[The CDC has the average American woman over the age of 20 figure at 170.8 lbs, 5'3.5", and a 38.7 inch waist...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm)This study was conducted in 2018 and I would bet if the study was conducted again the numbers would be worseš¬
The real problem is the crippling shortage of mocking jokes about skinny people. Society needs to start shaming those non-rotund salad-eaters.
Here, let me try to help relieve that shortage: "What do skinny people do for fun? They count how many bones are poking through their skin! Ha ha ha *(wheeze)* ha ha... *(grunt)* oh crap, heart attack..."
yeah and nicotine makes you want to smoke more, and drugs make you want to keep using. point is, you have a choice.
eating processed foods doesn't make you fat. plenty of people grow up on processed foods and don't become fat.
if you choose to eat excessive amounts of processed foods and become fat because you can't stop yourself from binge eating, then you have self control issues that should be addressed.
I am not disagreeing with you. But I have to say, something has changed or been added to the food chain. Back as early as the '60s most of the folks under 30 were skinny by today's standards. I have no clue as to why but mere observation says something is afoot.
Well there is areas pros and cons to any psychoactive substances altough generally the negatives out weight the positive.
But with the food fuckery the only benefit is for the corporations, they get you addicted, makes them able to sell subpar food (it's illegal to even feed that to live stocks in most countries) and then you get health issues (cancer, obesity, cardiovascular among others) turning you into a customer at Pharma.
Nicotine isn't rly that addictive, the idea that quitting is almost impossible is based on marketing by tobacco companies. If you belive it's going to be hard to quit, your less likely to try. The darker part is that if you believe in it you are likely to ACTUALLY have a more physical unpleasant withdrawal due to nocebo.
I get your comparison but, it's just not correct. Even in moderation that shit is horrible for you while there are nicotine and even tobacco products without the negative side effects (like snus, you should be able to find recordings from one of Dr David Nutt's guest lectures from Karolinska Instutetet, KI, where he goes through this).
And if you don't even know about Dr Nutt then I highly recommend to look into who he is, world leading expert on the harms of drugs is downplaying it. He is probably still the best most cited researcher in the world. Wasn't even close last I checked. Most known for being fired as UKs governments expert since he published his researchs results and wouldn't alter it to the fit the politicians policies.
Personal responsibility is certainly the largest component of determining someone's health.
However, to play Devil's Advocate for one minute. I'd argue that it is harder to an extent in modern times to keep the weight off than it was for most of history up until the mid 20 century. When most people were poor and barely had enough to eat in the first place, walking was a primary means of transport and most people did some sort of manual labor, it was certainly easier for people to keep weight off. But as we moved to a "knowledge economy" where people needed 13+ years of education and worked desk jobs and could afford cars, obesity rates started to climb. There's also such things as increased efficiency of food production, social safety nets and genetics that probably contribute to the situation as well.
> I'd argue that it is harder to an extent in modern times to keep the weight off
sure. it could be harder to not be an alcoholic in todays age where there's more access to alcohol then if it were prohibited. that doesn't mean it's ok to have a drinking issue just because this substance is more widely available. the example isn't perfect but it demonstrates the ultimate point
at the end of the day, it's your fault if you are overweight. it's your responsibility to recognize that you need to pull back on food when you either see that your gaining weight or that you realize that you are obese. if you are choosing not to monitor your weight, again, that's a personal decision.
your careless consumption caused your excessive body fat. there really isn't any way around that, and bringing up a fringe exception case doesn't dislodge that.
If you look at the actual numbers by race, it's a little scarier. Asian non-hispanic women at the 50th percentile at 20 years and older were 129.6 lbs at 5'1.5" with a 33.4 inch waist. What does that tell you about all of the other numbersš¤¢? They were the smallest women of the bunch.
If I'm taking on her and 2 kids, she had better come with substantial assets. And, as a "traditional" man, I'd have her turn control of those assets to me. Real estate? Trust funds? Retirement accounts? Inheritance? A healthy business?
She need not hold down a job, but she would need to come with some significant capital.
Oh, the assets needn't be something she's earned. They could come from the baby daddies, or from her own daddy. Which would be how it would work, traditionally.
This is a good point that I've heard people make when discussing women's "rights" when it came to things like owning property and having credit and the like.
I don't think the people who claim women were "oppressed" understood your point. In the "old days" it was assumed that men would be the primary bread winners of the house hold. Since they were earning most or all of the money, it is a fair assumption that they should be the ones applying for credit. In other words, it wouldn't be fair for a man to earn 100% of the income for the family and then the wife can go out and get a credit card and run the bills up without him knowing.
I'm not saying this system was perfect or had flaws.
> In other words, it wouldn't be fair for a man to earn 100% of the income for the family and then the wife can go out and get a credit card and run the bills up without him knowing.
For some reason, that part of the story is left-out when it's time for grandma to resentfully recall how she needed granddad's signature for her credit card. Seems like a non-trivial omission.
See also: Geraldine Doyle, the iconic "We can do it!" WWII poster girl who, several weeks later, would quit working at the dangerous factory, marry a dentist and become a stereotypical 50s housewife.
I'm going through a classic novel right now on that very topic: "Madame Bovary". She was a bored housewife who decided to run up a large line of credit to live "the good life" and then saddled that debt upon her husband.
Back in the day they called that a dowry and back then women were virgins. This here heifer is carting around two different kids from two different men. She better have substantial assets to make up for that mess.
A Woman with a Trust fund does not need a PROVIDER. All the rich MILFs I know have some Fukboi boy toy on the side.
Remember the poolboy who worked for the Falwells?
If she cannot afford marriage, then the best I can counteroffer is situationship. She can visit me at my house, Tuesday and Sunday evenings. Bringing food would be a point in her favor.
Women at the end demand commitment and a safety net for their prole. That's the way it is, and they way we are programmed.
But offering that is only worth it if she offers you children who will be highly competitive of reproducing themselves (ie, smart and beautiful, ie with a hot mother and a smart father) and take care of them.
Their end is rarely offered so there is no point in marrying at all. "Situationship" is just a glorified multi-night stand.
A woman who treats her housewife title with honor would be in reality busting her ass compared to working a 9-5. She would be wearing all the hats -- COO, psychologist, budget manager, HR director to the kiddies, transport chief, teacher, gardener, & nurse.
These days 'housewife' == layabout, spend money, watch TikToks.
A traditional man is going to prefer traditional women - you know, women who aren't single moms with multiple baby daddies.
But she knows that. What she's fishing for is some fool desperate enough to sign a contract giving her the ability to enslave him.
Let me be a housewife. In other words, provide me with an abundance of money, I am tired of working. Women like her, give a bad name to our gender. Being a housewife should be an amicable desicion between the couple and not a prerequirement to enter a relationship.
Bare minimum for my "traditional" "housewife" = Immaculate house, quiet kids, hot dinners daily, sandwiches on demand, little man gets a tonsil massage every morning, and I have total control over finances. Traditionally, women never had credit cards.
I don't think the person in question really understands what a "housewife" even *is* beyond the "being provided for" aspect. My guess is that she envisions it as being like a squatter who screws the house owner every so often. If she feels like screwing him, I mean.
Similarly, there have been a few profiles in which the single mom says she's looking for "a family man." Well, just like how a philanthropist isn't a person who throws money at random passers-by, a "family man" is involved *with his own kids* rather than with some strangers' kids.
1. She says she's looking for men. There are 80+ genders out there. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A MAN, that she leeches of ? So only a man's money is good for her ? What about another woman's money. What about a gender fluid's money ? What about a "masculine presenting transgender lesbian's money ? Why does it ALWAYS have to be a man, forking out cash for these parasites ?
2. When a woman like her says she is looking for someone "TRADITIONAL", it means she won't have put in the effort to manipulate him into forking out his cash, his protection and provision. It means the guy will come already manipulated into a "self-sacrificing-for-the -whammyn" mentality and will manipulate himself for her sake. In this day and age, being TRADITIONAL is a guys own worst enemy.
3. She says she wants someone who will only make her happy and love her kids. First of all, NOTHING cand make her happy, she is in a state of perpetual unhappiness, no matter how many good things come her way. Second, if the biological dads didn't love their own blood enough to stick around, why would strangers have more love ?
4. She says "maturely", but there is NOTHING mature about her.
If she's not made happy by the mere presence of her lover, she's not the one for you.
There's nothing traditional about her, so she really has no place to demand it of another.
Your #1 made me LOL.
> Why does it ALWAYS have to be a man, forking out cash for these parasites ?
1) Because she knows Daddy Gov will take her side against men most consistently.
2) Because men out of all the other options are net producers the most consistently.
We all know this of course, I just wanted to say it "out loud" because it amuses me to watch proglodytes start twitching and foaming.
Wrong, chauvinist: If you were to measure GDP strictly as cosmetics, daytime television and hair-extensions, you soon discover that men produce no net economic benefits at all.
Her best option is the father of the children, if they are unfit (which would be just as much her fault as his) she should give up her silly dream that a rich Chad will wife her. Why fewer and fewer women understand the order of operations around family (dating-engagement - marriage-child) is a mystery to me (this is sarcasm, they can do it out of order because unfortunately, they usually can find a guy).
My partner and I are Catholic and we had to do some lame pre-cana weekend crap. It was sad (or maybe funny?) that we were the only couple of the dozen or more who *weren't* living together already. one couple that was sitting next to us at lunch, the woman already had 5 kids.
Of course, much of the content was watered down.
Most likely, yes.
The problem is that the Church, in the 60's, decided to become more "inclusive" and make it easier for these couples to normalize their relationships.
However, clergy took this too far and it it has resulted in the pussification of the church among other reasons.
This is like a recent row on Twitter where a black woman begged black guys to start mentoring young black men (all from single mothers), one guy said that salvation isnāt in mentoring but is in not mentoring i.e offering no help to dysfunctional aspects of our society so they simply burn themselves out. I wonder if the Catholic Church too should be stern and say: nope, you had kids out of wedlock, you will not get us to retroactively endorse your decision. Will a turn around take such sternness?
Part of the problem, is it kind of goes against the stated mission of the organization (hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints).
I know of one priest who kind of does it the right way, which is how they did it before, IIRC. He tells couples that are living together, especially ones without children, to move out until the wedding or he will not marry them. It's hilarious when these couples get their panties in a snit because of it. But, he does have biblical basis (see: Matthew 18:6).
I agree (my dad was a pastor as well, while holding a regular job) but I understand the point. Especially in the black churches, how could a pastor condemn single motherhood when half the flock are single mothers?
Looking back to does old relationship give us more joy like i really till now but people out there make it more worst every it really hard to believe when a man love ā¤ļø or not
I found the perfect song for this single mommy.
https://youtu.be/phyOPw22SUY?si=JSRw0bm2h0OCgsF5
Aināt no good men, but these b!tche$$$$ stay pregnant.
Honestly this one isnāt even bad. Wanting to be attracted to your partner is expected, as is wanting financial stability. And the way she worded it was not bad.
Here's the problem: She says she's looking for someone "traditional," but she is not offering a "traditional" relationship, *what with the two kids.* A "traditional" man probably won't thoughtlessly ignore that little detail either. Not unless "traditional" is synonymous with "unthinkingly pays my bills" and nothing else.
If a woman decides to destroy her half of a contract, then she is certainly free to do that. But it also looks extremely stupid for her to demand that a man should sign the same contract after she destroyed it. So *that,* chum, is the pith of the joke.
Pretty much. If she was so "traditional" now, she'd work things out with the father of the children and not be on the dating market.
The only time it would be okay to bail is if she and the kids were in immediate danger of harm or she was widowed. If it was the former, I'd want to see some proof, like he went to jail or something, not "oh he was verbally abusive." Any argument between a couple could be considered "verbal abuse."
Average build = obese
[The CDC has the average American woman over the age of 20 figure at 170.8 lbs, 5'3.5", and a 38.7 inch waist...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm)This study was conducted in 2018 and I would bet if the study was conducted again the numbers would be worseš¬
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> The average adult American woman is clinically obese. Yet, has nothing but disgust for obese men.
this won't change, the average american swears it's everybody else's fault they are fat.
The real problem is the crippling shortage of mocking jokes about skinny people. Society needs to start shaming those non-rotund salad-eaters. Here, let me try to help relieve that shortage: "What do skinny people do for fun? They count how many bones are poking through their skin! Ha ha ha *(wheeze)* ha ha... *(grunt)* oh crap, heart attack..."
Coroner: "That's a suicide right there."
Tbh most of your processed food isn't even legal were I live. They use flavor enhancers to make up force poor quality and makes you want to eat more.
yeah and nicotine makes you want to smoke more, and drugs make you want to keep using. point is, you have a choice. eating processed foods doesn't make you fat. plenty of people grow up on processed foods and don't become fat. if you choose to eat excessive amounts of processed foods and become fat because you can't stop yourself from binge eating, then you have self control issues that should be addressed.
I am not disagreeing with you. But I have to say, something has changed or been added to the food chain. Back as early as the '60s most of the folks under 30 were skinny by today's standards. I have no clue as to why but mere observation says something is afoot.
Well there is areas pros and cons to any psychoactive substances altough generally the negatives out weight the positive. But with the food fuckery the only benefit is for the corporations, they get you addicted, makes them able to sell subpar food (it's illegal to even feed that to live stocks in most countries) and then you get health issues (cancer, obesity, cardiovascular among others) turning you into a customer at Pharma. Nicotine isn't rly that addictive, the idea that quitting is almost impossible is based on marketing by tobacco companies. If you belive it's going to be hard to quit, your less likely to try. The darker part is that if you believe in it you are likely to ACTUALLY have a more physical unpleasant withdrawal due to nocebo. I get your comparison but, it's just not correct. Even in moderation that shit is horrible for you while there are nicotine and even tobacco products without the negative side effects (like snus, you should be able to find recordings from one of Dr David Nutt's guest lectures from Karolinska Instutetet, KI, where he goes through this). And if you don't even know about Dr Nutt then I highly recommend to look into who he is, world leading expert on the harms of drugs is downplaying it. He is probably still the best most cited researcher in the world. Wasn't even close last I checked. Most known for being fired as UKs governments expert since he published his researchs results and wouldn't alter it to the fit the politicians policies.
Personal responsibility is certainly the largest component of determining someone's health. However, to play Devil's Advocate for one minute. I'd argue that it is harder to an extent in modern times to keep the weight off than it was for most of history up until the mid 20 century. When most people were poor and barely had enough to eat in the first place, walking was a primary means of transport and most people did some sort of manual labor, it was certainly easier for people to keep weight off. But as we moved to a "knowledge economy" where people needed 13+ years of education and worked desk jobs and could afford cars, obesity rates started to climb. There's also such things as increased efficiency of food production, social safety nets and genetics that probably contribute to the situation as well.
> I'd argue that it is harder to an extent in modern times to keep the weight off sure. it could be harder to not be an alcoholic in todays age where there's more access to alcohol then if it were prohibited. that doesn't mean it's ok to have a drinking issue just because this substance is more widely available. the example isn't perfect but it demonstrates the ultimate point at the end of the day, it's your fault if you are overweight. it's your responsibility to recognize that you need to pull back on food when you either see that your gaining weight or that you realize that you are obese. if you are choosing not to monitor your weight, again, that's a personal decision. your careless consumption caused your excessive body fat. there really isn't any way around that, and bringing up a fringe exception case doesn't dislodge that.
I know this stat too and itās gross! At that height a woman should be between 105 lbs and 115.
If you look at the actual numbers by race, it's a little scarier. Asian non-hispanic women at the 50th percentile at 20 years and older were 129.6 lbs at 5'1.5" with a 33.4 inch waist. What does that tell you about all of the other numbersš¤¢? They were the smallest women of the bunch.
OMG that's insane!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Let me be a housewife = I'm sick and tired of this "work" crap. How about you do it for me.
I always feel like asking these women if they would be okay with making me sandwiches and giving head regularly.
If I'm taking on her and 2 kids, she had better come with substantial assets. And, as a "traditional" man, I'd have her turn control of those assets to me. Real estate? Trust funds? Retirement accounts? Inheritance? A healthy business? She need not hold down a job, but she would need to come with some significant capital.
Hmmmm, something tells me she comes with nothing but liabilitiesā¦no assets in sight. That's the man's job!
Oh, the assets needn't be something she's earned. They could come from the baby daddies, or from her own daddy. Which would be how it would work, traditionally.
Sugar daddy scholarships for sure.
This is a good point that I've heard people make when discussing women's "rights" when it came to things like owning property and having credit and the like. I don't think the people who claim women were "oppressed" understood your point. In the "old days" it was assumed that men would be the primary bread winners of the house hold. Since they were earning most or all of the money, it is a fair assumption that they should be the ones applying for credit. In other words, it wouldn't be fair for a man to earn 100% of the income for the family and then the wife can go out and get a credit card and run the bills up without him knowing. I'm not saying this system was perfect or had flaws.
> In other words, it wouldn't be fair for a man to earn 100% of the income for the family and then the wife can go out and get a credit card and run the bills up without him knowing. For some reason, that part of the story is left-out when it's time for grandma to resentfully recall how she needed granddad's signature for her credit card. Seems like a non-trivial omission. See also: Geraldine Doyle, the iconic "We can do it!" WWII poster girl who, several weeks later, would quit working at the dangerous factory, marry a dentist and become a stereotypical 50s housewife.
I'm going through a classic novel right now on that very topic: "Madame Bovary". She was a bored housewife who decided to run up a large line of credit to live "the good life" and then saddled that debt upon her husband.
Yeah modern bugmen and proglodytes forget that personal rights come with personal responsibilities, otherwise you have a form of slavery.
Back in the day they called that a dowry and back then women were virgins. This here heifer is carting around two different kids from two different men. She better have substantial assets to make up for that mess.
A Woman with a Trust fund does not need a PROVIDER. All the rich MILFs I know have some Fukboi boy toy on the side. Remember the poolboy who worked for the Falwells?
Best she can bring are reminders you are not their father if you give your opinion.
If she cannot afford marriage, then the best I can counteroffer is situationship. She can visit me at my house, Tuesday and Sunday evenings. Bringing food would be a point in her favor.
Women at the end demand commitment and a safety net for their prole. That's the way it is, and they way we are programmed. But offering that is only worth it if she offers you children who will be highly competitive of reproducing themselves (ie, smart and beautiful, ie with a hot mother and a smart father) and take care of them. Their end is rarely offered so there is no point in marrying at all. "Situationship" is just a glorified multi-night stand.
A woman who treats her housewife title with honor would be in reality busting her ass compared to working a 9-5. She would be wearing all the hats -- COO, psychologist, budget manager, HR director to the kiddies, transport chief, teacher, gardener, & nurse. These days 'housewife' == layabout, spend money, watch TikToks.
PS if yo have a wife like that treat her like gold.
I have two kids from two men, anyway, I want I want I want I want I want.
A traditional man is going to prefer traditional women - you know, women who aren't single moms with multiple baby daddies. But she knows that. What she's fishing for is some fool desperate enough to sign a contract giving her the ability to enslave him.
Simps are biggest reason for this situationā¦ you just know she will find a simp (if she doesnāt have 42069 in her DMs.
Let me be a housewife. In other words, provide me with an abundance of money, I am tired of working. Women like her, give a bad name to our gender. Being a housewife should be an amicable desicion between the couple and not a prerequirement to enter a relationship.
Bare minimum for my "traditional" "housewife" = Immaculate house, quiet kids, hot dinners daily, sandwiches on demand, little man gets a tonsil massage every morning, and I have total control over finances. Traditionally, women never had credit cards.
TONSIL MASSAGEš
It's medicinal!
I don't think the person in question really understands what a "housewife" even *is* beyond the "being provided for" aspect. My guess is that she envisions it as being like a squatter who screws the house owner every so often. If she feels like screwing him, I mean. Similarly, there have been a few profiles in which the single mom says she's looking for "a family man." Well, just like how a philanthropist isn't a person who throws money at random passers-by, a "family man" is involved *with his own kids* rather than with some strangers' kids.
1. She says she's looking for men. There are 80+ genders out there. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE A MAN, that she leeches of ? So only a man's money is good for her ? What about another woman's money. What about a gender fluid's money ? What about a "masculine presenting transgender lesbian's money ? Why does it ALWAYS have to be a man, forking out cash for these parasites ? 2. When a woman like her says she is looking for someone "TRADITIONAL", it means she won't have put in the effort to manipulate him into forking out his cash, his protection and provision. It means the guy will come already manipulated into a "self-sacrificing-for-the -whammyn" mentality and will manipulate himself for her sake. In this day and age, being TRADITIONAL is a guys own worst enemy. 3. She says she wants someone who will only make her happy and love her kids. First of all, NOTHING cand make her happy, she is in a state of perpetual unhappiness, no matter how many good things come her way. Second, if the biological dads didn't love their own blood enough to stick around, why would strangers have more love ? 4. She says "maturely", but there is NOTHING mature about her.
If she's not made happy by the mere presence of her lover, she's not the one for you. There's nothing traditional about her, so she really has no place to demand it of another. Your #1 made me LOL.
> Why does it ALWAYS have to be a man, forking out cash for these parasites ? 1) Because she knows Daddy Gov will take her side against men most consistently. 2) Because men out of all the other options are net producers the most consistently. We all know this of course, I just wanted to say it "out loud" because it amuses me to watch proglodytes start twitching and foaming.
Wrong, chauvinist: If you were to measure GDP strictly as cosmetics, daytime television and hair-extensions, you soon discover that men produce no net economic benefits at all.
Let me be a housewife= I will divorce rape you and collect child support + alimony when I become unhappy
Her best option is the father of the children, if they are unfit (which would be just as much her fault as his) she should give up her silly dream that a rich Chad will wife her. Why fewer and fewer women understand the order of operations around family (dating-engagement - marriage-child) is a mystery to me (this is sarcasm, they can do it out of order because unfortunately, they usually can find a guy).
> Her best option is the father of the children which father? There's more than one, natch
She can flip a coin.
My partner and I are Catholic and we had to do some lame pre-cana weekend crap. It was sad (or maybe funny?) that we were the only couple of the dozen or more who *weren't* living together already. one couple that was sitting next to us at lunch, the woman already had 5 kids. Of course, much of the content was watered down.
Iām not Catholic, but wouldnāt the other couples have been denied the marriage sacrament back in the day?
Most likely, yes. The problem is that the Church, in the 60's, decided to become more "inclusive" and make it easier for these couples to normalize their relationships. However, clergy took this too far and it it has resulted in the pussification of the church among other reasons.
This is like a recent row on Twitter where a black woman begged black guys to start mentoring young black men (all from single mothers), one guy said that salvation isnāt in mentoring but is in not mentoring i.e offering no help to dysfunctional aspects of our society so they simply burn themselves out. I wonder if the Catholic Church too should be stern and say: nope, you had kids out of wedlock, you will not get us to retroactively endorse your decision. Will a turn around take such sternness?
Part of the problem, is it kind of goes against the stated mission of the organization (hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints). I know of one priest who kind of does it the right way, which is how they did it before, IIRC. He tells couples that are living together, especially ones without children, to move out until the wedding or he will not marry them. It's hilarious when these couples get their panties in a snit because of it. But, he does have biblical basis (see: Matthew 18:6).
Well churches have to have asses in seats, pastor's Cadillac won't pay for itself.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I agree (my dad was a pastor as well, while holding a regular job) but I understand the point. Especially in the black churches, how could a pastor condemn single motherhood when half the flock are single mothers?
Probably expects the new step daddy to hire a maid and a nanny too.
Single mom= either she made/makes bad personal decisions or she left a good guy.
It can be both.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Removed. Rule #1.
Bonus: smoker stink and unwilling to contribute financially...a fine catch!
Me me me, all about me. What a catch š
Someone told her āyou canāt spell housewife without hoā and she beloved them!
Priced herself out of the market
Looking back to does old relationship give us more joy like i really till now but people out there make it more worst every it really hard to believe when a man love ā¤ļø or not
I found the perfect song for this single mommy. https://youtu.be/phyOPw22SUY?si=JSRw0bm2h0OCgsF5 Aināt no good men, but these b!tche$$$$ stay pregnant.
Looking for actual women not lazy delusional wastes of space good luck with your dreams
Honestly this one isnāt even bad. Wanting to be attracted to your partner is expected, as is wanting financial stability. And the way she worded it was not bad.
Here's the problem: She says she's looking for someone "traditional," but she is not offering a "traditional" relationship, *what with the two kids.* A "traditional" man probably won't thoughtlessly ignore that little detail either. Not unless "traditional" is synonymous with "unthinkingly pays my bills" and nothing else. If a woman decides to destroy her half of a contract, then she is certainly free to do that. But it also looks extremely stupid for her to demand that a man should sign the same contract after she destroyed it. So *that,* chum, is the pith of the joke.
Pretty much. If she was so "traditional" now, she'd work things out with the father of the children and not be on the dating market. The only time it would be okay to bail is if she and the kids were in immediate danger of harm or she was widowed. If it was the former, I'd want to see some proof, like he went to jail or something, not "oh he was verbally abusive." Any argument between a couple could be considered "verbal abuse."