Who cares!! just dump the sinkie shits..
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Cheapskate Sinke Wants GF To Accept Low Standards For Wedding! Insincere!
- Thread starter JohnTan
- Start date
Who cares!! just dump the sinkie shits..
Actually, I don't think "loser" is the key.Yeah no marriage = loser is the key :/What they mean is that you are a loser that no girl would entrust her life to. So, they don't find you a reliable team player. You can only at most be one of their many workaholics, to be discarded once you fall sick from too much stress and binge eating and drinking.agree. but the society sees marriage as a success :(
When I attend interviews, some interviewer whack me say I have no objectives in life for not setting up a family and this is good enough for them not to hire me
I think the REAL key is that a single man does NOT have any liability to a wife AND children, and so he would lack the DESPERATION that his employer wants him to have while working.
A married man with children CANNOT afford to lose his job, so he would be desperate and SUBMISSIVE to his employer, which is what his employer LIKES because this means that it's EASY for his employer to ENSLAVE him, i.e. to do WHATEVER the employer WANTS.
And having at least one child is a MUST; because if there's no children, it's likely that his wife would also be a full-time employee of some company and, therefore, NOT dependent on her husband, who would therefore have MUCH less liability to her, since she would have sufficient income from her own employment.
The ESSENCE of ALL "employment" is SLAVERY, which has been ongoing around the world, in one form or another, throughout its thousands of years of recorded history.
"Employee" is just a POLITICALLY CORRECT (meaning HYPOCRITICAL) word for "SLAVE" in Western/Westernized developed countries around the world, to TRICK (or at least TRY to trick) slaves into THINKING that they are NOT slaves, so as to make the "employer's" FACE look "good", i.e. so that the "employer" can say to outsiders that he/she is "nice" to his/her "employees". This would then make the company look good, so as to attract customers to buy its products and/or services. And not only would the company remain profitable, it would also at least maintain the employer's social position (or "face", in layman's terms) and, therefore, POWER in society!
Whether or not one thinks this is an EVIL state of affairs, it is still at least the REALITY in which we live until we die. :(
Each person will just have to solve this problem in his/her own SPECIAL way!
Last edited:
Well, sometimes it is the women who is asking for all these. Definitely not the man.
Come to think of it. Just buying and renovating the house will cost you a fortune. Plus you got to go for honeymoon.
It cost a fortune to get married.
I like how equal rights for women does not touch on this?
Shouldn't the female pay for half the wedding cost since they wanna be equal to men? Oh wait that's not fair cos they only want the benefits
Shouldn't the female pay for half the wedding cost since they wanna be equal to men? Oh wait that's not fair cos they only want the benefits
agree. but the society sees marriage as a success :(
When I attend interviews, some interviewer whack me say I have no objectives in life for not setting up a family and this is good enough for them not to hire me
Society generally doesn't give a shit about you. Therefore, you probably should not give a shit about it, or what it deems are the 'norms'. Do not seek validation from society.
Marriage is expensive, and it is legally rigged against men.
Actually, I don't think "loser" is the key.
I think the REAL key is that a single man does NOT have any liability to a wife AND children, and so he would lack the DESPERATION that his employer wants him to have while working.
A married man with children CANNOT afford to lose his job, so he would be desperate and SUBMISSIVE to his employer, which is what his employer LIKES because this means that it's EASY for his employer to ENSLAVE him, i.e. to do WHATEVER the employer WANTS.
And having at least one child is a MUST; because if there's no children, it's likely that his wife would also be a full-time employee of some company and, therefore, NOT dependent on her husband, who would therefore have MUCH less liability to her, since she would have sufficient income from her own employment.
The ESSENCE of ALL "employment" is SLAVERY, which has been ongoing around the world, in one form or another, throughout its thousands of years of recorded history.
"Employee" is just a POLITICALLY CORRECT (meaning HYPOCRITICAL) word for "SLAVE" in Western/Westernized developed countries around the world, to TRICK (or at least TRY to trick) slaves into THINKING that they are NOT slaves, so as to make the "employer's" FACE look "good", i.e. so that the "employer" can say to outsiders that he/she is "nice" to his/her "employees". This would then make the company look good, so as to attract customers to buy its products and/or services. And not only would the company remain profitable, it would also at least maintain the employer's social position (or "face", in layman's terms) and, therefore, POWER in society!
Whether or not one thinks this is an EVIL state of affairs, it is still at least the REALITY in which we live until we die. :(
Each person will just have to solve this problem in his/her own SPECIAL way!
oh yeah, well written and think you are right, singles can afford to spite on them if they find being enslaved and exploit. In this case the employer feared being the loser to me so they dare not employ me
But then, if you the bride's father ... underwrite the wedding makan? :p...Over here in England and France we have no such thing.
New social norm (with westerners) is live with your partner and even have kids, darn the piece of paper. "Common law" recognition, even for corporate insurances and ICA's dependent pass for partner (of employment passes)
Actually, I don't think "loser" is the key.
I think the REAL key is that a single man does NOT have any liability to a wife AND children, and so he would lack the DESPERATION that his employer wants him to have while working.
A married man with children CANNOT afford to lose his job, so he would be desperate and SUBMISSIVE to his employer, which is what his employer LIKES because this means that it's EASY for his employer to ENSLAVE him, i.e. to do WHATEVER the employer WANTS.
And having at least one child is a MUST; because if there's no children, it's likely that his wife would also be a full-time employee of some company and, therefore, NOT dependent on her husband, who would therefore have MUCH less liability to her, since she would have sufficient income from her own employment.
The ESSENCE of ALL "employment" is SLAVERY, which has been ongoing around the world, in one form or another, throughout its thousands of years of recorded history.
"Employee" is just a POLITICALLY CORRECT (meaning HYPOCRITICAL) word for "SLAVE" in Western/Westernized developed countries around the world, to TRICK (or at least TRY to trick) slaves into THINKING that they are NOT slaves, so as to make the "employer's" FACE look "good", i.e. so that the "employer" can say to outsiders that he/she is "nice" to his/her "employees". This would then make the company look good, so as to attract customers to buy its products and/or services. And not only would the company remain profitable, it would also at least maintain the employer's social position (or "face", in layman's terms) and, therefore, POWER in society!
Whether or not one thinks this is an EVIL state of affairs, it is still at least the REALITY in which we live until we die. :(
Each person will just have to solve this problem in his/her own SPECIAL way!
i like what you say.. same sentiment as mine...upzz!!!
It all starts from the top. The PAP ministars keep demanding more money ...of course, everyone else follows that example.
The smaller the dick, the bigger the ring.
In ang mor lands. .the brides father pays for the wedding. So how come in Singkieland weddings n marriages are so bastardised? That is men pay for the wedding. Groom give the gifts. N women got women's crapster? No wonder Singkieland is fuck up.
I think you meant Ah Neh Land.. first time i hear that ang moh land, bride's dad pays for the wedding. Occasionally, bride's dad will offer to pay and that is more the exception than the norm, and definitely not a tradition for bride's father to pay for the wedding.
Dowry maybe reversed, but traditionally the bride's family underwrites the reception and makan. But "co-shared" these days? :p
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/wedding-expenses-what-the-brides-family-pays.html
http://weddings.about.com/od/getorganized/a/WhoPays.htm
In a highly advanced civilization, money is not the exchange medium. People do work for the betterment of the society. Every individual will have abundance of food, water and lots of leisure time. Work is a joy and do not need to work so much due to highly advanced technology.
In order to make money when doing business, one has to sell something above its face value. This equates to cheating.
