Why American men are getting less marriageable

look at this here

on the old board I posted up links on the current issue of west indian fertility. there is in the west indies fertility clinics springing up in all islands. imagine that..in the west indies, full if people with melanin, all very fecund over historical time..suddenly cant reproduce like they used to

why? the rate is like 35-40% for west indian males..all of them..every ethnic group.

so why is that then? are west indians marrying less? I don't know! are they divorcing more? I don't know that too at this time. but the population is dropping

one Dr with the Planned Parenthood monster NGO advised Trinidadians to watch their consumption of white flour. mmm! at the time I was skeptical of her advice thinking that the west indian people had been poisoned by GMO corn as developed by a company called Epycite around 1999/200...and bought out by Monsanto

EPYCITE developed a corm hybrid that kills all human ability to reproduce when humans eat it..just one ear alone can do the trick. that is why at the time Zimbabwe in their famine refused all american food aid. they would rather die of starvation than eat american grain

I did not think it was the flour because I knew wheat had not been gene-splice. whet is still not GMO but that misleads about wheat. the Chemical companies have used normal hybridization to produce wheat hybrids that has the same effect on people who eat bread. and we all eat bread..well not me anymore. the simple roti we eat all the time could be reducing male sperm count and making it very hard to reproduce

and that is only a point to start with. all GMO could be doing the same thing..as well as the chemicals used in the agriculture along with GMO seed. the residues of those chemicals are disrupters of the human genome to such an extent that what they are finding out so far is frightening

elsewhere in the world wherever america is involved in war they use nuclear weaponry that disrupts the human body. in parts of Iraq and central europe women have been advised and directed by doctors not to have children given the flood of deformities they have been having since the war and the use of american Depleted Uranium

In fact the women in all such ares made the decision not to have children before the doctors stepped in to advise them against. they knew what was happening and stopped getting pregnant.

so already in great parts of the middle east marriages and families have stopped. and everywhere america has dropped bombs its the same situation. so for sure Libya is totally poisoned by Depleted Uranium...Syria and Somali too

that is what the white man is doing around the planet..among the utterly horrific and incurable things. there is no medication and repair to theses things. the people are done, finished. there is no correction to the ravages of GMO foods and the chemicals used in their production..in america and canada..and wherever GMO's are produced..in the west indies where USA/Canadian produced food is also eaten..and for the citizens of america and canada who cat escape the GMO food

the white man has become the father in the human house and he is perfectly crazy..absolutely mad.

and black people have become as insane as the white man...chinese and indos as well. indeed chinese and indos have been very crazy themselves all along..indos in particular

the only people who had a culture and social force to defeat and civilize the white population were black people. and we were defeated...and with that defeat went human chances in existence..our very existence in fact

but the question in the lead post of this thread cannot be dealt with in isolation...must be put into its proper context, expanded and checked out as far as we may be able to go with it

the question may be posed wrong: it is not that the men are getting less marriageable but that society is fucked just about beyond repair and normal human behavior is no longer a tenable way to live

so people are avoiding old traditions ways that kept life going. man cant even get a decent job to pay off his student loan, living in his parents basement, far less get a woman and marry her and start a family. who in the hell is now able to pay for that.

to solve the problem of women getting an education that does not lock them into eternal debt based penury the government recommended the system of "Sugar Daddy" whereby a young woman can pair up with an older rich man who would pay for her education in exchange for her time whenever he needed it.

they never said for what reason he would need her time but if he is paying her bills we know don't we. so there we have it..legalized, government recommended prostitution in education. but that is only half the problem. what do all students do when there are no jobs after school now matter who paid for their education

as far as I have heard the "sugar Daddy' System is working well.. going great guns. some girls have turned into very good students operating 4-5 Daddies at the same time

You may want to rethink that second walk down the aisle if you are approaching retirement, and counting on income from Social Security.


If you're eligible to collect benefits on your ex-spouse's record, you will no longer be eligible for those benefits if you remarry.

That rule, plus others, is one of the reasons financial advisors like Stacy Francis, president and CEO of Francis Financial in New York City, sit down with savers to plot out a careful strategy when it comes to claiming Social Security.

Knowing these strategies becomes more important with the rise of gray divorce. The divorce rate for adults age 50 and over has nearly doubled in the past 25 years, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

To be eligible to claim on your ex-spouse's Social Security benefits, whereby you receive half of their benefit amount, you must have been married at least 10 years and be at least 62 years of age.

You have the ability to choose between your own Social Security benefit or your ex-spouse's. Once you remarry, however, that choice is gone.

"This is where it pays to live in sin," Francis said. "If you get remarried, generally you can't collect on the benefits of your former spouse."

That changes if your second marriage ends because you get divorced, the marriage is annulled or your second spouse passes away.

At that point, if you were married to each spouse for 10 years or longer, you can choose between the two spouses' benefits, Francis said.

The benefit amounts do not change if more than one ex-spouse claims on one individual's records. Francis said she knows of one man whose four ex-wives were all eligible for the same spousal benefits on his record.

When to wait

If you're close to the 10-year mark and contemplating a divorce, you may want to wait until you reach that anniversary.

That is what financial advisor Mark Smith, president of Vision Wealth Planning in Glen Allen, Virginia, said he saw one couple do. The wife prolonged making the divorce final for nine months in order to make sure she would qualify for benefits on her soon-to-be ex-husband's record.

If you do get remarried, you are eligible for spousal benefits on your new spouse's record, Smith said. You generally must be married for one year to be eligible (assuming you are still married and have reached age 62.)

"It wouldn't be noticeable unless your second spouse earns noticeably less than your first spouse," Smith said.

Survivor benefits

If your ex-spouse is deceased, however, you can claim survivor benefits starting from age 60.

Remarrying before age 60 will cut off your eligibility to collect on your first spouse's record if they are deceased, Smith noted.

If you wait until age 60 or after to remarry, you can still collect those survivor benefits from your previous spouse.

"When you have access to more than one type of benefit, that's when you have to figure out which one is best to claim and in which order," Smith said.

You could lose out if you don't take that advice, noted Mike Piershale, president of Piershale Financial Group in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

Piershale knows a couple who got married in their late 50s, making the individual with a deceased previous spouse ineligible for survivor benefits.

"If they had just waited until 60 to get married, they could have gotten a survivor benefit," Piershale said.