Ostensibly Hoops

[innocentbystander]

Have a good weekend IB. I hope you get bit by a scorpion.

Stung by a scorpion. Black Widows bite. Those things happen here in July and August, not December.

[innocentbystander]

You're seriously saying that stopping someone from committing suicide isn't a good enough reason to grant a fucking divorce?

(sigh) No. No its not. I will explain.

I reiterate: You are a goddamn piece of shit, you don't deserve to live. I'd gladly beat your sorry ass to death with my bare hands if I ever encounter you. And we both know I can do it, you fucking little worthless incel faggot...

And I'm sure you are a really nice guy who means well and thinks he is doing right. You just do not understand the history of no-fault-divorce. It appears I must educate you. So here goes.

In the late 1950s and the early 1960s, the country noticed a not so insignificant spike in suicides for married women. Now, men have been committing suicide at ridiculous rates for centuries. No one blinks an eye because we live in a world where men are regarded as "expendable." So as Freddie Mercury said of suicide "Don't try suicide, nobody gives a damn." He was referring to men, not women.

Well at the beginning of the 1960s we were entering the second wave of feminism. And the root principle of feminism is that women have value and men have NO value. So (of course) a slight spike in suicide among married women (of all people) raised all sorts of alarm bells for feminists and they DEMANDED that SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!!!!!! So they did a little investigative work.

What they found was that married women who were unhappily married to good men (and when I say "good men", I mean men who work hard and treat their wives with deceny and love, men who cherish their wives) well, many of these women had no skills and no earning power. They had been married for all their adult lives and they just didn't want to be married anymore to the man who took such good care of them because their vaginas no longer moistened or tingled for their husbands. They wanted out. The problem is they had NO GROUNDS for divorce. None. So all they could do is leave their husbands with the shirt on their back and abandon their children and get no alimony. That reality was just too much for some married women who were no longer in love, so they killed themselves.

To fix this, feminists insisted that the state laws of California change in 1969. So the very first "no-fault-divorce" bill was created. NO GROUNDS were necessary to grant a divorce. You didn't have to provide a reason (because my vagina isn't moist for his cock anymore isn't a reason.) And that the divorce may be granted unilaterally (that is, he doesn't want to get divorced but it doesn't matter, the judge will grant it just for her.) AND she gets to collect cash and prizes (gets the house, the alimony, the child support.) And now the unhappily married woman can leave her husband and keep all the money the minute she no longer has any use for him. That law into effect in California on January 1st, 1970.

That fixed the suicide rate. But it ruined marriage forever. From that moment on, marriage in the United States now had a NEW trait that men had to deal with. That trait was called THREATPOINT.

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/

What IS the threatpoint? Well....

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

This was an ancillary benefit to no-fault-divorce is that women now held a Sword of Damocles over the heads of any man who said "I do." You need to keep me happy at all times or I get half.

Hedge, how can a man promise to keep his wife happy? She has to keep herself happy. As I said above, the only reason why we had 'no-fault-divorce' was because the women had no grounds to divorce their husbands. They just didn't want to fuck them anymore BUT they didn't want to give up the lifestyle their husbands provided.

So the end result (51 years later) is an obliterated marriage rate in the United States. You will find whole regions of the country and whole demographics of people where marriage has simply ceased being any kind of cultural institution. And where there was marriage (and now divorce, for no reason) you will see two generations of sons who simply have NO REASON to better themselves and to get married. As I said before, what is in it for them? Nothing hedge. Nothing. They saw their dads get ruined by their moms and they want no part of marriage. I can't say I blame them. So they stay at home (all their life perhaps), smoke pot, surf porn, and masturbate instead. And now, they are not even working. This is ALL a result of giving a few unhappily married women the right to nuke their marriage to keep them from committing suicide.

Not a good trade off sir. No, it was not worth it. To keep a few women from committing suicide we ended marriage for everyone. We blew it. But at least the change in divorce law, DookSucks could turn that into a cottage industry.

Oh, and I corrected your spelling of "incel" for you. You are welcome. Merry Christmas.

[DooKSucks]

Incels like IB are a hoot.

I will say that as a general rule, I have found women to be far easier clients then men. Men tend to be more emotional. By the time the woman gets to me, she is all business, but the man ignored or failed to recognize that the relationship was going to hell and is an emotional wreck or too much of a control freak when shit hits the fan.

[innocentbystander]

Incels like IB are a hoot.

I will say that as a general rule, I have found women to be far easier clients then men. Men tend to be more emotional. By the time the woman gets to me, she is all business, but the man ignored or failed to recognize that the relationship was going to hell and is an emotional wreck or too much of a control freak when shit hits the fan.

The men are emotional because they don't want the divorce and you are a destroyer. The women are all business because they just want their husband's money because the new man they want to fuck, he doesn't have a job.

The reason why young men (and even middle aged men) aren't marrying anymore is because they realize that it is NOT their responsibility to worry about when "the shit hits the fan." How could they ever control that? They can't. If she just doesn't want to be married anymore DS, there may not have been anything that he did specifically to cause that. She just wants out and she wants to turn her ex-husband into a pack mule. That's it.

My wife and I talk about this crap all the time. It makes her sad to see her friends leave their husbands simply because they aren't happy. And when they do that, she warns them, leave him and I leave you. They do it anyway so she has to abandon them for ruining the children, that is her punishment to her now ex-friends. This has happened a couple times. But that is only because we can't change the divorce law that you turned into a cottage industry.

Oh, and shame on you DS.

[Jungle Rat]

Your wife sounds like a cunt.

[hedge]

"And when they do that, she warns them, leave him and I leave you. They do it anyway so she has to abandon them for ruining the children, that is her punishment to her now ex-friends."

I wouldn't refer to not ever having to see or interact with your sorry ass ever again as "punishment." Quite the contrary, actually. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that was a deciding factor in their final decision to get a divorce. Just one more ancillary benefit. And even if it meant ruining their children's lives forever, it would still be worth it to not ever have to see or listen to you ever again. So in a sense, you're the cause for several divorces. Congrats...

[sardis]

Ok, let’s bring this back to basketball a little…

IB, how do we protect the young PJs of the world from the predatory Brittanys?

https://brobible.com/sports/article/bri ... ton-broke/

[eCat]

Kentucky plays Notre Dame on the road.

A convincing win will go a ways to restoring the faith of Calipari to the masses - at least until an embarrassing loss proves otherwise

a loss today will just reinforce what many fans believe. He is sacrificing the season for the hope of a few wins in March

He'll be gone in 2 years if UK doesn't see a final four, and that might not even matter when Kansas passes us in all time wins

[hedge]

"a loss today will just reinforce what many fans believe. He is sacrificing the season for the hope of a few wins in March"

How would losing today increase the chances for a few wins in March??

[innocentbystander]

Ok, let’s bring this back to basketball a little…

IB, how do we protect the young PJs of the world from the predatory Brittanys?

https://brobible.com/sports/article/bri ... ton-broke/

How? We don't. We can't criminalize predatory gold-digging. Feminism will never allow our legislators to write bills to target women in their hypergamy. Hypergamy is a woman's prime directive. Her second directive is Briffault's Law (and without that Law, DookSucks makes no money.)

What we do is we get to these athletes when they are young and bring them up in a Christian home. We get them to want to be with the Kathy's, the Karen's, and the Katie's, and to stay the hell away from the Heather's, the Stephanie's the Britney's.

I started losing faith in women who chase the NBA players when I heard about the abortion contract that Vanessa Lopez signed with Duke's J J Stokes. When she did that, a door was opened and we can't close it because of Hypergamy. So we have to expect this behavior to continue because don't shame women.

[DooKSucks]

You are a lunatic.

JJ Stokes?

LMAO

[innocentbystander]

You are a lunatic.

JJ Stokes?

LMAO

Sorry, got the wrong J J.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/tarn ... act-legal/

But I got the Duke University part right.

[Jungle Rat]

You really are retarded.

[innocentbystander]

Yeah you have said that on numerous occasions. I do not think you know what that word means. In fact, I am not all that sure that you know very much of anything.

[Jungle Rat]

I know you're retarded.

[Jungle Rat]

"An example of retarded is a politically incorrect term for a person with a very low IQ."

Nailed it

[eCat]

"a loss today will just reinforce what many fans believe. He is sacrificing the season for the hope of a few wins in March"

How would losing today increase the chances for a few wins in March??

because he is too invested in promoting young 5 start talent based on potential versus developing players over time.

An experienced team of 4 and 3 star Juniors and Seniors would not require a schedule full of "tune up " games in November/December

[Tree]

Kentucky bitching around about to get throat punched.

[eCat]

there is no joy in Mudville

[Jungle Rat]

Shootout Time. Always fun.