Married Red PillMarriage laws in China (self.TheRedPill)

submitted by TheDevilsAdvokaat

A few years ago the Chinese government stated it was concerned with the number of women marrying rich men then divorcing them and profiting from the result. "Parasite" women. So this is what they did: They enacted a rule that people who marry are only entitled to half of items bought during the course of a marriage (And I think half of earnings, but this I'm not sure about.) But each partner retains ownership of the things they owned before marrying.

This has had some interesting effects. I work and live in China (for 15 years) and here is a conversation I had with one of my female Chinese workmates. Workmate was telling me about her "friend."

"My friend is really clever! Do you know what she did? Her husband already owned a home when they were married, so she would have been entitled to nothing when they got divorced. So she told him over and over how much she dislikes "that old house" until he sold it and bought a new one. Now she gets half the house if they get divorced. Even better, she in fact already owns a house given to her by her parents, that she never told him about. So now, he owns half a house, and she owns 1.5 houses! Isn't she clever?"

I suspect she is in fact the friend and is boasting about her own cleverness.

I think if you're sensible, these laws can protect men (And women.) But if you're foolish like her husband was....you will lose out.

I wish they had these laws in other countries.

Edit: Apparently in a lot of places they do.

[–]AncientScrolls 291 points292 points  (43 children)

I hope they do that in Western Countries. This way I wont have to worry so much about being backstabbed by some woman who I though I could trust to be my partner in life. I´m tired of the Western Government most of the time siding with feminists when making marriage laws.

[–][deleted] 150 points151 points  (19 children)

It will never happen. Not with #MeToo so popular at least. I don’t watch the Grammys but I was reading about how people were mad because Ed Sheeran won a Grammy for best song. Why were they mad? Oh because the other 3 candidates for the award were women! People were saying that he shouldn’t have won because the women should have won because they’re songs supported the #MeToo shit. I don’t even like Ed Sheeran but who in their right state of mind thinks this is the right way to think? They should have won because they’re women! Total bs and first we have to get these thoughts out of people’s heads before we can even consider getting a law like this.

[–]BlackNaziSJWFeminist 29 points30 points  (3 children)

It's all identity politics. They don't give a fuck about qualifications, just how you were born (which you can't control). The modern left are all terrible people.

[–]Smartass26 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wish I could upvote that 1000 times

[–]AncientScrolls 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's all identity politics. They don't give a fuck about qualifications, just how you were born (which you can't control). The modern left are all terrible people.

And yet they insist on "claiming" that we right-wing/conservatives are the Evil Facist when the ones who really care about identy politics, gender and race are the left-wing kids.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

harassment scene investigator - special victims-by-birth unit

[–]ChefTeo 45 points46 points  (3 children)

There is a lot of racism and sexism out there, primarily from race and gender obsessed bigots who think that there is something virtuous in their words and actions.

[–]Dead_Art 24 points25 points  (2 children)

"I don't understand the idea of not being racist/sexist so I'm just going to be racist/sexist FOR women and people of color! I also put out fires with more fire and throw water on drowning people."

[–]Troll_Name 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It's a game. Accuse everyone, project everything, contribute to nothing but insist on taking all the credit.

It only works because TV covers for the people who do this.

[–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It also only works because white guilt is trendy nowadays.

[–]Thetwothatgotaway 19 points20 points  (0 children)

My bf works in tech. He was on a call with a vendor and overheard their conversation about hiring an already interviewed, well qualified male for a role on their team. They nexted him and said 'no, we should definitely be hiring a woman, we need more women, let's start over and find her.' This conversation was led by women. In better news, his cofounder is a woman and is the only woman on their team. She is not an idiot, and uses the woman in tech card to get deals. Like Sheryl Sandberg and other prominent women who play up the PR angle of women at work. Now these women use the PR to their business advantage, but the are under no illusion that what they preach is BS. I've sat in meetings related to this. Any woman who actually thinks meritless promotion, hiring, or 'awards' is what needs to happen is an idiot. Always understand where that person is coming from, then ignore them.

[–]RaptorFalcon 24 points25 points  (0 children)

They should have won because they’re women!

That was Hillary's justification for why people should vote for her. "Wouldn't you like to see a woman in the White House?" Ummmm no, I care about policies not gender.

[–]Moneyley 8 points9 points  (3 children)

I don’t even like Ed Sheeran

the poor cuck is like "wtf do I have to do to please them?! One of my songs has the phrase Im in love with the shape of you"

He would need to be some sort of meta beta

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Yah that will work, because above all else girls love a weak submissive man, makes them incredibly wet by him just being around.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly I feel bad for him if nothing else. While he is beta he worked hard on his music and he won an award. It should be something he gets congratulated for, not something that women shit on him for just because he’s a man who won.

[–]red_matrix 4 points5 points  (4 children)

That's also why they despise Ed Sheeran so much. He's as beta as they come, and women can't stand to see a rising beta (it's like going against gravity - it just looks wrong and unnatural).

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Very true. If he was more alpha they wouldn’t mess with him.

[–]red_matrix 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Also - if he was a big black rapper they'd be on his side, no question. Black rappers -> alpha, and can get away with saying anything. Even if their lyrics are about hitting or raping a bitch, girls still dance to it and sing along.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Exactly what I was thinking. Notice they never bash rappers.

[–]Gigaplex1 27 points28 points  (6 children)

That is already the law in germany for decades. It is called "Zugewinngemeinschaft" and ensures that there is no "shared ownership".

Edit: German Civil Conduct (BGB) Section 1363 Community of accrued gains

(1) The spouses live under the property regime of community of accrued gains if they do not by marriage contract agree otherwise.

(2) The property of the husband and the property of the wife do not become the common property of the spouses; the same applies to property that one spouse acquires after marriage. The accrued gains that the spouses acquire in the marriage, however, are equalised if the community of accrued gains ends.

The "trick" to sell the house and buy a new on wouldn't work under german law, because the courts just look at how much money you were bringing into the marriage.

E.g.: Man has a house (200k Euro) and 50k cash and the woman has 5k cash. After divorce the court will ensure that the man has 250k + 50% of everything that has been added during the marriage. The woman will get 5k + 50% that has been added during the marriage.

[–]drallcom3 1 points1 points [recovered]

In Germany it's child support that gets you, not being married. But at least you don't have to pay if you can't even support yourself.

[–]uebermacht 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Child support gets you even without marriage.

[–]TheRealJesusChristus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You make depts if you cant afford yourself. So if in one day you can, the government knocks on your door and assures you you still cant.

[–]Gigaplex1 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Child support wasn't the topic here.

[–]Smartass26 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Women taking advantage of men was and that’s another example of it. Financial reward for leaving a man and having kids come from a broken home.

[–]OracleofFl 20 points21 points  (6 children)

INAL but I believe this is actually how it works in most western countries (in theory) today. The property amassed during the marriage is the community property. Basically, you add up the assets of both spouses from before they got married and subtract that amount from the value of assets after they got separated and that is the community property to be divided during the divorce. The spouses each get what they came to the marriage with plus half the increase.


Mark Zuckerberg didn't get married until the facebook went public. Now his wife has a share in the increase in value of his investments from that point until the date they get separated (if they do).

[–]justshootinblanks 17 points18 points  (1 child)

In Australia they depreciate (may not be the exact term ) the initial contribution over 7 years so that after 7 years even if the bloke started with a full house and she contributes nothing financially then in the case of no kids he might get court ordered 50 percent. If kids are involved he might get 0 to 50 percent, with 30 percent being the starting figure. Then he pays child support on top based on his income.

Given the crazy increase in house prices in Oz over the last 20 years this concept is patently absurd, as the bloke paid money to buy in when it was cheaper - yet I read cases where it was applied, plus the precedent case.

Luckily my days of reading family law cases are well behind me, and will never return.

[–]RaptorFalcon 4 points5 points  (2 children)

What I have always been curious about, is prior investments. I have a large investment portfolio, even if I don't put any money into it, it will accrue significant returns. I can see two sides to this:

  1. It was a prior asset -If the amount put in is not increased aside from ROI the entire fund should be safe
  2. Any returns on investment could be deemed income earned during the marriage even if no further investments are deposited

So I wonder which side the courts would take.

[–]OracleofFl 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In most states, if you had $100,000 in assets on the day you get married and she has none. Fast forward 5 years later and you separate for divorce and you two combined have $175,000, you keep the original 100k + 1/2 the 75k. This is not counting alimony or child support. This is just the community property side.

[–]lestratege 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I hope they do that in Western Countries.

This is the default marriage in France. It is called "Communauté réduit aux acquêts" ie, community to that has been acquired (during the mariage) and this excludes inheritances.

Can you please stop equating the US for the West?

[–]jm51 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I read of an English woman that divorced her French husband and was outraged by the French court granting the two of them joint custody.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

but then it is also illegal to dna test for paternity in France - maybe he got lucky getting joint custody for another guys kid

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Shouldn't eventually women run out of gullible targets? Rich guys don't grow plenty on trees versus an unlimited supply of people dreaming of draining them.

[–]AncientScrolls 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Shouldn't eventually women run out of gullible targets? Rich guys don't grow plenty on trees versus an unlimited supply of people dreaming of draining them.

Unfortunately they wont there will always be stupid guys, who have an above-average income, that will happily be their beta providers.

Think like this if you are born as a hot woman like Kristen Bell or Emma Stone. It doesnt matter if you were born poor, rich or famous. There will always be plenty of men willing to worship the ground you walk on even if you treat them like shit.

The only people we have to blame is men for letting girls treat them like shit instead of teaching them to respect and admire us.

[–]fanturnedon 1 points1 points [recovered]

Am I missing something here? That already is the law in the states! It's child support and alimony that gets you.

[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And that is why you never let your wife be a stay-at-home mommy, no matter how much she begs and pleads, while married.

[–]all4gibs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

not only siding with them but also actively propagating their twisted agenda

[–]metalgearex 1 points1 points [recovered]

china is a fucked up place but this is one thing they got right. not to mention it's socially expected for a married man to have mistresses as a sign of affluence.

but don't think of this as a sign that china is some paradise for Western men. it's not. china is a pretty high tier shit hole.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

In China, the smartest thing to do is keep your head down. Don't be too rich or too famous - it's not worth your life.

[–]ThatEastAfricanguy 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Not to sound anarchist, but any government on earth can fuck up any citizen of its it if wants to.

If it doesn't, it's not because it can't, it's because it doesn't want to.

[–]Gervant_of_Lyria 34 points35 points  (1 child)

"They enacted a rule that people who marry are only entitled to half of items bought during the course of a marriage."

We have this law in Russia and had it for decades, also no vaginamony, only child support. You westerners need to catch up, it's the 21st century.

[–]PunkSmell 34 points35 points  (6 children)

That’s how it is (and has been for years) in Eastern Europe.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Didn't know that. Glad to hear it.

[–]mnemos_1 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Pretty much the same in Southern Africa. You have the option to have your marriage contract's(licence, excuse me) asset clause reflect that each spouse's assets are in complete community of property, that assets procured after marriage are in community of property, or that no community of property exists whatsoever.

[–]Geronimonimo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's amazing. Why don't all countries have that?

[–]Liart13 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Yeah I thought it's like that almost everywhere. I mean, how can it be NOT like that?

[–]PunkSmell 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Right. The US is absolutely horrible in that regard.

[–]PreOrgasmGroanLness 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Which country are you talking about?

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 120 points121 points  (17 children)

Don't marry: thread number 48,188

[–]mangoat12 1 points1 points [recovered]

So why do men get married in the first place. Hmm

[–]Docbear64 14 points15 points  (7 children)

Because REAL MEN know that no matter what women are worth it and welcome the opportunity to financially and emotionally support someone who will only consider them a sperm donor in a few years and yet still collect alimony and child support while possibly poisoning the child(ren) against him or dumping them off at dads when she has a hot date.

around 4/5 marriages end in divorce? Real men like those odds!

[–]MarinTaranu 6 points7 points  (5 children)

To add gas to the fire, there was a German study on women's libido and they found that the longer a woman is in a stable and secure relationship for her, the lower her libido (desire to fuck) is. I believe it can even go in negative territory on occasion.

[–]jagua_haku 3 points4 points  (4 children)

How is that specific to women? Maybe I'm the only one but the longer I'm in a relationship the more bored I get of having sex with the same woman. To the point where if I had my way we'd basically be plutonic best friends. I'm talking about time spans greater than a year or two with the same person

[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Platonic. Yeah, I am now in a platonic marriage. Basically, I feel morally obligated to take care of my wife, but she surely doesn't make it easy for me, always shouting, acting without manners in public, pretending to be sick all the time. It's not her physical attractiveness or lack of that prevents me from having sex with her, it's the fact that she told me three years ago that she doesn't like sex. I think she has an obsessive fear of wetness anywhere (floor, body) and that coupled with her continuous yapping and attitude critical of everything when she is a social zero created this condition. She's 62, she will not change.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points

[permanently deleted]

[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points  (4 children)

It may not help you in the end, your arrangement may be called common-law marriage, and exists in certain US states, Nevada for one.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I was a dumbass and got married for real.

Nevertheless, this is one area CA actually gets right: unless you are married by law through a license and signed by either a court officer or an ordained minister (which can be pretty much anyone though), the marriage does not exist. Unless you commingle your finances and run them AS A BUSINESS, there's diddly-shit the other person can do to take your stuff. Further, alimony will never happen.

[–]GrowBear 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Does this mean in CA that you can live with someone permanently without the risk of common law marriage as long as you keep your finances separate? What if you have kids with them?

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor 2 points3 points  (1 child)


What if you have kids with them?

You still have to support your kids.

[–]vcxv_v 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thereis a land mine here. It is called in the US "Public Policy". The state (thanks to Johnson's Great Society") will impose higher costs like college tuition while if the couple was separated they won't. The the doctrine of what is best for the child. Meaning no moving away from the non custodial spouse. Goodbye that $200000.00 new job! Unless the other gets custody. And she pays child support. Even victims of sperm theft and statutory rape do not escape the claws of the rapacious state.

[–]markinsinz7 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

But what if the laws get more fair and balanced for divorce cased? I predict we'll see more men going for it. Although I wouldn't I personally don't think I could ever love or care for any girl today given the likelihood she was a slut in her early years but many men including RP ones wouldn't care about that shitt n jump on the marry wagon

[–]other_worlds 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's still a case not to get married. Regardless of how laws change going forward, the only laws that matter are the ones that are in effect when you get divorced.

Unless you continually monitor family court laws that apply to the area you live in, and plan to get a divorce from your partner at the whim of lawmakers, you really can't predict what will happen if your marriage ends in divorce.

[–]satanicpriest13 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Don't get married, folks. It's the worst trade deal. It just doesn't work.

[–]The_Sloth_Racer 24 points25 points  (7 children)

We already have this in the US. Things owned before marriage stay with each person and things purchased during marriage are typically split in half during a divorce. The only thing that isn't split when received during marriage is inheritence.

[–]IHeartPCP 9 points10 points  (0 children)

How is this not the top comment? This has always been the law in the US.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Great to hear...is this relatively recent? IE in the last decade or so? I don't live in the West any more (for more than a decade) so I'm out of touch sometimes...

[–]mysterr9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It has been the norm throughout the United States for decades (the laws of each individual state vary in the specific implementation of that norm).

[–]The_Sloth_Racer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's been the law since before I was born.

[–]Timthetiny 0 points1 point  (1 child)

If that was the case prenups wouldn't exist.

[–]The_Sloth_Racer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the law in the US and has been for a while. Prenups exist for other reasons. One example is if someone has kids and then gets married to someone else and if something happens to one partner and they die, they can have a prenup so their kids get the inheritance instead of the married partner. Another example is if one partner has far more wealth than the other before coming into the marriage, they can make a prenup so the other partner can't try to divorce them and take half of their assets and income.

[–]fortifel 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Her husband already owned a home when they were married, so she would have been entitled to nothing when they got divorced. So she told him over and over how much she dislikes "that old house" until he sold it and bought a new one. Now she gets half the house if they get divorced.

That's exactly what my brother's wife did to him. And then in a year or two she demanded a divorce. Watch out for these complains and think for yourself.

[–]DiebytheSword666 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Jeez, that woman's behavior doesn't surprise me. I've been in China for 5 years (Shanghai and Shenzhen). I had this crazy adult student tell me how she married her husband but she wouldn't have if he didn't have a house and a car.

When I found out that she had a house already that she rents out. I said something like, "Oh, you and your husband rent that house out and get the money?" She had this confused, irritated look and said, "His house? It's MY house. And it's MY money! His house is my house! And my house is MY house!"

She was a complete headache.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Wow. That poor guy.

What she said about house and car is very true. Many city Chinese girls consider that the bare minimum for a man - otherwise he is useless.

I had a Chinese gf and she told me about the guys in our garden who rent cars on Friday so that they can spend Saturday and Sunday driving around our are pretending to be rich guys. If they don't do this they have zero chance with women. Deceptive? Yes, but isn't it also deceptive to tell someone you love them when really all you love is what they can bring?

A few years ago there was a case of a Chinese woman who murdered her husband because after marriage he revealed to her he was actually poor - the car was rented and so was the house.

Country Chinese girls have lower standards, many of them are desperate to get out of the country side.

[–]shipintbrief 13 points14 points  (2 children)

It is same in Russia. Woman can get only half of what has been earned during marriage.

[–]TheWrathofShane 12 points13 points  (15 children)

Divorce shouldnt be a 50/50 split at all. If the women only brought her vagina to the table, she should get nothing if she splits up. Social saftey net can pick up the tab for a short period while she becomes her own provider or finds a new husband.

Child support should also go. Most men will want to provide for their offspring, child support is forcing the men by gunpoint from the state to give money to their ex to spend on herself/bills/children. This would put power back into the mans hand after a divorce and the state can pick up the tab for deadbeats, I am fine with that.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

mmm....I dunno. As a man I feel ok with supporting my children, but in countries where you have no right to a paternity test (Like France) I would not be ok with it.

[–]TheWrathofShane 5 points6 points  (4 children)

I believe most men would provide for their offspring. The point is the state is forcing you by gunpoint to give money to your Ex so she can decide how best to spend the money. Herself, the club, bills, and whatever she feels to buy specifically for the kids. Nah fuck that.

Wellfare can still cover deadbeats and trailer park moms.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Ok I see your point now and it's a good one.

Sure, not all women do this...but some do. And we have no recourse.

[–]trudenter 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The other thing also, is that in a lot of cases the amount of child support being giving exceeds the actual costs for raising that child.

Child support is meant to provide your kid with food, shelter, clothes. Basically everything that you would have been paying for if you were together anyways, but one thing is that (here anyways, Canada) the person paying child support should only be paying for half of everything. Meaning the person receiving that child support should also be paying the equal amount per month for that child.

Child support can definitely exceed this amount (especially if you have a good income), meaning that the person receiving the support can essentially spend the extra however they want which ends up being more inline with alimony.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suspect this is correct, and very common.

[–]TheWrathofShane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah no shit. Sure some men beat their women, some men go for a pack of smokes and never come back. But not all do. And because of a minority of men, by law all men are forced by gunpoint from the state to give money to their ex so she can decide how best to spend it on your offspring? Women have all the power for no reason, this shit is fucking stupid.

[–]shawnx23 0 points1 point  (8 children)

i think divorce should have a Max limit per month. instead of the man having to split his money , he is liable to only a limited amount of money which is pre-decided by gov.

so that a millionaire is paying only as much as the billionaire. nothing more or less .

[–]Johnnyvile 6 points7 points  (6 children)

I don’t even understand alimony at all. If you are married for 3 years and divorce why should someone have to continue taking care of them forever. Heck even making the payments last as long as the marriage would be better.

[–]trudenter 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I'd have to double check, but in Canada most of the time alimony won't be required unless the couple has been together for 8 or more years and that is only for half the time the couple were co-dependent (as far as I can tell, the marriage aspect doesn't really matter). Alimony is also only giving out if the person receiving can show they can't support themselves. Most cases I have heard of in Canada where the guy is paying insane amounts of alimony is when the girl can show she has a disability and physically can't work.

I also think you can stop paying alimony when the other person enters another co-dependent relationship. However, this doesn't take into account Child support, which in my opinion there are a lot of cases where maybe half of that support isn't being used for the child and is being used as "alimony".

[–]Johnnyvile 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Well Canada has its shit together. In the US no fault divorce in a short marriage can result in alimony forever as long as she never gets married again. Women don’t even have to try to work to take care of themselves.

[–]jagua_haku 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Alimony forever? I don't think this is true. I'm sure there are outlier examples but it's usually for a set time, say a year or two, and then expires. At least this was the case with the guys I know

[–]Johnnyvile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends. There is no set end date on many. It’s until she is self-supporting(which may be never) and/or the court deems other wise. Actually California apparently has rules that in short-term marriages(under 10 years) alimony may only be required for half the length of marriage. So Cali is doing what I mentioned.

[–]timowens862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alimony is fucking ridiculous. It isn't the mans fault the woman is a useless bitch, let her go to the homeless shelter like everyone else

[–]shawnx23 0 points1 point  (0 children)

whatever it is , but why alimony is not pre decided and fixed, payed same by either rich or poor. there should be a max limit on alimony. it should be enough to support the child through his academic years and over by time he got 18-20

[–]TheWrathofShane 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thats reasonable. I vote that if one spouse brought all the money to the table, the other partner gets to go on welfare. Why should you have to pay money per month to this women when she banged chuck and then left your ass for example.

[–]BertranThePharmacist 6 points7 points  (1 child)

This is how it works on ex-USSR territories.

If you have a property which you have bought before marriage OR someone (presumably your parents) made you a gift during marriage:

  • you don't need your spouse's permission to sell it

  • your spouse has no right over it after a divorce

On the other hand, I've heard that one of Russian senators proposed recognizing common law marriage (cohabitating) of 5 years as equal to legal marriage. This terms shortens to 2 years if the partners have got a kid.

[–]2 Senior Endorsed Contributorvengefully_yours 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Simple solution.

Never. Fucking. Get. Married.

Don't be a slow learner like I was, thinking this one is different, or it won't happen to me. It's not worth it, no pussy is worth the risk.

[–]Herdsengineers 15 points16 points  (1 child)

great now change the law further so you enter and leave the marriage with the same level of wealth/estate value and only the growth in value is split in two. then we're protected even if we move and buy a new house from a $$$ standpoint.

the biggest problem in the west is that 80% of men go along with feminism so easily. i know TRP is amoral, sexual strategy, but seriously, it gives men the knowledge to much more than get pussy. if only more of us would use it for more than chasing pussy.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think there's a lot of good stuff on here as well as the pussy stuff.

[–]Mohrennn 2 points3 points  (1 child)

In western societies it goes like this : Anything mostly detrimental to women in the marriage process, we'll regulate and make laws about it. Anything mostly detrimental to men, hey it's on your own I mean it's private business get yourself together.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon 3 points4 points  (1 child)

There is one foolproof ironclad guaranteed-successful way to not get divorceraped ...

[–]Bshenron 7 points8 points  (8 children)

As a young man I ask; how common is it that women get married just to divorce rape?

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 14 points15 points  (7 children)

It was a common enough thing that they enacted this law.

One of the other posters has said they have it in Eastern Europe too.

The thing is, women, like men, also start off young and idealistic. But as they get older and hungrier things change. So even women who weren't actually planning to divorce-rape the man from the start may wind up doing it.

Keep that in mind. You might "know" that your girl is different, and maybe she is - now. But you might be married for 10 or 20 years. Can you guarantee she will always be like that?

And if not, why risk your life (your house, your money, your business - everything you have amassed in your life) on it?

Marriage is often a bad deal for men and a great deal for women.

[–]Bshenron 1 point2 points  (4 children)

So are you saying it's pretty much a given then to get a prenup?

Have to point out such a good point about changing in 10 years. Me being 21 it'd be difficult to imagine, but does make being in a relationship not of interest of mine

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)


Well, I'm an Australian, and as far as I know they used to be worthless in Australia - the judge would just throw them out and award things as he saw fit. That was decades ago though, not sure what it's like now.

I don't know the situation in the US...I think they are adhered to? In which case yes every man should get a prenup - even poor men. You may not always be poor.

[–]Bshenron 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Not a US guy here, I'm a kiwi man! Here's hoping they wouldn't throw it out in the court

[–]unknownknowledge 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Divorced a few months ago. I got everything I requested which is quite abnormal for a man, even more so in my country where the divorce laws overwhelmingly favour the woman.

However, before anyone gets excited what I requested was to keep my pension, not pay alimony and force the house to be sold... at the cost of 85% of the house equity to her.

That was the cost of severing her from my life.

Worth every fucking penny.

Now I’m building from scratch but with some hard earned and expensive wisdom.

Don’t be a retard. Don’t ever marry.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

85% to her?


It was something like this that was the last straw for me. I'd seen at least 5 men just in the little street I lived in get divorced and lose their homes (In Australia, in the 70's and 80's)

So I got my first adult job as a postie and met Wally. Wally was in his 50's and rented an apartment. He'd had an ok life and had been in IT and made a bit of money when he was younger; however his wife divorced him and got the house a few years ago. She lived in the house with a young guy in his twenties and Wally was bitter about it. Not only that she had some kind of restraining order where he wasn't even allowed to enter the street the house was on; the most he could do was look at the house as he drove past the entrance to the street it was on.

Anyway Wally was approaching retirement now. Soon he would be getting his super and he was hoping to buy a home for himself; if he couldn't then he would be spending the rest of his live in poverty (Because in Australia that's what renting and being on a pension works out to; rents are very high)

A few months before his super is due he gets a letter at work from her lawyer: She is suing him for a part of his lump sum pension. She has just fucked him for life. Not only does she own the home he worked and paid for, she wants a big cash bonus; this will prevent him from ever owning his own home.

I decided to never get married in Australia, and i never did. Sure, this does not happen to everyone. And it might not happen to me. But if it did....I was not a rich guy and obviously never going to be. I cannot afford (literally) to take the chance that the only house I'll ever own will one day be taken away from me by a woman.

I never felt safe to marry until I got to China.

[–]NarrowSelf 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Just have the bitch sign a prenup.

[–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They don't hold up most of the time.

[–]Poonslayer42069 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Aren't these laws already in place in the form of a prenup? Or am I mistaken?

[–]MarinTaranu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Prenups don't apply to child support, and the judge may throw out the prenup at his discretion.

[–]360_no_scope_upvote 10 points11 points  (16 children)

One smart thing the chinese have done in a sea of miserable fuck ups. How the fuck you live and work in China is beyond me.

[–]AncientScrolls 7 points8 points  (15 children)

Atleast from what I heard asian women are more feminine and knows their right place. Different from their Latin and Anglo-Saxon cousins which think they are above men and law.

[–]YGDieciseis 13 points14 points  (6 children)

Nah you got it wrong bro, Latin American women still understand the natural order of relationships. I have female family members who have gotten yelled at by other women in the family for not serving their SO a plate at a dinner. Theres other shit that proves the point like my mother telling me she's not a feminist because she knows she depends on my father to survive and live the way she does.

This is definitely true for women in the Caribbean too.

[–]GutShot9 1 points1 points [recovered]

He's probably thinking of American born latinas

[–]YGDieciseis 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Even then, from what I've seen, unless they're like 5th generation American they fall into what I talked about.

[–]majaka1234 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I've never seen a skinny lithe, feminine Latina get fatter than the moment she steps off the plane into a Western country where she's considered "exotic".

Yes babe; the rice here is so much more caloric dense than the much tastier stuff in Latam; that's why you've gone from a size 6 to a size 12 in two months. Yup yup.

[–]jm51 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A female coworker (English) told me about when she went to Canada in her late teens to stay with relatives for a year.

She got so fat that her dad, who was at the airport to pick her up, walked right past her while looking for his daughter.

[–]Endorsed ContributorUEMcGill 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I think it has more to do with coming from a more 'traditional' versus liberal open society. We have them in the US but they're dying too.

I dated a girl with a doctorate from a very liberal university, but she grew up in rural NC. She said basically the same thing, "if my aunts see you getting your food I'll never hear the end of it" she secretly loved being submissive that way. I also dated a few black girls (I'm a white guy) from rural families and the attitude was the same.

These were girls who grew up in conservative families with traditional values. There's a benefit to being traditional in these areas.

[–]indecencies 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Latin Women who aren't absorbed into American culture are fucking amazing.

I remember my first girlfriend that had a Latin background. When she started serving me food whenever she could (starting from the first date), cooking for me, and generally doting on me it really ruined a lot of my taste for American women.

Mmm yes. AWALT is still true and all of that, but the woman I end up settling with is probably going to be Latin or Asian, depending (and I lean towards Latin because of the booty, but still).

[–]360_no_scope_upvote 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Don't know where you're getting that from. Girls from Columbia and Mexico are fairly feminine. White Men are revered in those countries and women flock to them.

[–]GutShot9 1 points1 points [recovered]

Headed back to Colombia in a week, hell yeah!

[–]majaka1234 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Making my way through asia for the next year or so and then skipping back to paradise in Barranquilla and Medellin.

Did close to three years in Colombia and it was marvellous.

Only problem is when you live there you've got to put up with all the crap that makes it a third world shit-hole, but on the short term you're a king.

[–]GutShot9 1 points1 points [recovered]

I spent about 3 months there last year. I went Cartagena > Medellin > Bogota > Cali. I didn't get to spend much time in Antioquia, so this time I'm planning to go around Medellin and Manizales and then make my way up the north coast to Baranquilla, Santa Marta, Palomino etc. When I find a place I like I'm planning to rent a place for a month or two, to take Spanish classes. Could you recommend some cool places that you enjoyed and would be cool to check out?

[–]majaka1234 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've pretty much pegged my favourite places already!

I would say that Cartagena is to be avoided as it's as close to a fake tourist town as you can find.

If you're willing to go a bit further around the coast I would say that Sincelejo and montería are well worth the visit - you'll likely be the only tourist for miles around plus the food, culture and night life is insane.

Barranquilla was my favourite for chilling out but I knew quite a few people there which made it a lot easier; it's not exactly the most friendly or safest city and the infrastructure and night life leaves a lot to desire but worth going if you want to meet some nice girls and enjoy some fantastic food.

Your visit is going to be in time for el carnaval de Barranquilla so that's where I would say you're best off staying to start off with. Prices will be through the roof (I.e, 100k pesos for a bunk bed in a hostel) but maaaaan carnaval is amazing. Watch out for people trying to spray foam in the eyes of tourists - don't bring anything onto the street except a bit of cash to buy drinks etc as theives go nuts at this time.

Don't spend too much time in Santa marta as you'll burn through cash quickly and it's more of a weekend getaway although taganga is nice.

You also don't want to go any further west than montería as that's where you start to run into the FARC and paramilitaries smuggling stuff into Panama.

Valledupar is not far from Santa marta and well worth going if you can time it right with a festival of some sort - as the city of vallenato music it's absolutely insane.

Apart from that you're golden - you really can't go wrong in Colombia, lol.

[–]indecencies 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're referring to the Hajnal line within the European countries, actually. There's a lot of discussion to be had on it.

Chateau Heartiste has touched on it briefly.


It's the line that roughly separates Northwest Europe from South and East Europe. Essentially, Cucked Europe (NW for the most part, disincluding parts of Ireland and Scotland funnily enough) versus the more naturally Redpilled Europe. This is a rough line, again, and is based primarily off of marriage age/rate/fertility (west has always had later marriage ages, lower fertility, and lower marriage rates).

Interestingly, this is also the line that separates the parts of Europe that had to fend off the most invaders in the name of Christianity™, probably furthering the "Redpill" part of these areas. This direct confrontation to those who threatened Christianity is even funnier, then, when you realize that Catholicism remained in this area while Protestantism arose in the West - which one do you think is more peaceful? ;) (Although both have spilled plenty of blood, the answer to that is clear.)


Funnily enough, Spain and Portugal are included on the redpilled Hajnal line - yet again because of their direct conflicts with anti-Christian invasion. Weird how that works, huh?

[–]anyracetam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm asian. Your statement is false. All women are the same, including asian women. This is why many japanese men becoming herbivore men and don't want to get married.

[–]Arabian_Wolf 2 points3 points  (9 children)

How’s life in China and getting married there?

Uyghur women are the sexiest Asians and perhaps marrying one is a good option.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 5 points6 points  (8 children)

I've been here for 15 years. I think life is pretty good.

I was lucky to be here when you could still buy a home for 60K aussie so I did. Worth about 300k now.

Taxes are low, general prices are ok.

Chinese people are generally nice to foreigners. They will try to rip you off in taxis, or shops or on any sort of deal but they do that to other Chinese people as well, it's a cultural habit.

I wasn't prepared to get married in Australia because I'd heard so many horror stories from divorced men but when I heard about the Chinese marriage laws I decided to give it a shot. Been married to a Chinese girl for 11 years, we have two great kids.

Chinese girls are great, very sexy, and many of them seem to take marriage seriously and work hard - unlike aussie girls who seem to see marriage as a form of early retirement for women.

Internet is fast and cheap, so are electronics.

Food quality is not good - too many fake things - and item quality in general is a problem.

Overall it seems like a better deal than Australia. I will never go back to aussie - it's just too expensive. If I leave China I will be going to yet another country, possibly Thailand.

I haven't met any Uighur women yet (or at east anyone who identified as one.) Hope I do one day!

[–]Arabian_Wolf 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Worth about 300k now.

How big is your home and what type it is (villa, apartment etc).

They will try to rip you off in taxis, or shops or on any sort of deal but they do that to other Chinese people as well, it's a cultural habit.

The rip-off seems in general an eastern culture, I’m ok with haggling the prices.

I wasn't prepared to get married in Australia because I'd heard so many horror stories from divorced men but when I heard about the Chinese marriage laws I decided to give it a shot.

I believe commonwealth countries in general are slowly declining anyways so you made a wise choice, you have kids from her?

Chinese girls are great, very sexy, and many of them seem to take marriage seriously and work hard - unlike aussie girls who seem to see marriage as a form of early retirement for women.

As long as the west don’t infect China with their ideals, all is ok.

Internet is fast and cheap, so are electronics.

That’s essential.

Food quality is not good - too many fake things - and item quality in general is a problem.

Fake? Please define.

What about cooking ingredients quality?

I havn't met any Uighur women let (or at east anyone who identified as one.)

I believe they’re a minority no?

Gulnazar is one sexy actress.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 8 points9 points  (6 children)

Home is 114 sq meter apartment.

We have two kids.

Fake as in literally fake - we once got some fake eggs. Someone figured out how to make things that look like eggs and somehow they got into the supermarket. When you break them they form perfect circles, they don't cook properly and the shells are strange. They were in the news.

There have also been problems with : Fish, chicken, pork, rice, fruit, milk, milk powder, eggs, honey, bread, dumplings, sultanas, sliced meat and many other things I've forgotten over time. Some of these "problems" have been so serious people died and other people were arrested. Many people prefer to buy anything from anywhere as long as it's not made in China, especially baby products like milk formula or easily faked things like honey and milk.

Cooking ingredients- I cannot find decent milk anywhere. Even the best is watered down, has added sugar or has little bits of grit in it or tastes chalky. Some smells like it has been mixed with lard. Some smells like out of date milk that has been mixed with fresh milk and repackaged.

Sugar and rice no problem. Butter and cheese - you have to buy foreign. Ice cream here is all fake - it's literally made with sugar syrup, milk powder and water. If it melts you will see the ingredients separate themselves out. This even applies to "quality" ice creams like magnums.

[–]Arabian_Wolf 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I’d starve if I live there then, not many genuine options to eat at all.

How do you even live and breath with all this fake food?

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

You watch the news. And Chinese friends warn me: "Pork is bad for now" "Stay away from Chicken for a month"

etc etc.

[–]Arabian_Wolf 0 points1 point  (3 children)

The horror, perhaps somewhere else is a better place to settle down for now till China fix this issue.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Nah it's ok. Just be careful.

[–]Arabian_Wolf 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I’m a foodie and if a place is good overall but have horrible quality food I’d pass it all together.

Enjoy your stay, too many business/career opportunities in China it seems and hopefully you took some of them

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a lot of good stuff here too as well as the bad, taxes are low, house prices were cheap when I came over and Chinese girls are beautiful and friendly.

I like it here!

[–]STNKMyyy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's how it works in Mexico. You either choose 50/50 when you get married or to each what they contributed while being married. Nothing before the marriage is even considered unless you explicitly tell the judge that marries you in the spot.

[–]birdlawyer85 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not a rap fan but some rapper once said: ''Bitches (i.e. women) ain't shit but hoes and tricks''. And I now see that it is true. Women are nothing but whores and tricksters. Nothing more, nothing less. When you see it through that prism, their behavior becomes predictable.

[–]throwlaca 2 points3 points  (0 children)

At the end, women always get it all. Notice when you pay rent, it's always a old little lady the owner of the house/apt/office?

[–]mishasam89 4 points5 points  (3 children)

wow, sometimes i think i'm one of the the last few people on the planet who cares about the concept of 'right and wrong'.. :(

[–]1empatheticapathetic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's because you're one in a million

[–]b0utch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's because you are a psycho?

[–]cafeitalia 3 points4 points  (4 children)

In the US it is the same. Women can claim only half the property accumulated during marriage. You can try to make a claim for already owned property before the marriage but you will get a big fat no.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? So there has been a change?

[–]red_matrix 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But the woman still gets half of the house in the US, even if you owned it before the marriage. Marriage is a racket.

[–]cafeitalia 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Nope, woman gets nothing that you owned before marriage. http://info.legalzoom.com/spouses-rights-property-owned-other-spouse-prior-marriage-26405.html Get your facts straight...

[–]red_matrix -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If you own the house you live in before marriage, and get divorced 10 years down the line half is at least hers. Go talk to a lawyer, once you sign that marriage certificate in the US, kiss most of your belongings (including your 401k) goodbye. Serious - go talk to a divorce lawyer.

[–]Montrealais69 1 points1 points [recovered]

This has been the law in Quebec and as far as I know, every other Canadian province for at least 50 years. I'd be surprised if there are any states in the US that don't have this concept.

In general, in the absence of a marriage contract, "acquests" (assets acquired during the marriage) is split 50/50. Each spouse keeps the assets he/she had before the marriage (referred to as "private property"). As long as you don't mix your private property with the marital acquests, the private property stays yours (i.e. if you owned a rental property before you got married, if you sell the rental property and buy shares of a company, the shares of the company remain "private property" and excluded from sharing upon death or divorce.

Gifts received during the marriage are "private property" (i.e. if you inherit property while you're married, it's private).

None of this is new law nor are these concepts revolutionary.

[–]red_matrix 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're incorrect. In the US and Canada you have to give up half the house, even if you owned it before. Marriage is a bad deal if you're a man in North America. Even common law in some places will entitle the woman to cash compensation for the home she lived in but you owned. Gotta love lawyers!

[–]steini1904 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Does not work.

What takes priority?

You own 100 dollars before the marriage, during the marriage your networth decreases to $90, do you still have a right to take $100?

You own $100. You marry. You loose $100. Then you make $100. Divorce. How much is yours?

[–]MGTOW-moniker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Honestly most people i know marry when they are young and broke, and don’t get divorced until about 10 miserable years later when the guy has finally started making good money. So he’s just fucked either way

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Growing up in Australia I heard so many horror stories...

On the street I lived in men got divorced and women stayed behind in the house....I knew at least five families this happened to.

One guy wound up living in a caravan out in the yard while his wife inhabited their luxury three story home...he'd been in real estate for 3 decades and done moderately well but then the divorce came and he was fucked...

[–]DrankOfSmell 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Your coworker is a true piece of shit

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I saw her in a different light after this.

She also once told me her daughter was being naughty so she put her in a garbage bin and told her she was garbage until she quieted down.

There was other stuff too...I was never interested in her again.

[–]celtiberian666 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The laws in Brazil are just like that. Its called "partial asset union".

It doesn't help, in a long marriage the assets can become all entangled up. Just get a pre nup or don't get married.


No standard agreement, the way the couple wants to do needs to be written down. No alimony if its not in the agreement. My agreement would just say: "the one who owns the house have to pay a $3k as rellocating fee to the other, the one moving out have 7 days to take all his belongings", and no other right to each others assets.

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like this, in fact me and my wife already have an agreement to this effect.

[–]timowens862 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Lol sounds fair. You have my few hundred thousand dollar house so I'll take 3000 to make It even. LOL fuck that the lazy cunt can live on the street cuz u know she didn't earn the house. How about we start calling it as it is and if you get divorced and didn't contribute anything you don't get anything. And no stay at home mom is not contributing

[–]celtiberian666 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Lol sounds fair. You have my few hundred thousand dollar house so I'll take 3000 to make It even.

I think I've not expressed myself clearly: TOTAL SEPARATION OF ASSETS in a free agreement and the one who OWNS the house where the couple live (or the one who will buy the other one's share of it) pay the one leaving a small rellocation fee (just to hire movers and a truck). If you paid alone for the house you keep it, just pay her a fee to move out.

[–]timowens862 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fuck that too, she can take that fee and shove it up her ass. Shouldn't have to pay a fee to move a vagrant out of my house

[–]Bisuboy 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Just curious because I'm interested in China: Are you a Westerner? How/why did you move to China?

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm an aussie.

I came here in 2002 to teach English and have lived here ever since. It's good country in a lot of ways.

I was single with no kids in aussie, so I could see absolutely no reason to stay when I saw this opportunity. On the other hand I had always wanted to see China (I love old things eg buildings, statues, swords, armour etc.)

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore 0 points1 point  (1 child)

About the clever friend...

So here how my country's divorce asset distribution works:

  1. You leave with those assets that you arrived with (house, land, inheritance)

  2. You can leave with that wealth that you actually brought into the marriage, during the marriage. So if you earned 70% of the shared income, you are entitled to 70% of the wealth. Usually it's 50-50.

  3. So here is why that friend couldn't be that clever in my redpilled EU country. If you can prove that you bought the new house, by selling the old (that you owned), you are entitled for the new one as well.

[–]Grendel2017 -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Good on her man. I would much rather have a smart lady like this than an airhead

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children)

mmm....she was pretty cute. But after that I found myself unattracted to her.

I don't want an airhead but I also don't want someone with a calculator instead of a heart.

[–]Grendel2017 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Calculator heart is fine by me as long as I am husband number 3 or 4

[–]TheDevilsAdvokaat[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I knew a dentist who once told me not only does he not want a woman smarter than he is, he doesn't want a smart woman at all...at the time I thought he was a fool. I liked talking to women.

Now I'm reconsidering....

[–]MarinTaranu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Don't worry, they can get friends and lawyers that teach them all the tricks.