(mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
> Andre Lieven wrote:
>> (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> > Andre Lieven wrote:
>> >> Mark Sobolewski (mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com) writes:
>> >
>> >> > Agreed.  You wouldn't be perfectly safe but she would
>> >> > think twice before moving against you, eh?  If you've
>> >> > moved the assets properly into a trust then they
>> >> > are largely untouchable.  I kid you not. OJ did something
>> >> > similar.  You don't think he goes golfing all day
>> >> > on his Social Security, do you?
>> >>
>> >> Well, he had far greater resources with which to get the top
>> >> level legal help. Given the things that I've heard about the
>> >> nearly routine ways that courts overturn prenups, I'm not
>> >> sanguine about them proving much cover for a person without
>> >> the resources for a half decade legal fight.
>> >
>> > The key here is that such a person would have resources:
>> > A ton of money in a swiss account (and moved out of it
>> > in a quick hurry should legal measures be taken) and
>> > the property in a trust that would take a month or
>> > two of legal proceedings to even know what's going on.
>>
>> Well, when dealing with folks whose pay tends to go to current
>> operational spending, like mortgages and the like, there might
>> not be a lot to send overseas. Or, to incorporate one's self,
>> in support of that.
>>
>> One law for the rich, and another for the not-rich.
>
> In the hypothetical situation we are discussing, this is
> about funneling money from desperate aging career women
> into a "mobile" place (not quickly hit by family court.)

Indeed.

> Even commoners such as you and I can open up swiss bank accounts
> (I know, we transfer in Zurich on the way to Kiev so I get
> tons of offers in my email.)  I'm not really impressed by
> the rates of swiss banks.  Their visa wants a, I kid you not,
> $150 per year fee.  But it's affordable.

Sure. I just hate fee credit cards, just like I despise toll
roads... 

>> > So safe?  Agreed, nothing is safe in family court, but
>> > the key is that she won't be as quickly motivated to
>> > move against him for trivial reasons.  After all, all
>> > he's doing is trying to protect himself.
>>
>> Might such a woman pick through his records, when he's at work,
>> to get evidence of the moved off shore loot ? Could be...
>
> PO Box: $80 per year in the states.

Well, my ex tried to hide some documents. I still got 'em.

>> >> >> > Yes, it sounds pretty incredible, doesn't
it?  Especially
>> >> >> > when these women CRAVED men to take them out
>> >> >> > and pay for dinner.  But that's just it: As
long as the man
>> >> >> > handles the money, even if they earn it, they get
>> >> >> > their "feelings" of
traditionalism satisfied.  On the
>> >> >> > contrary, a man putting them in their place
probably makes
>> >> >> > them happy more than anything...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Indeed. Many modern women cannot respect a man
that they can
>> >> >> get, and cannot get any man they might be able to respect.
>> >> >> Ergo, settling. Ergo, many divorces, 70+% chosen
by the women.
>> >> >
>> >> > I talked with such a woman who had divorced her husband
>> >> > and he turned out to be everything women would want:
>> >> > Good looking, good income, etc.
>> >>
>> >> But, she just didn't.... feeeyylll the love, any more.
>> >>
>> >> Its amazing how common this is, among modern women. Dr
>> >> Phil, last year, IIRC, did a show on this, and one wife,
>> >> in her later 20s, or early 30s, complained that married
>> >> life wasn't like dating. Phil asked her, did she expect
>> >> dinners out every week, flowers every week, and all that,
>> >> and she said " Yes ! " in a way that made clear that she
>> >> could not concieve of a guy not chasing after her, 24/7/365.
>> >
>> > I always hold my wife's hand when going out or give her
>> > my arm and say hello to her before coming home and
>> > surprise her with little things I think she'll appreciate.
>> > It wasn't about spending money.
>>
>> Sure: But you and I have rather... uncommon women. Ones
>> who reject the brain rot of Feminism. So, they appreciate
>> their men, and their men do them.
>
> As tempting as it is to just bash these women, let's show
> a little, pragmatic sympathy:
>
> The states evolved from a puritannical heritage that had it's
> good and bad points.  The good point was that it had a strong
> work ethic and sense of individual responsibility that prevented
> the country from following the route of socialist statist Europe.
> The bad point is that prostitution and sexuality remained
> hang-ups in the state long after more liberal Europe had
> discarded them.

OK.

> Saint Thomas Aquinas said that prostitution was necessary
> to prevent all womem from becoming whores.  100 years ago,
> normal women were treated similar to Muslim countries where
> women outside of family situations were treated as slutty.

With one motive being the proper recordkeeping of both
maternal and paternal lines, the latter being a major
casualty of Feminism...

> As the industrial revolution kicked in, pseudo forms
> of prostitution evolved with men taking women out to
> fancy dinners and trying to get into their pants.
> Men and women developed a distrust for each other.

Well, certainly more opportunity for that was created. It
was still every person's choice as to whether they would
decide to engage in all that.

> The sexual revolution, as many post-anti-feminists are screaming,
> was a tool by men to get into women's pants with men tolerating
> feminism because it meant more casual nookie.  I remember
> the days when Playboy was a big deal and getting oral sex
> from normal women was considered unthinkable.  Today, American
> women are slutty.  Many men like it that way.

Young men... And, its possible to be *relatively* free, yet
not to slutty. Responsibility is the key word there.

> Anyways, it's no wonder that these women today are at a loss
> on how to please men and treat them in a manner to get what
> they want beyond short-term casual relationships since our
> society has become focused upon that lifestyle and even
> worshipping it.

Lets not forget that women's media lies to women about men,
and that many women *like* those lies, then they get pissed
off, when the Real World fails to match up with the sold
lies.

> This makes the issue of gay marriage interesting
> because until recently, marriage was considered a "square"
> institution for wierdos who would want to only have sex
> with one other person.  Ick!

Sure, and thats one reason why gay " marriage " is a bad idea.

> Since women are a emotional creatures, it's no surprise
> that they are confused by all of this.  They are doing
> what society and even men teach them to do, from youth,
> and moving forward and getting better at it seems to
> be logical to them.  At some point, young women need
> to do a paradigm shift and understand that the rules that
> applied to them when they were younger need to be changed
> in their 30's.  Feminism and young men certainly are not
> helping them.

Certainly.

>> > The problem is that American women aren't trained on how
>> > to make men think of doing these things for them other
>> > than emotional blackmail.  Be a good doggie, and you'll
>> > get sex.  The problem is that this treat doesn't work when
>> > the doggie now has a bowl of it overflowing everyday.
>>
>> Indeed, and thats the catalyst of the marriage strike.
>> See M. Dowd, NYTimes.
>
> A survey cited by The Week shows that most young men who are
> avoiding marriage do so because they get the nookie without it.

And, because, in their view, marriage offers little for them,
and not a little against their interests.

> This is as marriage is gaining new attraction and popularity
> as I've shown above (neat how they hid that by sandwiching it
> in with gay marriage.  Now the "liberated" gals don't have
> to admit they're old fashioned.  They're just joining their
> "liberated" lesbian friends :-)

Who are among the " trendy " setters of women's fashion, and
I don't mean only clothes...

>> >> > I suspect that the spinster syndrome for such women is
>> >> > probably due more to the women's personality turning
>> >> > men off in general than just about them being
>> >> > too fussy (although that doesn't help matters.)
>> >>
>> >> I'd suspect that both factors are involved. Men tend
>> >> to get along better than women do. So, men aren't as
>> >> picky about a lot of things, and about *people*, once
>> >> core value areas are covered. Things need to be good,
>> >> but not always perfect, with us.
>> >>
>> >> But, how could you sell thousands of dollars of make
>> >> up, and house cleaning gear, to people so not picky ?
>> >> Thats why it's women's media that drives the women
>> >> makeover industry. If anyone were to ask average men
>> >> if they wanted their women so obsessed with that
>> >> stuff, I'll bet that the vast majority would say " no ".
>> >
>> > I nearly barfed when my wife shared the obsession
>> > that Carrie has with shoes in "Sex and the City".
>>
>> Oh my. Mine has seen the show, and even though she is a
>> woman who appreciates a wide ranging collection of footware,
>> the idea of $475US Manolo Blaniks didn't do it for her.
>
> My wife also drooled at the $1000 Gucci crap bags at
> Heathrow.

Oh dear. I do admit that my S/O is an aficianado of
" home porn " ( See " Home And Garden TV " ), but she
retains a practical side to that, in that, we will need
a larger home soon, so she wants to consider what will
be involved.

>> > I told her I don't look at a woman's foot and if I do,
>> > I don't know the difference between cheap italian
>> > shoes she picks up at the clearance store and the ones
>> > being sold in boutiques.
>>
>> Exactly. Women who load up on ultra expensive footware
>> are surely not doing it for their men, as most of their
>> men simply don't... care.
>
> The fact is that a young woman with little money for fashion
> lined up next to a 30 year old attorney with all the
> latest crap will beat them out.

Indeed.

> Part of this may be that they project their own thinking onto
> men:

Thats a huge part of their problem, yes.

> Women notice men wearing nice clothing such as suits
> and ties and shiny shoes (big thing, shiney shoes.)
> My wife was disgusted when she asked me to look
> at some woman at the oscars and I commented she had
> small tits.  She sneered: "I was asking you about
> her diamond earrings!!!"  :-)  (I hadn't noticed. :-)

LOL. My S/O and I were discussing this area, yesterday, and
I pointed out that most such female affectations are simply
irrelevent to most men, and that we don't pay attention to
them. We're more about paying attention to them, then their
bling crap.

>> > Funny thing I just thought of: Many of these career
>> > women are slobs because, like us, they don't have a lot
>> > of spare time to fru-fru over themselves and worry
>> > about vacumming the house every 10 seconds.  The ability
>> > for women to obsess over crap is something that
>> > Patriarchal tyrants such as me give them.
>>
>> 
>
> Who would have EVER thought 20 years ago that someone
> such as Martha Stewart could make billions of dollars
> from selling housewife skills?

Amazing, innit ? And, when you add in Dr. Phil making
loads on teaching basic parenting skills. Heck, from
what I've seen of those, it was so basic that I knew
it, and I've only been a step dad for a span of about
7 months, back in '96-'97.

>> > Back to the clock tickers: I imagine that a career
>> > woman who suddenly finds that a man has taken power
>> > in her life as I specified above, and at the same time,
>> > gives her the "freedom" to put more attention into
>> > feminine things that she long wanted to look into would
>> > become amazingly happy.
>>
>> Indeed. Its clear that the present state of " equality "
>> has most such women frazzled and pissy. So, thats surely
>> not the way to go, for them.
>
> To a certain degree, this is planned: The left wanted
> such women either ecstically happy (but dependent upon
> them to keep the gravy train going) OR miserable and pissy
> and angry with men.

Yep.

> What they _didn't_ want was women who would be unhappy
> with THEIR agenda or running back to the kitchen.
> As I said, I think gay marriage may be a subconscious attempt
> at them to save face.

Sure. They want to find some path for it to appear " progressive ",
which is funny beyond belief, after all the years of them claiming
that marriage is a terrible " patriarchal " institution of slavery.

>> Insanity is the repeated attempts at a method that has
>> never worked. By that definition, such women are...
>> insane.
>
> I think it led them to believe that it worked by the
> sexual power they had in their youth.  I guess a similar
> analogy is to wealthy moguls who lose all their wealth
> and wander around their home ordering around invisible
> servants.

Nora Desmond, Feminist, anyone ? 

>> Proof: Aggy. 

Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/2/05 10:15:25 PM ---