Audrey Hepburn did that with her last partner. You shouldn't need a piece of paper to say that you two are officially together.
They can't grasp that marriage simply has no benefit for men whatsoever other than having a family. Which is more often than not something women don't want nowadays.
I have been shown the worst humanity has to offer on a daily basis. Not online, in real life. The reality is, it's terrible out there. Maybe not everywhere in the US, but where I live there were unironically 0 women worth marrying. Why do I think this way? Because I started dating foreign women.
The thing most people don't understand is that men love to build status quos and women love change by raw instinctual nature. Men are static and women are dynamic. They're diametrically opposed to each other. Men love the dull old routine and they thrive in it. Women loath it so much that it makes them want to blow their brains out. You can't get around this. All of women's resentment and anger starts from stagnation. That's what causes marriages to have so many problems. However, these two elements are needed to raise growing children and that's why they exist. If you can't curb your instincts though towards these opposite concepts for the sake of your partner, then your marriage will always fail.
When you are having children just to have them, being a deadbeat or letting dykes have your kids, thats incredibly more selfish than the couple who is planning and sacrificing to be able to give their children the best life possible. You can argue the act of reproducing is selfish in itself and I'd probably agree, but what you suggest seems like a complete waste of time meant only to satisfy you, not caring about what happens beyond your lifespan. But if you are nihilistic I suppose that doesn't matter.
Haha, I didn't realize how much of a woman I was until I lived with my husband, and how different men really are from women. It was a huge shock to me as I'm not feminine at all, so I thought.
Congrats, you found a solution to your problem. I hope you find a keeper.
I suppose I would agree that the degree of selfishness is higher in the man who's only contribution to his children's lives is his seed in their mothers' womb. Though since women are the only determining factor in whether a child comes into this world or not, it means that if a dyke couple or a single woman wants to have children, there will be children born, short of medical problems, injury, or death. So if a child is going to be born regardless, and end up in the exact same position regardless, what difference does it make if that child were sired by one man or the other? If someone was a nihilist and didn't give a shit about anything, I doubt they'd be having kids. Nihilism is cringe.
Women shouldn't be able to have that sort of power either. No one should be able to make kids they don't plan on raising. Unfortunately that is the reality we live in, but again that doesn't make it right.
It's not a man/woman problem imo
How is surrogacy using the egg of a woman of your choosing be any different from just trying to find a wife that meets your criteria and impregnating her?
Because the egg is put in a different woman most times to avoid legal trouble?
No the reason the egg is put in a different woman is because the woman who the egg comes from usually isn't looking to be a surrogate and is just selling the egg. It's certainly an invasive additional step. But you're not preforming any genetic modification. It's just a roundabout way of having a kid with a woman you find suitable. The psychological problem that could arise from the children born of this are unknown because surrogacy is nowhere near common enough for any sort of noticable pattern to emerge. Not like IVF babies who suffer from fatherlessness. I did read somewhere that children do not psychologically require their mothers after the age of 6. But I can't find it.
Enjoy your (most likely) meaningless life.
It doesn't matter, dude. As has been stated here multiple times, the state can, has, and will forcibly intervene in your marriage at her behest, regardless of if you are married on paper or just in spirit. Your only defense against that is to literally predict the future and ensure that the woman you marry, for the remainder of her life, will never change her mind about you. Since you can't read minds or predict the future, it's just as much a gamble as getting married in a legal sense. Give it a rest. The good old days of patriarchy are long gone.
Without hyperbole, the most miserable, bitter wrecks I know are dudes who "took that risk like a man should" and suffered terribly for it.
This is not the case in any of the places I've lived in.
" even though he lives in a common marriage state like a slave and his little stratagem does nothing except make his eggless girlfriend sad because she will die childless and single.
If your locality doesn't recognize common law marriage, or have laws regarding defacto marriage, then you're extremely lucky. I don't know anywhere outside of the third world like that. So I'm just going to call bullshit and say the places you lives do have those things, but you just aren't aware of them. But even if what you're saying is true, that can change at any time.
A woman need not be a "dumb whore" for marriage to be an incredibly raw deal. I wouldn't sign a legally-binding contract to become an indentured servant to even the most trustworthy and decent person in the world.
Moving somewhere is not "luck", it's something you decide, you defeatist man.
