When lamenting the divorce trends in the context of manosphere issues, one of the rejoinders that eventually comes back is something like , “But the divorce rate has actually fallen”. Then someone points out that while that may be the case, the marriage rate has also fallen. To that consideration we add what Dalrock adroitly shows statistically, and we discuss anecdotally, that the delaying of marriage is a contributing factor to the shift in marriage rates. We then theorize, correctly so lets say we observe, that the 30 year old women settling for Mr. Goodenough has a high likelihood of eating, praying, and loving sometime within about a decade of her perfect day.
We also rightly see men wising up in multiple ways. Some unscrupulous men simply become “carnies”, carousel operators to be specific, and enjoy the banquet feminism has set before them. Hence marriage is not their goal. They have many back to back short term meretricious relationships. They are open about it. Though I may see that as immoral, I also see those men as at least owning their shit. Other men go their own way, and some still marry.
No matter how much more common divorce becomes, the other factors mentioned mitigate it statistically. Certainly it stagnates the transfer of cash and prizes at a steady rate. And lets be honest, transferring wealth and production to women is a force underlying gender relationships at almost all levels in the U.S. Its a force like gravity, or wind. We can see the effects, but we cannot really truly isolate and explain the force itself. However, unlike gravity which acts on anything with mass-no exceptions-there has been an exception to the specific effect of this resource transference force where it involves one specific man to one specific woman (Meaning, the overarching transfer is alway6s there, by government fiat, by empathy manipulation, by social norms, etc.) That has been a man dating a woman. Common law marriage was not a catch all.
This has been solved.
A Georgia court orders man pay one-time fiance $50,000 for breaking promise to marry her. When Steven Tyler sang of “And, uh, all those late night promises I guess they don’t mean a thing” , he was wrong. They are legally binding contracts.
When I was haranguing people in the comments section of Matt Walsh’s blog, one person derided my ignorance of the slippery slope fallacy, as he termed it. Later he apologized because he was mistaking my sarcasm as sincerity. Never mind. Here, I am invoking the slippery slope argument for real, not the fallacy. This court awarded a woman $50,000.00 because of a broken promise to marry her.
The basic scenario was:
The couple reportedly had lived together since 2000 and had a child. In
2004, Kelley reportedly gave Cooper a ring, although he later contended
during legal proceedings he never conjoined the gesture with the phrase,
“Will you marry me?”
The case is not a simple boy meets girl, they date, he proposes, then he backs out. Or is it, with a ten year frame and some other significant events like the birth of a child? I submit that the glimpse into the focus of the legal arguments that is afforded in the article suggests that the duration, cohabitation, and parentage were not primary. In short I see no reference to common law marriage, hence alimony, nor do I see any support orders mentioned for the child. None of those are relevant anyway, because this award was made expressly for a breach of a verbal contract. Period. The other factors like duration and the child were used in arriving at damages.
When you look at the case from within the particular confines of what was argued and what was rendered, this is very significant. It sets a frightening precedent. And it is likely to stand because it will be cheered by women as they see a workaround for getting to the assets of a man other than a husband, and it involves not having to suffer the miserable beta orbiter for years followed by the low drama of a divorce. It also carries no risk for a women, because even though the statistics show a massive skew in favor of women in family law court, sometimes women lose. With this route its a calculated risk defined by the cost of litigating.
I predict this is the best thing to come down the legal pike for women since no-fault divorce. Aerosmith should have called that song “Whatever SHE Takes”.