White Knighting for Students

Remember this guy?

Before I married my wife two years ago, she had huge amounts of debt to her name, including large amounts of student loans. After we married, we diligently almost paid everything off, helped by my salary being three times that of my wife.

 

She recently asked for a divorce, saying she was taking the house and my retirement.

We’ve only been married a few years, and frankly I can’t help feeling taken advantage of. The only advice I can find discusses whose responsibility the student loans would be, but now it just seems that she got me to pay all of her debts, and got some new stuff, while I threw away years of my life.

Well, he’s not alone:

I supported my girlfriend during her recent studies. We are not married. She took 3 years from the inception of the program to finish, pass her board exams, and get her license to practice dental hygiene, despite the fact that it’s only supposed to be a 26-month program.

During this time, I paid the rent, utilities, food, entertainment, vacations, some medical expenses, toiletries, and other miscellaneous expenses.

Her mother covered some things for her, and her ability to take loans was restricted by previous undergraduate loans as well as lack of availability of federal loans due to use of grants in undergraduate.

Our relationship is unwinding. I have sacrificed greatly in order to provide for her. I could have paid for the remainder of my student loans, advanced my career by investing in continuing education and, of course, increasing my portfolio and retirement accounts.

Is there any legal recourse I can take when we break up, to receive reimbursement for my contributions to her living expenses? Despite me not paying a cent towards her actual degree, her living was majority financed by me (80% at a minimum). Her income is going to quadruple with her new job.

There’s a pattern here, isn’t there? It’s time men got a bit smarter.

Share

22 thoughts on “White Knighting for Students

  1. Not really the same though. A bloke can’t complain about supporting the live in nookie, even if she did promise to stay when she was self supporting. Once upon a time she would have faced social opprobrium, but these days her friends would be cheering her on.

    I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in The Adventures of Roderick Random (1748) Smollett mentions the practice of women marrying to dump a debt on to her husband, the little minx often departing immediately after the ceremony. At least our hero got the dubious pleasure of her company for a few years.

  2. Why is it that many men (and to be fair many women) are so bad at finding a compatible partner?

    Do people get so lost during the infatuation stage that they ignore all the tell tale signs that would demonstrate that they really aren’t living in a fairytale relationship?

    From my my experience after 6 months of being someone you should know whether they are right for you.
    By 6 months you should know whether you can accept the negatives things about them that aren’t going to change.
    At this point it’s a simple calculation – do the positives this person brings to your life outweigh the negatives.
    If yes, stick with it. If no, move on.

  3. At least he’ll have the sour satisfaction 15 years from now, when he reads her articles in Everyday Feminism:

    Why modern men just aren’t good enough anymore.
    Man up!
    Dating myself.
    Think high cat-food prices aren’t sexist? Think again.

  4. If they were married, why isn’t he entitled to a cut of her future income as support?

  5. There’s a female equivalent to this, though.

    It’s the woman who spends 7 years living with a man, without marriage, without children, and then gets dumped 2 weeks after he hires a new secretary.

    The first question I’d ask is, do the foolish woman from my example and the foolish man from Tim’s get equal protection in court?

    The second question I’d ask is, to what extent should the law intervene? On the face of it, neither party has any commitment to the other, so they have no grounds for recourse to the law. All sides have acted of their own free, albeit foolish, will.

    Modern courts like to intervene, however, slowly stretching and bending the law to punish wicked men and women. But a side effect of this is to absolve men and women from the duty to behave responsibly. However foolish you are, Mommy law and Daddy judge will come to your rescue. Half the reason men and women allow themselves to be used like this is an ambiguity in the law – not so much in its wording, but in how it will be applied. Eighty years ago, far fewer people behaved like this, and those who did, did not expect the law to rescue them.

  6. As Jonathan Levy mentions, this sort of thing works both ways. In fact, I know a guy who is still living with a woman he has no interest in because he’s too skint to move out.

    I don’t have too much sympathy with the chap in the latest example above; he does seem to be taking an overly transactional view of life. He ought to reflect that he would be paying for rent etc anyway and for dates & outings if single. The fact that he wants to get litigious suggests to me that there were other problems ie he hadn’t been getting any for a year or so but had been consoling himself with the thought of being taken out to dinner once she qualified.

    People do seem to make a meal of relationships. Most of the people Tim features would be better off buying a dog and hiring hookers, thus gaining unconditional love and good or at least professional, sex.

  7. The second question I’d ask is, to what extent should the law intervene? On the face of it, neither party has any commitment to the other, so they have no grounds for recourse to the law. All sides have acted of their own free, albeit foolish, will.

    The problem here is that the “solution” to this (i.e. no solution at all), is an approach similar to that taken in Australia where a court can find a guy shacked up or even just regularly screwing some chick to be in a “De Facto Relationship” and effectively get embuggered in pretty much the same way as if he was married to her.

    “Where have all the good men gone?” – The lack of self-awareness is just stunning, isn’t it?

  8. Well, once that itch has been scratched – debts paid off, marriage, a kid or two – and assuming scratching that itch was her main motivator for being with her man. Well, she no longer has the motivator and may realise that she is no longer attracted to him. Hence the sexless marriages after a kid has popped out (or even separate bedrooms), or sexless relationships once the debt is paid off. Knowledge is power, and lack of knowledge can be deadly. Most men are still operating on the 1950’s paradigm of ‘if I have a job and prove to be reliable and stable, she’ll eventually fall in love with me’. Well, women now work, we have a welfare state and on no account may a woman be judged/shamed for anything……what that means is that the ‘provider’ is just that and no more. What she wants is fun and ‘tingles’ and as soon as the itch of debt payment is scratched, she’ll go out finding them with more physically desirable men. The rules have changed and most men are still playing by the old rules. Game and the Red Pill are natural reactions to all of this.

    https://therationalmale.com/2014/01/14/the-second-set-of-books/

    https://therationalmale.com/the-best-of-rational-male-year-one/

    https://therationalmale.com/2011/11/21/kill-the-beta-2/

  9. MC

    ” Most of the people Tim features would be better off buying a dog and hiring hookers, thus gaining unconditional love and good or at least professional, sex.”

    I think this is good advice for most men regardless of Tim writing about them.

  10. Jonathan Levy

    “Eighty years ago, far fewer people behaved like this, and those who did, did not expect the law to rescue them.”

    At that time the rules were very much clearer were they not? People spent time in courtship with a clear intention, not randomly ‘dating’ for decades always looking for something ‘better’, then wondering where the hell it all when wrong.

  11. It goes both ways. I know several male doctors supported through graduation and specialization (having a partner to organise the humdrum bits of life to make free time for study is a huge advantage) by working wives who have deferred having children who have been replaced just as hubby is about to bring home the bacon.

  12. @Damian

    To be frank, I think that Game theoreticians do a service by pointing out female patterns of behavior which political correctness demands we ignore – and then ruin it by acting as if this is the entirety of female behavior. I’ve dipped my toe more than once into that sort of website – the writing can be quite entertaining, to be honest – but after a few posts you realize that they treat women as if they were mindless automatons in the grip of their ovaries. Men, on the other hand, are rational and self-aware human beings, who by reading a few blog posts should have no trouble bending women to their will. And, in fact, posters and commentators alike are happy to divulge endless anecdotes of their conquests.

    Men and women both are self-aware beings, even if the degree of self-awareness is not always identical. The same genes which produce modern hypergamy a-la-Game theory also produced stable, long-term marriages a hundred years ago. Culture plays a much greater role. Many game theory believers would agree, I think, that a general loosening of moral restraints has unleashed the dark side of female behavior (hypergamy, cock-carousel). But they don’t often notice that it has also unleashed the dark side of male behavior – insensate jealousy, multiple women held in thrall, violence. I think male misbehavior is more prevalent in the lower classes, whereas female misbehavior flourishes in the middle/upper classes, where male violence is still held in check. This might explain why people who spend much of the day in front of the computer seem to disproportionately notice female misbehavior.

    The distinction between genes and culture is very important, in my opinion. Universal, genetically-dictated behavior cannot be avoided. Hence the advice to adopt puppies and visit prostitutes. Culturally-influenced behavior is different, because individuals can abandon their culture (even though masses do not) and because cultural effects vary in a population. There could be, for example, lots of small-town catholic girls who have never gone to college who would make excellent wives for the average ‘beta’ – unless she first sees him tying up his Collie outside the local bordello.

    Of course, none of this will matter in a few decades, when everything’s islamized and the male dark side wins by default. 🙂

  13. @David Moore

    I remember reading a few lines about soldiers’ songs in WWII – the point being that all those songs conceived of marriage as the expression of love. In other words, even working class men – among whom, today, illegitimacy exceeds 50% – took marriage for granted. Modern songs seem fixated on the sexual act; the farthest they look forward is five years’ time.

  14. There could be, for example, lots of small-town catholic girls who have never gone to college who would make excellent wives for the average ‘beta

    There could be, but there’s no small number of Christian red pill blogs that point out that there aren’t.

    Biology trumps culture. Always. And culture is shaped by biology. What we have for a popular culture today is simply an expression of men and women reverting to their hunter-gatherer sexual habits.

  15. @ Johnathan Levy

    Thanks for your reply to my post, and some good food for thought! I think you are right that some game/red pill blogs tend to stay at those new to the red pill level and at many commentators are stuck in the anger phase of the five stages of grief and view women as mindless automatons. They have the ‘all women are like that mentality’ which can certainly lead to nihilism and mgtow.
    I think that’s one of the reasons I like Rollo Tomassi’s writing in that it has evolved over the years. PUA sites seem to have also evolved towards self improvement. They have also branched out into politics and philosophy, so I chuckled at your last short paragraph as they tend to see the future in a similar light.
    I do think however that having this understanding of game and red pill is critical to seeing the red flags that the females in this article must surely have given off, but their dutiful beta’s didn’t see.

  16. They have the ‘all women are like that mentality’

    All women are like that. And all men are like that, too. Homo sapiens sapiens doesn’t mate for life like wolves or swans. Some 10,000 years worth of human history has mostly been about putting in place societal structures to enforce an unnatural one man:one woman for life pairing because it turns out that’s really, really beneficial for productivity, quality of life, and offspring survival rate.

    What we’re seeing right now is what we’ve seen over and over again throughout human history: the breakdown/rejection of those societal structures and a reversion to the natural inclinations of humankind: small numbers of alpha males with harems of breeding females and large numbers of celibate beta males.

    Absent those societal structures, women and men are going to behave like “mindless automatons”, following their natural procreation instincts. It’s not being “stuck in the anger phase” to note that there is absolutely nothing discouraging a Western woman from breaking up her family and ruining her ex-husband in the process, and a significant amount of societal and legal en-couragement. A man would have to trust entirely in his wife’s psychological commitment to the union, because there is no other backstop. And that’s a risk more and more men aren’t willing to take.

  17. Once upon a time and long ago, the children of a marriage were, by law, the *husband’s* children. If the wife left, she lost custody. Oddly enough, women were far less likely to decide that they needed to “eat, pray, love” someone other than their husbands then too.

    Sure, some women were stuck in abusive relationships, but given the damage being done by no-fault divorce and welfare for divorcees and un-wed mothers, I think society on the whole was better off back then.

    Of course marriage used to have something to do with producing children and ensuring their paternity, whereas we now know that it’s always and forever been just a validation of people’s feelings, and children and fathers are irrelevant.

    Sure glad my tax money goes to prop up other peoples’ love lives!

  18. I think you are right that some game/red pill blogs tend to stay at those new to the red pill level and at many commentators are stuck in the anger phase of the five stages of grief and view women as mindless automatons. They have the ‘all women are like that mentality’ which can certainly lead to nihilism and mgtow.

    Yeah, the PUA/Red Pill sites can give you some useful tips and are worth browsing, but the comments sections are inundated with losers and a lot of the authors see things way too much in black and white.

  19. And on top of that she has the cheek to call and ask you to go round to her place for sausage. That’s the reason I won’t get into a long term relationship ever again. I was in one abusive relationship and now as soon as a woman starts her shit I’m out the door.

  20. @Damian
    Glad to hear your thoughts, as well!

    I do think however that having this understanding of game and red pill is critical to seeing the red flags that the females in this article must surely have given off, but their dutiful beta’s didn’t see.

    Agreed. It’s necessary to get them to start thinking about their girlfriends critically – as potential wives – instead of drifting through life, content to be getting some from a pleasant girl. But in its current form – on PUA sites – this awareness comes hand-in-hand with a terrible way of looking at the world – women are automatons who can be manipulated into sex.

    @Daniel Ream
    There could be, but there’s no small number of Christian red pill blogs that point out that there aren’t.

    Are these people who really want to find good wives, or people who are content to shag around, and just need a bit of justification?

    What we have for a popular culture today is simply an expression of men and women reverting to their hunter-gatherer sexual habits.

    Isn’t this an admission that culture successfully suppressed biology for several centuries, if not millenia, and only the current, lax state of affairs allowed biology to surface? It’s hardly a case of “Biology Trumps Culture, Always”. It’s more like “Culture Trumps Biology, except when culture has lost its self-confidence. Consider the fact that all the nations of Europe in (say) 1960 had the numerical, economic, and military capability to conquer any part of Africa they chose. All they had to do was keep having 4-5 children per woman for 2-3 generations – perfectly in line with the genetic impulse to reproduce, and no more than the third world has been doing – and we’d have waves of European colonizers (supported by a few armored divisions) crossing the mediterranean instead of the other way around. It would have been the greatest genetic success since Ghengis Khan. Except that they chose not to do so, and they made this choice because their Culture made them desire other things.

    I’d say, Culture Trumps Biology. Mostly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *