Body Count

 Folks,

This my comment to a video on the YouTube Channel, Lily's Stories. This isn't my original comment; it's in response to someone else's comment. Below is Krissa990's comment in color, along with my response without color.

Here's the video.

-------------

Daniel did wrong when he took almost all of their shared assets for himself..even if he may have had legal rights to them due to prenup,it was morally wrong to take almost all their shared assets..she didnt do anything that bad that it would morally justify that,although I wont blaim him for not being able to accept the circumstances and wanting a divorce,but to leave her penniless was wrong and unfair. To tell all the people around them about all the circumstances is something that could have been left out too in my view.

I have no problem with Daniel asking the question and him leaving her; my problem is timing. If I were seeking marriage and family (At 63, I'm not, but play along here), that's something a guy would want to know early on. I'd get a general idea of her number early on, and I'd walk away if I didn't like the answer. Waiting till your second anniversary is WAY TOO LATE! That's something that should've been discerned early in dating.

Secondly, I think that divorce should only happen as a last resort; I think that one should have a good, solid reason for breaking up a marriage, family, and home. If one is going to follow the Bible strictly, only adultery is permitted for divorce. Even if one wants to expand that to spousal abuse, substance abuse, and adultery, what happened here isn't exactly covered. I totally get his disgust over her promiscuity, but he should've found that out long before they even became exclusive as a couple, let alone engaged, and forget about married!

What would be interesting is having Daniel's side of the story. We don't know if he asked about this early on in the relationship; we don't know if he made any attempts to discern the number. Did he look at her friends closely? How did she dress? How did she live her life before him? Answers to those questions, while not yielding an exact number, would at least tell any intelligent and discerning guy whether or not the number was too high. We only have her side of the story; goodness only knows what she left out. As the Fella once said, there are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth.

Oh, and I have one final question: WTF didn't she READ the prenup? NEVER sign any important legal documents without the help of a lawyer! It seems to me that she could have challenged the prenup in court; she could have cited duress os grounds. If Daniel had dropped the prenup on her right before the wedding, that could open the door to a challenge as well. With all that in mind, it's her fault for not reading the prenup, and it was her fault for not negotiating the terms. That's on her.

In closing, I see both parties as being at fault here; while I see her as more of the villain in this story, Daniel isn't innocent. He should've found out her number early on while dating, and if he didn't like the number, then leave at that point. She was in the wrong for being such a 304. As I said, both of them are at fault in this story.

God Created Marriage for Sex!

 Folks,

Until now, I've not had much to say, hence my absence here. Rest assured that I'm alive and well; I've just been busy doing things in real life. However, after seeing Ace Nate's video about Christianity's woman problem, I had to weigh in. Below is a comment I left in response to his video, which you can watch below. Watch the video, then read my comment below.

-----------

According to my Bible, marriage is provided, in part, to provide a righteous avenue for satisfying the sex drive. Sex is not only for procreation; it's for our pleasure. Read The Song of Solomon in the Bible, and this will be unmistakable! Even in the English translation, the eroticism and passion are clear. I Cor. 7, which the "lovely and gracious" Lila Rose cites, says that God gave Christians marriage as an outlet for satisfying their sexual passions. She conveniently IGNORES that part though!

Secondly, one problem I have with the Roman Catholic Church is the mandatory celibacy of their priests. I Cor. 7 makes a distinction between singleness and marriage. Furthermore, I Cor. 7 says that men are made suitable for one or the other lifestyles by God Himself. This theme continues in Matt. 19, which talks about becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. Jesus says that he who is able to receive it (the gift of celibacy), let him receive it.

Thirdly, with all due respect, Lila Rose is FULL OF SHIT! While she quotes I Cor. 7, she conveniently ignores the beginning verses of that chapter, which teaches the Christian that their body belongs TO THEIR SPOUSE! It goes on to say that it's wrong to deny one another their sexual needs. A little later on, it gives a married couple permission to abstain from regular sex for a time, and then only by MUTUAL CONSENT! IOW, both the husband and the wife have to agree to stop hanky panky for a time. For example, the couple might have a major decision to make, so they want to pray to ask God for wisdom; during this time, they can abstain from regular sexual relations.

In conclusion, God gave Christians marriage as a righteous avenue to satisfy your sexual urges. It's right there in the Bible.

-----------

There's nothing more I can add. Until next time...

The Reason for the Double Standard, and How Women Perpetuate It!

 Folks,

I left the below comment in response to Far From Eden's new video about body count.

------------

I'm about 10 minutes in, and the author has already commented on the "double standard" WRT body count. If anything, it's WOMEN who perpetuate it! Why? Because the guys who've been with more women are more desirable to other women. Women want men that other women want. It's called social proof or preselection. Women think that, if the man is wanted by many other women, then there must be something special about him; there must be a reason other women want him. Hence, they'll want him too. See how the double standard is perpetuated by women?

The double standard also exists because, in order to have sex, a man has to put in a lot of work. He has to be in good shape; he has to hit the gym regularly, and it must be obvious that he does. He has to have good hygiene. He has to wear the right clothes. He has to have the right job. He has to drive a presentable or nice car. All that just GETS him in the game! It doesn't guarantee that he'll sleep with anyone.

OTOH, all a woman has to do to have sex is show up. If she puts herself among some guys and lets it be known that she's DTF, she'll have takers. That is to say a woman doesn't have to put in any work to have sex. I submit to you that a man has to work harder for one conquest than a woman has to work for 100. That's another reason the double standard exists.

Prenups

 Guys,

Strong Successful Male's new video features an attorney writing in and sharing his thoughts about prenups. Below is my comment in response to the video.

-------------

I also follow Jonathan Noble, Esq., a divorce and family law attorney practicing in NJ and PA. He has a YouTube channel talking about this stuff; he's informative, so I recommend that men follow him and watch his content. He's talked about PA being prenup friendly, the implication being that some jurisdictions are more prenup friendly than others; that is to say that some jurisdictions honor prenups more than others do.

Secondly, and this is my thought only, is that just because a jurisdiction is prenup friendly today doesn't mean that they'll be prenup friendly tomorrow. How do you know that, if you get divorced 20 years from now, that your jurisdiction will still honor prenups? What's to say that either statutory or case law WRT divorces won't change? Even if everything is done right today, it doesn't mean that a man will be protected in the future. Things change, right? Therefore, men need to remember that.

Thirdly, even if things are done right; even if your STBX wife is willing to honor the prenup she signed (i.e. she has no intention of contesting it); doesn't mean that a judge cannot or will not set aside the prenup. Just look at what happened to "Friends" star Matt LeBlanc. He married with a prenup. They got divorced. His STBX said that she was ready, willing, and able to honor the prenup. Guess what? That black robed SOB STILL set the prenup aside! Matt LeBlanc's divorce, though it happened years ago now, serves as a cautionary tale.

With all that in mind, the only 100% safe play is to not get married. If you, as a man, aren't married, then you cannot be divorce raped. It's just that simple.

Why Not Adoption?

 Folks,

I just finished watching a compelling video on the YouTube channel, Hearit Stories. Though AI generated while being based on stories from Reddit and other places on the Internet, the stories are quite good. This one is among the best. It explores the question of unplanned pregnancies. In my comment, I raised the question about why adoption wasn't considered, and isn't considered, when unplanned pregnancies happen. Below is my comment in response to the video.

Wow, that was one HELL of a story! After hearing it, my feelings are mixed. On the one hand, I feel bad for what happened to her when she was young; she was abused, homeless, and confused. I get that. However, OTOH, I can't forgive covering up her past. As for the child, if she wasn't in a position to care for the boy, why didn't she put him up for adoption? It would seem to me that that would've been the best option for all concerned. Carol, who couldn't raise a kid at 19, would've had the fresh start she needed. Ethan would've grown up in a good home with parents who loved him.

It seems to me that adoption would be the best option for many young girls like Carol vs. being a single mom. The epidemic of single moms has been a DISASTER for society! The vast majority of prison inmates grew up in single mom homes; the vast majority of children from single mom homes end up in poverty; and so on. With a surplus of couples willing to adopt, why don't more young women in a similar difficult situation to Carol's not consider this option?

How the Divorce Would've Gone Down

 Guys,

In recent days, I've discovered an interesting YouTube channel, Narrativ. It has divorce and dysfunctional marriage stores on it. Though AI generated, they're mostly good. However, some of the stories have problems, such as the one you're about to watch. Below is my commentary in response to the story you're about to watch. Below is the video, followed by my comment I left in response.

There are four problems with the story. One, the document would've been challenged. Two, all she had to do to get him out of the house was file a false DV charge and restraining order. Three, you mean to tell me that Hubby wasn't at the home closing or preliminary meetings before that? Four, he should've gone after her with a forensic audit.

The document he asked her to sign would've been challenged. Her attorney could claim it was signed under false or deceptive pretenses, and it likely would've been thrown out. Any semi-competent attorney would've challenged that document.

Secondly, wives often use the Silver Bullet Strategy; they often file a DV charge, get a restraining order against the husband, and he's forcibly removed from the home without question. As scheming and vindictive as this wife was, you mean to tell me she didn't employ this? Come on!

Thirdly, as someone who bought a home 15 years ago, I have to call BS on Hubby being blindsided by the title in Wifey's name only. When buying a home, you have multiple meetings with the Realtor, mortgage consultants, etc. Then, there's the final closing where you get the keys to your home. At each step of the process, you go over the reams of paperwork. Even if the OP had delegated the house hunting to his wife, I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't be present at these meetings; after all, they're making the biggest investment of their lives-come on! I can't help but wonder why the title business wasn't caught during the involved process of buying a home.

Finally, WTF didn't Hubby go after her fully? Why didn't he pursue the forensic audit and all that? When Wifey divorces you (since women usually file for divorce, it'll be Wifey divorcing Hubby), she becomes your MORTAL ENEMY, Fellas! She has declared war on you, and you must govern yourself accordingly; you must prosecute this war ruthlessly. The problem with us man is that we have morals, honor, and decency while women don't. We must remember that, in a war, there are no rules; all that matters is total and complete victory.

In closing, this story has four problems. One, Wifey and her attorney would've challenged the document reestablishing joint ownership. Two, Wifey could have and likely would have pursued the Silver Bullet Strategy; Hubby would've been removed from the home. Three, as involved as the home buying process is, I find it hard to believe that she could've gotten her name on the title without Hubby knowing about it. Finally, Hubby should've totally destroyed her during the divorce proceedings.

It's Not That Every Woman Will; It's That Every Woman Can

 Guys,

This will be a short post; it'll have a video embedded, and not much more. The YouTube channel, Hearit Stories, posted this video this morning. It's about a woman who games the system and almost gets the marital home during the divorce. Will every woman do what Amanda did? No, the problem is that every woman CAN! Every woman can work the system and ruin you in the process. That's why it's imperative to not only stay single; it's imperative that you never live with a woman. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Burden of Proof

 Guys,

Below is a comment my response to someone else's comment to a video about a false accusation. The YouTube channel, Hearit Stories, ran this video. Hearit Stories is a GREAT channel, BTW! Though its content is AI generated, the stories are compelling. One of the commenters wondered why Robert, the man who was falsely accused, didn't also file criminal charges on top of his successful lawsuit. Below is my response, based on my experience, why Robert may  not have gone ahead with criminal charges.

-----------------

It all depends on how the criminal statutes are worded in his state. I was falsely accused back in the 1990s by a woman I'd dated briefly. In court, she LIED her ass off! She told many flagrant, blatant, and obvious lies, lies that could easily be disproved. Hence, I looked into filing charges against her, particularly false swearing. In NJ, false swearing is like perjury, but one doesn't have to prove corroboration and all that; it doesn't have the same burdensome requirements of a full blown perjury charge. For false swearing, all one has to do is show that the defendant made two conflicting statements, and that both can't be true simultaneously; all you have to show is that one of the statements is false. If you look back at the OJ trial, what Kato Kaelin said and did would be an example of false swearing.

HOWEVER! However, in NJ, where I'm from and where my case happened, there's a critical phrase in both the perjury and false swearing statutes, a phrase that would give my accuser an out. In both statutes, there's a phrase that says, "believed by the defendant to be true." Why was that crucial in my case? Well, she had an eating disorder, so she could argue that her mental perception was clouded sufficiently that she believed what she said to be true. She could easily get any psychologist to testify to this. Because of that and a desire to get on with my life, I didn't follow through with criminal charges.

Secondly, because of the "believe all women" trope, there's a serious reluctance on the part of the criminal justice system to prosecute women for false accusations, lying to the authorities, etc. Back then, it wasn't called "believe all women"; there was no hashtag with that name. Nevertheless, the concept existed, and it was practiced. When researching my case, there was, a case in Oakland, CA where a woman falsely accused a man and committed perjury. IIRC, she even ADMITTED to it! Even so, the prosecutor declined to bring charges, as doing so was politically explosive. That's what men face in these situations.

Thirdly, for criminal charges, regardless of how the applicable statutes are worded, there's also the matter of a higher burden of proof for a criminal case. In a civil case, all that one needs is a preponderance of the evidence; all one has to do is show that there's at least a 51% chance that X happened. OTOH, with a criminal charge, one has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is much more difficult to do.

In closing, filing criminal charges, particularly against a woman, is difficult. Even casting aside the "believe all women" belief and practice, the applicable criminal statutes' language may leave her a way out; the hole may be big enough for a truck! There's the matter of"believe all women", which makes bringing charges at all problematic; no one wants to be seen as hurting the damsel in distress. Finally, the burden of proof for a criminal charge is far higher than that required for a civil case; the proof that may be sufficient for a civil case may fall short of what's required for a criminal charge.

What BOP Means on TikTok

 Folks,

Thanks to political correctness, I had to spend hours digging around the Internet to find the meaning of a new Internet acronym and slang term: BOP. What does BOP mean? BOP=blown out pussy. No WONDER its meaning has been censored; can't insult the women now! As promiscuous as most modern women are, most of them are BOPs; most of them have blown out pussies. How appropos...

Two Reasons Why More Women Will Be Single by 2030

 Guys,

Red, host of the Chow Time Pod YouTube channel, did a video about how 45% of single women ages of 25-44 will be single by 2030. Below is my comment in response.

-----------------

Red another dimension to this is that, in addition to women delaying marriage for their careers, by the time many of them wake up and decided to settle down in their early-mid 30s, two things have happened. One is that the men that they want who are their age can get younger women, and they do. The second is that men don't have the same  sexual desire when they pass 30.

The first factor is elementary. Think about it. Say a woman becomes a successful lawyer by 30. That means she'll want another successful lawyer in his mid-late 30s; she'll want someone who's at least a senior associate, if not a junior or senior partner in the firm. Guess what? That senior associate or partner can bag hotter, more pleasant women in their early 20s! Why would he want some old, combative prune who's either hit the wall or is about to hit it? Why would he settle with someone less attractive, masculine, and combative if he can get someone who's more appealing, both physically and otherwise?

The second factor is that, as men pass through the ages of 30-35, their sex drive drops; they think with their big head, not the little one. As Terrence Popp, host of the Redonkulas Regiment channel, says, men don't engage in "dick thinking" as they pass through their 30s; as a 63 year old retiree, I can definitely confirm this. Can I still do the deed? Yes, but it takes something extra to get me in the mood these days. It's not like it was in my younger days, when I got hard if the wind blew! Once that happens to a guy, women no longer have the power over him like they did when he was younger. As an older guy, I can take women, or I can leave them. I can look at a beautiful woman and acknowledge that, but it's the same as if I were acknowledging the beauty of a work of art or something; it's not like oh she's hot, I have to have her. When a man reaches that point, it is so LIBERATING! Once the sex drive cools down, it's as if a man has been released from the clutches of a terrible beast. At that point, a man can say, yeah, I'm good.

Those are two reasons why 45% of women aged 25-44 will be single by 2030. By the time career women are ready to settle down, men of their age and level can get someone younger and hotter, and they do. Also, what women forget is that, when men pass the age of 30, their sex drive cools; their desires for women subsides. Once that happens, it's easier for men to walk away from women and be happy alone.

Attitude Towards Death in Racing: Then and Now

 Guys,

Here's another comment I want to preserve for posterity, so I'm copying it and pasting it here. It's about how the attitude towards death and racing have changed over the years. This comment was originally left in response to a video about F1 great Jackie Stewart's push for safety.

----------------------

Prior to Jackie Stewart's push for safety, there was a very blase attitude towards safety. The attitude towards the drivers, was: hey, if you don't like it, there are 100 guys waiting to take your seat; there's the door. I think that the classic movie, "Grand Prix", captured this attitude very well.

Secondly, when Indy Car and F1 resumed after WWII, death had been a commonplace occurrence; after all, tens of thousands had died during the war. This attitude was captured in the 1955 Indy 500. There was a fatal and fiery crash during the race. The race was stopped, cleaned up, and then continued. That would be UNTHINKABLE today! However, the 1955 Indy 500 was just 10 years after WWII, and everyone had either lost someone close to them during the war, or they knew someone who'd been killed. Death had been a common occurrence in the recent past.

Along with that, everyone knew that auto racing was dangerous, and that death came with the territory, as they say. The attitude was, if you climb into a car or onto a motorcycle to race, you know that death is a possibility. It wasn't that people wanted drivers to die; it's that the prevailing attitude was that they knew what they were getting into, and if they die, they die. They knew the risk, and they accepted it. Attitudes were very different post WWII.

Why Men Avoid Marriage in America

 Guys,

Yesterday, Far From Eden put out a video about why men are walking away from women, relationships, and marriage. I've had a spirited back & forth with a guy telling me that, if I don't take the risk, I'll die childless and alone. While I understand and am in basic agreement with him, he's not from the US. He has no understanding about what American men face if their wives divorce them. Below is my response to him.

-------------

​ @anonperson3972  since you're not in the US or even the Western World, you have no idea of what men face here. If you're in a country that has sane divorce laws, promotes family, and so on, GREAT! Then, the risk is worth it. Where I am, the risk is not; I know, because I speak from experience.

Furthermore, I agree with you that marriage and family are the bedrock of a healthy society. God created marriage and family, so there's that too. However, we no longer practice marriage in that way.

Let me tell you a little story. 20-25 years ago, I lived near the Jersey Shore. The Jersey Shore is within an hour or so drive of NYC; where I used to live, one could also take a bus or train to NYC as well. One of the Jersey Shore's best known landmarks is Monmouth Park, a horse racing track.

I used to go to Monmouth Park every weekend, as I enjoyed the horse racing. I used to bet on the horses, and I never lost. I didn't always win; some days, I broke even. However, I never lost. Why? Because, I made it a point to know the odds before placing my bets.

I got a copy of the track's program and a copy of the Daily Racing Form as soon as the track opened, which used to be like two hours before the first race. I then found a table, and I studied them. I looked at which horses were racing; I looked at how they did on dirt vs. grass; I looked at how they did over short vs. long distances; I looked at when they last ran; I looked at whether they'd won before; and so on. Then, for good measure, I made it a point to watch the horses being paraded before they took to the track. What was their body language? What was their attitude? I can remember races where I won the bet because I saw a confident horse being paraded before post time. Only then did I walk over to the betting window and put my money down. Again, I never lost. Why? Because I knew the odds going in, and I placed my wagers accordingly.

The same principle applies to marriage. What kind of women are available? Are they wife material, or are they for fun only? Do they have high body counts? What do they think of men? Do they like men? Here in the US, women don't like men very much. Are the women kind? Do they have good domestic skills? Are they honest? Do they even attempt to do the right thing, regardless of how they feel? Face it, women are all about their emotions and feelings. Furthermore, what are the consequences for a man if his wife divorced him? How likely is that to happen? Will he be treated fairly, or will he be screwed over? Will he be able to rebuild his life and go on, or will he be ruined long term? And so on.

When viewed in that light, there are things that stand out to me as a man in America. One is that the women suck; sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Two, the vast majority of them aren't ready to be wives; they don't have the attitude to be a good wife, nor do they have the skills to be one. Three, divorce rate is 50%; i.e. there's a one in two chance that your marriage won't last. Four, it'll most likely be the woman who files for divorce; here in the US, wives file for divorce 80% of the time. Five, family court, where divorces are adjudicated, are overwhelmingly anti-male, meaning that you WILL be screwed! The only question is how badly will the man be screwed? Finally, even prenuptial agreements won't necessarily help you; judges can and do set them aside. A man has no protection in divorce. Because it's necessary to be married before one can be divorced, men are making the logical decision to avoid marriage.

Let me address this from another angle, an angle every one can relate to: economics. If you see that the economy is slowing down, what is it you do? You cut spending, right? Since you don't know if you'll be working as much as you did before or not at all, it makes sense to cut spending, so as to save some money for the bad times you see coming. On an individual level, cutting spending makes sense.

However, here in the US, at least 2/3 of economic activity is driven by consumer spending; that is economic activity, the macro economy if you please, is driven by the decisions of millions of individuals. When millions of people make the sensible, individual decision to cut spending, what does that do the the overall economy? It slows down more, doesn't it? After all, it doesn't have the same inputs as it did before. In other words, the decision that makes sense on an individual level is bad on a collective, societal, or macro economic level.

The same applies to marriage and divorce here. Given the environment men face here, it makes no sense to marry; after all, the only way to avoid divorce is to avoid marriage. However, on a collective, societal, and cultural level, that's bad; no country can survive long without strong marriages and families. I understand that, and I agree. However, if I'm literally risking homelessness by getting married, sorry, but I'll pass.

In closing, I agree with you. If all I were to suffer is a broken heart in the wake of divorce, I could deal with that; it would suck, but I could deal with it. What I can't deal with, especially as I'm about to turn 63, is homelessness. Since that's a distinct possibility if I am divorced, I'll pass on marriage; marriage simply isn't in my best interest. Again, the odds are bad for me, so I'll pass; that's a bet I won't make under any circumstances. Thank you.

Why Modern Sport Bikes' Sales Are Falling

 Guys,

Here's another comment I want to preserve. Though this blog deals mainly with men's issues, I also reserve the right to write about other topics such as motorcycles and motorcycling. Brit Stuart Fillingham has a good video about why modern sport bikes aren't selling as well these days. Below is his video and my response to it.

--------------

Stu, I never got a sport bike simply because they're TOO MUCH for me! Between their power, acceleration, braking, and quick handling, most sport bikes (600s on up) are beyond the skills and abilities of most riders. In order to get anything close to the max capabilities of modern sport bikes, one has to be a national or world class rider; one has to be racing in BSB, Moto America, or WSB to come close to extracting the full capabilities of these motorcycles. I'm good enough to stay alive and keep out of trouble on two wheels, but I'm not on that level. Sport bikes are overkill for me and most riders.

Then, there's the matter that it's a fool's errand to try going fast on public roads anyway. Even if traffic, speed limits, and sketchy pavement weren't enough to deal with, there's the matter of road debris. There's a tight, 90 degree turn near my house that's often covered with mud, dirt, and stones after a heavy rain. Imagine hitting that turn at full speed; your tires will hit that, break loose, and before you know it, you've had a nasty low side crash. Plus there are animals to deal with; if you're in a more rural area, you could find deer or cows in your way. Public roads aren't conducive to going fast; if you want to really push a sport bike, then you need to do a track day; for me, that would be a PITA, as the nearest race tracks are hours away from me.

Thirdly, sport bikes are simply UNCOMFORTABLE! Their riding position makes sense for what a sport bike is designed to do, but it's not comfortable to ride for more than an hour or so. Plus, after you pass a certain age, you might not be able to contort yourself into a sport bike's riding position. Can you still bend your knees that much? If so, how long can you keep them bent that much? Even for the young guys, sport bikes aren't that comfortable. Outside of a race track, are sport bikes really that suitable for most riding? I would submit that they're not.

Finally, there's the cost of owning and operating a sport bike. Yes, they're highly capable machines, particularly for their intended purpose, but that capability comes at a cost. The young guys who used to comprise most sport bike owners can't afford them anymore; 600s carry low five figure price tags, and bigger sport bikes are more expensive. That doesn't take into account the cost to insure these things. In the event of a crash, all that Tupperware will cost a FORTUNE to replace! That's reflected in the insurance premiums one has to pay for a sport bike. Most young guys who would've owned them in the past can't afford that. Secondly, older guys, who are affluent enough to afford them, no longer want them; they want to slow down and enjoy the ride, and sport bikes aren't conducive for that.

In closing, I'm not against modern sport bikes at all. They're truly awesome and wondrous machines. Today's sport bikes on the showroom floor are BETTER than what the professionals raced just a generation ago! Think about it: when Eddie Lawson was racing, his bike had a 120 rear tire-a 120! Can you imagine that? Modern sport bikes have 180s on the rear. That doesn't take into consideration the inferior tires, lower power engines, inferior brakes on the bikes that the pros raced a generation ago. Modern sport bikes are simply too much for most riders. Between that and their high cost of acquisition and ownership, it's only natural that their sales would fall.

Child Support from Conception

 Guys,

You all MUST WATCH the video below! Dan, host of the Men Need to be Heard YouTube channel, has a barn burner of a video about this. It's almost a half hour long, but it's well worth your time.

Ryan Spencer on Tamron Hall

 Guys,

A good YouTube channel to follow is Manosphere Highlights Daily; he's MUST SEE TV! He did a recent video about Ryan Spencer, the young woman who went viral on TikTok, crying in her car that she can't find love. Miss Spencer was on The Tamron Hall Show recently, so MHD did a video about it. Below is the comment I left in response, as I've been following Miss Spencer on TikTok since May of last year. I'll post MHD's video and my comment below.

-------------

MHD, I found Ryan Spencer's TikTok soon after Better Bachelor featured her last year, and I started following her; I've seen every TikTok of hers since mid May of last year, and many she made before then. That is to say I have a good idea of who she is and what she's about. She's had good opportunities to find someone, yet they don't stick around. I'll give just two examples.

There was one guy, who she calls "Ohio Man", who ended things with her last summer. She was set up with him via mutual friends. She was never exclusive with OH Man, but they were seeing one another regularly and things seemed to be headed that way. Then, she took a 3 week vacation to Europe with her cousin, and this is what cause things to go off the rails with OH Man. I'll explain.

Now, to those who say that OH Man should've said no girls' trips, there were two flies in the ointment there. One was that Ryan and her cousin, Isabella, planned the vacation in March, long before Ryan met Ohio Man. Two, they weren't exclusive yet, which begs the question: how can one set boundaries with someone you're just getting to know? I think that Ohio Man answered that by flying the coop.

Why do I think Ohio Man flew the coop? There are two reasons. One was that, while in Europe, Ryan posted a TikTok about being on the dating apps, and setting them for wherever they were. If I were a guy dating her and I saw that, I wouldn't be amused. BTW, she ended up taking that one down! Two was that, even though Ryan's TikToks portrayed her and her cousin swimming and going sightseeing, Isabella's were a lot more revealing. Bella's TikToks showed them getting drunk, going to clubs, etc. Since Ryan reposted some of Bella's TikToks, it wouldn't have been any problem for Ohio Man to look at her TikToks too; when he saw Bella's TikToks of their European girls' trip, I think he hit the "eject" button. Ryan, of course, took no accountability; she basically blamed Ohio Man for the failure of that nascent relationship.

There was another good, solid opportunity that she didn't follow up on: the guy from Washington, DC. She didn't have a nickname for him, so I'll call him DC Man. DC Man has a job in DC, so he has to stay there. DC Man was in Ryan's hometown for a family reunion. They had a wonderful first date; they shared a nice dinner, then went back to her place to talk and play board games until 2 AM. It sounded like they really connected, and was thus worthy of a second date. DC Man offered her a train ticket to come down to DC to see him; all she had to do was say "Yes, I'll come down." BTW, Ryan is in CT, and CT has two or three Amtrak Acela stops; getting to DC wouldn't have been a problem. Ryan didn't follow up on that one, and I think she made a mistake. Connections like that don't happen every day; when they do, you need to jump all over them.

Ryan has made other TikToks talking about her multiple "situationships". One, with a pilot whom she nicknamed "Pilot Man", she described as "a one week stand"; those are her words, not mine. She had another situationship with a guy she calls "Hallmark Man". She's had other situationships too.IOW, she's used up and ran through. She made a TikTok a few weeks ago where she bristled at the thought of people asking her about her body count, and she said, "That's none of your fucking business!" Again, those are her words, not mine. No serious guy is going to want her.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on Ryan Spencer, the guest on The Tamron Hall Show. I found her TikTok last year, and I've been following her ever since mid May; I've seen every TikTok she's made since then, and I've seen many she made before then. She's had opportunities, but she can't convert them; she can't secure the relationship she says that she wants. Based on my observations, she's her own worst enemy, but she can't take the accountability to realize that. Those are my thoughts...