One Big Predictor of Divorce: The Husband’s Job

One Big Predictor of Divorce: The Husband's Job

These two opening paragraphs in this New York Magazine  article validated what I’ve been discussing here  for nearly a decade. With one new wrinkle:

“Despite the myths you might have heard, half of American first marriages don’t end in divorce. In reality, about a third do, down from the divorce surge of the 1970s and 1980s, though second and third marriages are much more vulnerable. Recent marriages are doing particularly well thus far: Just 15 percent of the Americans who tied the knot since 2000 have decided to get it undone within the first eight years of marriage.

The predictors of divorce, however, remain mysterious. But in a new study published in the American Sociological Review, Harvard sociologist Alexandra Achen Killewald has found that the things that increase the probability of divorce – as they relate to work, at least – have changed over the past couple decades. It turns out that the amount of money that either the husband or wife makes isn’t that important: For contemporary couples, the biggest determinant is whether the husband is working full-time.”

An unemployed (or semi-employed) husband is not only failing to fulfill his expected role of contributing to the household financially, but this failure takes a toll on his self-esteem, his masculinity, how his wife sees him, and how they interact as a couple.

I’ve written before about other predictors of divorce: Marrying too young. Marrying too quickly. Marrying too slowly. Breaking up and making up. But this new information helps to round out the picture that most of us have been painting anecdotally.

“The results contradict a couple of the leading explanations for why people divorce and why so many people broke up in the 70s and 80s in particular. Drawing from that data, Killewald concludes that the “material circumstance” of the couple has little to do with divorce: neither how much money either partner makes nor the wages they earn relative to one another are determining factors. Also, it doesn’t appear to be the case that the financial dependence – or independence – of the wife is affecting the likelihood that a couple splits up. For couples in the post-1975 cohort, the way they divvy up unpaid labor – household chores, taking care of the kids – had little effect on divorce  probability.”

“This shows that, for contemporary couples, wives can combine paid and unpaid labor in various ways without threatening the stability of their marriages,” Killewald wrote to Science of Us in an email. ”But, for those same marriage cohorts, the risk of divorce increases substantially when the husband isn’t employed full-time.” While the homemaker ideal has waned in importance, the notion of the breadwinner is still hanging on.

My interpretation is that an unemployed (or semi-employed) husband is not only failing to fulfill his expected role of contributing  to the household financially, but this failure takes a toll on his self-esteem, his masculinity, how his wife sees him, and how they interact as a couple. As the article points out, this isn’t the be-all, end-all for divorce studies. But I do think a man’s working status  is a common catalyst for what psychologist John Gottman calls the  Four Horsemen of  divorce: contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and emotional withdrawal.

Your thoughts below, are greatly appreciated.

Join our conversation (175 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.


  1. 1

    “It turns out that the amount of money that either the husband or wife makes isn’t that important”

    ”But, for those same marriage cohorts, the risk of divorce increases substantially when the husband isn’t employed full-time.”

    These statements do not seem consistent with each other, unless you heavily consider the statement “that important.”   If he’s working in a fast food restaurant, he’s working but not providing.       It matters that he works but not how much he makes?

    Reading between the lines, this seems to suggest that the more $ the man makes, the more stable the marriage.   ” the notion of the breadwinner is still hanging on.”

    1. 1.1

      Yeah, that was a bit strange. But I think it just means at a baseline it doesn’t matter. If a woman married a man that made $x. She expects $x. But if the man isn’t employed full-time that will fluctuate. Then it becomes an issue. I’m guessing.

      1. 1.1.1

        I think, as has been discussed many times  before, there is a threshold above which there is no correlation between income and marital  instability.   That threshold might be different for different people.

    2. 1.2

      Maybe women have “thresholds” of behavior for men beyond which they will compromise and weigj pros and cons, but below which resentment spikes and tolerance plummets?

      Since people tend to select partners similar to them somehow (culture, values, education), you wont be getting lots of women in high paying professional jobs marrying men with low-paying, low-skill jobs.

      Beyond that, though, your field determines your actual salary, and as such is kind of a “given” – a female doctor would probably be ok with her journalist husband making way less because of his job, but would into be ok of he quit his job. As long as he is employed and making a reasonable amount of money, she’ll balance his lower salary against his other excellent qualities. If it looks like he’s given up and isn’t putting forth effort, she will feel put-upon.

    3. 1.3

      The author is simply stating what the data show, see pg 709. However, I don’t think you’re wrong about the general principle.

      What I found interesting is that the “controls” are much more important than the topic of discussion. Want to avoid divorce? Marry a Catholic Hispanic.

  2. 2

    I wonder if this is to be expected. Women went from staying at home to working. There was  a lot of issues during that transition as well. And there are unfortunately people who still hold on to the notion  that a women’s  place is at home.


    Now men are pulling back and entering the home. There is going to be some pushback and a transition period for that as we get use to it. I’ve read some articles over the years on breadwinning women that secretly resent their husbands. And society in general still hasn’t caught up to that notion either.


    I think in a couple of generations this will sort itself out. More proof that men and women are basically the same. Men/Society wanted to protect the breadwinning/working territory. Women/Society wants to protect the caregiver/home territory.

    1. 2.1

      Sorry, men and women aren’t even CLOSE to being the same in almost EVERY way. Both can adjust based on environmental factors but there is a reason why men have   more testosterone. There is a reason why women’s bodies are physically softer. There is a reason why most men are more left brained. There are also key hormonal differences that affect behavior, etc.   and I can go on and on and on…as a result, this will also affect expectations somewhat (although we can learn to override many things). But nature is nature.


      1. 2.1.1

        @Stacy – Way to take one sentence, ignore everything else and take things out of context.


        You don’t have to agree with me. I certainly  didn’t mean to imply men and women are physically the same.  I’ll stand by what I said. Just because men and women act and want different things doesn’t mean we are different. I wasn’t talking we are the same in every aspect.


        Women entered what men considered man’s domain. Men pushed back.


        Men are entering what women consider their domain. Women are pushing back.


        Context is very important. In context they are ACTING the same.(Being selfish unreasonable pricks.) And honestly the things you pointed out makeup less than 1% of what makes a person a person if you ask me.  And I’m not even sure if it’s genetic. We’re much more alike than different. I have too many male/female friends that don’t fit inside your little box to agree with you.

        1. Stacy


          Actually I agreed with some of what you said. I just diSagreed that men ‘entering the home’ will ever be something that both men and women will fully embrace as a new normal only because there is an aspect of nature that drives us and not just social…so I brought up the point for the sake of discussion.After all, it’s the purpose of a forum such as this. There is a reason why the cave MAN was the Hunter even before there was organized society.

    2. 2.2


      Men and women aren’t even close to being different. There is a reason why men are more left brained. There is a reason why women’s bodies on average are not naturally made for ‘hard labor’. There is a reason why men have more testosterone. There is a reason why women have such hormonal variety and fluctuations (and depending on the time of month). There is a reason why women feel how they feel after carrying around a baby for over 9 months. There is a reason why you go into a sports bar and will more often than not find more men than women. But if you go on a relationship blog, you would more often than not find more women. There are key differences between men and women that naturally affect expectations and desires. Of course, one can learn based on environmental factors, to reign some of it in. And any behavior can surely be learned. But nature is nature.
      I firmly believe that it is in a woman’s nature to not respect a man who cannot provide.   Doesn’t mean he has to be rich…doesn’t mean he even has to make a lot of money…but the average man does not feel good if he is unemployed or underemployed and the average woman naturally (even if we try to fight it) does not respect a man who fully works (when it is in his control to do so). We can’t HELP it.   There will never be a day when women in droves will be comfortable and happy being the breadwinner.

      1. 2.2.1

        I firmly believe that it is in a woman’s nature to not respect a man who cannot provide.

        Please, no offence Stacy but there are so many problems and flaws with this post. First, many of the differences you highlight are due either completely to socialization or have no relevance to the issue at hand (testosterone, for example, can explain differences in sex drive and aggression, but has nothing to do with the cultural importance assigned to labels like ‘bread winner’). You can walk into many sports bars, for instance, and these days find just as many women chugging a beer, eating wings and watching the game.

        However, your post doesn’t take into account cultural and economic shifts that also impact attitudes. During the medieval period there was no strict gendered division of labor that relegated men to the fields and women to the household because economic activity was not separated from the household.  During the industrial revolution women and children were recruited to perform hard labor without cultural disapproval (not saying that was good). The breadwinner model only emerged in the twentieth century.

        @KK, perhaps, but do you realize it’s posts like Stacy’s that buttress some of the points that Chance makes here? What would be the reaction if some man wrote, “I firmly believe that it is in a man’s nature to not respect a woman who doesn’t tend to the house…We can’t HELP it”?

        1. Stacy

          No offence taken.:)
          Many of the differences I highlighted are not based on socialization. It is a fact that testosterone affects factors such as libido or sexual desire, strength, aggression (which also affects other factors such as ego, masculinity, dominance, etc).   It is also a scientific fact that men are more left brained.
          And I never said women cannot perform hard labor. But we’re not talking about the industrial revolution or slavery here. We are talking about examples where women actually have a CHOICE.   And men can handle hard labor far better than women on average. You would have to be completely ignorant to deny this.   The reason why I bring up these factors is that Morris says men and women aren’t different. Shucks, visit us once a month when it’s that time of the month and you will see how wrong he is. We have hormonal fluctuations that men have and estrogen makes us ‘softer’ all around..not to mention childbirth and our nurturing desires which gives us a natural desire to be protected (however that protection is defined based on each woman). What does all this have to do with the topic? Well, because of the many differences of women COMBINED, there is a natural aversion to a man not working (or not being able to provide). When I say ‘provide’, I simply mean a man who works to his full and reasonable capacity IF he is able to do so. By saying provide, it does not MEAN he has to make more money than the woman nor am I implying that a woman does not have to provide equally. What I am saying is, it is difficult for a woman to respect a man who is unemployed or underemployed (especially if it is not seen as temporary) but a man more often than not, will not lose respect for a woman as readily. This is why a woman will never feel good courting a man no matter what the century.
          Oh, and in my 38 years, I have NEVER walked into a sports bar (a pure form of a sports bar) and seen as much women as men.   C’mon, it should be pretty apparent that men love sports wayyy more than women.   But go on a wedding forum or a relationship forum and you will see the opposite. Men and women are NATURALLY interested in different things on AVERAGE. So please don’t tell me your girlfriend loves sports…I realize there are exceptions to the rule.   And I also love a good football game. If men and women were the same, why would Evan even have this blog?

        2. KK


          “@KK, perhaps, but do you realize it’s posts like Stacy’s that buttress some of the points that Chance makes here?”

          Chance’s mantra is his alone. He’s repeatedly said he’s here to “fight back against women”; whatever that means. I think Stacy’s post reflects her attitude which is influenced more by society’s standards than anything else. It doesn’t make her wrong. It’s simply a reflection of what “we” as a society (men and women) expect from men.

          “What would be the reaction if some man wrote, “I firmly believe that it is in a man’s nature to not respect a woman who doesn’t tend to the house…We can’t HELP it”?

          Funny enough, that IS a prevalent attitude among men, whether or not you agree or disagree. I’m sure we’d have a combination of both outraged disagreement, disagreement in general, and agreement.

        3. L

          Me clicking LIKE

      2. 2.2.2

        There will never be a day when women in droves will be comfortable and happy being the breadwinner.

        I don’t know about that necessarily. I think there’s a caveat. Recently, I’ve gotten pretty comfortable being a “breadwinner”. I pulled my family out of poverty and I support them financially (and will be for a long time) as they’re simply not equipped to support themselves at any decent level. However I find myself unwilling to extend that support to any bodily able, educated man not  related to me by blood who’s unemployed due to … what? His pride? His laziness?   Whatever the case may be, he just gotta take care of himself.

        1. Stacy


          I should have been more clear…I was speaking in context of an intimate relationship between a man and a woman.

      3. 2.2.3

        I just disagreed that men ‘entering the home’ will ever be something that both men and women will fully embrace as a new normal only because there is an aspect of nature that drives us and not just social.

        @Stacy, thanks for the response. However, your quote above could be used to justify virtually any unfair cultural double standard and expectation, and until the culture shifts, such a statement is not falsifiable-unless you look at history.  What would you  say to the 1950s ‘Mad Men’ style males who  make the exact same argument about women entering the workforce? If women are natural nurturers and caregivers as you imply, then men should  feel a natural revulsion at the thought of a woman entering the workforce and gaining an equal footing in terms of labor rights and workforce participation. In order to keep your argument consistent, then you have to respond to this by stating something other than ‘well, times change.’

        You also misrepresented some of my points. I noted that testosterone does impact sex drive and translate into physical differences. So yes, men are physically more able (generally) to perform hard labor. But the physical ability to do something doesn’t always  translate into a cultural expectation. Also, the men who stay with the women who don’t work, don’t have kids, and simply spend all their time berating the nanny and taking tennis lessons likely are disgusted by their behavior. Such revulsion is I think a human impulse. They stay with them mainly for sex, which is one area where testosterone makes a difference.

        Moreover, even if what you’re saying is correct (regarding nature) it doesn’t make such expectations just. Some evolutionary biologists argue that rape and sexual assault emerged as a reproductive strategy  to maximize certain males’ chances of procreation, and such traits were favored by natural selection. Even if the argument is correct, that doesn’t mean that we should throw up our hands and assume that rape is  inevitable.

        Finally, as an anecdotal challenge to your rigid gender role argument, I am not, and have never been, a sports fan:)


        1. Marika

          Also, not to be pedantic, Stacy, but I’m in the neuroscience field and that ‘men are left brained’ thing is not really correct. The human brain is far more complex than that. Research varies widely and few researchers agree on all the sex differences that get discussed in the media (other than the fact that, on average, the male brain is larger – mainly because men on average are larger). It would be great if we could explain some of these things by saying “well that’s because our brain etc..”, but we are still in the infancy of brain research & understanding and are always learning (as well as disproving) theories, as it is so complex.

        2. Stacy


          Actually, throughout history, there has been a natural revulsion to women entering the workforce. It took a lot of sweat and tears (literally) for (some women, and particularly westerners) to overcome this. Shucks, you already know that we weren’t able to even vote until 1920 much less seen as nothing but housewives and mothers with our place as ‘being in the home’.   And remember I said that we can overcome our internal biases? That is one advantage of being human.   And even in the western world that is supposedly most ‘socially progressive’ (although I have my arguments about that but I digress), there is still a natural adverse reaction to a woman being fully engaged career wise especially when she has children and there is still the underlying current of opinion that women belong in the home and one is less than a wife and mother if she isn’t a martyr on that front.  

          And you’re right, the physical ability to do something doesn’t always translate into a cultural expectation. BUT, the combination of the physical ability to do something as well as the desire to be dominant and ‘masculine’ and strong makes a huge difference on expectations.

          Lastly, I am not judging these perspectives as right or wrong and I am by no means saying that certain behaviors are okay. All I am doing is pointing out what I perceive to be the facts of the matter.   In fact, I am a career woman myself.   But while I am dating someone now, I have never met a man who was that concerned with how much I make or even if I worked full time or not (although there seemed to be an expectation for me to work and be able to at least ‘take care of myself’).   However, there seemed to be a focus on what I look like and how I make them feel (which reflects Evan’s blog actually). Most women, I believe, cringe internally at the thought of a man who is not fully employed whether they say so out loud or not (even if you make your own money and are farrrr from a gold digger and have no expectations on the man financially). We still cringe. It is innate. It is part of our make up.


  3. 3

    Of all the divorced people I know, this is usually the biggest issue.   When a man stops working, the divorce clock starts ticking.   It helps if a unemployed man picks up the slack at home by taking care of the home or family members but this is rare. Non working men seem to pick up bad habits too.

    This is also a big issue when dating.   A sizable number of men I have met over the years have “employment problems”.   Gainfully employed men get snatched up and stay hitched while idle men end up in the dating pool.   Watch out for men who are self-employed or who are vague about their job.

  4. 4

    Evan is spot-on with his interpretation. Definitely, the psychological impact of long-term (husband’s) unemployment ultimately undid my marriage. The longer he stayed unemployed the more unbearable he was becoming to be around. At the end, I lost all my respect for him and wanted him, his “moods” and “feelings” out of my life for good and him off my back financially

    1. 4.1


      I may have misinterpreted some of your other comments on other posts regarding your ex, but didn’t he also have some health issues?

  5. 5

    Ha, would be interested to hear Chances’ take on this:)

    1. 5.1


      Chance’s take would be the exact same as always. Something along the lines of: “Once again, women only want equality when it benefits them”. That’s his perpetual take on everything.  

      1. 5.1.1

        Chance said,

        “At any rate, the intent behind the use of the term was to get a rise out of an abusive poster.”

        The response Chance is referring to is #5.1 followed by comment #5. It says: “Chance’s take would be the exact same as always. Something along the lines of: “Once again, women only want equality when it benefits them”. That’s his perpetual take on everything”.

        There is nothing abusive about that post. It is a true statement. Chance has said this multiple times. He’s also continually said he’s here to fight back against women. To call all women prostitutes and then blame it on someone else is in line with what Chance always does. Abusers don’t like to be called out and when you do call them out, it angers them. Then, they’ll deflect. That’s exactly what he did. He made an outrageous statement, backed it up more than once with his twisted thinking, and then at the last moment blames someone else. Classic abuser 101.

    2. 5.2

      Hey, now! 🙂   Let’s not put words into Chance’s mouth ~ or, um, letters onto his keyboard? ~ when he’s not here to defend himself.

      And, would it be so wrong to claim that some of this issue might be due to at least a few women wanting it both ways?   In my case, for example: I am drawn to the easy-going nice guys but then grow weary of paying all the bills year after year as they dream about their next get-rich-quick scheme or best-selling novel while the dirty dishes pile up in the sink.   (Yes, this is an extreme example, but true in both of my long-term relationships).   On the other hand, most men I know who can afford to financially carry a household don’t care in the least if their wives are sweet and loving dreamers.

      It does seem like another factor would be the fact (EMK has written about this study, in the past) that women who earn more than their husbands usually end up doing a GREATER share of the housework/ child care than wives who earn less than their husbands.   So, while there certainly are househusbands who do an excellent job of maintaining the home and raising the family, perhaps more unemployed guys veer in the opposite direction.   And one of the greatest predictors of marital happiness is a husband who helps with housework and childcare, so…


  6. 6
    Michelle Murrain

    Actually, the presence of John Gottman’s 4 Horses of the Apocalypse are some of the best predictors of divorce. They are criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling. And according to his research, positive interactions   (appreciations, moments of connection, etc.) must outnumber negative interactions (like the above) FIVE to ONE.

    How each member of a couple handles life situations and relates to their partner is more important than the life situations themselves.

  7. 7

    Most men identify themselves by their feeling of self efficacy. In our modern society, the easiest way to feel that way is to be gainfully employed and to be good at what you do. Your confidence takes a hammering when you lose your job and don’t know when the next one will come along. No wonder that this has a big impact on their private life.

    When dating, i never focus on which job the man has, i only want to know whether he actually has one. I don’t need his €’s, i just need to know he’s happily employed and can look after himself. That makes for a way happier partner.

  8. 8

    Sorry for the double post. I thought the first one did not go through and rewrote.

  9. 9

    That makes sense, for sure. I’ve made the mistake of trying to date a guy that was unemployed and he was not a happy person. I think what also counts or relates to that is how much a man is satisfied or passionate about their job too. That can mess with their self esteem, especially if the girlfriend or wife truly enjoys what they do.

    1. 9.1

      I agree. If he likes his job, he is going to be far more positive about his life in general. It also shows he has the self awareness to know which kind of job he would be good at, and the get up and go to make his wishes into reality. These are very attractive character features, that translate into being a good life partner imo.

      Everybody has less than stellar moments in their career, and i don’t expect a man to be happy in his job, 24/7. For me a red flag is if they never seem to stay long in gainful employment and don’t seem to have the capacity or will to even be able to ask themselbes what would make them happy and succesful in life.

  10. 10

    This statement, even if true, isn’t especially helpful in terms of determining the divorce rate: “Recent marriages are doing particularly well thus far: Just15 percent  of the Americans who tied the knot since 2000 have decided to get it undone within the first eight years of marriage”.

    That means they’re only accounting for marriages that took place during 2000 and were still married by 2008. Hmm.

    1. 10.1
      Evan Marc Katz

      There have been many other posts about the inflated divorce rate. Here’s the one you should know: college educated women over 30 who get married for the first time have only a 20% divorce rate. Those are my clients.

      1. 10.1.1

        I don’t know, Evan. An 8 year period doesn’t tell anyone much.  I’m not interested in an inflated divorce rate or a deflated one. I’d just like to see actual statistics without commentary from anyone who benefits from those statistics either way.

      2. 10.1.2

        And is that 20% of ALL divorces or 20% of that group alone?

        1. Evan Marc Katz

          20% of that group alone. Seriously, just read the article above. Divorce rate is about 33%. Highly skewed by people who marry before age 25, where it’s above 70%. Feel free to search the marriage category on the blog or just Google Evan Marc Katz marriage statistics. I report statistics. I don’t “benefit” from them.

        2. Chance

          Hi Evan, can you please tell me where you or the article got the 33% figure?   I can’t reconcile.

        3. Chance

          Thanks Evan.   The chart in the article does not indicate that the divorce rate is 33% (even for marriages that began after the 1980s) when you extrapolate and project what the divorce rate could be based on empirical data.   For example, it appears that – for marriages that began in the 1990s – the divorce rate is likely to be on its way to 40-45%.


          I agree with you that there are people out there who want the 50% statistic to be true.   These are the people who possibly already failed at marriage, and are looking for company with whom they can share their misery.

  11. 11

    Fair enough. I can respect that.

    I would be more than happy to be the main breadwinner of the relationship. If my future husband wanted children, I’d prefer it if they wanted to be a stay at home dad or share equally with the day to day responsibilities of the household.

    All the things I want out of a partner has nothing to do with his earning potential and everything to do with his character. Money isn’t worth anything, anyway. Time is. If I can forge a mutually beneficial relationship with a man irrespective of his job status, I’ll be happy.

    1. 11.1

      Very well said.

  12. 12
    Tron Swanson

    I’m an atypical male, in many ways–for one thing, I’ve never been very ambitious. My career has had its ups and downs, but they’ve never really affected me emotionally. I’ve almost never felt better or worse because of something job-related. A lot of men take pride in being successful, but I just…don’t care, I guess? I’m always baffled when men gloat about how good they are at their jobs, or how they provide for their families. I’ve experienced some successes, as well, but I’ve always just shrugged and moved on. Really, what’s the big deal? Suffice to say, back when I was looking for a relationship, this did not help me with women. Not only was I not interested in being a provider, but I also refused to engage in any macho posturing. Women don’t really know how to react to you when you refuse to aggressively sell them on how awesome you allegedly are.

    As for the divorce rate being 30%, and not 50%? I’m not putting a six-shot revolver to my head and playing Russian roulette, even if the gun “only” has two bullets in it, as opposed to three…

    1. 12.1

      Methinks the revolver example is extreme! A “failed” marriage can seem little worse than a general breakup if no kids are involved. And even if there are, if you stay with a partner long enough to raise a kid, and then you go your separate ways, is that really a “failure”? I don’t see it as such. I think life should be about maximizing happiness. Committed relationships make many people happy. However, it’s irresponsible to promise someone that you’re going to love them FOREVER. That’s a long time!

      The financial partnership of marriage makes sense in the long run (even though it IS imperfect and possible to exploit!) But I have qualms with the forever thing. I want my partner to stay with me because they WANT to. Not because of an adolescent promise made years ago. And I appreciate the same level of respect as well.

      1. 12.1.1
        Tron Swanson

        Most of the men that I know have been divorced…and even when kids haven’t been involved, it’s still been disastrous for them.

        Just speaking for myself, I’d rather not lose any money to someone that’s decided to cheat and leave me, nor would I like to be kicked out of my own house. In the 21st century, a man can get all the tangible benefits of a relationship with a much smaller amount of the risk. It’s the alleged intangible ones that they try to use to make us commit: “If you don’t sign this paperwork, you don’t really love me!” Right, because emotions and financial risk go hand-in-hand for some reason. What a racket; I’m amazed that used car salesmen haven’t tried something similar.

        1. Katie

          The point of marriage is to minimize the risk. You SHOULDN’T get kicked out of your own house. Assets earned during the marriage are acknowledged to be property of both partners.   Usually it works fine.

          As for the woman cheating or whatever, I don’t get your point. Nobody wants a dishonest partner.


        2. Tron Swanson

          “Usually it works fine”?? Wow. I think that there are a lot of divorced men that’d disagree with you.

          And you think that the point of marriage is to minimize risk? For women, maybe. Which do you think is less risky for me…giving power over my assets to someone that might eventually turn on me, or keeping that power for myself?

        3. Yet Another Guy


          “You SHOULDN’T get kicked out of your own house. Assets earned during the marriage are acknowledged to be property of both partners.   Usually it works fine.”

          Have you ever heard of an exclusive possession order?   A judge may issue an exclusive possession order to force a spouse who refuses to move out to do so.   This type of order is usually issued to women who are seeking to force their husbands to move out of the house during divorce, especially in states that have a minimum separation period for no-fault divorce.   An exclusive possession order gives the partner who holds it legal right to change all of the locks on the marital home.   It also makes it a crime for the person who does not hold the order to enter a property for which he/she is legally and financially responsible without permission of the order holder.

        4. Katie

          Geez guys. What kinda witches are you guys proposing to? You’re both talking unlikely  worst case scenario.

          Honest women are going to feel pushed away by your distrustful assumptions about them.

        5. Katie

          I mean, speaking as an honest woman, I’d be confused by the level of distrust  of you two. I’m  madly and hopelessly in love with my dude. He loves me and trusts me and respects me and makes me so fucking happy 🙂 Since he’s Swedish and I’m American I’d marry him if he asked to make immigration paperwork easier. But don’t really care otherwise. We would have a completely different relationship if I didn’t feel so completely trusted by him! Different in a bad way!

        6. Tron Swanson


          Honest women might be pushed away by my “distrustful assumptions”? You know, I can live with that. As a man, I’ve had to deal with far too much rejection in my life, and it’s given me pretty thick skin. I’m used to women being pushed away by something or other. On the other hand, it’s much tougher to come back from financial devastation. If I have to choose between the two, well, it’s an easy choice.

        7. Katie

          That makes me even more thankful for my guy – loving and nonjaded. NEVER punishes me for his previous girl  problems.  Thanks for that 🙂

    2. 12.2

      I might be considered an unusual female in that I neither expect nor care if my future spouse is employed or not so long as he is doing something healthy and meaningful with his life. I also seek a minimum level of emotional intelligence and mutual sexual desire.

      Other than that I’m not fussed. I am capable and more than happy with being the sole financial provider, although I would like him to match me by keeping the house if he doesn’t have a job/prefers to be the house-husband).

      It doesn’t baffle me at all when men (or women) gloat about taking care of their families or how much money they make. It doesn’t do anything for me, but I can still understand it. They’re proud and it matters to them. Therefore, it’s a big deal. I’m okay with that.

      No matter the age, I wouldn’t regard a female who wasn’t accepting of you not being a ‘macho man’, as a  woman. I hope you’re meeting better women now. Divorce is indeed a risk you take when facing marriage and I absolutely respect your choice not to. If there’s anything I’ve learned from lurking around here, it’s that there are thought patterns & behaviours within myself that I can take accountability for in order to minimise that risk. If nothing else, I’ll know I’m doing the best I can in search for a complementary mate.

  13. 13
    Suzanne Hendricks Poole

    I….married a fella that had just finished one degree..   And never achieved lift off. Or could contribute because he had student loans.   Just about the point after three years of his contributing charming bass smoking pot I was ready to divorce.

    He just needed a grjobaduate degree. So another three years and he finally got a real life corporate job.   I got a baby at thirty, but had to quit my super great job, relocate to a new city and start over.

    As soon as he got finally semi successful…he started coming home with new cars, boats, houses and then a job that required full time travel.   Leaving me with two babies.

    So, right on. You can nurture these child men, loser men into success and when they get successful and confident….they move on.   Easy.   I think Evan’s suggested reading material….Barry Swartz….about maximizers is a good take.

    I no longer participate in fixing men. Leaves me single so far….But have seen it over and over.

    Honestly….it’s still shocking to me that a man will use a woman for money.   Wasn’t raised that way.   But.   Beware.

  14. 14

    What if the lack of full-time employment is not the cause of the divorce, but is itself a symptom of the character flaws that caused the divorce? I’m hesitant to overgeneralize because sometimes one partner will cut back on work hours to spend more time as a caretaker or because of a disability, but in most cases wouldn’t an extended period of part-time employment indicate some entitlement? Unless he is taking on the lion’s share of the domestic responsibility to support his wife’s career, a man who decides that he doesn’t feel like working more than 20 hours a week and is ok with leaving his wife in the lurch probably isn’t much of a husband anyway. That kind of selfishness probably shows up in personal interactions, negotiating outings and vacations, housework, the bedroom, and many other aspects of daily life. Men (and women) who aren’t willing to work normal hours without a compelling reason are not cut out for marriage or partnership in the first place. Of course their spouses leave them.

    1. 14.1

      Agreed. Male or female, you need to be working full time, in or out of the home. Otherwise, you don’t really have a partner; you have someone who’s there in body but not in spirit. When I married, I believed my spouse about his ambitions, but I made the mistake of not looking at his behavior as much as his words. As a result, I was married to an underemployed man-child for way too long.

      I do think that work inside the home can go a long way to creating balance (see: motherhood, hardest gig there is). My ex was an extreme example in what not to do (he thought it was a big deal to do the dishes), but I often thought that if he contributed in other ways – repair, landscaping, bill keeping, investment management, SOMETHING – our marriage might have had a shot. However, it doesn’t work, or even count, when the working partner has to constantly ask or remind the other to contribute. It’s about as satisfying as constantly asking someone to say “I love you.”


  15. 15

    The way I viewed my husband of 17 years as he stayed at home to do the parenting, was no positive. I wanted him to be the man, and I felt I was

  16. 16

    That makes complete sense. How often have you women in relationships given your man credit for intentions and trying, even if the results aren’t great, especially to start? It’s important that he remembers your birthday, gets you a gift, is willing to help you; you don’t expect perfection.

    Similarly with work. Your profession and age and luck have a huge effect on your pay. If you are doctor and he’s not, you’ll probably make more. That’s just how it is. But if you’re working overtime and he barely puts in 20 hours when he could be doing 40, That’s what breeds the resentment – the lack of appropriate effort, not the results.

    1. 16.1

      How often have you women in relationships given your man credit for intentions and trying, even if the results aren’t great

      Huh? Actually, real life is not a kindergarten competition where everybody gets a trophy for their “effort” or “participation”. In real life people expect results, as they should. Not “perfection”, but actual results.

      1. 16.1.1

        I’m obviously generalizing, but the wise woman who wants to keep a good man generally needs to exhibit 1) flexibility to his preferences, and 2) patience towards his flaws.

        She either acquiesces to his preference or slowly reveals hers (call it “training”, if you want to use an ugly word for it…). She is probably ok with clothes folded improperly, dishes stacked inefficiently, surprise Valentines day plans that weren’t what she envisioned, and the wrong color flowers on her birthday. Or she finds a nice, circumspect way to tell him, five times over as many months, “thank you so much! Could you satisfy my irrational whim and next time do X?”

        Then, and only then, might she start to get annoyed at lack of results.

        But I would argue that this same attitude, which looks for caring and attention and effort, which is willing to accept something different from her ideal preferences, enables her to disregard a man’s salary above a certain minimum (a doctor probably won’t be happy with a fast food waiter, but that isn’t likely to even become a marriage ever), as long as he does the work.


        1. Karl S

          I mean Marc.

  17. 17


    Fair enough.   However, just look at the careers dominated by men vs. women.   Research may   not agree all across the board but there are CLEAR differences between how men and women think. Although careers chosen are only one aspect, it says a LOT. To add to this, most of these careers primarily have ‘left brain’ tendencies.

    ‘It is a widely discussed fact that jobs in the science, technology, engineering and math fields, commonly referred to as STEM careers, are held mostly by men. This gender inequality has been the focus of several public policy initiatives, such as President Obama’s plan to bolster STEM education for girls.’

    Source: Education Guidance

    Also, as I discussed earlier, there are ways of communication that tend to be different between men or women. Let’s leave science out of it for one minute please. Go to a knitting/sewing class, a pilates class, the weight room at your gym, the sports bar, a relationship seminar, etc….you will CLEARLY see differences in attendance depending on the class. I was just on a wedding blog (for my girlfriend) and 97% is a community of women.

    If we are different in what appeals to us, then doesn’t it make sense that all of this will also affect expectations and desires?


    1. 17.1

      Clearly, you believe in this very strongly, Stacy.

      Why do you need all of us to agree & for you to be right?

      1. 17.1.1


        If you believe that by me responding to you and others on a DISCUSSION blog means I ‘need all of you to agree and for me to be right’, have at it.:)

        1. KK


          Any reasonable person could see you were responding to Shaukaut’s repeated questions.

        2. Marika

          Shaukat,  you want to take this one..

          Jokes, probably time to let it go!

      2. 17.1.2

        Any reasonable person could see you were responding to Shaukat’s repeated questions.

        KK, any reasonable person could see that  I wasn’t asking repeated questions; I was responding in argument form to Stacy’s previous points.

        1. KK


          You’re right. I misspoke. The point, though, is that there was nothing wrong with the exchange you and Stacy had. Not sure why Marika singled out Stacy for wanting to be right when both of you were defending or arguing your own points.

        2. Evan Marc Katz

          Y’all notice that the more you fight, the less you hear from me? Is that intentional? 😉

        3. KK


          I don’t think anyone here has that intdokie. 😊 I think when someone like Chance repeatedly makes all encompassing, degrading comments against women, some of us begin to wonder why he’s even allowed here. I don’t see any value to his “contributions”, especially this latest doozie.

        4. KK

          Intdokie should be intention. Not sure how I managed that. Lol

  18. 18

    Stacy,  I think the main problem with how you’re approaching this is that you notice certain differences as they happen to exist now and you immediately assume that they’re innate, without grounding that belief in history or science. The fact that the bread winner model didn’t emerge until the twentieth century would suggest that everyone was acting against their nature for centuries. You also don’t take note of differences that are the product of discrimination and not nature. Saying that you just ‘feel’ a certain way is often a copy out, and has nothing to do with facts.

    1. 18.1

      This. Just because women today gravitate or want something doesn’t mean it’s innate. Even something as silly as diamond engagement rings(not to mention weddings in general) are a recent phenomenon. Yet most women I know can’t imagine going without one. It was created as an ad campaign! External pressure is real. And sometimes change is difficult.

  19. 19

    Also, the differences you just outlined pertaining to attendance numbers at different events are unique to a very specific time period and economic and cultural context. If you visit the countryside in Haiti, for example, you won’t find any women talking about their pilates class

    1. 19.1


      With Haiti’s poverty problems, I doubt pilates is a priority. All throughout history men tried to prove their dominance primarily through sport and/or war. I can depict every century and go through these facts line by line.   And most of the men in this forum have stated that ‘most women do this or that’. In fact, Chance called all women prostitutes.   While he is ridiculous and disrespectful, it STILL proves my point that the reason we can generalize certain characteristics is that there are key differences in men and women no matter the time frame in history.   However, we are just going to have to agree to disagree (although I believe that internally you know I’m right).


      1. 19.1.1

        Stacy, yes, we will have agree to disagree, but I really think you should think hard about all the ways you might have been manipulated by the advertising industry and the media before you assume that every feeling and thought you have is natural. The point Morris made about diamonds is a good example – it’s association with romantic love was a product of DeBeers’ corporate PR campaign, but I’m sure you think women just naturally desire them.

        The point about men and aggression is a red herring, since no one is denying certain differences are rooted in biology.

        Also, internally I don’t believe any such thing, but it’s exactly those type of assumptions and your speculation about how people just ‘feel’ that has led you to draw erroneous conclusions about what’s natural.

        1. Stacy

          @ Shaukat

          Maybe I am the left brained one here today amongst you men.:)

          I never said that EVERY feeling and thought I have is natural. And I agree with you that the diamond industry is ridiculous and that the ring phenomenon is out of control. However, I dont see what that has to do with ANYTHING. Of course there are social influences that drive expectations that are unreasonable but you have gone all the way out of left field with what I am trying to say to you.

          SOME of the feelings and thoughts I have are natural and some are not. To deny that is pure lunacy.   Perfect example, around that time of the month, I feel clingy and emotional.   I experience that time of the month because I am a woman and those feelings are based on my cycle which stem from me being a WOMAN. However, I can curb these emotions consciously even though it’s difficult.

      2. 19.1.2

        Hi Stacy, I am illustrating how we can be guilty of picking and choosing to fall back on the biology crutch when it suits us.   We as humans consciously override our base biological propensities when it’s for the greater good.   We have constructed effective social conventions to steer ourselves away from following our biological imperatives when it would be bad for humanity if everyone were to freely follow them without restraint.   It can become dangerous when people attempt to circumvent this by falling back on the “hey, hey… this is biology we’re talking about here, and you don’t mess with that bitch” rationalization.

        1. KK

          There he goes slithering away. Chance has illustrated nothing except his ignorance about women. Saying that women are all prostitutes by nature, is his belief; ignorant as it is. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, yes, and at any time period throughout history, a minority of women were forced into it.

  20. 20

    All women are prostitutes by nature.


    I think women understand this, at least, on a limbic level.   If this weren’t the case, then the saying “Why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?” wouldn’t exist.   In my experience, almost every time I have heard this statement uttered, it has come from a woman.   They know the score.   I think the fact that most women find the idea of financially supporting a man to be an anathema is a manifestation of this prostitute-by-nature dynamic.

    1. 20.1

      Except  that saying applies to an era when women couldn’t support themselves like today.(And Everything that goes along with that.) Today it’s used to slut shame.

      1. 20.1.1

        “Today it’s used to slut shame.”


        You could be right about this since slut shaming most often occurs between women, and I could see this statement being used by a woman in an attempt to disqualify a sexual competitor.   However, when I have heard the statement being used, it has been when a woman was venting about (or shaming) a man who was apprehensive about committing to a woman.

        1. KK

          Definition of irony:

          Saying: “All women are prostitutes by nature”.

          And then following it up with: “You could be right about this since slut shaming most often occurs between women, and I could see this statement being used by a woman in an attempt to disqualify a sexual competitor”.


      2. 20.1.2

        I’ve heard that phrase used by men and women, more often by men.

        I LOVED one of Evan’s responses to that tired old phrase, he answered “Maybe because he LOVES the cow ?”.   Classic Evan wisdom !

    2. 20.2


      So, because most women aren’t comfortable with a man living off of them financially, it means that most women are prostitutes? Okay Chance, got it.

      *rolling my eyes*

    3. 20.3

      There is no prostitute – by – nature dynamic. However, your comment proves there is absolutely a dipshit – by – nature dynamic. Your mom must’ve done a real number on you to screw you up so badly. Whew!!

      1. 20.3.1

        I’ve always wondered if people like this have mothers/sisters/daughters/neices. As if you would look at your daughter and call her a prostitute.(I realize it applies both ways. But given the forum I’m sticking to one gender.)

        1. Chance

          Morris, what I’m setting forth shouldn’t be controversial.   I think the vast majority of women have leveraged their sexual agency at some point in their lives when dealing with men – even if it is just to get out of a traffic ticket, for example.   There is a deep and broad history of women utilizing their sexuality to facilitate an exchange of resources that would be far from equal if you were to take sex out of the equation.   I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that as I think it’s evolved.


          Mind you, I am talking about the dictionary definition of prostitution.   I am not saying that all women are sluts.   I am not saying that all women are essentially street walkers.   Far from it.   Further, the majority of women override these instincts most of the time when dealing with the opposite sex, and certainly do appreciate men for less “shallow” traits (just as men suppress their innate desire to have sex with many women to emotionally commit to a woman whom they love, for example).   Finally, I am also saying that, by nature, all men are Johns.

        2. KK

          Thank you, Morris, for being the only man on here to voice your disapproval. The other’s silence speaks volumes.

        3. SparklingEmerald

          Chance claims to be in a relationship for the past 5 years, and it’s the BEST relationship. I guess she’s the best whore ever !


        4. KK

          Prostitution: the systematic sexual violence and oppression against women and girls. This system is institutionalized in the sex industry: stripshows, nude juice bars, massage parlors and saunas, brothels, adult book and video stores, peep shows, live sex shows, sex rings, escort services, mail order brides, streetwalking, and pornography. Each of these forms of prostitution provides men with unlimited sexual access to women and girls based solely on their ability to pay.

        5. Morris

          @Chance – you made it controversial. You purposefully equated all women to prostitutes. You know full well the negative connotation that word brings. Not to mention how inaccurate that statement is.


          Using your logic. All men have in some ways pressured/nudged a women, girlfriend or wife, to have sex when they weren’t in the mood. Therefore all men are rapists. See how that works?

        6. Tron Swanson

          God help me for saying this, but…many of my female relatives are stay-at-home types who have never contributed much. The men usually cook and clean and do the grocery shopping, and their wives do the laundry…if they’re lucky. The only reason these women have a home and money coming in is because, a long time ago, someone wanted to **** them. That’s literally it. If anything, they’re a drag on things, as opposed to contributing.

          I’d never use the “P” word, but, this is pretty clearly happening.

        7. Emily, the original


          I think the vast majority of women have leveraged their sexual agency at some point in their lives when dealing with men

          We wouldn’t use it if it wasn’t so damn effective … and so easy to yield.

        8. Chance

          Hi Tron Swanson,


          “I’d never use the “P” word, but, this is pretty clearly happening.”


          Why not?   Nothing wrong with calling a spade, a spade lol.

        9. Tron Swanson


          It’s a loaded, emotional term, so I don’t see the point in using it in an inter-gender conversation. It’ll create more heat than light. Also, it isn’t entirely accurate, I think that “sexual provisioning” is a better term to use.

          Besides, I try to be civil. Women haven’t treated me that way, for the most part, but I’m trying to be the better person.

        10. Chance

          @Morris – except the example you provided isn’t rape.   Therefore, it’s a false analogy.   How about this… I’ll extend an Olive Branch:   when I originally looked up the term, what I saw was as follows: “a person, in particular a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.”

          While this definition could apply to the basis of a lot of intersexual romantic relationships, the synonyms shown in association with term (you can look them up at your leisure) definitely do not correspond to intersexual romantic relationships, and the term would definitely not be applicable in this context.   At any rate, the intent behind the use of the term was to get a rise out of an abusive poster.

        11. Morris

          @Chance – no kidding that’s not rape. That was the point. And all women aren’t prostitutes. Funny how you stuck to a specific portion of the definition of prostitute and then took it waaay out of context.


          Do you go around calling black people the n word???  There are versions of it that anthropologically just means people  from Africa after all.


          And since you want to be technical I’ll change my example. Men have sex with their girlfriends/wives after they have had a few drinks. Legally they can’t give consent. Therefore men are rapists. Before you go to ‘they both had drinks’. The man get’s an erection and does the penetrating. He’s the one committing  the act.


          Don’t want to further discuss. I’d say have a nice day. But something tells me your life is pretty miserable.

        12. Morris

          @Chance – “At any rate, the intent behind the use of the term was to get a rise out of an abusive poster.”


          Maybe except you keep doubling down. I can’t follow all the posts in chronological order but I can see other  posts where you keep basically implying the same thing.

      2. 20.3.2

        Hi Tron,


        Fair enough.   However, I am not sure that “sexual provisioning” is any different than prostitution – depending on the source of where you look up the definition.   I’m getting the idea that when people think of term prostitution, they are thinking about in a very narrow sense – one where someone is overtly seeking sexual favors from another in exchange for money, and the other person doesn’t really enjoy the act.   There are sources out there where the definition more closely reflects this interpretation, and of course, the term would not be the same as “sexual provisioning”.   Either way, my intent with the use of the word was to be galling, but I see your point about drawing heat as opposed to light.

        1. Marika

          So, are nuns and female monks prostitutes? Or are they the exception? Unclear where they fit in..

          All women aren’t anything, similarly, all men aren’t anything. There are far more biological & other individual differences than broad gender differences. These types of discussions actually bring that out (ironically)!!


        2. SparklingEmerald

          “Also, SE, there is a big difference between noting that there is an abusive poster in our midst while conversing with another poster and directly responding to a poster to imply that he is an abuser.   I understand why you probably don’t want to acknowledge that there is a difference, but there is a significant difference regardless.”

          There is a big difference between calling out ONE poster you have an issue with, or just insulting 50% of the population by calling them whores, just to rile up the one person, then trying to back peddle and say you really didn’t mean it.       I understand why you don’t want to acknowledge that, but it is true none the less.




        3. Chance

          @SE, I never said there wasn’t a difference.   Get over it.

    4. 20.4

      except the example you provided isn’t rape.   Therefore, it’s a false analogy.

      True Chance, except in the context of the examples you used, Morris’ analogy is, I think, accurate. A man nudging or pressuring his girlfriend for sex doesn’t fit the classic definition of rape, but a woman batting her eyelashes at a cop, or leveraging her sexual agency in some fashion, doesn’t fit the classic definition of prostitution, since no actual money is being exchanged and sex isn’t taking place.

      At any rate, the intent behind the use of the term was to get a rise out of an abusive poster.

      Yeah, I pretty much called that. It was fairly obvious, at least to me.


      1. 20.4.1

        Hi Shaukat, last post for me on this, but I agree with you and Morris.   However, sometimes it is helpful to prove a point by adhering to a technical definition of something in an (albeit incendiary) manner that expands the customary definition of it in an effort to shed light on the subject (and, of course, heat as well when people are uncomfortable with the idea).   Another example would be that being drafted to fight and die in war equates to slavery.   Sure, it doesn’t follow what we think of as slavery, but when you get down to the basics, that is what it is.   Similar to inter-sexual relations:   for many men, if there is no sex, the deal is off.   For many women, if there is no provisioning, the deal is off as well.   That sounds very close to the technical definition of the “P” word.   I’ve tried to clarify such throughout by noting that women on the whole are obviously not sluts/whores/etc, but apparently, that counts as “doubling down” (as an aside, I’ve noticed that Morris – despite his staunch adherence to an “equalist” mindset – took no issue with me referring to men as being Johns by nature).

        1. Morris

          “(I realize it applies both ways. But given the forum I’m sticking to one gender.)”


          Was literally in my post. Just saying. But yes. This topic is getting old.

        2. KK

          Deflection… Saying something you believe, then trying to sugarcoat it later, hoping no one will know you fully believe what you’ve already stated. Abusers use this for manipulation and impression management.

        3. Evan Marc Katz

          KK, anothet warning. It’s one thing to make false sweeping generalizations about women and men; it’s another to call a reader an abuser. Please refrain and learn to argue without attacks, otherwise, this isn’t the right place for you.

        4. SparklingEmerald

          Chance, what you call “provisioning” is really just pooling of resources.   If one person makes more, that person may provide more “provisioning” but by pooling resources BOTH people can still have a better lifestyle together, than either one could have separately, so I don’t know why you consider sharing expenses and a bed to a John/Prostitute relationship.



        5. Chance

          Hi SE, I don’t think that’s an accurate depiction if the income/wealth differential is significant.   For example, if one partner makes $130k and the other makes $40k, the higher-earning partner doesn’t really benefit from a pooling of resources.   If anything, the higher-earning partner’s lifestyle will be negatively impacted.   The lower-earning partner is really just a liability in this case (financially speaking).

      2. 20.4.2

        Hey, @Chance.   I usually agree with you regarding significantly lower-earning partners being a financial drag, rather than financial boost, to the higher-earning partner.   However, I do think if the lower-earning partner is frugal and not entitled, then it could be a win/win, financially.

        Say I were to wed a guy who earned, say, $40K after tax.   If he were to cook dinner from scratch for us, every night, he would save me considerable money since I currently dine out/ order somewhat-upscale takeout (I mean, not cheap pizza) several times/ week and he could save money bc I would pay for most of the groceries.   I own my house, no mortgage, but if he were to kick in, say, $10K/year to help out etc., he’d gain financially by living in a home he could never afford while saving on rent and I would gain financially bc it would cover some of the heat, electricity, cable bill and taxes, which are pretty close to being fixed costs.

        From what I’ve seen on this forum, Sparkling Emerald seems to be the kind of partner who’d genuinely try to help out in this spirit, were she with a partner who far out-earned her.   However, you and I know that some lower earners would, instead, resent the higher earner for not being more “generous” and would expect the higher earner to significantly supplement a comfier lifestyle for him/her.   I can assure you that both men and women can fall into this attitude of entitlement.   And, of course, even if the lower-earning spouse is frugal and helps the higher-earning spouse to save money, the higher-earning spouse is always at risk in case of divorce.

        Moral of the story: there are wonderful potential partners “out there” but ons must select with great care to find someone who shares one’s financial goals and expectations.   But…. you already knew that 🙂


        1. Chance

          Hi Henriette, no disagreements here, and yes, a big part of where I was coming from was related to the financial risks of divorce.   Just another way our country(ies) fail to encourage people to make something of themselves *sigh*.   I do think that men are much more willing to significantly “date down” in this regard, though.   However, this is one area where I disagree with Evan in that I don’t think men are willing to do this because they are more open- minded than women in this regard.   Rather, they are doing for another reason (we know what that is, but I won’t go there again!).   To say that men are more “tolerant” in this respect is to make preference a virtue.

        2. Henriette

          Yes, I think the rules regarding financial division post-divorce are outdated and need a serious overhaul. But you already knew that, too 🙂

          I do believe it’s smart for men ~ and women ~ to be open to pairing off with significantly poorer partners IF those partners are kind, frugal, honest, willing to make more effort to pull their weight in other areas, etc.   Unfortunately, we live in an era where we condition people to think more about their RIGHTS, than about their DUTIES and many feel entitled to their spouses’ money.

          Bottom line: if you wait ’til you’re both at least 30 years-old; have college degrees and no major mental health/ addiction issues; it’s the first marriage for both of you; you pick someone with a major focus on her temperament and integrity (vs. say, her looks and sexual prowess) then your chances of divorcing are slim.     I saw, “up close & personal,” the beauty and strength of a good marriage (my parents) and I’d wager that it’s worth the well-calculated risk.

        3. Stacy2

          Bottom line: if you wait ’til you’re both at least 30 years-old; have college degrees and no major mental health/ addiction issues; it’s the first marriage for both of you; you pick someone with a major focus on her temperament and integrity (vs. say, her looks and sexual prowess) then your chances of divorcing are slim.

          Don’t kid yourself

      3. 20.4.3

        EMK – KK, anothet warning. It’s one thing to make false sweeping generalizations about women and men; it’s another to call a reader an abuser. Please refrain and learn to argue without attacks, otherwise, this isn’t the right place for you.

        It’s hard to follow these threads, but I do believe it was Chance who first start throwing around the word “abuser” in his commen 20.3.1 when he said   “At any rate, the intent behind the use of the term was to get a rise out of an abusive poster.

        It’s one thing to make broad and sweeping generalizations about women (we’re all prostitutes) and it’s another to call a poster an abuser, but it really takes the cake to do both, as Chance has done in this thread.


        1. Chance

          Interesting stuff since I’ve never mentioned who the poster was.

        2. SparklingEmerald

          It doesn’t matter that you didn’t name the poster. You still called her an abuser.   You have admitted you are only here to “fight back” with women and you admit you called ALL women “protstitutes” to anger an un-named, “abusive” poster.

          Why do you feel the need to come here an pick fights with women you don’t know ?   Did EMK’s blog come over and start a fight with you   ?   Why call ALL women “prostitutes” because you are angry with one “abusive” poster ?   Why not say what you have to say to the ONE “abusive” poster, instead of calling ALL of womankind a bunch of whores. (Yes, I know you said “prostitute, but the two words are synonomous)

          Also, in another thread, I was very surprised to see you say that since most women don’t make as much money as you do (you are in the top 4% apparently) you don’t feel her contribution would be worthwhile, so you would prefer her to stay home and raise your children, and clean your house.   I think that arrangement is perfectly fine for couples who WANT that arrangement, but I was so very surprised when you mused about having a stay at home wife.

          Since you seem to have two themes running through most of your posts (women are gold diggers, irresponsible spenders, “prostitutes”) etc., and you are very fearful of a woman taking you to the cleaners in a divorce, I was SHOCKED that you would prefer a housewife to a woman who contributed proportionately to household expenses.   If you asked a woman to stay home and keep house for 10 + years, your income would be at greater risk should a divorce ensue.

          Also, if you found a woman who agreed to stay home and raise your children and clean house would you still consider her a “prostitute” ?

          At what point does the income differential make a woman a man’s prostitute ?   5%, 10%,   0 %. If the woman makes more money, what does that make her husband, a man-whore ?

          You say you only made that remark to rile up an un-named abusive commenter, but after observing your constant wallet clutching posts, on some level, I do believe you consider most women money-grubbing gold diggers. Do you think stay at home moms are the biggest “prostitutes” of all ?


        3. Chance

          Also, SE, there is a big difference between noting that there is an abusive poster in our midst while conversing with another poster and directly responding to a poster to imply that he is an abuser.   I understand why you probably don’t want to acknowledge that there is a difference, but there is a significant difference regardless.

    5. 20.5

      Yo, Chance… Buddy!

      You know that I respect your opinion and think you often make valid points that others are afraid to speak aloud (or, write in a dating blog).   But, please cut it out with the, “all women are whores” rhetoric.   It’s not true and it’s also just downright rude.

      Thank you.

      Signed, a woman who is not even close to being a prostitute by nature.

      1. 20.5.1

        Hey Henriette, I don’t think that.   The comments get jumbled up throughout the thread, but I’ve attempted to explain where I’m coming from throughout.   I think I even said somewhere in the thread that I don’t think that women are sluts.   Comment #20 (the one you responded to) was my first comment on the matter, and I wrote it in an incendiary manner to rattle the cage of a poster who has made it a habit over the past couple of months to attack people who say things she doesn’t like and to struggle (willfully?) with reading comprehension.

        1. KK


          Please quit blaming your use of incendiary comments on me. You know as well as I do that I never insulted you in this thread until AFTER you said all women are prostitutes. Then, you kinda sorta tried to wiggle out of it and now you’re blaming me for saying it in the first place. Wow.

    6. 20.6

      Chance   I never said there wasn’t a difference.   Get over it.

      1. 20.6.1

        Actually, you implied it with this statement:


        “It’s one thing to make broad and sweeping generalizations about women (we’re all prostitutes) and it’s another to call a poster an abuser, but it really takes the cake to do both, as Chance has done in this thread.”


        Based on this statement, you are implying that when I noted that one of the posters was being abusive, that I was directly calling someone an abuser.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *