Most Men Shouldn’t Marry Nor Have Children

Most men shouldn’t marry nor have children, so most boys should not be raised with the assumption that they will or should marry, and they definitely shouldn’t be raised with the assumption that they will have a lasting, happy marriage.

I realize there are religions out there that pretty much mandate people marry and try to have children. I can’t argue with every different religious organization that claims to have authority over your life. What I do know is that the Bible, taken as a whole and rightly divided, does not mandate you marry and have children. Don’t tell me contraception, tubal ligations, hysterectomies, and vasectomies are wrong because they are are unnatural, as you accept artificial medical treatments, live in a home that has been constructed, and drink water and eat food that has been processed in some way.

Most men shouldn’t marry or have children because 1) they aren’t suited to it, 2) aren’t positioned to do it, 3) aren’t living in a culture that supports it, and 4) won’t find a suitable woman with whom they could.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 8

 

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here and Part 6 here and Part 7 here.


Men don't do well alone.

Some men don't do well alone. Some women don't, too. So what? Why should that compel men who don't want to sign a terrible state contract to do so? How about teaching more people how to thrive independently?

Some men are responsible, happy, thriving, and productive on their own.

Men certainly don't do well in bad marriages or when they are screwed over by the family courts.

Ask the marriage seller where they are getting this idea from. It may be from media, which tends to portray men as bumbling fools who need a woman to run their life. They might try to use statistics, which almost always is a matter that comes down to "which is the cart, and which is the horse.” For example, certain crimes tend to be committed by young, unmarried men. But young men are likely to be unmarried, unless they are members of certain religious subgroups, and maybe the fact that they are violent criminals is why they aren't married; implying that signing a terrible state contract magically turns criminals into great citizens is bizarre. Why should any woman be asked to take that on?

When a woman says men don't do well alone, she might be revealing that she has a low opinion of men. When a man says it, he's usually telling on himself. He didn't do well alone, or at least that's how he remembers it. I did great on my own. I was in great financial shape, and doing well physically, professionally, socially, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually. I didn't go hungry, lived in cleanliness, had clean clothes to wear, and had good hygiene. I was dating, I learned not to waste my time or money when I did.

You can probably cite examples of men who have done well on their own. You might be one of them.

Finally, just because someone won't sign a terrible state contract doesn't mean they are alone.

So, some of the ways to answer this include:

A) I'm doing fantastic alone!

B) I'm not married, and yet I'm not alone.

C) It's not a binary choice. Being unmarried doesn't necessarily mean being alone.

D) It's never been easier to thrive being alone. Let's show more people how they can.

E) Would you please explain what you mean by that? (They will likely use statistics in a misleading way, or hallucinate about some poor slob who can't take care of himself. If the latter, ask them if they mean that wives should take care of husbands as if they are their mother.)


It isn't good for man to be alone.

This is either the same thing as the assertion above or citation of Genesis. This assertion has no effect on anyone who doesn't take the first few chapters of Genesis as prescriptive and authoritative for how we live today. It's like trying to order one's life around the understanding that tortoises beat hares in speed.

If someone does consider the early chapters of Genesis to have prescriptive authority over life today, then they can note that this was a statement made when Adam was completely alone. In that sense, none of us are alone anymore as there are over eight billion people in the world now.

So the answer here is, "We're not alone."

If the person who is trying this on you respects what Christians all the New Testament, point to Paul and Jesus himself (although Mormons believe Jesus married).

Finally, ask them if they’re opposed to any pain relief in childbirth, since the early chapters of Genesis also say Eve will give birth in pain.

Be fruitful and multiply.

As with the statement above, this is a statement in early Genesis. There is no indication that it is directed at all people in all places for all time. It was directed at two people.

Humanity has multiplied. It has been done.

So the answer here is "We have."

Also, we can multiply without a terrible state contract.

You can find Biblical passages about all sorts of activities the person using this verse hasn't done themselves.

In today's world, men can thrive without signing a terrible state contract with a woman. Living in your own residence by yourself does not mean being alone. We have friends, family, neighbors, and we can have companionship.

Part 9

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 6

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here and Part 4 here and Part 5 here.


It sounds better to say "This is my wife" instead of "This is my girlfriend."

This is another assertion of made by marriage sellers that requires you to simply accept and agree in order for it to work. It's based entirely on personal preferences. In contrast, Dr. Laura, herself a marriage seller, has encouraged her married listeners to think of, and call, themselves their husband's girlfriend or their wife's boyfriend.

For people who say this, like Dennis Prager, it is based on his emotional fixation on marriage. My own convictions have me reacting almost entirely in the opposite way, meaning I feel better when a man introduces me to his girlfriend than his wife. When he introduces me to his wife, I usually feel sorry for him, and when he introduces me to his fiancee, I want to pull him aside and warn him.

So, again, there are several ways to respond to this.

A) That's your personal preference. My preference is different.

B) It sounds even better to say "I get to do what I want to do."

C) Men who run game don't introduce their dates at all.

It is amazing that people like Dennis Prager want to you sign a terrible state contract because he thinks it sounds better to say "wife" instead of "girlfriend."

A word of caution. Yes, you can call a woman your "wife" even though you're not legally married to her. Depending on where you live and the other things you do, though, that might put you into the same legal/financial jeopardy as getting legally married. So, "girlfriend" is definitely better.

Part 7

Reminder: Stay or Get Free

 

With June almost here, I’m issuing this urgent reminder to stay free.

If you aren’t free, but haven’t filed the terrible state contract often called marriage, don’t file or sign it. Get free. Then stay free.

You don’t need to be married.

What Makes You Think You'll Succeed At What Better Men Failed?

If you are heading for, or even just "open to" marriage, consider that many admirable, smart men have been divorced. Some multiple times. Men you personally know. Men you know about.

Why have they been divorced?

Here are the options:

1) They picked wrong.
2) They didn't treat their wife right.
3) During the marriage, their wife suffered from a trauma or illness that caused her to become the wrong wife.
4) The present system itself is deeply problematic.
5) More than one of the above.

If these good men picked wrong, what makes you think you will pick better or are picking better?

If these good men didn't treat their wife right, what makes you think you will be better at how you do marriage?

There are traumas/illnesses that are unavoidable. So, even if you pick right and treat right, you can still end up being miserably married or divorced.

If the present system is deeply problematic, that's the system into which you'd be marrying. What is that system? 1) Family law and courts transfer money and power away from you, to a woman, and reward bad behavior and women for divorce. 2) Socialization doesn't prepare women to be good wives and discourages them from being good wives. 3) Misandrist culture emasculates men and punishes them for being husbands and fathers.

Again, what makes you think you're going to beat the system? What makes you think you're going to succeed at what so many better men failed?

There's a lot about Dennis Prager I admire, and he seems to have a great grasp on human behavior and human nature and most of the dynamics between men and women, and his first marriage was, statistically, started when it had a good chance of lasting (he was in his late twenties or into his thirties, not some immature 19 year-old). And yet, that marriage didn't last and his second marriage didn't last either. He'd tell you to do what he did, and get married a third time, because it is inconceivable to him that men should learn to thrive on their own, because he formed, very early in his life, an emotional fixation on men being husbands.

Today, in the twenty-first century, men can thrive being free. There is no good reason for most men to sign a terrible state marriage contract. The contract is of no benefit to most men, and you can live a great, happy, fulfilled life without it. So why take on the risks and obligations of something at which so many better men have failed?

This isn't like technological development, in which knowledge accumulates. Human nature, if it is evolving, doesn't evolve fast enough to mean that what men want has changed in the last few thousand years. So, this isn't like "I can build a better rocket." The social aspects of marriage involve dealing with a woman. Female nature, like male nature, hasn't changed much, but the socialization of women has, and not in a way that supports lasting, happy marriages. When that is paired with the fact that our current legal system and current culture will empower a wife to ruin your life, it is arrogance or delusion to see that some great men haven't had lasting, happy marriages - in fact most men who have married have failed marriages - but think you are going to succeed at it.

Why take that risk, when you can get everything you need and want in life without doing so?

Stay free, guys.

As always, you are welcome to comment below. It would be especially interesting to hear about good men you know who have had a failed marriage, or how you thought you could do better and you found out otherwise.

Is Getting Married a Smart Short-Term Financial Move For a Man?

I was listening to podcasts from the Dr. Laura Show from mid-June 2015, and she took a call from a woman whose grown daughter was in a five-year relationship, and NOT shacking up with the guy. Both of them had been pursuing graduate degrees. The reason the guy had given to the caller's daughter about not yet being married was financial. Dr. Laura scoffed at this and noted he's supporting himself and paying rent, so there would be no cost to to marrying and moving in the caller's daughter. [This entry has been bumped up.]

I've heard Dennis Prager express similar ideas.

Dr. Laura did acknowledge that having children would increase costs.

A lot of guys fall for the mistake in thinking that moving in a wife or a shack-up honey will be 1) financially efficient and 2) a good financial decision. Let's just stick to moving in a wife, since shacking up is a horrible idea all around, and Dr. Laura would discourage it. [Marrying is almost always a horrible idea for men, too.]

The reality is, it isn't as simple as "Oh, now she's here so she can contribute to rent." The ideal portrayed is that, after marrying, these two will continue to earn at least as much as they already are in their respective jobs, and they will eliminate redundant expenses. and would be able to buy some things they'd usually buy separately "in bulk" together. But how often does it really work on that way?

In no particular order:

1) Moving a wife in means getting married. While Dr. Laura often tells the joint biological parents who are shacking up to run down to the county office and get married (because marriage is correlated to benefits to the children), it is highly unlikely this woman, who has been dating this guy for five years and not shacking up with him, would agree to that. Instead, an expensive wedding and related expensive events/purchases would be "necessary".

2) Once married, women tend to push for children (and others also apply pressure to have children) or "forget" to take contraception.

3) Most likely, his utility and grocery costs will increase, along with his vehicle maintenance and operation costs.

4) She will start buying all sorts of stuff they don't really need, since she won't feel like she needs to be tight with her money for survival. His money will now legally be her money, so she won't feel the need to be thrifty. Also, she will insist on redecorating, and throwing out and replacing everything from cookware to furniture, especially if some other woman he had sex with ever touched any of it.

5) For much the same reasons as #4, she might push for a bigger apartment or a home purchase.

6) She will pressure him to work less and avoid networking happy hours, to make social engagements she's arranged, and to keep him from spending time with other women, who are now fully integrated into workplaces. She will also likely discourage him from taking promotions that would involve moving or changing health plans or might put him on the radar of women she thinks are more attractive than her.

7) She will likely work less.


Don't even try the "married men earn more money" line.

There's probably a bunch I'm forgetting. The point is, dismissing financial concerns as unfounded fails the reality test. Now maybe he's just using it as an excuse. But it isn't necessarily the case. And  these things  are just the short-term, because that was the issue. The claim was that the man wanted to be on better financial footing before marrying. For the long term, marrying will definitely be against his financial advantage, as at least half of everything he'll earn will be hers by law.

One Flesh Or Not?

Dr. Laura will often tell wives calling in (and thus wives listening to her show) that it's not a big deal for a husband (and father of minor children) to enjoy adult media...

...as long as he's not doing it instead of being with her and the adult media doesn't feature children, small farm animals, men (gay porn), or barely legal adults.

This has to greatly upset the portion of her audience that has bought into the anti-porn panic/hysteria about how it turns brains into mush and turns men into serial killers, or women who consider to be a form of infidelity.

But what about the other end of this spectrum? Dr. Laura, like a lot of other relationship experts, says it's a problem if he's using such media instead of being with his willing wife. This appears to be a presumption that his body and sexuality belong to his wife.

Put the Shackle Back On

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022, the Dr. Laura Program ran a call in the third hour that I'm almost certain was a repeat or was recorded off-air. Both are regular elements of the program.

The call was with a husband and wife. The husband had just left the wife within the last few days.

The focus of the call became the husband's claim that he left so he could do what he wanted to do. It sounded like he wanted to golf, fish, and certain other similar things.

Dr. Laura kept hounding him with "Why can't you do it while you're married to her?"

Then Dr. Laura said that she did what she wanted to do while married to her late husband. Note: Dr. Laura usually will not allow callers to compare themselves to her or ask what she'd personally do, but she often compares herself to the caller.

But there was a problem with that.

The caller was the husband. Dr. Laura was a wife. Dr. Laura usually notes significant differences between men and women, husbands and wives, and their power within marriage. In her marriage specifically, she had the fame and was a high income earner. She was also a trained psychotherapist. And for the last how many years of the marriage, Dr. Laura was in much better health and shape than her husband. OF COURSE SHE DID WHAT SHE WANTED.

A husband has little power other than to leave, and for most husbands, leaving still doesn't restore all of his power, and the courts will order the husband to spend a significant amount of his life earning money for his ex.

Many husbands can't do what they want because most wives have an extensive list of things (written or not) for the husband to do that occupies his time and energy, and if he doesn't do them or even if he does and his wife doesn't like what he wants to do with his leftover time, she can make his life a living Hell.

She can get hostile and bitchy. She can bitch at him and nag him, including while he's trying to sleep (that one is especially fun, I know from experience). She can shut down all affection. She can get him kicked out of his own home. She can spend him into debt. She can destroy his belongings. There's worse.

She urged the husband to go back to his wife, saying he can do what he wants to do and still be married. Yet, if he had already been doing what he wanted to do Dr. Laura might have gotten a call from the wife and told the wife she was married to a selfish man who didn't want to be married or that she "doesn't have a marriage."

It sounded to me like Dr. Laura was trying to prevent the wife from being a divorced woman at an age she would have slim pickings for a new husband. The call wasn't anywhere near long enough to get a good idea of what has really been going on in the marriage. Dr. Laura may have known due to a letter or what was discussed or sent back and forth prior to the call, but the listeners didn't.

How to Keep Your Friends Free - Intervention

As I wrote in the first entry of this series, Prevention is ideal when keeping the men you know free.

Sometimes, Intervention will be required, because some of these men won't stay free. They will tie themselves down to a woman.

When a man is in, or heading towards, an "exclusive" relationship or the marriage trap, your assistance will mostly have to be more subtle to prevent him from getting locked in. He's getting sex from her (or, in rare cases he's not but he thinks he'll be getting some later), and he thinks it's the best or only sex he's going to have. He won't want to give it up. He might also be feeling pressure from his family or a religious congregation.

So, subtle will usually be the way to go. Being repetitively direct and blunt probably won't work. He's in LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE. You're probably not going to get through to him with a frontal assault. 

Disconnects When It Comes to Discussing Marriage Online

There are a couple of common disconnects with people who try to counter me in discussions on Twitter/X about marriage and being a Free Man.

1) They accuse me of being an incel or lonely, dateless, can't get a wife, etc. It takes two seconds to check my profile and see that I'm married. It's especially stupid because my personal status has nothing to do with whether I'm writing the truth or not, or whether it is a good point or not.

2) When I say legally marrying is detrimental to most men, or there's no benefit for them to do it, or ask someone to cite a benefit for a man, responses (the ones who don't try to divert, anyway) often cite something men can get without legally marrying, and often without socially or religiously marrying.

The lack of reason and logic, the use of fallacies, the bad mind reading, and the hallucinations are quite sad. I'm not obligated to defend an argument I don't make. I welcome legitimate disagreement and discussing the differences. When someone libels me, however, I will usually block them.

What Honest Messaging Would Look Like From Censorship Crusaders

Whether #Traffickinghub, Laila Mickelwait, Justice Defense Fund, Exodus Cry, Fight the New Drug, or so many others, anti-porn crusaders are desperate to present their attacks on adult media as either an attack on criminal material or only a specific company because of claimed crimes (Traffickinghub/Mickelwait/JDF).

Here's what honest messaging from them would look like.

"We don't like porn, or we like it but wish we didn't."

"Our religions are against nudity in media, erotic images, and sexy dancing, so we try to stop others from being involved with these things."

"Compulsive porn viewing is a common sign someone has problems with compulsive tendencies."

But they want to get people to stop watching all adult media, or at least feel really bad about it, or donate money to them, and they know that if they were honest about that, their messages would only motivate some of the people in their own small religious circles.

So what they do is try to correlate negative indicators with "using porn" in a way that tries to get people to believe that porn caused these bad things.

Quite frequently, they try to portray things true of (even common with) media in general, business in general, organizations in general, or even humanity in general to be unique problems with porn, stripping, etc.

Example: "She's only doing this because she needs money."

Well, yeah, isn't that why almost everyone works a job?

There are countless other examples.

Unfortunately, they push panic on the gullible.

Yet Another Thing to Check Out If You're Thinking of Marrying

Guys, most of you shouldn't marry. There are many reasons why I say that. Here's just one of many: Dead Bedrooms.

Read up! That could easily be YOU!

Imagine signing away over half your earnings, handing over control of your life and home, and you get a dead bedroom.

JUST SAY NO!

Stay free!

It Costs More to Raise Children Now

“People in the past had (more) kids even though they had less wealth.”

That statement is made to try to cajole people into having (more) kids, as though other factors haven’t come into play.

Life has changed.

More people used to live on family farms or above family shops. The kids were working in the family business as soon as they could walk. Or the kids were going to work in factories, mines, or other income-earning jobs.

If mom and dad weren’t working the family farm or shop together, dad could be working his entire career for the same employer, in the same town.

High school is not much more than a century old, and a much smaller percentage of the population went to college.

Now, for many “professional” or career-type jobs, at least a Bachelor’s degree is required by employers. Landing a job, and subsequent promotions, often requires jumping from company to company and relocating. When you have kids, that becomes very difficult. Layoffs don’t help! If you’re getting your health insurance through your employer, it’s much less of an issue if you’re childfree.

Kids were financial assets from an early age, now they are liabilities for 26-plus years.

Most people don’t think it’s good or even acceptable anymore to have kids, especially kids of the opposite sex, sharing small bedrooms, so each additional child can mean needing an additional bedroom. Even if you’re willing to cram your kids into a small place, housing costs have outpaced inflation.

As have automobile costs, and each child needs their own seat, with a special child’s seat contraption, and then a booster seat, almost until they’re ready to drive themselves. This isn’t the old days of packing onto the floor of a van or the back of a station wagon. Speaking of driving themselves, there are more restrictions on teens driving. Having kids usually means needing larger automobiles.

Healthcare costs have also outpaced inflation. Oh, there are glasses/contacts, dental work, orthodontics, therapy…

College costs have also outpaced inflation. But before college, there’s hiring tutors. Public schools involve certain costs, too, but if you find them unusable, how much do you think private schools cost, hmmm? Oh, “Just homeschool!”? Who’s paying off mom’s student loans then, eh? Homeschooling usually isn’t entirely free, and means much less time and ability to earn income.

I won’t even get into the costs of day orphanages (daycare).

Birthdays. More kids today have a party every year. That doesn’t just mean you have to pay for your own kid’s party every year. There’s buying gifts for, and attending their friends’ parties, too. The time itself is costly. And of course there’s the really big birthday parties: Sweet 16, quinceañeras, bar and bat mitzvahs, which are rivaling weddings for expense and trouble.

Recreation and entertainment costs have gone up. Do you know what it costs to visit a major theme or amusement park now? Professional sports games/matches?

Are you going to pay for your child’s wedding??? 

None of this is even taking into consideration that your child might get involved in something as simple as a schoolyard fight that, nowadays, will require you to hire lawyers. Those aren’t cheap.

What if your child has special needs or a disability? This can not only be costly in money, but time, effort, and freedom as well. And that might continue the rest of your life.

Let’s not forget taxes and all of the other ways government of various levels collects money from us that have increased.

And what happens if the person you made the kid with decides they don’t want to be married anymore? How much is a divorce and ongoing battles over custody, support, and other matters going to cost? How much will the support cost? Therapy for the kids?

No matter how much the fertility rate panic pushers try to gloss over things, children are expensive, draining, and limiting.

People often want to have the same “things” others have, if they see it’s a better life. People also see what other people go through and realize they don’t want that in their life. Many childfree people see what parents deal with, and say “No thanks!” The panic pushers don’t want people to believe their “lying eyes.”

Maybe some of those people in the past or elsewhere are poor mainly because they had more children? It’s also possible poor people have (more) kids because they are something that is “theirs” and they think they can control. Everything else is only theirs until it gets repossessed or their landlord raises rent.

None of these people telling you to have (more) kids are going to be there to pay your bills, or deal with the toils and troubles. No, that will be up to you. And some of those people will be first in line to criticize you if you don’t handle parenting exactly the way they want you to. Because it isn’t simply, “Have kids.” No, no, no… it’s “Have kids, then do everything else the way we say, too.”

They want you to feel guilt and shame for wanting to be somewhat secure, wanting to enjoy your life and freedom, not wanting to struggle. They’ll say what approaches “But you CAN afford kids! You can rent a few square feet in Montana & live in a tent!”

Haven’t we heard over and over again that people sacrifice and struggle and work hard so that future generations have a better life, and can live better than previous generations? And yet if you try to actually fulfill that by living a better life, these panic pushers freak out. These fertility cultists seem to be saying, “No, not a better life for you! Someone else, down the line!”

In addition to monetary costs, many people staying with the default of being childfree also think children should have parents who will stay together, cooperate, and treat each other well, but are perceiving, correctly, that they can’t provide that, or there’s a significant risk of not being able to provide that.

The claim that concerns about the costs of raising children aren’t warranted doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

The Costs of Raising a Child

Mother’s Day is THIS SUNDAY, May 11

Don't forget the mothers in your life, unless they've torn up their mother card.

Don't forget people like your stepmother, if you're trying to keep peace with her/your dad and she expects to be celebrated by you, even if she tore up her mother card.

And those of you who are foolish enough to be in a relationship with a woman who is a mother, you'd better do something for her, unless you want a fight.

Don't expect much reciprocation in June if you're a father or have taken on the role of a father.

Cancelling the Wedding

If you're scheduled to be the groom in a wedding within a few months, a week, even later today, you can still cancel it, and you probably should.


EMERGENCY - If the wedding is today, tomorrow, or days away, you can still cancel it.

If this is the day of the wedding or the day/evening before, inform her privately (take a reliable witness, just in case, like the officiating pastor) or send someone to do it. Inform the officiant.

If this is the day of the wedding, have someone apologize to the guests.

[This is assuming you don't have children with her. If you do, you really don't want to start a war with her.]

For more about what you need to do, see further below.

Will cancelling the wedding be a mess?

Yes, it will be a mess, and the closer to the wedding the more of a mess it will be, but it's far better than being married, especially being married and then divorced. For most men, there is nothing wrong with cancelling the wedding; it's usually the best thing to do in the situation you're in. You can do it. And most likely, you should.

The pain, the mess, the effort, the costs, the losses of cancelling a wedding pale in comparison to the downsides of marrying, even more so marrying and divorcing.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking "Well, we live together already and/or we have all of these plans and shared things." If you marry, it will be the last significant decision over your own life you'll be able to make in peace until she divorces you or you decide to divorce. If you marry her, all power you have (other than to divorce, which will be very expensive and destructive) shifts to her.

You are better off free, and if we believe all women, she is, too.

So here is what you need to do:

1. Accept that your relationship with your fiancee is over. Accept that there are people who know both of you who will drop you (this may include having to leave your religious congregation or other shared activities or groups). Accept that this might feel embarrassing. Reject any notion that this is a failure. Letting it go further would be a failure. Divorce is common. You're avoiding years of misery in marriage and then a divorce.

2. Be strategic about what you do when. For example, if the wedding is still six months away and you're living together and sharing some accounts, you've got a little time to do this, and you need to do as much as you can to dis-entangle yourself from her and protect yourself and your assets before she realizes you're cancelling the wedding. Once she knows, you might need to have a reliable witness with you whenever you interact with her. Document/record/get copies of everything that matters: paperwork, conversations, whatever might become an issue.

3. If you two have obtained a marriage license from the county/state, at some point you should destroy that so there's no chance it gets signed and filed.

4. If things have been paid for and finalized, you should cancel with anyone or any venue or business with which you have the power to do so. If you or your parent were the one paying, you should have that power. That might involve the wedding coordinator, rehearsal dinner restaurant, tuxes (and bridesmaid dresses, depending), florists, photographers, DJ/sound, musicians, cake bakers/decorators, officiant, church/wedding venue, reception venue, caterers, honeymoon travel and accommodations, even bachelorette party stuff. You may lose money, especially on deposits, but it is a small price to pay to save money over the coming years and retain your freedom. Don't fall for the "sunk costs" mentality of saying you don't want the money to go to waste. Getting married would result in exponentially more wasted money. If you still want to do what would have been your bachelor party, rehearsal dinner, reception, etc. that's up to you, if you're the one who put in the money. Those can be turned into a celebration of your freedom. (Having the contact information of everyone involved, including invited/RSVP'd guests, is helpful.)

5. It'll be best if you have some trustworthy people who have your back and can be your witnesses, and it will be helpful if those include both men and women. Have them help you move what you need out of your shared residence (if you're sharing one). Consult a lawyer if you need to about any entanglements you have with your fiancee, especially if it is YOUR residence you are sharing (the lawyer might tell you NOT to move out, in such a case). If you need to temporarily go somewhere else for your safety (and to avoid confrontations with her/her family that could end up with police getting involved and/or false allegations) consider a friend's place or a hotel, but it has to be kept secret.

Although few may say it, most people will understand, and most of them will think you made the right decision. Of course SHE and her family and friends are likely to be upset with you, especially at first. Unless they already control your life, it shouldn't matter, because you're going to be avoiding them.
.
Rather than repeat myself about everything else, see this link and follow the the links at that post, too.

Guys, even if the wedding date is set, even if the plans have been finalized and payments made, the guests attending verified, even if the wedding is tomorrow or later today, you can still back out, and you probably should. Be sure to consider your safety, whether physical, financial, reputational, or emotional.

You need to be thinking about what is best for you. Nobody else is.

Answering Marriage Seller Assertions, Talking Points, and Questions - Part 4

Read Part 1 here and Part 2 here and Part 3 here.


It's not a commitment without marriage.

There is more than one way to answer this.

A) I don't want a commitment.

B) That's your assertion. Your opinion doesn't make it true.

People make commitments, including in romantic relationships, all of the time without a bad state contract.

Legally marrying isn't a commitment to anything other than default paternity and the spouse who earns more paying the other spouse.

It's very clear some people commit without legally marrying and some people legally marry but aren't committed to caring for, or staying with, the other person.

Commitment is demonstrated in behavior.

Let's consider two couples. The first couple never marries, but they take care of each other with love, kindness, and affection for decades, until death. The second couple gets married, cheat on each other, generally treat each other like crap, and break up. Who was truly committed?

Part 5

"Why Can't Men Be Upfront and Honest?" - Part 1

A woman created a Twitter account apparently to respond to what I say in posts like this one, in which I encourage men to avoid being with a woman, on certain days/times of the year, who is thinking of you as potential husband material, or who you've been seeing on a regular basis.

This woman said:

"If you're noticing a girl likes you enough to be developing feelings for you and actually wants to spend time with you she at least deserves to not be strung along. It's pretty amazing how callously some men treat some women."

And:

"I’m just saying be honest and up front about not wanting a relationship so she is privy to what your intentions are."

By telling men to get scarce and avoid being with a woman he's been seeing during those days, I'm encouraging men to prevent or stop her from thinking of him as someone who is going to be part of her life with her friends and family, or thinking of him as shackup or husband material.

I'm addressing men who do not want to be married and do not want to even live with a woman. Ideally, these men are only seeing these women for dates (visits or booty calls) that don't involve meeting her friends or family.

If she's thinking it's more, or hoping for or wanting more, that's her problem. Nothing more should have been inferred.

Avoiding the woman during those times avoids leading her on!

It's up to her whether not she will see him again if he asks to see her after those days have passed.

There is far more to write about this, but I'll save that for another entry or two or three.

Part 2 of This Series