Miscellany:Punishment of disloyal spouses

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

Currently, under Virginia's no fault divorce laws, a wife who broke a lifetime commitment is typically rewarded with custody of the kids, alimony, child support payments, and a share of her husband's property.[1] Prenuptial agreements that attempt to prohibit this from happening are routinely disregarded by judges as contrary to public policy. In his essay "Just Say 'No' to Divorced Women & Single Moms," Bonecrker astutely observes:

Most men who are divorced have been abandoned/victimized by a woman who flaked on them. They did their part, she did not. He did not want the divorce and she forced it on him, for no reason at all beyond her own insanity. The reverse is not true. Most women who are divorced, caused their divorce, chose divorce, forced divorce on their husband and and did all sorts of things to cause as much harm as possible, usually during a self-destructive death spiral. To say any sane man should stay the hell away from them is an understatement. There are exceptions, but they are relatively uncommon. Just as there are exceptions to divorced men. Some were abusive freaks, or ran off with their secretary or something equally inappropriate. But they are rare outside the lower socio-economic classes. Even the exceptions (and I have direct experience with this), a man will find she is the type of woman who seeks out bad men. You'll see a long history of weeding out the good men and only choosing the bad.

David G. Brown notes:

Women have no socially-enforced responsibility for their relationship behaviors, even when those relationships produce children. For example, repeated studies show that female cheating is approaching or has equaled levels of male infidelity. Yet the mea-culpa-for-straying press conferences you see are of Tiger Woods and not Kristen Stewart. In this permissive environment, which both looks past and invariably rewards prima donna female antics, women with children feel more able still to go off the deep end, sabotage their relationships, and then pretend that they were the offended, even abused party.

As a result of this kind of behavior, many women who would have made loyal and loving wives are forced to remain single, as good men become reluctant to make a marital commitment, knowing that the state won't protect them if they are betrayed. These men are choosing instead to have casual sex and children out of wedlock.

Family law should, in cases where there is no contract between the spouses specifying otherwise, completely deny custody of the kids, alimony, and child support to the spouse who was at fault for breaking up the marriage. E.g., if someone arbitrarily dumps their spouse for some frivolous reason, they should walk away from the marriage with nothing but what they brought into the marriage.

It makes no sense to punish an innocent party for a wrong committed by someone else. When there's a car accident that's one person's fault, the two drivers don't split the repair and medical costs 50-50. Rather, the driver who was in the wrong is responsible for paying 100% of both drivers' costs. This accountability serves as a deterrent to bad driving. It not only hits bad drivers in the pocketbook, but also puts on record that they caused an accident, so that if they keep up this bad behavior, insurers will know to steer clear of them. Eventually, this will force them off the roads, so that they can't continue harming others.

Similarly, when courts adjudicate a woman as having been at fault for her divorce, that will mark her as a woman of bad character, whom men should get involved with at their own peril. It will also serve as a basis for taking daughters away from women who are unsuitable role models, and putting their sons in the care of a father who was the innocent spouse and therefore should still be allowed to be with his son full-time, so he can teach him how to be a man.

A contract is meaningless if you can breach it without consequences. Marriage has very little reason for existence, unless the agreement of the two parties to raise the kids together is enforceable by some sort of penalty for failing to live up to the terms of the deal. It used to be that, culturally, there was some stigma to breaking up a family and denying the kids the opportunity to be raised by their two parents living together under one roof, but that no longer exists, since people routinely give any woman who accuses her husband of abusing her the benefit of the doubt, and because there are lots of divorced women out there with nothing better to do but encourage married women to break up with their husbands.

It may be argued that the mother should get custody of the kids, because she is more likely the one who could stay home to raise them. It is true that some fathers go to work at an office, but others are self-employed or work in the trades. Especially after youth liberation allows men in their early teens to begin working, it will be possible in many situations for sons and fathers to work side-by-side, like they did during more agricultural eras. This seems much healthier to me than having sons sit in their divorced mom's basement playing video games.

The nebulous "best interests of the child" standard (see § 20-124.3), which typically causes judges to lean either on their own biases and assumptions, or on the dubious "expert opinions" of expensive mental health professionals, should be removed from the family law statutes. Too often, this standard becomes a pretext for disloyal wives to wrest control of the children away from their husbands by accusing them of practices (such as, say, smoking pot) that they accepted before and during their relationship. Divorce law then becomes a tool for enforcing conformity with conventional norms, and deterring experimentation with different lifestyles that are frowned upon by the politically correct establishment.

Family law should also allow for prenuptial agreements that specify that alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or arbitration are to be used in the event of divorce, to reduce the time and costs involved when there is a divorce. Spouses should be given very broad latitude to set whatever terms they want in their marital contract rather than having the state impose a one-size-fits-all model that overrides any private contracts the parties may have.

Boys over the age of, say, 6 or 7 should be allowed to choose for themselves which parent or other guardian they want to be with, or emancipate themselves altogether.

One of the reasons why wives abandon their husbands is when their husbands are not good providers. Legalization of polygynous marriage will help alleviate this problem, by allowing a wealthy man to have multiple wives, so that more women will have an opportunity to have a financially stable husband.

Other measures to prevent frivorce and ensure marital happiness[edit]

This proposal is only intended as a partial solution. Pending a change in the American culture of frivorce, another way in which American men can reduce the likelihood of divorce is by only marrying a virginal 18-year-old foreign bride, perhaps from the provinces of a region with a more traditional culture such as The Philippines or eastern Europe, who grew up in a stable, two-parent household and had a good relationship with her father. Victor Pride's How to Pick the Right Wife is helpful reading regarding this, as is Rollo Tomassi's Saving the Best.

One of the reasons for why a virgin bride is best (in addition to the pair bonding that often occurs with a first love), is that women who have had prior relationships will often have already gotten the wildest sex out of their systems with a previous man and be reluctant to allow their husbands the same liberties they gave the other man (or men). They also, having seen and done it all before, are unlikely to approach sex, and their husband's body, with the same sense of awed wonder and joy of discovery. Like a baby duckling whose instinct impels it to trustingly follow its mother, even to the ends of the earth, these women will bear the psychological imprint of the first man they fell in love with, who sealed his lifelong ownership over her by putting his penis inside of her and making her his property (emotionally, even if not with a certificate of marriage).

She will have come to love every contour of her first love's body and every quirk of his personality; and the man who comes next, even if he is just as good or better, they will never adore with that same innocent passion, because he is not the same. The pair bonding mechanism that would, in other circumstances, have helped strengthen and safeguard the marriage by causing her to view her husband as special, now works against the marriage, because there is another man who to her will always be the special one. She will even have been conditioned to prefer the way her first love had sex with her, and therefore not be as inclined toward generosity in accommodating and catering to the different wishes of the next man.

It is like how, even if there is nothing in particular that you could point to as meritorious about your home town compared to another town, it will always be special just because it is home. One may acquire other tastes but home will always have the nostalgia value that comes from having spent one's relatively carefree years of youth, and come of age, there.

In many cases, these women are alpha widows. Their hearts having been broken before, they will now be more bitter, angry, guarded, and untrusting, and not allow their imaginations to run wild with hope the way they did with their first loves, and shower their husband with the same affections. Their eyes will not light up at the thought or sight of him the way they did with the man who took her flower. It will be as Balzac wrote in Father Goriot: "True love was atoning for the sins of a false passion, and this mistake will frequently occur until men understand how many flowers are ruthlessly mowed down in a woman's soul by the first strokes of deception."

The cads, of course, know the consequences of what they do. It is the fathers of young women who must be the ones to be alert to danger, and use their authority to protect and preserve their daughters' virtue, so he can present her to her husband as a bride without spot or blemish, adorned in the white dress that will soon fall to the bedroom floor when it is time for her to be partaken of for the first time.

In every traditional culture around the world, virginity is prized and even regarded by most men as a hard requirement in a bride. But American men have been told that they should be open-minded to the point of accepting retroactive cuckoldry. These men believe they are doing a good deed by heeding the exhortation to man up (or cuck up, as the case may be), like the man in the Red Pill Comic The Past is the Past. In reality, all they are doing is encouraging bad behavior by making the wall softer so that women feel less compunction about living as fast and easy women till crashing headlong into that wall suddenly inspires an epiphany.

See also[edit]


  1. Fauconier, Corey Maurice. "The Interview with Libertarian State Senate Candidate Corey Fauconier". I am divorced twice. Raked over the coals once in New York State and once in Chesterfield County. Horrible experiences where I had to start all over from scratch. Unless you have been through a divorce where your best friend becomes your worse enemy, you lose your home, your child(ren). Renting a room because that is the only thing that you can afford. Plus the courts piling child support on you like you are a run away slave. The system doesn’t work. But, the people who make the laws never had to go up against the system. If you lost everything your worked hard in life for and you lose your child on top of it, how are people supposed to view the system? It it broken. It requires immediate reform.