Why aren't men loyal anymore?
Not only do they leave their girlfriends, they leave their children behind all alone to be raised by their mother.
So why are there less men who are loyal, and more men who heartlessly abandon their own flesh and blood?
There's no point in ever having a bf. He'll just cheat on me or leave me right when i need him most.
>>27725731
I won't ever cheat you, I despise cheaters and I'm too afraid to be alone to leave you unless you're an ultra bitch, a stacey whore or if you cheat. Pls be my gf.
>>27725784
Don't all guys say this though.
And what if a girl you were with got pregnant, would you leave her?
That's not really anything new. Guys have always been like that.
For any relationship you need to look at it from a practical view if you don't get swept up by bullshit you'll be fine.
>>27725843
Different person but depends. I wouldn't have sex without protection to begin with before marriage. And if by some chance she got pregnant I'd probably marry her.
But that's running on the assumption I'm capable of choosing a decent partner. If she was a cheater or something I'd leave and fight for custody of the kid.
>>27725706
>Not only do they leave their girlfriends, they leave their children behind all alone to be raised by their mother.So why are there less men who are loyal, and more men who heartlessly abandon their own flesh and blood?
You mean black men, right?
>>27725897
>That's not really anything new. Guys have always been like that.
Then how come single motherhood is a recent phenomenon?
60% of kids live with both parents?
For sure thought that'd have been in the mid 40s. I'm impressed.
>>27725706
>Not only do they leave their girlfriends, they leave their children behind all alone to be raised by their mother.
Because shit tier women enable shit tier men to breed shit tier genetics into shit tier communities so they can get MO MONEY 4 DEM PROGRAMS.
>>27725843
>would you leave her?
Of course not, do I look like a Chad?
Oh man, roasties getting blown the fuck out on every side. I'll keep my virginity, thank you very much.
>>27725706
Op, you're a fuckwit. The mothers are the default when it comes to child custody. Men rarely ever get custody of the child, unless the mother is an incompetent assfuck. In addition to that, women initiate something like 90% of divorces. They are the ones fucking shit up. Also, about half of married women cheat. Ya dingus.
>>27726001
Because women have rights now. So when guys are promiscuous they can actually leave. Way back when they just had to deal with him cheating, he was the head of the household, if they left it only doomed them and there wasn't child support to bail them out.
>>27726157
It's closer to 70% m8
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201508/women-initiate-divorce-much-more-men-heres-why
A dad feels less connection to their kid than a mother does, so abandoning them isn't a big deal. Same with why they have little qualms with cheating, its part of our natural drive to spread our genes. We have to basically force ourselves mentally to stay with one person for the rest of our lives, as theres no physiological drive to do so. Some people do it based on morals or apperance, some get complacent and just try not to think about it, while the rest cheat, ditch their kids and do what they want.
>>27725706
Hoes ain't loyal. That includes manwhores.
>>27725706
Because chad fucks and beta bucks.
Those singlemoms managed to fuck chad and get pregnant but couldn't find a beta provider.
It's their own fault desu senpai
>>27726199
>Rosenfeld said his results support the feminist assertion that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable
Im done
>>27726321
More stuff that study found:
>Breakups cause women more pain
>Women initiate breakups more than men
>Women spend more money after a break up
>Women are more likely to abuse substances, but only if they were dumped
>Women are more likely to breakup with somebody if their friends disapprove, whereas men are more likely to break up if their family disapproves
>>27726408
Women are also more lilely to abuse their children.
>>27726177
This the situation my mother in law is in, its kind of sad. Her husband cheated once, but she forgave him. Its more he is a selfish, money obsessed jerk that puts his own needs before anything else. They do nothing but fight and she would have to hide credit cards and money from him just to pay for gifts to her kids or go to a movie because he would freak out over any dime spent not going towards savings, food or utilities. All he does is work, watch TV, collect guns and metal detecting. She is disabled and can't work a traditional job, and when he found her hidden credit cards they talked about divorce, but she couldn't afford to live on her own and he doesn't want to give up half his assets, so they stay together and fake a relationship. They have been married since they were 17, there in their 60s now.
>>27726467
Yeah that's exactly it, the concept has always existed but it used to always be impractical. Now it's possible for most barring circumstances like hers which are just heartbreaking. Sorry to hear as much.
>>27726467
This sounds like quite the role reversal from the norm.
>>27726467
>multiple credit cards
Looks like she's being irresponsible.
If my family was in dept due to some dumb bitch stacking ccs you fucking bet I'd be pissed if money was wasted on movies and shit.
She's spending other peoples money without telling them then painting herself as the victim when they get upset.
You are just wrong OP. You are just assuming that men are the ones in the wrong. However the majority of divorces are initiated by women. The question should be, why aren't women loyal?
I think OP flew the coop.
>>27726679
She was in the wrong too for sure, but she wasn't always disabled and was working and making money up until like 5 years ago. Even then he would throw a fit and freak out when she spent money SHE earned on gifts for the kids or a vacation when they were fine financially, because he is obsessed with money and the thought of it being spent on anything but his hobbies or the necessities is unthinkable. He would control the bank account and go as far as cut her off the account and cancel charges even after she told him she was going to do it. What would you do in that situation? I'd leave the asshole, but she is a "strong christian woman" who wouldn't initiate a divorce, and now she is dependent on him so she has to live under his rules.
I know it seems like I am painting a one sided picture and justifying her actions, which I guess I am, but he really is this bad. Dude promised to pay for both of his daughters college, had money socked away, but then when it came time for my wife he said "sorry, I need the money now, you're on your own." He wasnt hurting financially, he just didn't want to give up the money any more.
>>27725843
If a girl gets pregnant, it's the dumb cunt's own fault and probably(definitely) on purpose.
Yes, I'd leave her because getting knocked up in this day and age is invariably deliberate.
>>27725706
>Why arent men loyal anymore?
Because women are sluts. Why would any man be loyal to a woman who's had abother man's jizz on her face?
You want a man to be loyal try being a woman who's worth pledging loyalty to.
Because there are less white people and more niggers and spics
>>27725706
>they leave their children behind to be raised by their mother
gee, maybe you shouldnt have fucked that badboy because he had a motorcycle. Because you know the thing about badboys are: THEY PUMP AND DUMP SLUTS.
>>27725706
Answer is so obvious that it shows you are trolling poorly. This is the fault of women.
Women are attracted primarily to the top 20% of men. This means those guys will always have access to women anytime they want or are event remotely displeased and thus much more likely to not be loyal. No need to be because there will always be a female lined up for him. These women then have kids with said men. The kid then is either a boy who is going to be just as unloyal as the father or a girl who is attracted to unloyal guys. They literally have been doing it to themselves for thousands of years.
Most guys are loyal, just not the top 20%. If you dont have a loyal man you intentionally did it to yourself.
Scenario 1:
>woman is unhappy
>woman files for divorce
>"oh no I'm a singlr mother now!" T_____T
Scenario 2:
>woman is a slut
>doesnt know who the father is
>"oh no I'm a single mother now! How could this happen?" T_____T
Scenario 3:
>woman plans to trap Chad into marriage and sabotages condoms/birth control
>Chad splits because "lol not my obligation. We're not married."
>"I dont want to abort. Now I'm a single mother oh nooooo!" T______T
Women are the gatekeepers to sexual intimacy. Women are the only people who can choose to abort. If a woman is a single mother it's her own fault.
>>27725706
I give no shits about this issue or any similar issues about people not settling down or having as many kids.
At this point I'm content to be romantically alone for the rest of my life, and am eager to see just what will happen
divorces are initiated by the wife in 70% of the cases, fuck off
>>27727602
Only because men cheat and neglect their wives.
>>27725706
Women dissolved the traditional socio-sexual contract that kept men around for the family and kept women from being massive jizz jars who couldn't think in the long term.
The go-to mating strategy of the ATTRACTIVE, SEXY human male is the low investment strategy, i.e the pump and dump.
The mating strategy of less attractive, less (or not at all) sexy men is the high investment strategy, i.e sticking around for the family.
The go-to mating strategy of the human female regardless of their attractiveness is to secure the genetics of the most attractive male and extract resources from a different male who can provide them, but is usually less attractive than the man she mated with.
Ergo, women thinking with their cunts, and paid by the Government to do so, are the main cause of single motherhood.
The Old Order model that women said was "oppressive" in truth only kept women from following their instincts into sexual dystopia.
Monogamy benefits women just as much as it does men; women get long term partnership instead of being part of a harem when they're young and hot, then knocked up and cast aside once they're older and not hot. Average men get a mate, a family and consequently a stake in society instead of just being aimless, despondent and violent as they would be otherwise.
Once again, women shoot themselves in the foot.
And then shove the foot in their mouth.
>>27725706
>So why are there less men who are loyal, and more men who heartlessly abandon their own flesh and blood?
Because women choose to fuck psychopathic men who are disloyal.
You reap what you sow, so maybe you should think about not opening your legs for men who are clearly unstable and without character.
Women are the gatekeepers of sex, remember that.
>>27725706
Hey, all I ever wanted was a decent house, a wife, and two kids. Instead of a few good women with integrity to pick from I've got a bunch of single moms who made some really fucking stupid mistakes, little or no integrity, and zero talents to pick from.
>>27725706
Let's ask Dr. Jordan Peterson, tenured professor at the University of Toronto
>Remember those 50s hat-sporting fathers who stayed married, supported their families and repressed women? Well, they're headed for extinction. In the majority of US cities, young woman are now higher-paid and more educated than their male counterpart.
>This has not stopped the Globe and Mails Margaret Wente from recently warning us about the dangerous male energy still remaining. Men with less testosterone "are nicer, more social and less aggressive," she says. Such men wont, quote unquote, "wreck the world."
>At this point, Wente should know that its the testosterone-laden man who is most attractive when women are fertile. When it comes to the serious business of sex, women will choose a testosterone-charged world-wrecker most of the time.
>What, then, is a sensible girl to do? Ms. Kate Bolick provides some answers, in the cover story of Novembers The Atlantic. Bolick, with "too many ex-boyfriends to count," is still unmarried at 39. 11 years ago, however, she ended a long-term relationship with Allan, who was "exceptional, intelligent, good-looking, loyal and kind." "Something was missing," Bolick says. Had she asked me, I would have said not enough testosterone.
>Perhaps its time for her to find a tame, lower-status boy, and make an honest man out of him. Some of Bolicks more savvy friends have done just that, establishing relationships, for example, with salary-challenged men. Some even stooped low enough to date men who are short!
>This level of compromise is not for Bolick, who flirts with life in an all-female Dutch community, instead of settling for a less-than-perfect mate. She concludes that Western culture itself is at fault for making her desire a conventional relationship, in the first place.
continued
>>27728353
continued
>Just what kind of man is emerging to replace the chauvinists of yesterday? Type 1, lets call him very popular in Japan is shiftless, dependent, and low in status. He poses no threat to women, however, displaying little interest in them altogether, except when animated, infantilized, and available for kissing practice, on a portable Nintendo.
>Type 2 man is the archetypal bad boy: impulsive and exploitative but willing to bed anyone he doesnt have to take responsibility for. He's the perfect mate for the modern single mother if she wants a different father for every child. Type 2 man makes 50s Dad positively look Christ- like.
>Here's a thought: What if, two decades down the road, women do all the work: all the engineering, all the ditch-digging and fire-fighting and raise the children, too? It's not impossible. Such a state is already normal in several American sub-communities, hard hit by the economic demise of modern man.
>What if it took centuries of cultural discipline to produce 50s Dad? What if the husband willing to stick around and share his income was the historical exception? It's a demanding job to support a family, after all, and it's not necessary to stay with one woman. Maybe men just wont do it unless they are provided with status to bolster their fragile male egos or to encourage desirable behaviour.
>Without respect, why would they try, when the alternative is so much easier, and subtly promoted?
>>27728379
continued
>Increasingly, among my students, I see young men who dont know how to be good men. My son wasnt allowed to throw a snowball, for example, in elementary school. It was against the rules for him to even pick up snow off the ground. It is in that manner that decent boys are made to feel guilty about their masculine impulses. So, they withdraw, confused.
>The more aggressive, psychopathic boys? They simply dont care. So theyll be the ones fathering your grandchildren, in the future if tomorrows woman can find a man to sleep with at all. That'll keep the testosterone flowing.
>For the Agenda, with Steve Paiken, Im Jordan Peterson.
This really is the course we're taking. This guy, Gad Saad and others see it, not just some malcontents on an image board.
>>27728403
Tbqh, it's just sexual selection in practice, and I couldn't give a flying fuck about women.
They reap what they sow.
>>27725843
no I'd force her to get an abortion
>>27728450
This. It's why I lift now and have been for several weeks, planning on continuing for the rest of my life
I'll become swole as fuck with a hot body and then I can be the guy that girls have "fun" with.
Then I can learn exactly what that fucking means and I won't ever have to love a woman.
Everybody wins
>>27725706
Women don't like loyal men. They find them unsexy.
>>27728379
>Here's a thought: What if, two decades down the road, women do all the work: all the engineering, all the ditch-digging and fire-fighting and raise the children, too?
>It's not impossible.
>Such a state is already normal in several American sub-communities
Stopped reading there. The last statement is blatantly false, and clearly the entire text is ideologically motivated.
