[Nick Danger]

Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful reply.

it has to be presented as women are getting pay back for "giving away the milk for free" ... in effect a moral proscription or sanction against women in the form of a marriage strike. Did it ever occur to them that adult women are capable of making their own decisions?

Please notice that none of that sort of thing appears in the article. There is no discussion whatsoever in the article concerning sex, or the lack of it, having anything to do with this. The entire article is about the harm that can come to Dan as a consequence of the way divorces are administered by the government in this country.

Kathleen's behavior is not discussed at all, except in terms of how the divorce laws are administered and how this might affect her in different ways than it affects him.

It is therefore an unfair criticism of the authors to suggest that they are attempting to shame women or to sanction their autonomy.

The whole business about "giving it away for free" was introduced to the thread in Note 6 by one of the female participants, who also suggested that "what he's going to do now is just use women and throw them away."

So here is an article about how this guy feels that he cannot get married because the risks of getting screwed over six ways from Sunday are just too high these days, and he thinks that is a shame. She reads this and instead of having any empathy whatsoever for what this guy feels, announces that what Kathleen needs to do is stop giving it away for free, and what he's about is using women and throwing them away. In other words, never mind him, it's all about her.

It is probably true that things went downhill from there, but let me suggest that that is entirely due to the efforts of a certain segment of the population that has a quite bigoted view of men and -- as you have pointed out more explicitly than I chose to -- not the highest opinion of themselves.

The issue concerning the divorce laws and the way they are affecting the society's ability to maintain family structures -- and for men to even have what we used to call a "life" -- is fundamentally about government and law. It is a topic of legitimate concern to conservative activists who care not only about overbearing government, but also about the bag of issues I'll call "slouching towards Gomorrah."

As one who cares about these things, it greatly annoys me that we are cursed with a contingent of extraordinarily shallow people who cannot see past themselves and their own narrow interests, and who must therefore continually intervene in these threads to turn them into "gender wars" because that is how they see them. It's all about them.

The article was not about them at all. It wasn't about sex. It was about law, and the need for reform. That the thread could be so twisted by them so as to stimulate the comments you made is a shame. Frankly, none of that should have ever come up.

[Lorianne]

I agree the conversation got derailed. It just irks me when people try to strip women (and men) of their innate God-given sexual attraction to the opposite sex, and turn sex into a commodity or something shameful. So I reply to that.

On topic: I don't disagree that marriage laws are probably unfair in some ways. But they always have been. People have always gotten married despite unfair laws.

The differnce I see to day is that marriage is not expected as a social norm, so people (men and women) feel less social pressure to be married. In the past, being unmarried cast doubt on your personal desirability, you may have been considered homosexual, or asexual. You were considered "defective" in some way if you did not marry and have kids. This is not true today.

So many people who in past times may have married out of a social obligation or family pressure, do not marry today. I can only see this as a good thing. I don't really understand all the lamenting about "marriage" per se. Sure the laws should be fair, but in fact, people who want to be married, don't let that deter them, they get pre-nuptials if they have to, or go on faith.

I really don't believe very many people who want to get married don't because of marriage/custody laws, now or in the past. It is however, a convenient excuse for those who don't really want to be married, don't want to make any compromises, don't want to take any personal risks whatsoever, to use laws as an excuse.

I look at it this way, many business partnerships fail yet people continue to enter into business partnerships and deals. Some people have a degree of faith in others and a degree of optimism about the future. The ones who want a sure deal without risks, typically do not go into business for themselves or enter business partnerships with others.

Does this mean that "business" is hopelessly flawed? No, it means that some people want to take that chance and others do not. Personal choice. There is a degree of risk in everything, particularly in cooperating with others. Some people are willing to take that risk, others are not.