Fear of divorce should not prevent marriage

SOLID !!???? Name One way in which marriage is Solid for a male in western culture?

1. The marriage can be dissolved at any time with no reason given.

2. The likely hood of the Man being forced to pay alimony/child support is overwhelmingly likely

3. The assets will be divided in half (ha !) no matter who contributed what to said assets.

Now tell me again how this is a SOLID agreement? Its fucking nuts is what it is and I REFUSE to marry until this changes.

AHAHahaahahaha!!!!!…..

virtue you refuse to marry until it changes….It wont change unless the average women realises the yolk around the working mules
(men) ; are too tight, and are choking us to death…..

Fear?
Try logic and reason. That is enough to avoid marriage.
The data is in – all you have to do is read it.

The institution of marriage is solid. It’s the people who enter into it who are flawed. Humans are not perfect, and nowadays it seems that selfishness and greed can interfere with the best part of life. Until people get it through their heads what love and commitment really are, there is no hope for the average marriage. My husband and I have been married for 30 years, and I know many, many other couples who have been married that long and longer, so I am speaking from experience here just as much as the ones who have been burned by the opposite sex are.

The institution of marriage is solid in other countries, not America.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml

Most South American countries have divorce rates below 7%.

People should not shy away from marriage for fear of divorce as a marriage is the most solid union society can offer. Says a woman.

Most solid?? Like thin ice on a lake.

50% of marriages end in divorce. Women initiate 80% of divorces. Four in ten women break their vows. Then there are the ones who are unfaithful and have other men’s children that the husband is forced to support. Most men are forced to support the woman after the divorce.

People are flawed? Sure. But not equally.

Russian roulette gives better odds. I don’t play that either.

Legally, marriage is no longer a binding contract.

People express vows in front of a priest, minister or judge.

Then, on any given day, either party can wake up unhappy and state –

“This union is broken.”

One trip to Family Court is all it takes to harvest a man’s finances, exile him from his home, his children, and slime his reputation.

No thinking man today would ever marry.

It is a very simple premise.

Ruthless is as ruthless does …. precisely what FEMINISM has visited upon men.

Tit-for tat?

sstratford, I am glad your marriage lasted 30 years.
And when you finally pay off your house mortgage after 30 years the bank is glad to have the money.
But the bank makes you sign a deed of trust where you agree to allow them the power of sale should you miss a few payments and the bankruptcy code is written so your debt to them does not magically disappear as long as there is a deed of trust SECURING the debt.
Bank is not stupid.
But any man who enters into a marriage to any woman other than one who is very wealthy (Teresa Hines Kerry for example) under the present circumstances of court gender bias, no-fault divorce, and the child support crusade is as stupid as the bank that loans you money to buy a house without requiring you to sign the deed of trust contract.
At least the bank is out money it already had.
The husband is turned into a SLAVE to pay money he has yet to earn.
Your husband is LUCKY.
When a husband is the RESPONDENT in a divorce his love and commitment are as irrelevant as anything else he has done in his life. If he had the love and commitment you talk about, it was BETRAYED.

Please spare me the morality lesson sstratford. As the RESPONDENT in the divorce I am in no mood for it and it is as much a solution the problem of state sponsored armed robbery, extortion, and peonage as “finding Jesus” and sitting in a forest beating a drum!

Now if you are willing to show the same love and commitment to the United States and her Constitution by objecting to the elected politicians and the black robes who willfully, knowlingly, and deliberately violate it everyday, then we can talk.

Otherwise you are essentially blaming the victim for the rape and not the perpetrator.

Here’s a tragic morality tale —

A guy I worked with dropped dead of a heart attack at 3am Monday morning.

His first wife died 5 years ago after she was misdiagnosed during a heart attack episode, on a LifeBird helicopter flight for emergency care.

(They failed to take her blood pressure and she died.)

My co-worker received a $2-million dollar medical negligence settlement last month, out-of-court.

His second wife, of two years, now his greiving widow, will reap all the financial benefits of his untimely death…

Wanna bet how many dudes are already calling to “console” her?

Love is a commodity.

Don’t ever forget it!

Marriage in Western cultures is heavenly paradise for women but hell for men! Keep the marriage strike going! Just don’t do it!

“There is something to be said for the formal recognition and societal improvement and involvement conferred by marriage even if the union does not last until one spouse’s demise.”

An interesting, provocative sentence. Then you stop. Tell us, what is that SOMETHING then? You didn’t bother to say what it is. Why should the arms of the law and the church be invited into a relationship that is between two people?

Wow, there are certainly a lot of men on here who have been hurt by the women they love(d). No offense, but there are always two sides to every story. As the husband, did you do EVERYTHING you could to love and take care of your wife? If you can honestly say that you did, then the woman who hurt you was 100 percent at fault. But I personally know of several men who have nothing good to say about their ex-wives, and yet I saw how these women were treated while they were married and I don’t blame them at all for wanting a divorce. Now, I do admit that a lot of women go for the jugular when going through a divorce and even for a long time afterwards, and if I could do something about that, I would. But I also know for a fact that there are many, many men out there too who would do the same if the positions were reversed. Whether people like it or not, marriage is a God-created institution, and the only reason it seems to have failed is because mankind (and womankind) have flushed it down the toilet. Done right, marriage is solid–I SAID, DONE RIGHT BY BOTH PARTIES INVOLVED. So don’t get on my case because you had a nightmare marriage/divorce/life/whatever.

If I told you that you had a fifty percent chance of being hit by a car tomorrow on your way to work, would you stay home or what ?

If you were told that you have a fifty percent chance of being screwed in the family court or jailed because the Privileged Princess’s feelings were hurt, what are you going to do ?

MGTOW.

“Wow, there are certainly a lot of men on here who have been hurt by the women they love(d). ”

sstratford, you are undoubtedly correct. But your thinking is amusing fallacious if you believe that only men who have been BURNED by a woman are turning their backs on marriage.

Get it through that skull of yours – marriage to American women is DECREASING….. as greater numbers of young men learn from older men about the snakepit mentality of “family court”, the greed and self-centeredness of American women, and those legal, financial, and emotional risks that characterize marriage in America.

“No offense, but there are always two sides to every story.”

Undoubtedly, but if you look at the incentives that women in America have been provided with to plunder their ex-husbands financially, the story ought to be fairly clear even to other women, such as yourself.

“As the husband, did you do EVERYTHING you could to love and take care of your wife?”

LOL…… clearly you are having some cognitive issues, sstratford. American women divorce because it’s easy, it rewards them financially, and because so many of those women are greedy entitlement princesses.

“But I personally know of several men who have nothing good to say about their ex-wives, and yet I saw how these women were treated while they were married and I don’t blame them at all for wanting a divorce.”

Well thanks for the newsflash from your neck of the prairie….. but the general issues that make marriage such risky business for men has little to do with your several friends’ experiences.

“Now, I do admit that a lot of women go for the jugular when going through a divorce and even for a long time afterwards, and if I could do something about that, I would.”

There is nothing that you can do now…. except write to your representatives and senators and tell them in no uncertain words that you’re tired of seeing men raped financially by their ex-wives.

It would probably also help if you add a few scathing words about feminists’ efforts to devalue and destroy marriage in America.

“But I also know for a fact that there are many, many men out there too who would do the same if the positions were reversed.”

While there are greedy, self-centered men, you would be hard-pressed to find numbers of men equal to the numbers of entitlement princesses in America.

Besides, by-and-large men are taught that they must WORK for their money. American women are taught that all that they have to do is get some sucker to sign on the bottom line for THEIR money. Or hadn’t you noticed?

“So don’t get on my case because you had a nightmare marriage/divorce/life/whatever.”

No…. but you’re so clearly out of touch with the fundamental FACTS regarding marriage in America that your perspective is irrelevant, sstratford.

Denise Noe, which sort of brain-damage caused you to write: “People should not shy away from marriage for fear of divorce as a marriage is the most solid union society can offer”

Clearly you haven’t the least bit of understanding of the financial, legal, and other risks that marriage in America provides for men.

And given that you post regularly on MND, clearly you either aren’t the brightest bulb, or perhaps you’re not a quick learner. Even women ought to be able to learn from the multitude of posters on these boards mentioning that:

1. Marriage in America is a crapshoot, with at least half of all marriages ending in divorce.

2. Men are RAPED in family court, losing their bank accounts, their homes, their businesses, their children, their self-esteem, and more…..

3. Marriage rates are FALLING in America…. with the trend expected to continue as women find fewer and fewer SUCKERS who are willing to sign on the bottom line…… and put themselves at risk.

4. More and more men are questioning whether any benefits actually exist for them, with respect to marriage.

Let the marriage boycott continue – men and women continue to have sex out of wedlock. No reason to run extraordinary risks for those negligible benefits in marrying.

You press an idealised view of marriage sstratford. I applaud your commitment. I applaud your support for it as you state it. I could write an essay about the nature of commited marriage being an essential element in human development at both the individual and societal levels. I am happy that you have a sound and fruitful marriage.

But who ruined marriage?

Who let it become what it is?

Who turned so many men against it?

Who applauded the watering down of the concept, the commitment?

Who demanded the Family Court system that ruins so much, destroys men and steals and abuses children?

It certainly wasn’t men who support marriage.

Every man here who was married and got royally screwed, lost their children, some made destitute, loved a woman, supported her, provided for her, was taken to the cleaners by her at the noisy end of a shotgun weilded by a posse of thugs.

“Now, I do admit that a lot of women go for the jugular when going through a divorce and even for a long time afterwards, and if I could do something about that, I would. ”

Well? You can.

You could understand the reasons. Really understand rather than find excuses. You could make a sign like Ray Blomhorst does and tell the world that marriage has been murdered by greedy WOMEN who ‘go for the jugular’ regardless of who gets hurt . You could rail against the feminist monster that WOMEN created, a monster that has effectively ruined men and marriage, stolen and abused your children and is coming after you next.

You could take the responsibility as a WOMAN for the devastation that WOMEN have wrought.

And don’t simply turn it into an ‘All men’s fault’ excuse. Or even ‘some’ men’s. This is a WOMAN’S issue.

You broke it, you fix it.

So what is stopping you?

It’s not the fear of DIVORCE that is keeping me from it.

It’s the vicious sodomization by the family court that seems to go with it.

Give me a level playing field, one in which I would only get the shaft if I was at fault – things might be different.

“Marriage is the most solid union that society can offer?” Yeah, if by “union” you mean “economic servitude and second-class citizenship.” For men, that is.

Just under four years ago, my wife of 28 years filed for divorce. Three weeks later she moved out of state. With her girlfriend.

Like a moron, I believed her when she said it wasn’t about money, she just wanted the marriage to be over. Despite being saddled with a large temporary support order, I even gave her extra money to help her get established. Good thing for her, since she never did quite manage find a job until moving back to this state. Couple of months after the support expired, while she and the girlfriend were sponging off her brother, I get my copy of the proceedings of the latest lawyer conference. “Support will be at issue.” So much for not being about money.

I lost my entire 401(k) and am spending five years paying her what amounts to 17% of my gross income as a “marital property settlement.”

No-fault divorce and “equal division” marital property laws are an active inducement for women to dump and rob their husbands. Any man who gets married under these laws is an idiot.

The fact that a woman can use a lawyer rather than a gun as her weapon of choice does not change the moral nature of the crime of armed robbery.

Any woman who thinks “I’m entitled to it because the law says I am” should ponder the fact that at one point in this nation’s history, the law had no problem with the buying and selling of human beings. Did the fact that it was legal make it right?

you know what” DadWith2Girls” now with “two girls”… if she’s that stupid then she get’s what she deserves.. WHAT does that situataion have to do with anything??????

Back to the subject at hand,,,,Denise has a point.. as I have been divroced 3 times.. do I realize that “I” may be part of the problem..
Of course.. I’m not perfect…and I know that my failed relationships are as much my fault as hers…

Only common thing is the money,, they all want the money…
But I have learned and am much better now..

Fear of death should not prevent Russian Roulette.

There is just NO good reason to get married. Why bother ? You can live together and be happy and share expenses until it desolves and both go your own way when it’s over. I don’t see any need to go through all the legal thievary. The only reason I can see to get married is so the woman has the legal right to financially rape him when she desides she is bored with him.
Don’t expect me to do it again.

In many western countries, mdkn, living together is treated identically to being married. The woman still gets the undue, unfair and unjust benefit of legal bias. Its called de Facto marriage. Men are still raped, emotionally, financially and spiritually. If the ‘informal’ couple have children, he still pays and gets them torn from him. Any sccusations of ‘abuse’, he still gets hammered. In my State he goes straight to jail, no bail, and is dispossessed, married or not. In my State, even a man who rents a room to a female tenant comes under DV rules and at her simple false accusation he can be evicted from his own home which she then gets to live in.

as long as women are able to perpetuate the mith that they are victims and men are appressors, they will continue to rape and pillage in the courts. the only way to avoid the financial and emotional carnage of marriage is to stay single. sstratford may be an exception to the rule, but that is nothing more than antidodal. i have been slaughtered in divorce court 3 times. guess that negates her 30 year marriage. reminds one of the liberal writer in new york when asked how reagan carried 49 states said “i don’t know anyone who voted for him”.

sstratford: this discussion isn’t about bad husbands and good wives. go to a womens site for that.

Those who have been maimed (and of course killed) in war will usuallyo avoid if at all possible going to war again . They have learned their lessons. They realize that war is ugly, ugly business. If war is to stop, though, it is the young who have never been to war who must be taught to avoid it.

We here are the maimed and “killed” from marriage. We will avoid. However, the young mostly continue on marrying. They believe they are invulnerable. What happened to their dads will not happen to them. Of course, it will — to most of them. Over half of them are divorced probably at least a quarter of those get an “ugly” divorce. Even those who don’t divorce often live in terror of potential divorce.

The young watch love movies and listen to love songs. Of course, they have a natural desire to love and marry. It is the most natural thing in the world. Many of them end up getting the treatment. It is so sad.

I don’t know if Denise reads these comments, or this website, but I have one question regarding this article.

When you say “marriage is the most solid union society can offer”, what society are you referring to?

The facts, which I do not need repeat, speak for themselves that it cannot be Western society.

sstratford. I like your comments but I feel your thinking in the same Utopian fantasy as Denise. I’ll gladly tip my hat to you for keeping your marriage alive for so long, but you and your spouse are far in the minority. You may not feel that as your small circle of friends reflect and share your values. But again, you are far in the minority of the larger society.

marriage with the state involved is only a business deal, one where one party shows up with the goods, the other party shows up with promises, Doomed to failure is this kind of business deal if there is no just application of fault and punishments to whatever circumstances lead to its failure. Women will always bleat for more financial support, as they are incapable of living outside the world of man, for this world, built and provided for by men and maintained by men and understood by men is the benefit one gets having decided that they as women can’t or wont compete on their own merits to stay with their chosen man, petitioning other men (gov’t) to steal from him that she choses not to bargain with on her own.
Not understanding that set of facts leaves one to beg for support for ones nihlistic lifestyle from one or any series of men, the difference between her percieved success or failure in this venture in a womans mind being whether she has to put out or not.
What a pathetic life it must lead to, bitter, lonely, useless and incapable of providing for oneself and having to find something to hate about those that are designed act as their defacto saviors….

Red Pill, those last two succinct paragraphs identifies the source of the neuroticism that is expressed in Feminism. Well described.

Fear of divorce should not prevent marriage? Ha, how about fear of having everything you worked for being taken away by a judge and redistributed to the female half? How about the fear of falsely being accused of being a “batterer” by the female half and her lawyer in a sleazy little shakedown for a better settlement? And if you have children, how about the fear of possibly being accused of phsyically or sexually abusing your own children? Doesn’t surprise me a female would write this column, more and more men are waking up and realizing marriage is a bad deal for them and women are starting to run scared.

Look to the Blackrobes, their cronies in ties, the feminist dykes, and the politicians if you want to lay the blame on the destruction of marriage. The ex-wives are not the only beneficiaries of the high divorce rate: their greed has been fueled by these proponents. Call me self-righteous, but some of us, my wife of 28 years included, place great value on verbal agreements, especially when pledged before a 100 people and God.

S, Baker, mine of 22 years pledged infront of God and 100 too. I was the only one of the two of us who placed the value on it though. She just said she did.

In this world it is man who is oriented to the real, the here and now and relationship with others regarding survival. Women are oriented toward childbearing and organization of their immediate world.
In essence men deal with the real, the women deal with fantasy. The men are to make the fantasy possible through their efforts and the women are to encourage those efforts by making a fantasy real. The deal is destroyed when the ‘real’ can be appropriated in spite of lack of maintainance of the fantasy. It’s not that any gal can’t strike a bargain, it is that as a group and a political culture they’ve refused to bargain in good faith and once a deal is seen as workable it rapidly flies apart.
C’mon gals, it’s not like men are that hard to figure out how to keep them around IF YOU INTENDED TO in the first place. It’s clear that that intent culturally is frequently not there anymore.
Gals, you’ve (as a western class by and large) made your bed, had your baby(s) and kicked the dudes out of it and proceeded to get fat, stupid, lazy, intolerant and argumentative, permanantly peckish with a malignant sense of entitlement. Zackly whatja expect?…

Amfort, if she was willing to break the vow so easily you are better off without her. The sadder outcome was losing your daughter.

Is it just me or do you get the feeling this article was written for the sole purpose of stirring the pot. If that was the intent it back fired. I am getting some great quotes from the respondents. Thanks Denise you have made my point better than I ever could with your naive commentary.

As a male who has never been married, I don’t have any horror stories to share, but I do see little incentive in today’s society for men to get married. There’s simply no point. The weddings themselves are ridiculously expensive (and how is it that they got more and more expensive as fewer and fewer people are doing it?), which puts you in a hole from the get-go (unless you have rich parents, which I don’t). And then, as a male, you run the risk of being further ruined financially down the road if and when you get divorced.

If there is a benefit to marriage for men, I simply don’t know what it is.

The horror, the horror.
Ok, This is a bit long but as it hasn’t appeared on the MND front page, I will give it a whirl here.
Now tell me that marriage is a good idea.
——————————————————————————–

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=443846&in_page_id=1879

‘Five of my children are not mine’
by KATHRYN KNIGHT – More by this author »

Last updated at 08:57am on 23rd March 2007

A defiant Sarah Bostock (above – photo not here) with Richard Mills and five of their six children. She was married to another man, Charles Bostock, while enjoying a 14-year-long affair with Mills

Charles was happy to be a father to two children by his wife. Then she presented him with a third…and a fourth…a fifth and sixth. But when she fell pregnant a seventh time he KNEW the baby couldn’t be his. So how many were?

With hindsight, retired police officer Charles Bostock knows exactly when he fell victim to his wife’s staggering betrayal.

“Sarah started pestering me for sex after a long period of little physical contact,” he says.

“I remember thinking she was trying to be a loving wife, but now I realise she was covering her tracks because she knew she was pregnant by someone else – for the first time.”

Back then, however, Charles had little reason to think anything was amiss.

The couple already had two children together and went on to have four more, sharing what seemed a blessed life on a rambling property in the West Country. He had always, he says, taken immense pride in his role as a loving father.

But when Sarah fell pregnant for the seventh time five years ago, his life imploded.

Charles knew with devastating certainty that he could not be the father – for by then the couple had not had a sexual relationship for some months.

After a bitter confrontation, his wife confessed that the pregnancy was the result of a one-night stand. Terrible enough after a long marriage, you may think. But worse was to come.

Last year, DNA tests ordered by his wife revealed that Charles was not the father of his four youngest children either.

They were the product of a secret 14-year affair his wife had been conducting with local businessman Richard Mills – the same man who had fathered her seventh child.

Sarah, 49, had known all along, but callously allowed her husband to believe they were his.

The discovery has sent shockwaves through the heart of the family.

The two eldest, Alison, now 26, and 24-year-old Charles junior, have left home.

But the four younger children who Charles also thought were his – now aged 12, ten, nine and six – live with their mother in the former

Charles, meanwhile, has been forced to move out, and is facing his 70th birthday with only with his memories for company.

“Richard is beneath my contempt, but it’s Sarah I really blame,” he says. “I now know she used me to raise her children.

“If she’d had the courage to tell me the truth at the start, I could have had a chance of rebuilding my life. Instead, she chose to continue her deception over the years.

“I gave her a home, children and a decent standard of life, and this is how she repaid me. The only way I can deal with it is to tell myself she’s ill.”

But if you were expecting remorse from his former wife, you would be disappointed. Instead, Sarah Bostock claims she was only ever thinking of her family.

“I made a deliberate decision to have children by my lover and I would do it again if I had to,” she said this week.

“As far as I’m concerned I was trying to do the right thing by the family by keeping us all together.

“If I was a selfish woman I would have left years ago, but I felt it was better for all the children to try to maintain status quo – not that it wasn’t terribly hard at times. But I have always tried to put their best interests first.”

Its an astonishing sentiment – but for Charles Bostock, nothing much comes as a surprise now.

Today, his cramped council home in Bodmin, Cornnwall, is a far cry from the sixbedroom detached house a few miles away.

Together with his wife, Charles, a former Metropolitan police officer, moved there in the mid-Eighties from Surrey after an accident on his police motorbike, which meant he had to be pensioned out of the force.

“The move was Sarah’s idea actually,” he recalls. “We had had happy times here on holiday and as nothing was tying us to Surrey it seemed like a good.”

The couple met at a party held by a mutual friend and married in Woking 1979 following a two-year courtship.

Despite the near 20-year age gap, Charles believes they were happy.

“The age gap never bothered either of us,” he says. “It was barely mentioned.”

Two children, Alison and Charles, quickly followed.

“We had the typical family life — the children, dogs, a cat,” Charles reflects.

“Sarah stayed at home while I got a job working as a council manager. We were happy.”

Not, however, according to Sarah, who defended her actions by attacking Charles’s qualities as a husband.

“He did provide for us, yes, but what he didn’t give me was any fun, or affection, or real attention. He never wanted to go out and do anything.”

An excuse for tricking him into raising another man’s four children? Few would think so.

Nevertheless, apparently without qualms, in 1989 Sarah began her affair with Richard Mills, who she met while taking her children swimming.

Like Sarah, Richard, now 46, was married with two children.

The two quickly became lovers – while agreeing, according to Sarah, that neither would leave their spouses.

“Richard had two young children and so did I. We enjoyed the excitement and lust and although there were deeper feelings, too, we made a point of not discussing them,” she says.

“What was the point? We were committed to our respective domestic situations. Much as I would have liked to get out, I didn’t envisage leaving Charles because I didn’t want to upset the kids.”

How ironic, then, that within a couple of years Sarah admits that she took the selfish decision to actively started trying for a baby with her lover.

“I was very broody and wanted Richard’s baby,” she says.

“He said it wasn’t sensible but I went for it anyway. I instinctively knew that he would be fine with it and I was so desperate to have his child that I was prepared to take the risk.

“To be honest, Charles didn’t even come into it. I remember thinking I had to do something for my own happiness.”

By 1993, Sarah had achieved her goal. She was pregnant.

It was at this point that she made the decision to “cover her tracks” and recommence what had been a sparse sexual partnership with her husband in order to facilitate the idea that the child was his.

“I don’t deny it was calculating,” she says.

“In a funny way everyone was happy. Charles and I had discussed the idea of having more children.”

A daughter, now 12, was born in 1994, followed in quick succession by another three children – a son and two more daughters.

“People ask me now if I had any idea what was going on but it’s so easy to miss the signs,” says Charles. “All the children took after their mother, so I never I suspected a thing – why would I?

“Life was busy, I had a full-time job and a house full of kids. I wouldn’t say Sarah and I had an amazing relationship but it wasn’t bad, and I was perfectly content.”

Sarah, meanwhile, continued to meet her lover in secret, sometimes even taking the younger children with her. She introduced their biological father as “Mummy’s friend”.

Who knows how long this bizarre deception might have continued had the Bostocks’ domestic situation not come to a head in 2002 when Charles discovered Sarah was three months pregnant with what would be her seventh child.

This time, he knew there was no chance the baby could be his as the couple had not had sexual relations for nine months.

“Even then she tried to pretend,” says Charles angrily.

“She said she’d had sex with me while I was asleep – it was rubbish. I felt completely numb.

“I pressed her to tell me who the father was, but she refused. I didn’t know what to do – I didn’t want to abandon my kids but it was also obvious the marriage was at an end.”

After consulting a solicitor, a separation order was drawn up which allowed Charles to occupy a room in the house while Sarah and the children lived in the rest.

In another ironic stroke, it was also agreed that he would pay £400-amonth maintenance for ‘his’ four young children.

Only towards the end of the pregnancy, Charles maintains, did Sarah finally admit he wasn’t the father of the imminent arrival.

“She claimed it was a one-night stand and that the father didn’t want to know,” he says.

“Later I got an anonymous phone call telling me it was a man called Richard Mills. But Sarah did not react when I confronted her with the name.

“Then, when the baby girl was born in 2002, I didn’t think I would want anything to do with her, but she was such a lovely little thing. I decided that if Sarah would let me, I would bring her up as one of ours.

“As far as I was concerned she had no contact with the baby’s father and there was a chance we could have a fresh start.”

If he felt optimistic, however, he was mistaken.

“One night when the baby was a few months old Sarah came home and said she didn’t want a fresh start, she wanted me out,” says Charles.

“I was flabbergasted. I had tried to do the right thing, this was my home too, and she was ordering me out.”

When he refused, battle commenced.

“Suddenly there were no secrets any more. Sarah boasted about her lover, saying I was washed-up while he was virile and rich.

“She was trying to provoke me into leaving, but I had paid for this house and my family were there.

“I didn’t see why I should leave. I just couldn’t believe what was happening to me.”

But Sarah claims her husband became verbally abusive towards her.

“When he talks of being a loving father it makes me laugh,” she insists.

Charles furiously denies her accusations, saying that though there were fierce arguments in the house, as often as not, he insists, they were started by his wife.

He also categorically denies any violence but says Sarah called the police to the house on three occasions claiming he was being violent as part of a strategy to get him out.

The police discovered nothing amiss.

By spring 2005, circumstances had become intolerable and after receiving an Occupation Order, which he did not contest because he says he had lost the will by that point, Charles was forced to leave the marital home, moving into a former council house with his eldest son Charles.

“It was a horrible transition. Overnight, I’d gone from seeing my kids all the time to seeing them once a week when Sarah could be bothered to drop them off.”

If that was hard to swallow, however, there was a final bombshell which made him realise that much of his family life had been a lie.

Last summer, Charles was told by his 12-year-old daughter that she and the other children had had swabs taken by Richard.

“I was baffled and immediately rang my solicitor to get him to find out what was going on. A few weeks later the children came to see me again and the eldest told me: ‘You aren’t our father. Richard is’.”

The same day, Charles’s solicitor confirmed his worst fears.

“I was devastated. How do you cope with news like that?” Desperately hoping there had been a mistake, Charles ordered separate tests, which confirmed he was not the father of four of the children he’d raised as his own. “In just one moment I stopped being Dad to my kids. They are confused, and at the moment I barely see them.

“The 12-year-old refuses point blank to see me at all as she believes I deliberately lied to her about not being her dad.”

Sarah, however, remains unrepentant.

“When we told the children they took it really well. My fifth child by Richard already knew who her father was, while the others seemed relatively unfazed by the news.

“I’m lucky in that my kids are happy and well-adjusted. They are all doing brilliantly at school.” But is it really that simple?

Meanwhile, not content to stop at seven children, Sarah has gone on to have another baby by Mills, a boy now five-months-old.

While in another twist to the tale, Mr Mills has been publicly accused of having affairs with two other women – claims he denies.

Finally divorced from Charles, Sarah remains in the marital home, although it is due to be sold as part of the financial settlement, with Sarah receiving 61 per cent of the proceeds.

Richard Mills is also now divorced, although he has not yet moved in fully with Sarah.

“I didn’t want to force him on the children so he stays two or three nights a week as well as during the day when he has the chance,” she says.

“But we do plan to live together as a family.” That he is living only part-time with Sarah is but cold comfort to Charles Bostock.

“He is still in my house, bringing up the children I consider to be mine, while I live in a council house with my eldest son.

“It’s hard for him and my daughter Alison because they feel torn. They are horrified by what their mother did but don’t want to cut her out of their lives completely.

“What she has done has affected so many lives.” It is impossible to disagree.

April Fool’s Day is not until Sunday, Denise.

“People should not shy away from marriage for fear of divorce as a marriage is the most solid union society can offer.”

These claims have all got to be troll-food. A man is more likely to have a successful relationship with a round of Russian roulette.

Anyone who could read the above, about Sarah Bostock, and not be horrified at her is inhuman.

Anyone who could read the above, about Sarah Bostock, and not be horrified at her is inhuman.

“Fear of divorce should not prevent marriage’

Of course you are speaking as a woman for whom there are no downsides to divorce-only upsides. I can’t take advice from you.

I don’t call the IRS when I have tax questions either. Their goal is to collect eveything they can and my goal is to pay only what I am required to by law.

Rizzo, there are NO benefits for men from marriage that are not ALSO AVAILABLE without marriage…… just risks (and some fairly substantial ones at that!).

Marriage has financial benefits for women (in case they want to “change their minds” or simply grow bored).

Marriage certainly has benefits for children.

But none for men……. at least for those men who value their financial well-being, their emotional well-being, and their sanity.

Or put another way………. in the game of Russian Roulette, only one cylinder of the revolver is loaded.

How do you feel about playing with HALF of the cylinders loaded?

In the story, ‘Five of my children are not mine,’ what we see is the endless and utterly casual amorality and unaccountability coupled with the complete disrespect for men by women in our society today. These attitudes women have spew from their mouths all around me everyday- it has become only too commonplace.

What is so deeply disturbing about amorality is that it indicates a complete inability to comprehend the difference between right and wrong, much like an animal does not the mental ability to comprehend morality. ‘Immorality’ on the other hand, suggests that an individual commiting that act of immorality understands at least that what they are doing is wrong, and are capable of being accountable for their actions- not to mention the possibility of repentence. But I digress- I have in fact witnessed dogs who hung their heads in shame, knowing they had been ‘bad.’ Therefore, we can only deduce that a dog is actually on a higher mental and spiritual plain than today’s human female, and then bizarrely women wonder why they are treated as less than human.

So it is difficult to say where this woman will go when she dies- there are only two possibilities- Hell or animal Heaven.

do we continue to let women destroy themselves…or do some men have the courage to take our country back…which is ineviteably what they want anyway..
.men need to stop being little oedipusses..and assert themselves in a new direction for change…

POP!!! The bubble has burst and out popped….? Denise Noe, where the hell have you been the last half century??!!

ANY man who marries has got to be out of his mind. Fear has got NOTHING to do with staying away from marriage. I don’t fear grizzly bears but I’m not about to play with and try to form a “solid foundation” with one. That would be nuts.

Do you have ANY idea the risks involved for a man should he enter into one of the most violated of all contracts, marriage? Loss of children, home, property, savings, freedom, dignity, self-esteem, and possibly even life.

C’mon Denise….. r u funnin’ wit us?

“C’mon Denise….. r u funnin’ wit us?”

You have to remember this is the same female who wrote that women who marry into wealth should be respected as much as someone who actually earned their wealth through hard work or genius- this of course, was just after Anna Nicole Smith died. This ‘Denise Noe’ apparently needs to brush up on her cognitive skills starting with watching all the segments of ‘One of These Things Is Not Like the Others,’ on Sesame Street (haha).

It is difficult to tell if she is simply trying to agitate men by making such ridiculously braindead statements or if she really is that stupid. I have, in fact, met a great deal of women in my lifetime that really were that stupid.

Where are all the good, decent, non-feminist, “I’m not like them” girls?

They seem to be very satisfied with the status quo.

And not very verbal about expressing their objections to feminist tyranny.

I have given up on women.

I highly recommend it as the first step towards sanity.

Then, start reading western philosophy.

Soon enough, you’ll be alright.

> a marriage is the most solid union society can offer.

Such a statement could almost be used as a sure sign of dementia to get you commited, Denise.

A health club or cell phone contract is way, way more binding than marriage.

The fact is, from a legal/societal standpoint marriage today is little more than notorized dating. It confers no substantive rights on the man, only obligations; conversely, it imposes no obligations on the woman.

It is difficult to imagine how marriage could be any less ‘solid’, regardless of all the fluff and other nonsense surrounding it. As the suitor in the New Yorker cartoon put it: “I’m not talking about a permanent committment. I’m talking about marriage…”

For the record, I’ve never been close to being married so there is no way that what I write has anything to do with being ‘bitter’ or having been burned. When I was younger and hadn’t thought much about these matters I sorta thought the guys who complained about having been taken to the cleaners by their ex’s must have done something wrong and deserved what they got. But then I looked into the matter and determined that the problems are not personal/psychological but structural (i.e., with the system/law). I’ve held that view for fifteen years and have seen no reason to change my assessment; if anything, new data has only enlarged and strengthened my understanding of the extent to which marriage is terribly flawed. Not being a chump or desirous of victimization, it is something I will never have anything to do with.

Miss Noe shouldn’t worry about the future of marriage, in spite of the fact that it is hardly the “solid union” she purports it to be.

As long as little Electras are raised with only a nodding aquaintance with right and wrong…….as long as parents, society, and law fail to teach them about the consequences of their actions in the same way men are taught…….as long as they demand(and get) autonomy over their reproduction and their bodies, while failing to accept responsibility for both……….marriage in its current form is safe.

In a country such as ours, where women own half the money and all of the vagina, they will continue to use their unlimited supply of one to gain the majority of the other. And men, finding themselves to be in a monopolized market, will continue to risk all they have or ever will have on a marital contract. A contract, that if it were for some other big budget luxury item like an estate, or a yacht, could be broken by a rank junior associate of any law firm, based simply on the seller not providing stated service for payment.

Our only hope is to clean up and properly regulate the companies that provide foreign “mail order” brides. Outsourcing of this job could return a healthy competition to what is no longer a free market.

Denise…..How much alimony do you receive from your Ex husband?…..What is your mental justification for taking that money that you dont earn? What makes you entitled to that money…..What prevents you from supporting yourself?

I agree- American women are trash. Given the state of marriage on top of that- it’s like fighting to get a job in the sewer & then getting fired or laid off for no reason and then losing everything to the state for your trouble. What men have absolutely got to begin to understand is that if you see a physically attractive woman in the U.S.- that’s it- what you are ‘seeing’ is IT-there is nothing more to that female- she is an idiot, a fraud, unaccountable, and just an over all horrendous human being- a nightmare.. fecal matter has greater worth than an American female. I’ve also noticed that American women are not even insulted when you call them stupid- so it’s obvious intelligence is of no use to an American female. Remember.. trash.

Hey man, you guys said it all. Wanted to add my voice to the chorus and say “DON’T DO IT”, don’t married. Don’t have kids. They’re cute (the kids) and you love them to death do you part or until “mommy” decides you’re no longer allowed to be a dad. It’s not worth it.

The guy who said we’re all here talking to each other as the wounded and dying while all the fresh meat (younger men) are the ones that should be here reading these great thoughts is 100% correct.

Like feminism tho, it took slow steady steps until the cancer was ready to spread. I say we keep hollering and someday the word gets out. Warren Farrell was the Prez of the NYNY Chapter of COW, oops, NOW until he had one of those epifanines (sorry about the spelling) and is now a free soul. Sounds a little different doesn’t he? Well, I for one read all the comments and I spread the word to any guy listening. Even those that aren’t, plant the seed and the tree grows eventually.
sez I