a western country — Tarskian

No such thing. A barbarian delusion at best.

The capacity to uphold a "no" is the most significant moral challenge that there is. It is called "will power", and if we all had it we could make our vises disappear into thin air, and we'd float to heaven as angels. You are recommending four nos which means quadruple the effort of what most of us have difficulty doing once.

But in the fine print, you are not really insisting on nos, you are suggesting that we go off somewhere else, and do it where no one is looking. What kind of life is that, a life of deception?

But in the fine print, you are not really insisting on nos, you are suggesting that we go off somewhere else, and do it where no one is looking. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's all about avoiding court cases.

I simply don't want them.

It's the same in business. If I suspect that a business deal will lead to a court case, I won't do it or I will do it with someone else, or possibly in another jurisdiction.

But then again, if it still leads to a court case, I want to stand a fair chance in trial. Even though the very fact that it has to come to a court case is already a failure in itself, there will still still be an expectation of fairness.

In my opinion, conflict avoidance is an essential life strategy. Things tend to go wrong already without adding the avoidable ingredient of conflict.

It's all about avoiding court cases.

I simply don't want them. — Tarskian

But who cares what you want?

You haven't made any coherent argument that living in the "West" is a relative legal risk in general.

You haven't made any coherent argument that living in the "West" is a relative legal risk in general. — Baden

Close to half of the population will live through a harrowing court case, called "divorce". It is a byproduct of civil marriage. No civil marriage means no divorce court case.

Cohabitation is routinely reclassified as some alternative form of civil marriage in the West, i.e. common-law marriage. Therefore, even cohabitation must be avoided for legal reasons. This is not the case anywhere outside the West.

Furthermore, you do not want to get involved in a child-support related legal case in a western country. You can avoid this problem by not having children in a western jurisdiction.

But who cares what you want? — Baden

I obviously do. Lots of other people are actually saying the same things:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/fabianabuontempo/men-who-dont-want-to-get-married

Men Are Sharing The Specific Reasons They Don't Want To Get Married, And Several Are Eye-Opening

4. "It creates a contractual agreement between two parties that either party can withdraw from the contract at any time. However, the less well-off party can have the state order the more well-off party to give a substantial amount of income to them just because they decided to void the contract. If you did not describe this as marriage, any lawyer would tell you to run. I have no desire to involve the state in my relationship just to hand someone a tool to ruin my life with."

9. "Most of the women I know seem to view marriage as an opportunity for social media photos rather than a real commitment. Combine that with the family court's hostility toward men, and it's just a recipe for disaster. Plus, I've heard 'forever' from too many women to believe it anymore."

But then again, I have also pointed out that you can avoid many of these problems by moving your private life outside the West.

In Ohio you can just go to the drugstore and buy the paperwork for a divorce. It's cheap. You fill it out with your spouse, appear before a judge, and you're divorced. It's easy

Your concern is that some woman you committed yourself to will take your money or you will have to support any children you have rather than be able to shag some farmer's daughter in outer Mongolia and just move on to the next jurisdiction where you have more money than the locals when things get complicated, right?

Because that's a rather narrow view of "avoiding legal issues". You may find that an absence of strictly enforceable / codified law in farmers-daughter-rich hinterlands could lead to you getting arrested just for looking the wrong way at a bigwig or to having to fork out a massive bribe after being tempted into a compromising situation caused by your patronising complacency.

You'd be better off talking directly about your problem with "the West", i.e. family law, than coming at it from this odd self-defeating angle.

In Ohio you can just go to the drugstore and buy the paperwork for a divorce. It's cheap. You fill it out with your spouse, appear before a judge, and you're divorced. It's easy — frank

https://dlbcounsel.com/divorce-in-ohio-with-children/

Divorce in Ohio With Children
Law Office of Dmitriy Borshchak

Divorce is always difficult. That’s especially true if you’re considering divorce in Ohio with children. Divorces involving children are generally contentious, require more work, complicated, and much more consequential.

At the Law Office of Dmitriy Borshchak, our Columbus family law lawyers understand the challenges of getting a divorce when you’re a parent.

The difficulty that exists in Columbus, Ohio can however be avoided automatically by sticking to the 4 no's policy: No marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex, in any western country, including Ohio State.

Because that's a rather narrow view of "avoiding legal issues". — Baden

There's the Passport Bro movement which advises pretty much the same policy but for other reasons.

The Passport Bro Movement: Exploring Why Men Are Fed Up and Leaving Western Society

Why becoming a passport bro is the best decision I've ever made

The articles mentions all kinds of reasons why they prefer this lifestyle. I personally do it to avoid legal issues.

Yes, that's where I thought you were coming from. But given just the silly name for a start, the "Passport Bro"s don't sound like a movement any intelligent person would want to be associated with. I don't like living in Western countries either but it's because I find them generally stifling and over-expensive. The idea that I'm somehow legally safer in less developed more corrupt jurisdictions makes no sense to me except from the very narrow angle of "family law" you seem concerned with. That's why I'm saying just come out and deal with that instead of mixing it up with other stuff.

Close to half of the population will live through a harrowing court case, called "divorce". It is a byproduct of civil marriage. No civil marriage means no divorce court case.

But then again, I have also pointed out that you can avoid many of these problems by moving your private life outside the West. — Tarskian

It is just as you say here in the west, maybe we should all do as they do in the east. No divorce needed, just stone them to death.

It is just as you say here in the west, maybe we should all do as they do in the east. No divorce needed, just stone them to death. — Sir2u

That is a false dichotomy.

In fact, you can still physically live in the West. However, in order to avoid legal trouble, you'd better give up on your private life. A lot of people do that, actually. Especially young men are staying single nowadays:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/25/young-men-relationships-study-week-in-patriarchy

A recent Pew Research study has found that 63% of men under 30 describe themselves as single, compared with 34% of women in the same age bracket.

They may not use a catchy slogan like in China ("4 no's") but they seem to be doing the same. Furthermore, it does not make sense to have children in the West. You will just end up paying child support for children that you will barely see. I do not understand why anybody still takes that risk.

You will just end up paying child support for children that you will barely see — Tarskian

Not if you don't screw up your relationship.

. I do not understand why anybody still takes that risk. — Tarskian

Maybe they have faith in their ability not to screw up their relationship.

This all seems based on the idea that women are evil and aim to get pregnant so they can torture men emotionally and take their money. And men that don't leave their "Western" country are naive victims of a system rigged against them. And you're a hero because poor farmers want to give you their daughters. Or something. All very broish and immature so far.

Maybe they have faith in their ability not to screw up their relationship. — Baden

They simply misunderstand the incentive structure created by the legal system. If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing.

Show me the incentive, I’ll show you the outcome.

-- Charlie Munger

If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing. — Tarskian

Indeed, the thesis is:

based on the idea that women are evil and aim ...to torture men emotionally and take their money. — Baden

Your view is stupid and superficial. And keep a lid on the misogyny.

If someone gets paid cash and prizes for blowing up the relationship, that is exactly what they are going to be doing. — Tarskian

Your view is stupid and superficial. And keep a lid on the misogyny. — Baden

I did not mention the gender of the "someone" getting paid cash and prizes. That is not necessary because these laws do not mention that either. It could actually be either. In theory, these laws are equally dangerous to men as to women. You are the one trying to mention genders here. Furthermore, you incorrectly interpret these laws in one particular direction in order to shoehorn some imaginary "misogyny" into the conversation.

The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest.

Yes. You might like this video:

I did not mention the gender of the "someone" getting paid cash and prizes — Tarskian

I think I can guess the gender of the Passport Bros' nemeses.

The solution is: no civil marriage, no cohabitation, no children, and preferably no sex (both in China and) in the West. That avoids serious legal problems for both men and women. That is why this lifestyle policy is clearly in everybody's best interest. — Tarskian

Until there are no people left in one generation.

I think I can guess the gender of the Passport Bro's nemeses. — Baden

At travelgirls.com women are actually doing something similar.

https://www.travelgirls.com

Why travel with us?

Are you looking for someone to share your next trip with?
With over 2 million members and countless matches, Travelgirls might be just the right place to start.

The "travel girls" apparently want to travel with a man to another country.

Of course, their motivations are again different.

I would never do it, however, because the entire setup sounds too much like "human trafficking". So, they can count me out for that approach. If you ever send a message to someone on that kind of site, it could already be viewed as "attempted human trafficking".

Until there are no people left in one generation. — Baden

Not globally.

It is still perfectly possible to have children in a jurisdiction in which the laws are not so dangerous. In fact, you just do the same things as otherwise but not in a country where it could backfire.

OK, well, I can't say I quite get what you're at but if it's not the usual "blame women for men's woes" schtick we periodically get here, it's not a problem.

It's the same in business. If I suspect that a business deal will lead to a court case, I won't do it or I will do it with someone else, or possibly in another jurisdiction. — Tarskian

Why would you suspect that dating would lead to a court case, unless you were planning on doing something wrong on that date?

Why would you suspect that dating would lead to a court case, unless you were planning on doing something wrong on that date? — Metaphysician Undercover

This subject is sheer impossible to discuss because it requires distinguishing between man and woman. They will no longer be simply interchangeable in the narrative. If you do that, you can easily find yourself on the receiving end of "misogyny" or "misandry" accusations.

That is why it is preferable not to discuss the detailed specifics of inter-gender dynamics.

You cannot just take the initiative to try something, no matter how minor or innocuous, and hope that things will go alright because even though your attempt was undoubtedly expected, it may not be well received, and any such failed attempt is already potentially a serious legal matter.

In other words, don't ask anybody out unless you know that they will agree, but you cannot know that unless you try, and that is how you end up at the HR department.

Furthermore, the entire process is like that from the beginning till the end. In every step of the way, it is generally not possible to ask. That would be too awkward. Instead, you are supposed to try. By trying, however, you are taking a massive legal risk. That is why you'd better don't try anything. It is simply not worth it. So, just don't do it.

In other places on the globe, it is less dangerous to do that, because the potential legal consequences won't escalate through the roof that easily.

You cannot just take the initiative to try something, no matter how minor or innocuous, and hope that things will go alright because even though your attempt was undoubtedly expected, it may not be well received, and any such failed attempt is already potentially a serious legal matter. — Tarskian

So a person should avoid ever trying anything new in one's life if one doesn't want the potential for a serious legal matter? Don't even go out the door, it's simply not worth the risk. How could you ever find that land of milk and honey, where you can do whatever you want and not worry about legal consequences, if you're so afraid to do anything that you can't even leave your house?

Laws in place to protect weaker party from stronger party. Poster believes he's stronger party and unwilling to carry responsibility for consequences of choices and then continues to blame laws, thereby demonstrating his own weakness for being unwilling to bear consequences of his choices like an actual man.

Morally speaking, you should take care of your children and in some cases your former partner, because people tend to give up things for the other, often entire careers, to stay in lasting relationships. Maybe you should get pregnant some time, see how it agrees with you.

@Baden correctly identified this as dumb immature shit.

So a person should avoid ever trying anything new in one's life if one doesn't want the potential for a serious legal matter? — Metaphysician Undercover

That entirely depends on the legal system. The same decision that may be a non-issue in one jurisdiction will result in a lengthy prison sentence in another jurisdiction. That is why jurisdiction shopping is such an important tool.

Morally speaking, you should take care of your children and in some cases your former partner, — Benkei

All morality emanates from the laws of the Almighty. In Islamic law, you never take care of a former partner. Furthermore, after the age of reason, custody of children reverts to the father of the children.

"Morally speaking" is always according to a particular moral theory. What a particular parliament has invented, does not bind anyone in terms of morality, and it certainly does not apply outside national borders.

There simply is no established moral theory in the West. That is the number one reason why Islam is now gradually but surely taking over Europe.

What you advocate, on the other hand, creates a perverse incentive structure that will rather sooner than later destroy western society. It is exactly the most vulnerable people who will suffer the most from such societal collapse.

Preferably, no sex (subject to self-discipline) — Tarskian

Self-discipline ... I don't even wanna ask.

What you advocate, on the other hand, creates a perverse incentive structure that will rather sooner than later destroy western society. It is exactly the most vulnerable people who will suffer the most from such societal collapse. — Tarskian

Generalising from @Benkei's earlier point: If social collapse happens, it will be due to laws not adequately protecting the economically weak but allowing for their exploitation by the rich. At a macro scale, this can relate to tax policy, or at a more micro scale, family law, where partners who sacrifice more in a relationship are never compensated or if parents are not legally obliged to financially support their children.

So, the situation is the opposite to how you present it. You appear to be financially self-sufficient but seem to feel that, to maintain social stability, people like you are the ones who should be protected more than the vulnerable, such as children who aren't being supported by their fathers, or mothers who can't afford child care so they can go out and work. You are not presenting any kind of a moral theory but a purely self-interested strategy.

The same decision that may be a non-issue in one jurisdiction will result in a lengthy prison sentence in another jurisdiction. That is why jurisdiction shopping is such an important tool. — Tarskian

What exactly are you afraid you will be imprisoned for? I've lived in Western countries and not only never heard of anyone going to prison for a dating misunderstanding, I've never heard anyone even talk about anyone they know having that issue. Maybe you should look at the statistics. Or just consider using common sense. Your "fears" seem overblown.

That is the number one reason why Islam is now gradually but surely taking over Europe. — Tarskian

Is all of this just a roundabout way of saying Islamic countries are better than Western countries?

family law, where partners who sacrifice more in a relationship are never compensated or if parents are not legally obliged to financially support their children. — Baden

If you need your spouse to provide for you, it is your job to make sure that he voluntarily wants to keep doing that.

You cannot outsource this to other men to somehow force him. That will only lead to conflict and even war, which the men on your side will simply lose.

In fact, the men on your side generally do not even want to fight anymore. You live in a society that the men generally no longer want to defend. Why would they? What's in it for them?

Is all of this just a roundabout way of saying Islamic countries are better than Western countries? — Baden

Muslim men are willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. Western men are not.