confidence that what they agreed, will come to pass in the real world.
    In the real world, the fattest beneficiaries, are the legal-workers (advocates and “judges”).
    The legal-workers are benefiting from poorly thought out legislation, passed by legal-workers in Parliament. (Remember it was Parliament that passed changes to Building Act, that cost so much in leaky buildings. Who is benefiting now, from the resulting legal wrangles….)
    As people lose the ability to sensibly manage their assets, then the only way they can protect themselves, is by only having a relationship with someone with almost identical income and asset position. Even then, there is still too much chance involved.

    This ends up being a different form of relationship vandalism, it kills relationships before they can even start, that would be socially viable, just because the money situation isn’t compatible enough. It can also be seen as a form of social straightjacket, to reduce social mobility.

    It also creates a strong pressure, to not have relationships with people with some degree of psychiatric issues, as they are more likely to be unstable or not value the relationship and just go for the pot of gold on offer.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

  7. Down Under says:

    If a person commits bigamy the second marriage contract is void. It is also grounds for an annulment. There is a moral basis to the law. You can only be party to one marriage contract at any time within our law. The law applies to both parties, whether it is applied equally by the courts would be another question, i.e. would a women receive the same punishment as a man. If you did away with this law like you are asking it would open the door to even more litigation against men. There is a simple answer here, and that is – if you are legally married then get divorced if you want to re-marry.

  8. Family Court Judge says:

    Gentlemen, I have re-read my family law books, and am please to decree Bigamy is already legal!

    Maybe not marital bigamy, but there is no law in this country that forbids any adult cohabitating with any number of concubines.

    That’s right. (so long as all are willing partners), a man can have, for example, seven partners all cohabitating the same ‘family’ home. One partner for every night of the week.
    You can all share the one bedroom (place 4 kingsize beds together, and get creative stitching the sheets together); or have seven individual bedrooms, and one pleasure bedroom.

    Go on! This is fully legal!!
    Because you pleasure each partner regularly, each of the seven relationships is ‘in the nature of marriage’.

    Oh, and by the way, I cannot find any law regarding the splitting of joint relationship property, if or when any one (or all) of the cohabitating concubines opts out of the relationship.
    It would make interesting case law as the first peron exits, to takew 50% of the proerty. The next exitee takes 50% of the remaining property, and so on (effectively 50% to the first exitee, 25% to the next, then 12.5%, 6.75%, 3.125%, 1.5625%, 0.78125% to the seventh and last exitee), leaving you with just the remaining 0.78125% of property – less than 1% of the combined wealth …

  9. Hans Laven says:

    Down Under (#7): Thanks for the patronizing lecture informing us about what bigamy means and how we should get divorced before remarrying. We are all uneducated preschoolers who really need this. Please use smaller words in future.

    But you don’t seem to have considered the issues explored in this thread. De facto marriages are now treated almost the same as betrothed marriages, so if a law is to remain against betrothed bigamy then to be morally consistent there would be a law against de facto bigamy, i.e. unfaithfulness. Any moral basis to the bigamy law has been lost through feminist changes that now defend people’s right to pursue sexual partnerships in addition to their marriages.

  10. Down Under says:

    I think there is some confusion between bigamy and polygamous or polyandrous relationships. Perhaps it would be better to look at it from the point of view that we criminalise bigamy but not digamy, i.e. it is not illegal to get divorced and re-marry.

  11. Shin Hee Yi says:

    Can’t mans estate be protected by mean of family trusts?

    Hell if murder serves less year in jail to bigamy it be more sensible to kill a BXXXH who is divorcing you.

    Ether way you be loosing wealth and be jailed anyway.

    Ye this taking of mans hard earned wealth at divorce is such a sexist legislation.

    No wonder Man hesitate to get married when Women want to be married

  12. Down Under says:

    The social model of feminism is a tribal construct. If you look at the associated financial model required to operate that construct it is much less cost effective than a patriarchal model. The end result is that cost is met by enforcing policies that ensure men retain as few assets as possible and as little of their income. Hence the operation of the family courts that decide these matters is governed by political demands to enforce policies that produce these outcomes. The system is not financially viable and will continue to become more costly to enforce and less beneficial. Women can bitch all they like about our increasing poverty but that won’t change until they realise they are the cause if it.

  13. Down Under says:

    @#9. I am sorry if appear patronising to you Hans, but I’m not responsible for your level of ignorance. You are not responsible for the opinions I express or the manner I express them in. The way I see this is that the prosecution of Bigamy is not about being unfaithful it is about leading another person to believe they were entering a valid contract when they unwittingly entering a void contract. Bigamy is not about the immoral behaving of your previous marriage, it is about the immoral behaviour relating to your subsequent marriage. It is financial and emotional deception and I have no problem the law being retained and prosecuted.

  14. Down Under says:

    @3 Skeptic. I look at this situation not as bigamy i.e. entering another contract with the state but exchanging the contract. Wife can’t get what she wants so she gives her half of the contract to the state. I get what you mean enforced bigamy but that puts the issue between the man and the state when it is the women giving the contract away because it is not giving her what she wants. I think you have to see it this way because the State is saying, give us your marriage contract we’ll support you and we’ll do what we want to your husband.

  15. Vman says:

    (1) (a)I’m sorry about all the typos and repetition in my original post. I was in a hurry. I am pleased to see most of you understand my point. I want to expose the deception around marriage and present it for what it is. I want young men to be better eduacated about family law. This issue of bigamy helps to illistrate these points.

    (b) Of course women can enguage in bigamy as well but in the published case it was a man so I’m going to describe the bigamist as a man just to make writing easier. Men and women both cheat, inside and outside of marriage. No argument there.

    (2) The hypocracy of our laws:
    “It is financial and emotional deception and I have no problem the law being retained and prosecuted.”

    How is that different to marriage for the majority of men?
    In my view a marriage contract is currently entered into without informed consent in the vast majority of cases.
    In fact the whole ceremony is deeply misleading.

    Even putting that aside it is hypocritical to claim on the one hand that bigamy is financial and emotional deception and the law should be retained and prosecuted by up to 7 years in prison. Then on the other hand adultery by wives is rewarded with a massive lump sum payment plus 19 years of income.

    (I say by wives because in the vast majority of cases adutlery by men carries grave fiscal consequences.)

    I am not saying that bigamy is a good thing. I am not saying adultery is a good thing. The reality is that marriage laws have zero to do with morals. In fact those laws are very immoral.

    Therefore the issue is not whether bigamy is a bad thing. The issue is that it should not be illegal in the current legal setting. Just like adultery is not illegal.

    Currently bigamy is not only illegal, it is one of the most serious crimes on the books.
    On the other hand an adulterous wife is rewarded by the legal frame work.

    In the story I linked to, wife #1 left her husband and took their children to another country. THAT is immoral and extremely damaging. It is a gross financial and emotional deception. It also has grave impacts on far too many young lives and our society in general is suffering from the consequences. Yet our laws reward this behavour.

    The man got over it and found love again but he couldn’t progress things with #2 without being remarried. Hence he remarried. He just didn’t wait 2 years. Under our laws he is deemed to have enguaged in bigamy, supposedly a terrible criminal type of financial fraud, and could be jailed for up to 7 years.

    It is THIS legal hypocracy that is the biggest financial and emotional deception.

    If adultery was a crime that came with fiscal penalties then there would be a case for bigamy being considered the same. The reality is that adultery is not a crime and it will not become one in our life times.

    The key issue in all of this is that marriage solely exists as a fiscal contract. It has no other purpose. In the vast majority of cases this contract is designed to take a huge amount of money from the man and give it to the woman.

    Bigamy today really has little purpose. A group of consenting adults could live and sleep together as long as they like without getting married and it is most certainly legal.

    The reason bigamy is still a crime is because it is a threat to the designed purpose of this type of fiscal contract, called a marriage. Make no mistake that marriage has no purpose under law other than as a fiscal contract. It creates problems for wife #2 because she thought that she was signing up for a windfall but in fact she can’t get that windfall.

    Mind you, the husband didn’t really grasp what he was signing up to either. He was decieved to think that the marriage meant that his wife was making some sort of committment to him and it had some other value rather than solely fiscal. That simply is not what occured when he got married. Yet who can blame him for being decieved?

    In any case, NZ laws are such that wife #2 DOES get that windfall after 2 years, whether the marriage contract was void by bigamy or not. After 2 years wife #2 can leave and get that windfall she signed up for anyway. They will be deemed to have had a de facto relationship just as if they were married anyway.

    Therefore how can anyone argue that bigamy is a gross fiscal deception worthy of criminal punushment for up to 7 years? It is rediculous. She hangs around for 2 years and takes at least half of what he owns anyway. That is the only purpose of a marriage contract under law so there really is no difference. Under the outcomes of the law he didn’t actually decieve her at all.

    This makes a complete mockery of the rule that says you can not remarry until you divorce. I think that it takes 2 years to get a divorce. In that time you could have been in a de fecto relationship, which ended on the same day as the divorce was final and the man has to pay out at least half of what he had to his ex-de facto.

    In fact husband, wife or both could already have a de-facto relationships with another person before even being seperated. Therefore the de-facto could start and finish before the divorce was finalised and the man still has to give half to his wife as of seperation and half of whever else he had at the end of the de-facto relationship. All this could easily occur before the divorce was finalised.

    Furthermore, a man could have a de-facto relatiosnhip with woman #2 WHILE he was married and living with woman #1. Then both women decide to terminate the relationship at the same time. The man must then pay his wife and pay his defacto. There have been several cases of this. It is not just hypothetical. It happens under our laws. Therefore the courts have no problem viewing these arangements as legel contracts. Why is bigamy to be considered a criminal act?

    The laws have now become such that to retain bigamy as a criminal act is ludicrous.

    3. Let me tell you why this matters. If you scrap bigamy and make it legal then it throws into sharp relief the true nature of modern marriage laws. Suddenly people are confronted with the reality of what marriage is under the law. This is like saying the emperor has no clothes.

    Ask yourself something. Why do I feel uncomfortable when I admit that it is not rational to maintain bigamy as a crime? The real reason is that because emtionally you hold an ideal of what marriage should be. What marriage was intended to be. To drop bigamy is to admit that marriage no longer has that value under the law.

    In my view, it is only by fully acknowledging what contemporary marriage has become that we can hope to turn the boat around. To recaft laws that make marriage require some real comittment with real benefits and consequences for both parties.

    (4) Sorry for the long post.

  16. Phoenix says:

    Marriage? Ahhh. That was the institution that existed in the past before feminists ripped down the cultural basis that it was formed on, changed the laws and destroyed it. It should hardly come as a surprise that, in essence, it no longer exists.
    .
    Current marriage laws don’t make a mockery of marriage, they reveal it for the fraudulent institution that it has become. Look at all the factors that made marriage what it was; all of them have been systematically dismantled. It now exists in name only.
    .
    A marriage licence is nothing more than an act of fraud as it is no longer represents marriage as most of us think of it; a lifelong commitment to one partner, forsaking all others. Until it does, or another form of contract comes into existence that replaces it that has the same stipulations as a real marriage contract….stay away.
    .
    Marriage is dead, the fact that we still call it marriage is deceptive and dishonest.

  17. Hans Laven says:

    The term ‘contract’ is now a misnomer for marriage.

  18. hairy arm bush pig says:

    It is legal because every judge in nz has a misstress or rent boy on the side.

  19. Ford says:

    #11..as in shoot the stupid bitch?.you dont advocate murder and violence do you?..youll get told off
    signed
    Ford..Gun Polisher

  20. Ford says:

    #9..your first few lines off response are of a preschool character..and your a counsellor?..childish twat

  21. Down Under says:

    @Vman. “Why is sleeping with another lover while you are married no crime at all yet Bigamy could see you locked up for 7 years?” If you looked at all the relevant possibilities (not just at this case and remembering it is a penalty of up to seven years imprisonment) there are circumstances that could cause significant damage to people’s lives (not just the two parties to the void contract) well deserving of seven years. For those people in our society who still strongly believe in marriage and particularly the religious communities if offers the institution some protection. This is a law outside of the marriage contract, and I understand your reasons for drawing the comparison. Adultery is an act within a marriage. What you are saying is let’s criminalise certain acts after marriage relating to behaviour within the marriage. You could criminalise all sorts of things within a marriage, e.g. being married did gamble the food money, hogged the remote, was in the matrimonial home in an intoxicated state and this would form the basis of a religious law. Why criminalise anything within a marriage, let people sort it out for themselves. I don’t agree with the concept of blatant hypocrisy by comparing bigamy with adultery.
    Then we bring money into the equation and marriage gets bagged for this. Marriage is a fiscal investment – no dispute there – and when there is talk of divorce it is not a safe place for a man to have his money – he can lose 100%. So is the fault with marriage or divorce. I would say divorce because it has been made financially lucrative for women and lawyers. For me the real issue is divorce, because it is a major component of feminism. I come back to the point I made before regarding the financial viability of the model. Feminism requires a lack of financial integrity in divorce for its own survival, and that’s what we get from the family court. A void of law, make it up as you go along and make sure every woman gets the maximum payout – legal dishonesty – there is the hypocrisy. Whether you are married or not a man still faces the same consequences in divorce or ending a relationship, so the blame as I see it lies with feminism, family courts and divorce. Marriage is a matter of trust and without equality or security in marriage then the failure rates go up, society deteriorates. We accuse marriage and law of the FAMILY as being at fault – stick it to bigamy – let’s weaken the position even further. What may not be so obvious to some is that ‘family law’ is not law of the FAMILY it is law of the individual. I would put it to you that when I support retaining bigamy I am supporting law of the FAMILY, and the position you have adopted is inadvertently supporting family law and feminism.

  22. Skeptic says:

    Dear ‘Uncle’ Hans,
    I’m writing to you because I know you’re advice column often gives good advice.

    You see I have a big problem.
    There’s a woman in NZ I’m really attracted to.
    She’s interesting, pretty, kind, funny.
    She seems like she has an honest good character.
    But I’ll never marry a woman in NZ.
    For I’m not into bigamy and I know after decades of socialist feminism she’s already married to a very strong partner called State.
    I also know if I don’t meet her expectations as a husband, she’ll dump me and go off with State leaving me high and dry. Then I’ll probably loose a lot – again – any kids we have, house and other valuable things – including my future income for 18 years!
    it’s a nightmare ‘Uncle’ Hans!
    This has happened to me and other men I know many times before and it’s something we talk about all the time and feel really scared of.
    You see, we can’t really compete with first husband State.
    He has a huge income which everyone bankroll’s endlessly.
    You should see the amount of money people give him! It’s like Bill gate’s or something!
    So State is very rich. State owns lots of land and other things. I feel very poor next to State.
    State is very wise and very entertaining too – what with all State’s sponsored messages put out wisely all the time, telling us how to live, what to buy, and generally what’s good and bad for us. And most people follow State’s advice so State is very respected.
    Gosh! State is very hard to compete with! He’s such a strong first husband!
    I feel so second best all the time! and I hate feeling like that!
    My friends and I would love to get rid of this State character whose spoiling it for us. But State is so very powerful and can be really heavy beating people and locking them up, if threatened.

    What can I do Uncle Hans?
    Waiting for your wise words.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Frustrated little Man.

  23. Vman says:

    @ Down Under. I don’t understand you at all.
    I am talking about the real world. The here and now of the current laws.
    “… there are circumstances that could cause significant damage to people’s lives (not just the two parties to the void contract) well deserving of seven years. ”
    Well I can’t think of a single one that is unique to bigamy. Since you haven’t discussed one I guess you can’t think of one either.

    “For those people in our society who still strongly believe in marriage and particularly the religious communities if offers the institution some protection.”
    Bolicks!
    It only attempts to protect the wealth that a woman can get from divorce. This is bascially a mirage as I have already explained.

    “This is a law outside of the marriage contract, and I understand your reasons for drawing the comparison.”
    I have no idea what you are talking about. I am talking about the real world and current laws.

    “What you are saying is let’s criminalise certain acts after marriage relating to behaviour within the marriage.”
    I did not say this at all. The rest of your paragraph is like discusing the cost of tea in China.

    “Then we bring money into the equation and marriage gets bagged for this. Marriage is a fiscal investment – no dispute there – and when there is talk of divorce it is not a safe place for a man to have his money – he can lose 100%. So is the fault with marriage or divorce. I would say divorce because it has been made financially lucrative for women and lawyers.”

    So we agree on the basic concepts. Great.

    “Whether you are married or not a man still faces the same consequences in divorce or ending a relationship, so the blame as I see it lies with feminism, family courts and divorce.”

    Exactly.

    “We accuse marriage and law of the FAMILY as being at fault – stick it to bigamy – let’s weaken the position even further.”

    Not at all. The illegality of bigamy is a mirage. It cloaks the reality of what marriage truly is.

    Your premise is that marriage has some value outside of the definition and practice of the law. As a contract it does not. None.

    You want to talk about what marriage SHOULD be.
    BUt that is not what it is. I say face up to what is has become first. Then it may be more obvious why we need a new form of marriage contract.

    The current laws criminalise selected people for exactly the same behaviour as other people based solely on their civil status. This is in direct violation of the UN human rights and our own Bill of Rights.

  24. Get a grip says:

    Again and again you all need to be reminded that a woman often loses financially on separation of a relationship.Blabbing on about how men lose out seems convenient to your arguments.Where are the statistics?This is 2012 and we are all aware women often earn more than men and also have more assets than men at the onset of a relationship.Evidence please folks.

  25. Phoenix says:

    I completely concur with you Get a Grip, the presentation of men as the victims of loss during divorce is rather one sided, however, I would remind you that you are on a site discussing MEN’S experience.
    .
    If you want to discuss the experience of women I am sure you will have little problem in finding a feminist site that will meet your requirements. In the meantime, I’m sure very few here will have any problem discussing mens’ issues on this site as intended by the creator of it.

  26. Skeptic says:

    Get a grip,
    Pheonix.
    Some women earn more than some men for sure.
    But I think you are both overlooking the fact that the vast majority of women are hypergamous. That means they marry up, not down. Otherwise we’d have masses of women flocking to meet guys who advertise themselves as charming, handsome part time LABORERS and such.
    That clearly doesn’t happen.
    As a rule women lust after rich guys. Guys wealthier than themselves.The wealthier the better as far as they’re concerned.
    Where’s the evidence for such a claim?
    Simple.
    Simply look at popular women’s magazines, movies, plays, websites etc and I believe you’ll find all the evidence needed to see that the idea of women who out-earn men are still looking yearningly for men of higher socioeconomic status than themselves.
    Hence we get the pathetic nonsense of “where are the good men” meme coming from rich women who only have their binoculars trained upwards.
    So any ideas that there are suddenly legions of women who will loose more in a divorce than the men they’re with seems nonsensical to me. And that’s before even factoring in the usually chivalric femily caught system which many men will tell you screwed them royally.
    BTW I believe that women’s hypergamous nature is why men’s issues (most often experienced and more harshly experienced by lower socioeconomic men) are so invisible to women generally. Women are obsessed with looking upwards, not sideways or down.
    The call comes out for evidence.
    Simple.
    I recommend you go back to the basics of understanding men.
    For a start read the superbly referenced and easy to read yet powerfully written “The Myth of Male Power” by Warren Farrel. It’s a Men’s Rights classic.
    Show me the modern day western man who doesn’t relate to it’s words.

    Then come back after you’ve read it.
    I’ll bet you whistle a different tune when you do.

  27. Down Under says:

    @ Sketic. Add to that the daily glamorisation of divorce in celebrity circles and the media.
    @Vman. You are right; we are not on the same page, nowhere near it.

  28. Hans Laven says:

    Get a grip (#24): You have totally ignored my response in reply #2 but instead simply reiterated your claim that women often lose out financially to men on separation, with an implication that because the law is not gender specific in this regard women lose as often or as much as men. You demand evidence for our complaints that the law was intended to help women to exploit men and that it operates largely in that direction, but you provide no evidence for your claim. Here is good evidence for one of the factors at play; women strongly tend to choose richer men.

  29. Hans Laven says:

    Ford (#19 and #20): I regret that you seem to be pursuing a personal vendetta against me for objecting to your recommendation to shoot a woman some time ago. Your defensiveness is stopping you from recognizing the risk you brought for all of us through advocating violence in that way.

    Yes, Shin Hee Yi (#11) pointed out that homicide may be made more attractive by such large punishments for bigamy, but that is well short of recommending or urging homicide and is less likely to attract official intervention. Shin Hee Yi’s masking of the word BXXXH would also reduce such risk.

    My understanding of the rules of contributing to the MENZ site is that it’s ok to criticize what someone else wrote but not to attack people personally. It’s fine by me that you express your erudite criticism of my sarcastic comment about Down Under’s patronizing comment in this thread, but it’s not ok to become personal in referring to my occupation and calling me a “childish twat”.

    I have tried to show respect for you and your contributions outside your recommendation to violence, but you seem to be choosing to make an enemy of me regardless. I invite you again to accept that it is not ok to recommend violence here and that you make a choice to communicate with me and others in a respectful way for the greater good. But if you choose otherwise, that’s ok too; I quite enjoy the role of enemy. Just don’t complain when I start behaving towards you as one.

  30. Shin Hee Yi says:

    Han Laven
    Thank you for pointing out my carelessness of choice the right word to express my self. However it Almost became habit of main to let down those radical Feminist (which is what more or less of NZ feminism is about) and even some point call those Women a Name as such. It would be bit difficult for me to fix this attitude so fast.
    I came to this site to understand what kind of problem Kiwi guys are having and how man are affected by Feminist and feminism. And to compare feminism in Korea where I was born par with NZ Feminist. So Far I am proving to my self that Korean Women and their Feminism idea are much worst to the point which it doesn’t make no sece. It’s far from liberal but it’s about domination over man by interfering with politic and making woman friendly Legislation.

    I don;t know if I am allowed to post my thought in this site as I am married man with two kits.
    It fills like this place is space for single man discussing how to face the gender conflict.
    But if member of this site do not main my presence here I really like to hear your thought and ideas.

    I think it be nice if some of us gather up somewhere and have cup of coffee and have some discussion off line so we get to know who we are talking to. It’s just an wish of main if it’s possible But then I believe we are all busy in our life to have spare time to meet each other are we. But it be good in future sometime.

    Peace and respect

  31. Hans Laven says:

    Hi Shin Hee Yi (#30): No, I wasn’t pointing out your carelessness. The opposite, I was suggesting that you took care to mask your word and that your argument and wording were reasonable and safe. And yes, you are very welcome to post your thoughts here and I think people here have appreciated your contributions. I look forward to hearing more from you. I’m interested in how the gender war is playing out in Korea.

  32. Phoenix says:

    Shin Yee Hi.

    When I first came to this site I thought that those involved here, particularly those with long term involvement, actually wanted to take action and resolve the numerous men’s rights issues that are out there. After more than three years of involvement I can assure you that this is not the case. Most of those who are here have been deeply affected by anti-male legislation, but very few (if any) are willing to do anything about it.
    .
    I used to be a regular article writer for the site, spending many hours researching and presenting my material. But, I soon realised that it was always the same whinging and complaining that took place in the coments that followed each article, with a complete lack of any planning or results producing action taken by the members. I have since stopped writing articles for this site and have largely taken my attention elsewhere.
    .
    This site is great for those who come to whinge and complain, but most of the action takening place is happening despite of it.
    .
    You will also find that this site has its own unwritten rules. The main ones include a fierce defence of victimhood, a complete lack of responsibility toward admitting that men have played just as big a role in creating the situation we now have as women did, and a complete lack of desire to work on reclaiming and developing masculinity by the sites participants.
    .
    Doubt what I have written? Watch carefully the response to this message.

  33. Skeptic says:

    Pheonix,
    I think you misunderstand.
    What you call whinging and moaning I call taking action by spreading ideas and information.
    I see you chose to ignore Hans challenge to stop advocating and speaking violently as he has clearly and correctly pointed out. Instead you get even more defensive with silly notions about defending victimhood, when the reality is a lot of folks write here to give warnings and information so men can be informed enough to avoid victimhood.
    I think you should apologize to the MENZ community for advocating violence and giving MENZ a bad image – Just what the feminists want.
    The macho chest beating about loss of masculinity is daft too. Just a ridiculous way of saying ‘I’m the Alpha male, you guys need to follow my lead”.
    Yeah right. Pass me a Tui because that’s Bullshit posturing as far as I’m concerned.
    I don’t see you on the evening news for having taken some derring-do action for Men’s Rights.
    So please drop the super hero hypocracy and silly attempts at bullying. Neither are needed.

    One last thing for now, if you still believe MENZ is as whiny and pathetic as you make out, then please just go away.

  34. Phoenix says:

    Skeptic, or is it Sceptic (since you clearly can’t spell, and insult me every time you get my name wrong.)

    I really don’t need to explain any more do I. Your elegantly worded defense of perpetual victimhood, whinging, inaction and attacks on reclaiming masculinity says it all.
    .
    As stated, this is NOT a men’s rights ACTIVIST site, because activism is about action.

  35. Skeptic says:

    Wow!
    Your first line stoops to insult as in Sceptic. Mature.
    You deny that spreading ideas and information is a form of taking action. Smart.
    You restate views about supposed whinging, inaction and loss of ‘masculinity’. Brilliant.

    Gosh. Such fine leadership.
    So let’s recap.
    you advocate violence.
    it gets rejected as a silly idea.
    You throw a wobbly accusing others of being less than masculine.
    You get challenged about that.
    you repeat same wobbly.
    Nowhere do you so much as attempt to explain actions you encourage MRAs to take, aside from some unspecified form/s of violence.
    Then, when your advocacy of violence is rejected ironically YOU WHINE that MRAs aren’t taking action.
    You dish out this kind of shit and you expect respect?
    Jesus.
    Bizarre.
    I’m beginning to wonder if you’re really just some feminist trolling here trying to incite men to violence so as to taint the Men’s Rights Movement whereby the fems can have MENZ shut down.
    If you’re not, you sure do a good impersonation.

    One more thing.
    Why hasn’t JP barred you for inciting violence?

  36. Down Under says:

    They came in the name of the child and they took our assets and our income in their secret court and of course there are casualties and yes there are people who are lost and confused. Some of them don’t make it here; they die along the way, not a few, not even a few hundred, but thousands over the years have died in the shadow of the family courts and the secrecy of suicide act just in New Zealand. And some do make it here and they provide all sorts of information and I’ll wager you a pound to a pinch of snuff that far more people read this site than comment on it and I wager the same again that it has opened many eyes to the state of affairs that exists in New Zealand and the social and economic fallout that is a consequence. If some people were prepared to admit it, may have even saved their life when they realised they weren’t an isolated case that had been ruthlessly and dishonesty treated by the corruption that many find to absurd to believe. It may not be self immolation and it may not be a public disruption to attract media attention, but it is still activism, it is still a contribution to understanding and change no matter how long that takes. And you guys can scrap all you want but you are each only a little cog in what this website has and will achieve.

  37. Phoenix says:

    “Why hasn’t JP barred you for inciting violence?”

    Because I haven’t. Not sure where you got that idea from. Perhaps you should check you medication.

  38. Hans Laven says:

    Phoenix (#32): I like some others here have attended numerous protests and events to raise awareness of gender issues. I write letters to the editor (under my own name), to people who have made pronouncements in the media that deserve challenge, to parliamentarians and I make submissions to select committees. I have put my name, reputation and career on the line in participating in the men’s and fathers’ movement. I have supported numerous men and fathers both online and in person when they have been facing misandry in Courts, employment and relationships. For you to claim that “few (if any) here are willing to do anything about” anti-male legislation is simply incorrect and offensive.

    Pray do tell us all the effective things you have done, and what you would have others do. (Deja vu, we’ve been here before.)

    It’s sad that so many come here with such chips on their shoulders that they become destructive and lose all sight of the importance of support, positive acknowlegement and respect in any movement.

  39. Ford says:

    #29..nothing personal here..just seeing you for the idiot you are

  40. Skeptic says:

    Phoenix,
    Your recommendation to shoot a woman some time ago is exactly what I’m talking about.
    Such encouragement only gives MENZ a bad name – something feminists would love to use as an excuse to get MENZ shut down.
    So please stop the insults about needing to use medication.
    Hans and I are perfectly clear about your encouraging violence.

    Down Under,
    Thank you for the very sensible and heartfelt feedback.
    What we are doing online IS activism, and I agree entirely with you it helps many people to understand the feminist zietgiest of NZ and consequently avoid a lot of strife.

  41. Phoenix says:

    Skeptic
    .
    You have managed to set a spectacular example of what happens when someone goes against the unwritten rules of this site. Rules that I have seen enforced repeatedly in the 3+ years I have been associated with it. You have used every expected tactic to reinforce these rules and have even stooped to unfounded accusations and trying to support your opinions by voicing other peoples opinions (Hans I am sure is capable of speaking for himself).
    .
    I can see however that progress is not going to be made as a result of actions taken here and that my time has been wasted. So, I will join the hundreds of posters who have got chased off this site for daring to break from the traditions of perpetual victimhood present; those who actually wanted some real changes, and sign off for the last time.
    .
    Good luck with your “activism” if that is what you want to call it. I’m sure in a few years nothing will have changed as a result of what takes place here. Changes will have happened of course in spite of the “action” of many “MRAs”. I am sure like many others you will try to claim credit in some way for those changes, but the reality is that you will in no way be responsible for them.

  42. Skeptic says:

    Phoenix,
    I don’t speak for Hans, merely note what he’s saying, in this instance agreeing with it and paraphrasing it.
    We are of one accord – you promote violence – that’s unacceptable.

    I’m not sure what unfounded accusations I’m supposed to have made you are referring to – as you don’t explain that.
    However, I’m clear that there’s nothing unfounded in the accusation Hans and I level at you of encouraging violence. If you like we’ll dig up your previous post for all to see.
    It would be a simple thing to do.

    Please show some respect and desist with the daft insulting idea that there’s anything wrong with getting credit for MRA gains.
    I’m part of a team of many many thousands (and growing online and off) of MRA across the globe.
    I’ve put in decades of work as an MRA and believe I deserve a little credit as a result if positive results ensue.
    Go join the ‘many others chased off’ MENZ.
    Your advocacy of violence won’t be missed.

  43. Shin Hee Yi says:

    I see lot of conflict with in the group.

    I would like to add my opinion carefully.
    I hope this doesn’t bring rage by viewer.
    I do not believe in brutality and violence (like you will see in one of those Mortal combat video game ^.^)
    But sometime it can not be help when you are provoked to the max.
    Something can’t always be peacefully resolved I believe Radical feminism and feminazi are one of them.
    I have witness countless hypocrisy and double standard nature of Feminism to the point I don’t see it the liberal movement.
    I believe it’s counter sexism and total domination over man aided by Authority and government.
    Saying all this however I do support the original liberal Feminism which consist of equality and equal rights. I was born in Korea where extreme radical feminism became norm in society as a man you can’t just help not to hate feminism.
    I believe in revolution when it’s Necessary even if it means violence.
    If Feminism gained that much power in New Zealand to the point where they can shut down MRA site such as here. This means total female domination is imminent.
    So we men need to co-operate and get ready to physically fight back with some plan but not recklessly.
    Anyway this is my thought.
    If my post is offensive and uncomfortable please point out to me I willing to hear what you have to say.

    *please mind my language being sloppy as my writing isn’t as perfect as many of yous.

    kind regard

  44. Ford says:

    #42..digging up old posts to prove a point is childish..you and hans go well together
    signed
    Ford Gun_polisher

  45. Vman says:

    Downunder wrote: “@Vman. You are right; we are not on the same page, nowhere near it.”
    I gotta respect a man that agrees to disagree and moves on.
    Respect mate! 😉

  46. Skeptic says:

    Ford,
    I disagree.
    I think digging up a RECENT post is an entirely mature and relevant way to challenge someone who apparently won’t take responsibility for tarnishing this site with advocacy for violence.
    Now turning a blind eye to such behavior, and trying to brush it under the carpet, Well how mature is that?
    No point wasting your time trying to shame me with the ‘childish’ comment. I grew out of buying into guilt trips like that long ago.

  47. Ford says:

    been accused of childish behavior and or comments a few times have you?..and i wasnt trying the guilt trip thing..and he said she said is schoolyard stuff..you and ya mate need to go back to kindy
    signed
    Ford
    Gun_Polisher

  48. Skeptic says:

    Ford,
    I think Phoenix’s advocacy for violence (shooting a woman) which is now unfortunately permanently recorded in recent MENZ annals and brings the site into disrepute.
    It is worth challenging.

    You can call me childish for doing so if you wish.
    It may make you feel better to lash out so, but I think that will reflect on you.
    It’s also not going to stop me from issuing the challenge.
    On the contrary, I dig my heels in deeper with so much at stake as I think it’s important that MENZ be a place where advocacy for violence doesn’t become the norm.

    I think that’s a mature approach.

  49. Skeptic says:

    My apology for confusion.
    It’s been a long day.
    I meant to say – I think Ford’s advocacy for violence(shooting a woman) which is now unfortunately permanently recorded in recent MENZ annals and brings the site into disrepute is worth challenging.

    To recap and make this entirely clear ~

    I take issue with Ford advocating shooting people. Not a good look for MENZ which I imagine has feminist enemies who’d love to tar it with the accusation that it’s a hothouse for breeding male violence against women.

    I take issue with Phoenix’s refusal to acknowledge online advocacy as real action.
    Good writing can change the world.
    Being exposed to good compelling writing changed my mind many times.

    I take issue with Pheonix’s belittling worthy credit taking for many years of online Men’s Right Advocacy.
    I think that’s a mean spirited attitude and conversely I’m thankful to many online WRITTEN sources of wisdom that have helped me tremendously – Angry Harry, Paul Elam, W F Price, Warren Farrel, Zen, Father’s for Justice website to name only a very few.

    I take issue with Pheonix’s questioning men’s masculinity as a method of trying to shame them into compliance with his ideas on ‘taking action’ – whatever that ‘action’ might mean – Phoenix hasn’t actually put forward methods of ‘action’ yet as far as I can tell, which seems even weirder.
    Bating men about their sexuality is abhorrent to me.
    Feminists I expect to try and shame me with the ‘Man up’ BS meme.
    MRA I expect to respect men.
    It appears even more bizarre still when I see that short of having gonads removed I don’t think masculinity is something that magically disappears.
    Consequently there is no need of masculinity being ‘reclaimed’ as Phoenix states.

    Well that’s enough for now.
    I’m off for a well earned cuppa and feet up after all this Men’s Rights Action.

  50. Darryl X says:

    Thanks, Skeptik. The pen is mightier than the sword (most of the time).

    For what it’s worth, I do not advocate shooting people in response to the violence that they have visited upon others (mostly men and children but some women) in a brutal totalitarian post-feminist dystopian fascist police state.

    However, revolution does not have to involve shooting people. Instead, revolution is an affirmative defense against the violence which has already been done and can be dispensed in many ways.

    For the most part, those who have participated in the violence promoted by femfascists will end up destroying themselves anyway (and everyone else, unfortunately) as an economy and civilization cannot sustain such behavior.

    @ Shin – Feminism has NEVER been about equality. There always was equality between men and women. Feminism is nothing but a campaign of hate against men and children. It is mechanism for satisfying addiction to power and control.

    Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children. And Save the Turnips!

    “And the hearts of the children will be turned to the fathers and the hearts of the fathers will be turned to the children lest I will smite thee with a curse.” Malachi 4:6

  51. Down Under says:

    @ Darryl X I recognise that passage as the end of the old testament in the Christian bible. I’m no scholar of religious history but I understand Malachi is Hebrew for anonymous or unknown and did wonder whether the author was a man or a woman, never-the-less it makes it apparent that the issues we face have been encountered in the past.

  52. Ford says:

    skeptic..its not so much the off the cuff comment i made but more so people wanting to turn it into something that was going to take place..you sound like a raving feminist

  53. Shin Hee Yi says:

    @Darryl
    Thank you for your comment

    Well I believed there was at least some liberal feminism idea but looks like there are no such thing.

    By the way why so many BXXXCs still crying out for equal pay.

    I thought they more or less had about the same pay as men maybe it differs from industry.

    If they want child I think its obvious they they have to work less hours.

    There for I believe they will earn less wage(If my understanding is correct)

    If you are interested I would like to share(though I think it’s irrelevant as our Topic is focused on NZ issue)

    Back home in Korea Employer hesitate to employ Women because ministry of Woman affair introduce some stupid

    legislation called Menstrual leave which is payed leave this falls under company cost.

    Which gets higher if there are more women working for their company.

    But still Korean Women yells out equal pay and easier work environment for female staff.

    This tell me that BXXXHs don’t want to work as hard as guys but want more money because they are women.

    This is one reason I hate feminism movement.

  54. Darryl X says:

    @Down Under – Yes, last chapter of the Old Testament. I’m no Biblical scholar. I didn’t know that Malachi was Hebrew for “anonymous” or “unknown”. I thought it was something (dunno what) for “messenger”. This from Wikipedia.

    Oh well, my Hebrew is rusty – LOL. Anyway, from what I’ve read about it, Malachi is believed to be Ezra or another author who wrote other chapters of the Bible.

    Yes, I believe that the problem of feminism has plagued mankind since he first started walking on two feet. It has certainly been the default to avoid since the invention of marriage and the scientific method, as it is an important obstacle to actualization of intellect and scholar. I believe authors of the Bible and other scholars from Greek philosophers to authors of the United States Constitution have had grave concerns about the malignant narcissism of women and created all these texts and docoments and rules and laws to protect civilization from them. But who knows what was going through their minds. I don’t know what went wrong. You’d think that with all this forethought and preparation, we would be in better shape than we are.

    Remember Thomas Ball who died for our children. And Save the Turnips!

  55. Darryl X says:

    @Shin – Yeah, Hans and others have written previously about the myth of women and their pay gap. It’s nonsense.

  56. Down Under says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10777805
    I will add another OPINION here. It relates to simple comparative arguments. These are successfully used by feminists to bend fact law opinion and sympathy in their direction. By doing the same thing (as we are here comparing bigamy to adultery) we achieve two things – one is that we descend to the same level of argument as them and two is that we fragment cohesion between men. So instead of drawing a simple comparative argument that satisfies one’s purpose, let’s take one of the relative components – say consent. Mr Married leaves the matrimonial home finds another woman and saying nothing of his marriage and children and obtains consent from another woman and marries. So he is guilty of the criminal offence of bigamy which is punishable by up to seven years. Look what happens if – he tells his new woman that he is married and they get married anyway – one they both become guilty of the offence and two the penalty is reduced to 2 years. We can take from the change in penalty that the law reflects the importance placed on consent and deception. Let’s say that the partners to the original marriage neither knew nor consented to their partner’s behaviour. Instead Mrs Married doesn’t leave the matrimonial home but engages in consensual sex with a man who doesn’t know she is married but becomes aware she is married and continues to engage in consensual sex. The relative penalties here where the relevant parties consent to violate the marriage contract is two years (not seven years) for bigamy and adultery is not a criminal offence so there is no penalty. Based on consent only – if the offending parties consented to bigamy or adultery should either be a criminal offence? If one party obtained consent by deception should either bigamy or adultery be a criminal offence? If the offended party in the marriage contract consents to the behaviour of the other partner should that be a defence to bigamy or adultery? Should a society – obviously not the universal society – dictate that individuals do not have the authority to consent to a criminal violation of a marriage contract?

  57. Skeptic says:

    Ford @ #52 – “skeptic..its not so much the off the cuff comment i made but more so people wanting to turn it into something that was going to take place..you sound like a raving feminist”

    I think you still haven’t gotten it yet.
    Off the cuff or not feminists, not I, just love to take your comments about shooting a woman and use it to disdain ALL men. Kapish?
    If MENZ becomes a place where folks are making such comments it will be shut down. Make no bones about that. It’s a certainty. Also as much as I hate feminism, I’d have to agree with feminist complaints that the site was inciting violence against women.
    Besides which murdering folks isn’t something to be flippant about, especially when online as all folks have to go on is your words. They can’t see you in the flesh and blood, so they have no idea whether you’re being serious or not.
    Like I said it’s a bad look for MENZ.

    Not only that though Ford. When you get confronted about that you lash out with verbal abuse calling people twats and such. Not cool bro.

  58. Down Under says:

    @ Darryl X. I read a bit more about Malachi. You have to like the bit where it says – “I hate divorce” you can relate to that and it does actually cover bigamy too. The difference though it is in religious instruction – “be faithful to the wife of your youth” rather than though shall not commit bigamy or digamy. It left me wondering if the process had continued uninterrupted i.e. there hadn’t been a Roman invasion a subsequent New Testament and the development of criminal law where it might have ended up. When you compare Malachi to the current American presidential debate you might wonder if we haven’t got to the same place anyway.

  59. Down Under says:

    http://lifestyle.msn.co.nz/nzmenslifestyle/latestnews/8397866/man-to-divorce-wife-over-1940s-affair

    If we had adultery as a criminal offence, should it be a grounds for divorce and should a statute of limitation apply.

  60. Ford says:

    #57..youre a big boy..im sure youll get over it..twat

  61. Skeptic says:

    #60 …Wow! such blind raging emotional violence.

    Such a sad sad short temper.
    It must be hellish to be on such a short fuse all the time.
    And behind such anger there is ALWAYS feeling threatened…..and the likelihood of popping off at the slightest thing.
    We use anger to defend ourselves against a threat.
    Obviously you feel VERY threatened in some way and have a massive chip on your shoulder to react so strongly to honest criticism.
    Probably have a mountain of unresolved pain deep down inside.

    Sad.

    Ever thought of getting professional help for your anger problem?

  62. Vman says:

    “Look what happens if – he tells his new woman that he is married and they get married anyway – one they both become guilty of the offence and two the penalty is reduced to 2 years. We can take from the change in penalty that the law reflects the importance placed on consent and deception.”

    You have got to be joking!! Locked up for 2 years for consenting to be married. You support 2 years for a victimless crime while ackowleding that adultery carries not penality at all?????

    Look maybe some men like to bend over and get rogered good and proper by feminist laws. I don’t care if they do. I just don’t think it should be inflicted the rest of us.

  63. Skeptic says:

    The funniest part about this whole discussion is I know plenty of blokes who wouldn’t get married first time round if you paid them a million dollars, let alone take on a second wife! Men Going Their Own Way – “mgtow is a way of life that men seek to avoid the legal, financial, and emotional troubles modern women and marriage 2.0 inflict upon humanity”.

    What man could handle twice the possibility of being falsely accused, divorced and taken to the cleaners?

    Seen in that light the whole thread seems bizarre.

  64. Darryl X says:

    @ Down Under #58 – Interesting thoughts. What does ‘be faithful to the wife of your youth’ mean? I’ve read that before but don’t know its correct interpretation, as so many words in the Bible translate differently than common and modern colloquial use. Like “host” for instance means “to suffer”. What does “youth” refer to?

    Also, to which part of our current American presidential debate can Malachi be compared (this primary season is all over the map even by some previous tough standards – LOL)? Are you referring to Cain and his adulterous relationship(s), Gingerich and his desire for “open marriage”, Romney and his Mormon faith, and the list goes on?

  65. Down Under says:

    @ Darryl X I saw some media around one of the republican candidates and homosexuality adultery and bigamy being inconsistent with marriage.
    @Vman I made a comment about consent but you have raised to other issues, one is who are the victims and what punishment is appropriate. Can I take it that you are saying that there are no victims in Bigamy only in Adultery? Adultery should be a criminal offence to protect the marriage contract?

  66. Ford says:

    #61..raging violence?..now i know youre an idiot..another thing about me is not only anger issues but people cant handle my honesty..you sound more like a woman everytime you post to me

  67. frank Franklinson says:

    You lot all sound like a bunch of preschool kids. I have watched this site for over four years and still the same old same old. Action and bitching are not the same. One is constructive and one destructive. With all the collective knowledge here surely you lot could do better than slag each other off.

    Get a Grip

  68. Ford says:

    #67..you must have anger issues too huh

  69. Ford says:

    p.s #67..that could be classed as a raging violent outburst..lol

  70. frank Franklinson says:

    Think positive Ford!!

  71. Down Under says:

    @ #64 Darryl. I suppose – if you put it in context with the time it was written you might say. Marriage was considered a covenant rather than a contract, two people becoming one – which a man was responsible for – so it would be an instruction to men. Assuming people married in their youth perhaps it is the positive expression where the negative would be don’t break the covenant i.e. be unfaithful or divorce which also occurs in the text.

  72. Skeptic says:

    Oh I see Ford’s on the attack handing out taunting insults again.
    Same old same old.
    Think positive indeed.

    As for Frank’s other comments, I reckon he should look a bit deeper.
    Then he’ll find many articles that are interesting and informative.
    It’s not all Ford unaware of how rageful he comes across, suggesting people shoot women, calling folks twats and women and any other put downs he can dream up to abuse folks he disagrees with.

    There’s actually allot of substance to this website if you do more than skim a few odd comments.

  73. Down Under says:

    To be fair, I think we have to accept that MGTOW must have to its downside. Without women to fight with they have to fight with each other.

  74. Skeptic says:

    Down Under,
    Can we see your survey of all the many thousands of MGTOW globally.
    There are millions of them in japan alone – goodness! that’s a lot of men to interview!
    Can we see the methodology you use to arrive at your conclusion of them all feeling compelled to fight each other?
    Right.
    Pass me another Tui………

  75. Skeptic says:

    With increasing numbers of men avoiding marriage like the plague the whole debate about bigamy seems pointless.
    Laughable.

  76. It’s the second time when i’ve seen your site. I can gather a lot of hard work has gone in to it. It’s really wonderful.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

Since May 2016 this site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

« »

Powered by WordPress

Skip to toolbar