|
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
Wuf, your entire argument rests on the premise that he had an obligation to tell her about his money. Since you haven't proven that premise, the rest of your argument is void.
I'm not basing it on that. He's allowed to not tell her about his money.
But what he's not allowed to have is the moral high ground when his ex posts about how she learned that he misrepresented facts, his motivations, and his character to somebody he treated as a partner. When she wanted something more, he HAD that something more yet chose to let her believe he didn't. What he deserves is everybody else saying "well the guy is clearly a douchebag but at least he's entitled to being a douchebag". Sure, maybe he didn't like her enough to fix the situation created by his misrepresentation. In that case he's an even bigger douchebag who engages partnerships with people he is intent on abandoning when it suits him.
What upsets me is how this juvenile is being championed within a gender context (not by you). If this story is an example of a guy representing what being a man is about and representing the flaws of women, we're fucking doomed. No wonder the state of masculinity in our culture is in such a bad way. If this is what's offered up as a gender dynamic, we're demonstrating exactly how emasculated we've already become.
|