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.