NAWALT Is An Irrelevant Argument

[Anonymous 11]

sidecar wrote:

she’s admitting that MOST OF THEM ARE.

I was speaking to my friend’s early twenties daughter about me never being married. I told her that 45 to 50 year old women are too damn old for me. I was kind of mentally preparing her for The Wall. I told her 32 was pushing it for a woman as far as I am concerned even at my age.

She then asked what I detest most about women and materialism was the first thing out of my mouth. She agreed that nearly all women are materialistic. She asked if I’ve ever been cheated on by a woman. I told her, yes, a few times. She then told me many of her friends cheat on their boyfriends.

She’s totally dedicated to her schooling and not seriously involved with anyone plus raised by a single father. She even comes back home every weekend and many school nights due to the wild dorm parties bothering her.

We started Chad proofing her at a very young age. Men make way better single fathers. I was so proud when Chad Jr. whose father is a serious Chad was shot down in flames by her. She called him creepy.

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Murph-

Excellent point.
I don’t give women too much information, because it usually comes back to bite me. If a woman at work asks me why I’m not married I usually reply, “I’m still looking for someone half as good as you are.” This invokes a laugh and they usually walk away.

Outside of work, I tell ladies, “I can’t afford another divorce. I would like to keep my house, my car, and my pension plan.” This response usually works. I almost never hear the NAWALT comment. If I ever do hear the NAWALT remark, I plan to use your excellent arguemet. Thanks.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Another thing about NAWALT.

It presumes that the ones who are Not Like That are worth the expense, effort, and risk of looking for.

They’re not.

Not All Women Are Like That, but NO Woman Is Worth Finding Out.

Sure, the mythical unicorn might actually exist, but so what? Suppose you go to all the trouble and effort and expense and risk and by some miracle you manage to find a bona fide unicorn and not just another rhinoceros in disguise? What then? What the f~~~ does a man need a unicorn for? Especially since the law has turned unicorns and rhinoceroses into nothing more than giant f~~~ing liabilities for a man.

So how do you keep a woman NAWALT? By never, ever giving her a chance to prove herself AWALT. No marriage. No cohabitation. No procreation. No exceptions.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Writing Desk Raven wrote:

This is a brilliant quote, filing this away for later use. Thank you, Eric.

AGREED!!

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Anonymous 3]

You shouldn’t bother wasting your time arguing on this stuff. Just deflect and walk away, or ignore it outright.

But you’re thinking the wrong way if you’re thinking it has something to do with women and which ones are good or bad or whatever.

Women are the same as they’ve always been. It’s society and the legal systems and everything else in place that are the problem.

Without the massive government and ubiquitous white knight brigade, women are harmless annoyances and burdens that men take up purely out of our charitable nature and goodwill. Without men, women would die out pretty quickly. They have zero basic survival skills or intelligence. The super advanced modern society is the only one they can somewhat maintain parity with men in, and that’s with massive subsidies and affirmative action, lowered standards, and the fact that men are all tapped to create this safe, comfortable environment and give them taxpayer money and resources and everything else in unlimited quantities. The second that spigot gets shut off, and men are free to be men and keep all of their own resources, this feminist utopia collapses. And frankly it will probably collapse anyway because eventually you can’t keep spending men’s collective resources, because it runs out after awhile. Since women are incapable of creating value, it’s inevitable.

[Blue SkiesParticipant 15665]

Anonymous wrote:

decades of shelling out half his check in child support and alimony to his ex. Why would any sane man want to take such a deal?”

you are wrong, this is a myth. it is often times more than half of after tax income. Just watch this guy’s story:

–

MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.

[Silver FoxParticipant 2766]

Here’s the question I would pose to the defenders of NAWALT:

“If it’s true that not all women are like that, then why don’t you hear any women screaming for reform in the family courts?”

Oh, that’s right, because it benefits them the way it is.

"Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." --Apostle Paul

[CataphractParticipant 2656]

The NAWALT argument hinges on the idea that the only reason you don’t get married is because you fear choosing the wrong woman, but what about the MGTOW who are not interesting in finding any woman, even the so-called right one because we don’t believe that having a woman in your life gives you any worthwhile benefits, after all, Bachelorhood Is Awesome!

Marriage: About as appealing as wood-chipper diving.

[bstoffParticipant 4885]

Nope. What he is saying is, divorce or not, you lose. Once your married, you’ve already lost. Nothing for a man to gain in being married. In fact, a divorced man is a bigger winner than a married man because he’s escaped with hopefully only minor damage. Marriage itself is defeat.

[GnosticParticipant 2491]

Even if there is a NAWALT that does not divorce, can she bring more to the table then bachelor life?

Is the unicorn capable of given more frequent and cheaper sex? Can the unicorn give threesome or foursome? Can the Unicorn stay beautiful all the time as oppose to upgrade to a younger model bachelor life afford?

Is the unicorn services cheaper then a housekeeper?

Can the unicorn be a better friend then a dog?

Can the unicorn hold more interesting conversations then your male friends?

Can the unicorn give as much freedom as a bachelor life.

So whether a NAWALT exist or not is irrelevant as she cannot beat bachelor life.

There is no magic in MGTOW, just recognition of the truth and logical decision how to avoid dangers. The red pill is but the truth, it is no magical potion. Do not think in this modern world men have no longer have natural enemies, men are prey to women and government.

[narwhalParticipant]

When it comes to the law, NAWALT is absolutely an irrelevant argument. Does it really matter how many people would murder if there were no consequences for the action? I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people would not kill their neighbor even if it was legal to do so. So should we drop the punishment for murder and just tell people “Not all people are like that?”, just man up and deal with it?

I don’t really care whether a particular woman wouldn’t screw over a man in divorce. I don’t care if my neighbor would never pick me off with a shotgun. There needs to consequences and laws to prevent/deter both.

That said, NAWALT also applies to non-financial, non-criminal behavior, such as lying, cheating, manipulation, etc. IMO, those are enabled by the laws and marriage and divorce, as well as social pressures and conditions. You fix the laws, and half the problem is fixed. The other is fixed by not bowing down to social pressures and such. Learn to say no.

Ok. Then do it.

[Author]

Posts