Why men are kinder than women

Started by RemyBrown

Replies
53
Posts
54
Page
1 / 2

Conversation

#1 •••
⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.

Edit comment

#2 •••
@RemyBrown
75% of men would agree to have sex with a random woman if it's consensual


Sure, better than having sex with my hand or a toilet paper roll.



All dating apps would be outlawed


Even tango app where women dance on camera for free?



Any woman that said they prefer the bear over the unknown dude on the internet will have their account banned over hate speech


Just buy her a teddy bear already.

Edit post

#3 •••
@SatanLucy
Sure, better than having sex with my hand or a toilet paper roll.


A toilet paper roll, WTF!


Never mind, I don't want to know.

Edit post

#4 •••
@RemyBrown

So Remy, that outpouring of discriminatory diatribe explains comparative levels of gender kindness, does it?

Edit post

#5 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#6 •••
@RemyBrown

Man versus Bear is social media inspired twaddle.


And there are a willing and growing bunch of numpties who will addictively respond to social media inspired twaddle.

Edit post

#7 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#8 •••
@RemyBrown

Well, I think it would be wrong to suggest that all social media content is not factual.

Edit post

#9 •••
@SergeantLynch
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#10 •••
@RemyBrown

Well Remy, I would suggest that within the context of acquired knowledge relative to the human condition, a fact is a fact irrespective of an individuals appreciation of it...Acquiring knowledge and establishing facts within the context of human data management systems is a pretty standard and accepted process...So we might hypothesise otherwise, metaphysically, and with a certain level of logic, whereby a banana might actually be a kumquat, though we always tend towards the established banana.

Edit post

#11 •••
@RemyBrown

The problems with pre-nups have to do with their costs and questionable enforceability. Like, if the pre-nup gets thrown out and the person wouldn't have gotten married without the pre-nup, then the marriage should be annulled IMO. Yet, the situation is that a pre-nup can be entered in to in one state where it is enforceable, later the couple moves to another state and then the pre-nup isn't valid under that state's laws and then the couple gets divorced. Then the pre-nup gets thrown out in court, the marriage remains in effect, and simply where the divorce happened to take place controls the division of assets and alimony.


As far as costs they can be very expensive to draft, and not having attorney representation for both spouses can make it significantly more probable that the pre-nup will not be enforceable. It would be a lot better if, for example, on marriage license applications there could be checkbox for very common pre-nup terms including questions about alimony, inheritance rights, separate/community property, etc. This would make pre-nups a lot more affordable for a lot of couples and some reform to make them more enforceable too would be helpful.

Edit post

#12 •••
@Death23

Simple solution.


Don't sign a marriage contract.

Edit post

#13 •••
@SergeantLynch

That is one solution but there are benefits to marriage. The most significant ones are doubling of the capital gains exclusions when selling a house or the 0% gains bracket for lower income households, and for people who want a visa for their spouse if they're foreign. There is also greater social acceptance, especially if you want kids.

Edit post

#14 •••
@Death23

I was coming at it from a UK perspective.


Marriage isn't such a big deal over here, where Common Law partnerships have equal legal recognition anyway.


Though I was actually suggesting that a "pre nup" somewhat demeans the sincerity of marriage, and therefore anyone who considers the protection of individual assets above the sanctity of marriage, perhaps shouldn't be considering marriage at all.

Edit post

#15 •••
@SergeantLynch

What is insincere about a pre-nup?

Edit post

#16 •••
@Death23

I just explained why I consider a pre nup insincere.


Though it is not the pre nup per se, that is insincere .


Marriage is supposedly a lifetime commitment, so preempting separation with a financial contract is perhaps an insincere approach to a lifetime commitment and the sanctity of marriage.


Similarly, if marriage is also regarded as a tax avoidance scheme, then this also somewhat devalues the idea of the sanctity of marriage.

Edit post

#17 •••
@SergeantLynch

You can't control the other person. You can only control yourself. The other person leaves, then what? Also what about when death does you part? There are inheritance issues. You want your labor going to your kids, at least a lot would. What I don't want is I die then my stuff goes to somebody who remarries and then gets left to somebody else's kids. Not happening. My stuff goes to my kids. A pre-nup is part of that.

Edit post

#18 •••
@Death23
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#19 •••
@RemyBrown

And when that pre-nup gets to the divorce attorney's desk and he's scrutinizing it for compliance with state laws and any way he can have it thrown out in court, then if he finds something legally wrong with then it's going to be a problem. He will say "OK this contract is unenforceable because it failed to comply with section such and such of the prenuptial agreements act etc etc".

Edit post

#20 •••
@Death23

Get a good lawyer to prepare a prenuptial. It could save you money at the end.

Edit post

#21 •••
@Debby

You gonna pay the $4,000 dollars?

Edit post

#22 •••
@Death23

Well, one can only hope that ones ex-partner has the same concern for their children....Which I would suggest is generally the case.


Because upon you death, your kids would become the responsibility of their mother...If she were to remarry, that would be no concern of yours.


So choose a diligent hardworking partner wisely and avoid the gold diggers, or don't marry at all if it troubles you so much.

Edit post

#23 •••
@Death23
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#24 •••
@SergeantLynch
If she were to remarry, that would be no concern of yours


That would be a concern of mine because suppose you leave your stuff to your wife she remarries has more kids then divides your stuff among her kids when she passes. Then your stuff's going to somebody else's kids. That is my concern and I don't want it. That's a big reason to use a pre-nup and trusts etc. to avoid that.

Edit post

#25 •••
@RemyBrown
Ignore the nit picky attorney. Just abide by the contract.


You can ignore the attorney but if it goes to the judge and the attorney is correct then you're probably going to get your pre-nup thrown out and lose.

Edit post

#26 •••
@Death23
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#27 •••
@RemyBrown
Don't let the issue go to court.


How? Somebody files and serves the case they are within their rights to have it go to the judge. They will want to settle based on the strengths and weaknesses of the case. You don't want it going to the judge and you want a good deal settlement then you got to be holding strong cards. An unenforceable prenup is little more than a bluff.

Edit post

#28 •••
@Death23

Not if you are dead.

Edit post

#29 •••
@SergeantLynch
Not if you are dead.


It's mine, even when I'm dead my will controls the disposition of the assets. What happens with them is my concern. Maybe you don't like it. That's too bad. Perhaps you should go petition the legislature and ask them to make a new law that says "Once somebody is dead their wishes are irrelevant." I'm sure it would be very popular.

Edit post

#30 •••
@Death23

Marriage and children are seemingly not for you.


Far better for you to remain a bachelor and hoard your assets.


So you die without issue...Who gets your fortune?

Edit post