Court reverses Aerosmith lyric

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”.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “Court reverses Aerosmith lyric

  1. Do not cohabit. Do not get married. Do not act in a way that ‘witnesses’ can later testify to as a fatherly or husband-like demeanor. Both actions will put you in legal hot water. If you want to be a father, get a surrogate. Paternity tests are a must in all cases (married or not).

    As the marriage and birth rates continue to plummet and the cohabitation rates continue to skyrocket, the fed will enact new laws to force fatherhood and defacto marriage upon men. Misandric, wealth transferring laws are already being passed as quietly as possible in other countries. Even though it’s impossible for a man to give birth and even though the majority of health care services are consumed by women, Obamacare now forces men to hold maternity coverage. The higher cost of insurance coverage for women is being shifted onto the backs of men.

    The benefits of marriage were wiped away by the sexual revolution, feminism and no-fault divorce. Don’t be the next sucker. The only value the average, good man has to a women is their financial resources. She’ll marry/cohabit with the average, good guy for financial resources and then screw the bad boy whenever possible. As soon as she feels she has the legal power necessary to take the good guy legally for most of his resources, she’ll mortally screw him over to be with the bad guy.

    This is reality. The sexual revolution and no-fault divorce have destroyed tens of millions of good men. Do not be the next sucker.

  2. Empath, you may not be aware, but “Breach of Promise to Marry” used to be a cause of action in most nearly every state of the Union. It is only in the last century that it waned, especially in the last 50 years. This is nothing new at all. Indeed, in the past it made sense for the protection of women, who often gave it up after being engaged. In fact, because of this cause of action engagement was actually a form of commitment then in a way that it isn’t now in most jurisdictions.

    Here is the wikipedia article on it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_promise

  3. Yes, it used to be quite common. I guess Georgia still has it. Other states might technically have it as well, but it hasn’t been used for a while there so its unclear if it will still be recognized at common law.

  4. I would have written this, including the assertion of the slippery slope, even had I known. Think of it this way, Fox found it rare enough to present it without the context of the past. Therefore, its perhaps breaking ground that had maybe been broken before, but so long ago it looked pristine

  5. When is the meter in the cab not running?

    If divorce for a woman is like cashing out stock options, then for the common lawers at some point he has to cough up a diamond and “put a ring on it” as she commands, or else, because she has earned it.

    There’s no end to the number of ways people can convert time into money.

    I would speculate that what you’re calling an invisible force is really bad money pushing out good money, which it always does. Hence all the bad times.

    BTW – there was a 2/20/12 post at AVfM on these shakedown scams of men going on a century and more ago; part #4 covers breach-of-promise rackets as they were then practiced.

  6. I got to see Aerosmith back when they were cool. They toured with Kansas and Head East. The biggest one-hit wonder band ever. My sister hallucinated due to secondhand smoke and swears to this day Steve Tyler was masturbating on stage.

  7. I never have much either. The post was on the history of the men’s movement, by the guy who does the unknownmisandry blog.

    The more things don’t change, the more they stay the same.

    If you separate the eggs, whisk the whites to a medium peak, and then fold them in at the end you get the fluffiest pancakes ever. Those guys must just not have known how to cook! lol

  8. BTW – there was a 2/20/12 post at AVfM on these shakedown scams of men going on a century and more ago; part #4 covers breach-of-promise rackets as they were then practiced.

    Yeah, they were eliminated in most jurisdictions a while ago because of those scams. Expect that as men start to abandon marriage they will make a comeback. Or for the courts to “impute marriage” through cohabitation or some other nonsense.

  9. Donal,

    This

    Expect that as men start to abandon marriage they will make a comeback.

    Was my point.

    have you seen that the story is being carried all over the place? Its recruitment.

  10. Empath:
    I don’t know about Aerosmith but this guy knew American women:

    If any sane guy wants marriage (or even a meaningful relationship): DON’T BUY AMERICAN!

  11. Fox found it rare enough to present it without the context of the past.

    Hah! You think that the average reporter knows anything that went on before 1968? 1963 if he’s really historically aware?

    Breach of promise suits were major plot points in a couple of stories by Charles Dickens.

  12. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/11 | Free Northerner

  13. Empath:
    On the subject of marriage and divorce, I came across this article from the foreign press:

    http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/12-12-2013/126376-russia_family-0/

    “In his annual address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin said that a family with three children should be a standard in the country…currently, a Russian family is entitled to maternity capital (note: a government subsidy) after the birth of their second child.”

    So how about that? Instead of subsidizing greedy divorce lawyers and abortion mills, the Russian government actually pays a subsidy for SAHM’s. And Putin—instead of ‘celebrating diversity and legalizing gay marriage’ is giving public speeches encouraging motherhood and marriage. I can’t even imagine an American politician saying that ‘families with three children should be the norm’ without bringing down a firestorm of criticism and ridicule on his own head—even from the Churchians!

    I remember when I was a teenager in a church camp, I asked an old priest if he believed that the US and the USSR would someday be in World War 3. He said. “No. But by the time you’re my age, the US will be the Soviet Union and the USSR will be America.”

    Looks like he was right.

  14. Eric:

    “the Russian government actually pays a subsidy for SAHM’s”

    This is not a good thing. It can and will lead to other problems.

    And “celebrating diversity” (or “celebrating” *insert left wing idea*) – I’ve always wondered what that means. What is it about left wing buzz words that make it so effective? They’ve got it down to an art form.

  15. YouHaveMyPermission:

    “What is it about left-wing buzz-words that make them so effective?”

    They’re targeted towards an audience incapable of reasoning.

    I agree that the Russian program is probably not optimal; but Russia had suffered severe problems with divorces and family dissolutions during 1990s. This is probably a wise intermediate step (the article points out that the mandate for the program is set to expire in 2016)—the point being that Putin at least realizes that there is a serious problem, and why families are important to a civilized society; instead of being in denial about it like our leaders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s