Essay talk:Grand unified anti-feminist manifesto

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

So, to summarize[edit]

You're using too many words. You might want to try shortening it to "Fuck those femjay bitches. Well. If they would let me." --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell is "femjay"? Even Urban Dictionary doesn't seem to know. Anyway, a lot of feminist girls can be pretty alluring (especially if they have BPD characteristics) but getting sexually or romantically involved with them is a mistake guys usually don't want to keep repeating after one of those situations finally goes badly awry. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Actual Constructive Criticism[edit]

Let me first state that from what I've read, I disagree with almost all of your views.

Now that that's out, here's some constructive criticisms that might improve your readers' chance of buying your argument:

1. You need a unified thesis that runs the gamut of all of your sections. It helps hold the essay together and makes it easier to understand. I realize you just threw this together, but you need to make this part better.

2. Try toning down some of the terminology and rhetoric. 'Betas', 'Alphas', etc. turn people off because they don't understand what you're saying. Appeal to a broader audience and be sure to keep your language civil and clean whilst still preserving authenticity. Does that make sense?

3. Sources. Regardless of whether they actually back up your exact points, most people will treat what you're saying as more legit, regardless of whether the data actually backs up your point. Use scientific studies that show certain aspects of feminism or female behavior. Just get something in there to make it more than just an opinion piece. It'll bolster your points and make you reconsider some of your arguments.

Just some friendly advice from a person who disagrees with you. If you want to discuss the points in the essay itself, I'd be glad to. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(1) Yeah, this manifesto is kind of a grab bag of different thoughts. It might have to be rewritten from scratch for concision and coherence. On the other hand, its being poorly-written is in some cases purposeful, in the same sense that new jeans are purposefully rendered worn at the factory before being sold to the public. A good amateur-written screed/manifesto needs to be a little rambling and disjointed in order to give it character.
(2) "Betas" and "alphas" are technical terms in the manosphere in much the same sense that "standard deviation" is a technical term in sociology. When you get into more advanced concepts, you can't really avoid the use of jargon, although it might be beneficial to define it somewhere. As a lazy hack, that could be accomplished for now by linking to the manosphere glossary.
(3) Yeah, a lot of this manifesto was written hurriedly in the morning when I was in a rush to dash something off before going to work, so I didn't bother with sources. I should probably start using Template:Fact to remind myself to add sources. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the actual contents if you don't mind. Sorry if I don't have a good starting point. I believe that equality of the sexes is something society should strive for, hand in hand with the class struggle. However, I view the 3rd-wave feminist movement as being largely misguided, and think those proponents would be better to spend their time and effort on more important things such as promoting socialism, liberalism, and advancing worker's rights. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Is a truly equal marital partnership workable?[edit]

This entire essay[edit]

[citation needed]. Babbling about what women "want" often requires, you know, facts. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Most successful relationships involve one person or another being dominant over the others."
I would go so far as to say that no successful relationships involve one person or another being dominant over the others. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
...also, women are very very definitely not the only ones who like playing submissives in BDSM. I...fucking hell, man.KrytenKoro (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's the kind of 'being dominant' he means. Judging from the other cruft in this userspace, he buys into the nonsense of mens' innate authority over women. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Not in the general sense, but he specifically talks about feminists playing submissives in BDSM, and how that somehow proves the lie of their beliefs.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
What about the relationship between parents and children? Not only does it usually work well for parents to act as leaders of their small children, there are some people (especially Millennials) who reach adulthood and opt to remain under the authority of their parents for awhile because the benefits of staying under their roof outweigh the costs in freedom. A woman might make a similar decision in agreeing to submit to a husband in exchange for the benefits he'll provide. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Until the relationship matures to the point where the parents treat the child as an equal (presumably in adulthood), I wouldn't class it as successful. Getting to the point where parents treat their children as equals is a necessary condition for a parental relationship to be successful. Parents who never treat their children as equals are shit parents. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
As long as parents are providing resources to their kids, they will tend to impose some rules to make sure that their investment isn't wasted. They might say, for instance, "If I'm giving you money, I don't want you to spend it on drugs." Kids who are dependent on parents aren't in a position to demand complete freedom to make their own decisions. At the same time, it's contrary to the interests of parents of dependent kids to behave disrespectfully toward them, since destroying the relationship in that way or tearing down the kid's self-esteem isn't going to be beneficial to either of them.
Preferences and biological realities often put men and women in a similar position. An older guy with a lot of income may decide to get with a beautiful young wife, who can live a more comfortable life giving him sex and companionship than by working in the corporate world. This is because her attractiveness to potential husbands is a relatively scarce and valuable commodity, while the kind of non-sexual labor she's able to bring to the table in the workforce is relatively cheap and abundant.
Since he's basically a paying customer, it's reasonable for him to expect to call the shots, if that was their agreement. And why would he expect anything less than obedience that pleases him (in accordance with their agreement), in exchange for what he gives her? But of course, it's usually in a customer's best interest to not treat his service provider like shit, but rather to cultivate a relationship of mutual respect, so that commerce can proceed without distraction, with both of them taking pleasure in their roles. Ideally, a submissive wife will be able to find pleasure in doing her job well, and in earning the goodwill of her customer, so that he may even give her "tips" as a reward or because he's taken a liking to her (e.g. new necklace, vacation in the Bahamas, letting her paint the living room pink, or whatever else she might want to request of him). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, his analogies about corporate hierarchies are plain wrong. No, corporate partnerships often AREN'T like that. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Often business partnerships will have a "managing partner." What kind of entity are you thinking of when you speak of a "corporate partnership," by the way? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Troll, unsubstantiated generalizations, Tldr. Bongolian (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to the soft sciences, which are rife with unproven hypotheses. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
How old are you exactly? I struggle to believe an adult would've kicked off by comparing marital strife to "siblings ... fighting over who gets to watch TV at a given time." Robledo (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a common analogy in the manosphere. In this metaphor, society plays the role of the parents; men play the role of the older brother; and women play the role of the younger sister. The younger sister is always demanding to be allowed to do whatever her older brother is allowed to do, and have whatever he is allowed to have; yet when she gets in any kind of trouble, she demands assistance and/or special treatment rather than to be held responsible in the way that her older brother would, because she's just a weak and vulnerable little kid. Good parents won't let her get away with this; they will insist that she cut that nonsense out, so that she won't drive everyone crazy with her bratty behavior.
Everyone has seen a situation where a little sister was being annoyingly provocative toward her older brother to no end, until finally he smacked her, she started crying, and the parents punished him. In society, we see women treat men like garbage and when men push back against this, women cry "abuse!" and the courts step in to punish the man. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I haven't. What I have seen is my father kick and punch the shit out of my sister until she called the cops, who told her she was more liable to be arrested, if anyone, for making them come out there for "nothing serious" (this was Texas, btw). She was eventually able to reach my mom on the phone who arranged a plane ticket to get her the fuck out of there, and now my father doesn't have visitation rights anymore. You just sound like you really fucking hate your sister (also love how your solution to "two children fighting over the tv" is "reward one of them with ownership of the fucking TV, rather than taking it away from both of them for being brats).
"yet when she gets in any kind of trouble..." is unmitigated bullshit. Here's an example of things that actually happen on Earth, like actual documented stuff rather than lunatic ravings.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not the kind of situation I'm talking about. It's uncommon for women to fight back physically; more often, they use the legal system to get their revenge. They'll bypass the nice guys out there, and instead jump on the dick of a guy they know if violently explosive; then they'll push his buttons till he smacks the shit out of her, and run to the cops.
By the way, why should both kids be punished for fighting over the TV, when it might have been only one of them that was being unreasonable? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
...because "fighting", by definition, is unreasonable misbehavior. If one of the children had a valid disagreement, they should go to an arbiter (i.e., the parent). Like, have you ever raised children? The idea that you should ever encourage the kid to fight with their sibling by rewarding them with unfettered access to a TV (holy shit, why would you even give that to a kid who was behaving?) is the most laughably terrible parenting suggestion I've heard since To Train Up a Child.KrytenKoro (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Fighting doesn't have to be literal physical fighting. They can just be exchanging angry words in the final seconds before both of their favorite TV shows come on. Although often in such a situation, it will indeed come down to physical force as the most expedient way of settling the dispute. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If the average male worker were as productive as the average female worker, it would mean that men are inferior to women[edit]


What makes these 10 examples "typical" in any shape or form? Are they the largest percentage of people of that gender? Are those incomes averages or medians? Where is your backup data? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I also notice that there are 2 dead people, one prisoner, one Insane asylum patient and a paralyzed guy, this isnt typical, and labour bureaus do not normally put non working people in their income statistics, especially dead ones. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 14:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, like having a vagina means one is immune from getting incarcerated, committing suicide, and getting hurt in an accident and those factors somehow affects how employers rate salaries instead of basic economic principals like supply and demand. The male incarcerated population is 628,900, and mostly minority, which is nearly a 10th of the number of salespeople in the US (5th if half are men). Not a typical "profession" of men or women in any sense of the word. While there are lists of the most common jobs and gender in the US readily available from the BLS.
Sorry hit save too early instead of preview: The salaries are also significantly off. Not sure where teachers earn $10 an hour, instead of the US average $22 an hour, but I would question paying teachers as much as working at McD's. A director of financial reporting makes $53 an hour on average (median closer to ~$41 an hour). The average psychologist salary is about $34 an hour.
This essay is the least factually correct essay I have seen since user:LogicMaster777 decided laws were a religion and judges priests. He had the excuse of being schizophrenic. If you redefine the word "typical" to mean "I pulled all this from really far up my butt" then it would explain the essays contents. All of this data is readily available and published online, this allowed me to find the actual data in about 10 minutes, which shows a baffling intellectual laziness and dishonesty. You can't build a good reputation by doing stupid shit like this. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's including incarcerated and dead men, the least it can do is include the vastly greater number of women than men who're unpaid carers. And why not women murdered by their spouses, 18th century women, pictures of women, dairy cattle, and trees? Annquin (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur, this is shamelessly skewing data to attempt to prove a point, i would at least like a source for this "data", here is actual gender wage disparity data [1] Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 16:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What kind of "unpaid carers" are you talking about? Housewives? They get paid in room, board, etc. It just isn't measured in GDP. I have no objection to including them in the table. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What's up with those Schlafly statistics?[edit]

Is there any basis in fact to the numbers you seem to have obtained from your hindquarters? (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hyperbole to make a point: men take the burden of risk-taking, and therefore are more likely to be spectacular successes or failures, relative to women. Think of a typical classroom, where students are raising their hands. Usually both the most brilliant insights, as well as the stupidest comments, will be contributed by boys/men. The girls usually won't raise their hands unless they KNOW they have an objectively right answer. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do feminists hold the positions they hold?[edit]

"Originally, the age of consent was 10 or 12 years of age, and only applied to girls. The point of it was to preserve their value in marriage, since men preferred virgins." This is a myth. Very young marriages were only ever for the political elite, cementing alliances between monarchs and so forth. The overwhelming majority of marriages have always been in the 16-25 range, historically, as far back as can be determined. 'Age of consent' as such, didn't even exist as we understand it now; except it's a relatively modern idea to prevent predatory behaviour. The age of marriage was a de facto age of consent, sort of, as sex outside of marriage was heavily frowned upon. "Feminists were part of the movement that not only raised the age of consent (seeking even to raise it to 21), but also made it gender-neutral, applying to boys too. Why would they want to do this?" This is just made up rubbish. The age of consent was already set fairly high when feminism first appeared; the only campaign around age of consent that mainstream feminism has been a part of (that I can remember off the top of my head) was to lower the age of consent to 16 for homosexual relationships in the UK, down from 18. Again, you have an opinion based on myths and bad history. Fix it. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you consider the era when feminism first appeared, and what do you consider a "fairly high" age of consent? The age of consent has existed in the U.K. for centuries, and it got imported to the U.S. The southern states resisted raising the age of consent for a long time, based on the argument that white men should be allowed to have sex with Negro girls since a lot of those girls are pretty slutty anyway and therefore it's pointless to try to safeguard their virginity. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Based on the argument that white men should be allowed to have sex with Negro girls since a lot of those girls are pretty slutty anyway and therefore it's pointless to try to safeguard their virginity." Tottaly not racist in the slightest.'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist doesn't mean untrue, though. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy strawmanning fatman[edit]

Yeah, with wonders in intellectualism like this that wonders why women want to be treated as people kind of shows why the movement is around in the first place. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would feminists favor no-fault divorce?[edit]

Wow! It's almost as though feminists aren't purely motivated by financial self-interest! Cannot comprehend! Annquin (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You idiots take obvious bit too easily.[edit]

Yes, if this upsets you, you're an idiot. MRE is clearly shitposting to get a rise out of you. Ignore and move on.Keter (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The real reason why more women are working[edit]

No words[edit]

Why must you always assume all men and women treat all romantic relationships as a neverending power struggle? This suggests that you fundamentally misunderstand said relationships. FuzzyCatPotato of the Lavish Respiratory systems (talk/stalk) 15:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Power is always an issue in relationships, even if it's not made explicit. It can be hard power or soft power. Soft power would be, for example, when your girlfriend persuades you to take the relationship public. Then you could become more reluctant to leave the relationship, because you'll lose face if, a week after you fulfilled her fantasy by taking the microphone at the school assembly and saying in front of the assembled multitudes, "I love you, [name of girlfriend] and I want you to know, you're the only one for me, now and forever" you then decide to dump her. She's gotten you to lock yourself down by setting yourself up to be subjected to social pressure to stick with your decision.
When she says, "It would be good for our relationship if you would make that public commitment" it's another way of saying, "It'll be bad for our relationship if you don't make that public commitment" which is a kind of threat. Also, love is closely connected to power, because whoever loves their partner more is going to tend to have less power. Sad, but true. But what does love come down to? Partly it's having a lack of other options that would draw you away from them, which gives you less ability to leave. If you had 10 women out there who were just as good as your girlfriend, and wanted a relationship with you, you'd be in a position of greater power. Most women are aware that there are in fact a lot of great women out there who would want you just as much, which is why they're so into locking men down for a committed relationship, to the point that they might not open their hearts (or, in ages past, their legs) till they get that ring.
It used to be that it was mutually beneficial to give her that ring, because you knew that you could open your heart to her as well, and have kids with her, etc. and she wouldn't break your heart and take the kids away. Sadly, many men are finding that their marriages don't play out that way, even though they weren't particularly abusive. Personally, I think feminist-influenced society isn't doing enough to address or even acknowledge that mental illnesses are often causing women to leave relationships that otherwise could have been happy. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Power is an issue, but I think it's very much not the dominant one! <_< Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What are the more dominant issues? Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
mutual respect, basic human empathy, physical attraction, actually liking/loving your partner. Power is only an issue if it is an unequal, extremely dysfunctional relationship. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I think sometimes when people are in a position of having to submit to their partner, they convince themselves that they're doing it out of love and a belief that it's good and right. It makes it easier for them to obey cheerfully, which gets better results than if they were obviously disgruntled about it. When they gain more power, though, you see their true colors.
It's similar to how so many guys, when they go to prison, turn to Jesus because Jesus is all they have in there; but when they get out, it's back to the pimping and drug dealing. Their love for Jesus is conditioned on Jesus' not being too inconvenient to the life they want to lead. Or heck, it's similar to the friend from elementary school who is only your friend when other people who think you're uncool aren't around.
Of course, there are a lot of sincere Christians too, and a lot of sincere friends, and a lot of sincerely loving spouses. I just haven't been too impressed with what I've seen from American women thus far. Their love, care, faithfulness, and loyalty have tended to be VERY conditional on the relationship's fulfilling their unrealistic expectations (where those expectations came from, I'm not sure, but usually women expect to be able to get away with abrogating promises made before the marriage, and they want their guy to have power, prestige, a muscular body, and enough money to buy them horse farms and vacations to Mallorca), and their degree of patience, trust, and ability to control their own impulsive rage and spitefulness has been quite limited. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've not found what you say to be true. I've seen my romantic partners as my greatest friends, even before said romance; perhaps this is the difference. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found that's when the breakup is hardest: when you lose your best friend AND your romantic partner all at once, because they were the same person. And yeah, it can be quite bitter and acrimonious, because their attitude is, you were special to them, which was why it hurt all the more when you fucked them over (by either dumping them or behaving badly enough that they had to dump you). Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
what you describe is typical of someone bitter from a breaking up. It is my experience that you can never pin the blame down to one party, male or female, and does not help when you try to. You can probably point to specific arguments, specific grievances, but these arnt the cause, they are the symptom. Ultimately, if you cannot get past these things in a relationship, then its best that it ends, with no one to blame. Its not feminism. Its not nagging wives or abusive husbands, or anything more than two people not being the match they thought they were. I realise its hard for some folk to break up amicably, but if have kids, you have to at least try be civil in your dealings with an ex. Mens right in this and all instances, is just a crutch to deal with the fact the world does not work like it does in the moviesAMassiveGay (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Two people not being the match they thought they were, often boils down to immaturity, impatience, insecurity, etc. For the relationship to last, probably both people are going to need to make a lot of adjustments and sacrifices at various points, and even endure suffering. Which they even warn about at most church weddings when they quote 1 Corinthians 13:4: "Charity suffereth long, and is kind". I think these days, people's attitude is, if a relationship is causing you pain, you need to get out of it, because it's unhealthy. Actually, it's kinda normal that at times it's going to feel almost unbearable. It's going to make you confront not just your partner's issues but your own issues. In the end, it's quite an accomplishment for two people to be able to overcome all that and keep their promise to each other in a way that produces many years of happiness (despite the occasional rough patches).
These days, it's very common for women to be psychologically damaged to the point that their emotionality becomes a mental illness, interfering with what would otherwise be reasonably stable and harmonious relationships. Where feminism messes up is by validating every delusional/paranoid thought these women have, and encouraging or even forcing them to permanently leave relationships. Feminism will never tell women, "Hey, you're acting kinda crazy here, and treating your partner and kids like shit. You need to come back to reality." Feminism will say instead, "You're right; that man is an evil abuser and you need to leave him and be granted full custody of the kids" based solely on her word, disregarding whatever he may have to say about it, because of course anything that a man says lacks credibility. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 11:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
no. This is a delusion you have put in place so you dont have to face reality. Its so you dont have to change. Feminists are not mentally ill. Feminists are not making women ill and are not bresking up marriages. The world where wives obey husbands without question is gone. Isnt that a good thing? Isnt it better to have a partner who has there own mind, own opinions and contribute as much as you? Isnt it better that either of you can leave if its not working? Better than trapping each other in a marriage where you grow to hate one another. At least you know, that if they stay with you, its because they want to be with you rather than because they are trapped. if you are serious about mens rights, you should be an ardent feminist. There is so much common ground. Bullshit notions of masculinity harm men as mush as bullshit notions feminitity. Its trapping you in this cul-de-sac of bitterness and perpetual gender war where you stop seeing women as human beings, as people, but as the enemy. If you can only see relationships as power struggle, then your relationships will never work. If you lose that struggle, and you are subservient you will be bitter. If you win, your partner will be bitter. Move on. Be happy. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, believe me, I was quite interested in changing. But eventually I realized that changing wasn't going to make a difference. Some people just can't be pleased, no matter what you do to try to accommodate them. They think it's all an act, and that you're going to go back to your old ways. Feminists are some of the most cynical people out there; they really don't believe that men who are treated well by women have it in them to be good to women in return. That's why they don't treat men very well. They don't think it will pay off.
Women don't have to obey their husbands unquestioningly, in order for a marriage to work. The way I look at it is, it should be like a workplace where you can engage your boss in debate about what the best policy and procedures are, but ultimately, you have to accept his orders. Workplaces organized as a democracy usually don't work too well.
It does no good to move on if all you're doing is moving on to the same kind of woman who fucked you over the last time. But actually, I would love to move on; it's just that people (not you, but some people I'm currently unable to expel from my life) insist on rehashing the past constantly. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Antifeminism is the radical notion that women are people[edit]

There is no reason why there should be a million different organizations, agencies, and laws based on protecting women's rights and interests but so few based on protecting men's, other than political correctness that says that men already have the upper hand in every way. Men have special issues too such as suicide that they are more prone to, just as women have, say, an elevated risk of breast cancer to contend with. Other than disparate wages, rates of sexual assault, and power in society? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk)

Power and rates of sexual assault are dealt with in Essay:All in all, men and women have about equal power. Disparate wages are dealt with in Essay:If the average male worker were as productive as the average female worker, it would mean that men are inferior to women. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
...and they are so badly sourced, absurdly factually incorrect, and horribly written they are a laugh riot. EmeraldCityWanderer -18:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

50 Shades of Grey, and the reaction to it by women, has validated some of the PUA model[edit]

It's an inconvenient truth, but many times women like to be dominated. Objective (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Shotgun marriages[edit]

In a proportion of cases were nothing more than 'we've agreed to get married, so we might as well start living together now.' (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)