Are most married couples unhappy?
- Thread starter Zenta
- Start date
John Dodds
Robin
wwtl said:
My life has improved immeasurably since I walked away from the red pill 'Christian virgin' fantasy. In the past 10 years, I've married an Asian girl half my age, we've had a child, and I've taken in her daughter. She's a (twisted*) Buddhist, I'm not required to participate. And she isn't entitled to anything I own if it all goes wrong, the 3rd world doesn't give guys assets away to women they've slept with.
twisted*
She worships Buddha in the incarnation of Kali, chanting, spells, possession and occasional blood sacrifices, more like Voodoo IMHO.
zeke_a88 said:
We progressed so far in civilization that the most life-threatening thing a man can encounter in the West is civil marriage.
It's not about "convincing". It's not about tricking young inexperienced men with wrong promises into marriage. I'm all in for being openly honest about the huge risks, because that makes husbands a more valuable resource again instead of the current abundance.
One thing not to do is to blame the effects of divorce on women. Women have no power. It's the state stripping you from your assets to redistribute it to women. But it's doing so anyway all the time. It just becomes more obvious and "personal" with a divorce.
But the main fact to accept is that one cannot predict the future. Third world country not stripping assets from "rich" Westerners might suddenly decide to do so.
When it really comes down to it, most people are nominal believers, at best, in anything they spew. I'm not trying to go "No true Scotsman" fallacy with this, I'm just stating the real world examples that all of us know. This is why "identity" and thus self-ID, is bullshit: look at someone's actions.
If someone is devoted, honest and at least tries to be genuine to his faith, then on one level I consider it a win. The problem is that one hold may hold this consistency with asinine religions, thought to be certain most are pagan voodoo stuff at root. But back to what the issue at hand is, and as wwtl points out, how could you expect things to go right in a subverted culture, and particularly if you aren't both the same religion supporting one another as a function of the way that you believe life should be?
With good or decent culture, people didn't realize how they fell into it by pure chance. At this point, it's beyond a bad casino bet to expect good outcomes without such a strategy. I don't think this is very controversial, given the data and looking around at this society.
If someone is devoted, honest and at least tries to be genuine to his faith, then on one level I consider it a win. The problem is that one hold may hold this consistency with asinine religions, thought to be certain most are pagan voodoo stuff at root. But back to what the issue at hand is, and as wwtl points out, how could you expect things to go right in a subverted culture, and particularly if you aren't both the same religion supporting one another as a function of the way that you believe life should be?
With good or decent culture, people didn't realize how they fell into it by pure chance. At this point, it's beyond a bad casino bet to expect good outcomes without such a strategy. I don't think this is very controversial, given the data and looking around at this society.
American, been married 20 years to a great Christian woman. You never know for sure since you aren't in their home, but most Christians I know seem happy in their marriages. Don't believe the MGTOW stuff that all women are slags. They're all sinners, but they aren't all slags.
There are tradeoffs in that you can't chase after the latest cutie, but that's emptiness anyway, just as you've found. Lewis: “I believe, to be sure, that any man who reaches Heaven will find that what he abandoned (even in plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing: that the kernel of what he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in 'the High Countries.'"
There are tradeoffs in that you can't chase after the latest cutie, but that's emptiness anyway, just as you've found. Lewis: “I believe, to be sure, that any man who reaches Heaven will find that what he abandoned (even in plucking out his right eye) was precisely nothing: that the kernel of what he was really seeking even in his most depraved wishes will be there, beyond expectation, waiting for him in 'the High Countries.'"
wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:
We progressed so far in civilization that the most life-threatening thing a man can encounter in the West is civil marriage.
It's not about "convincing". It's not about tricking young inexperienced men with wrong promises into marriage. I'm all in for being openly honest about the huge risks, because that makes husbands a more valuable resource again instead of the current abundance.
One thing not to do is to blame the effects of divorce on women. Women have no power. It's the state stripping you from your assets to redistribute it to women. But it's doing so anyway all the time. It just becomes more obvious and "personal" with a divorce.
But the main fact to accept is that one cannot predict the future. Third world country not stripping assets from "rich" Westerners might suddenly decide to do so.
Bullshit, tell that to the good men thrown in jail and treated like criminals because they can't pay their support to the wife, or the men that off themselves when their wife takes the kids, takes everything and leaves them with literally nothing. Yes, it is actually life threatening for many men.
Don't deflect the responsibility of women all to the state, that's a complete cop out. The state gives the women the power to strip men bare of their livelihood but it's still up to the woman whether or not she decides to pull the trigger and invoke the powers of the state.
I'm not satisfied with MGTOW answers but in this climate tradcons really do a shitty job of selling marriage to men with a straight face. Some of these answers almost sound like they come out of PragerU
I just think of that Bill Burr joke;
"If they told you 50% of the parachutes weren't going to open, I'd say 'Fuck that, I'm not going!'"
And of the 50% that don't break, 40% won't open completely?
Pfff...
I was listening to a Jordan Peterson audiobook this week too, where there's a whole section on how not to end up like 'two cats in a barrel'.
A horrible, horrible reality that too many guys live with, I'd bet.
'Are any couples happily married?'
People's expectations are different now. I'd say it used to be that most were, because it was expected to become a balanced partnership, the woman was expected to support her man, no-one got divorced just because romance had died... but now, it's such a shit deal for a guy.
She can take off with half your assets and your kids at any time for no reason? She can deny you everything for decades and then take off 'cos its easier? Why would a woman suffer ANY irritation and NOT just do that.
Especially later in life. For a girl 30+, there's no risk just to sign up with a guy, knowing either way you've won.
Makes no sense to me.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
"If they told you 50% of the parachutes weren't going to open, I'd say 'Fuck that, I'm not going!'"
And of the 50% that don't break, 40% won't open completely?
Pfff...
I was listening to a Jordan Peterson audiobook this week too, where there's a whole section on how not to end up like 'two cats in a barrel'.
A horrible, horrible reality that too many guys live with, I'd bet.
'Are any couples happily married?'
People's expectations are different now. I'd say it used to be that most were, because it was expected to become a balanced partnership, the woman was expected to support her man, no-one got divorced just because romance had died... but now, it's such a shit deal for a guy.
She can take off with half your assets and your kids at any time for no reason? She can deny you everything for decades and then take off 'cos its easier? Why would a woman suffer ANY irritation and NOT just do that.
Especially later in life. For a girl 30+, there's no risk just to sign up with a guy, knowing either way you've won.
Makes no sense to me.
Maybe I'm wrong though.
zeke_a88 said:wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:
We progressed so far in civilization that the most life-threatening thing a man can encounter in the West is civil marriage.
It's not about "convincing". It's not about tricking young inexperienced men with wrong promises into marriage. I'm all in for being openly honest about the huge risks, because that makes husbands a more valuable resource again instead of the current abundance.
One thing not to do is to blame the effects of divorce on women. Women have no power. It's the state stripping you from your assets to redistribute it to women. But it's doing so anyway all the time. It just becomes more obvious and "personal" with a divorce.
But the main fact to accept is that one cannot predict the future. Third world country not stripping assets from "rich" Westerners might suddenly decide to do so.
Bullshit, tell that to the good men thrown in jail and treated like criminals because they can't pay their support to the wife, or the men that off themselves when their wife takes the kids, takes everything and leaves them with literally nothing. Yes, it is actually life threatening for many men.
Don't deflect the responsibility of women all to the state, that's a complete cop out. The state gives the women the power to strip men bare of their livelihood but it's still up to the woman whether or not she decides to pull the trigger and invoke the powers of the state.
I'm not satisfied with MGTOW answers but in this climate tradcons really do a shitty job of selling marriage to men with a straight face. Some of these answers almost sound like they come out of PragerU
The typical MGTOW proposes building up wealth and then keep it by not marrying and not reproducing, while "having fun" with that nihilistic-hedonistic outlook. An outlook which - at my mid 30s - spiritually started to look like being a divorced man without having had a marriage beforehand.
Fact is: You lose your pre-martial wealth by marrying (not by divorce). That needs to be communicated clearly. And the correct answer to that assessment is that building up pre-martial assets has become entirely pointless. Which is the reason why I chose not to do so. The Black Pill turned me into a frugal lifestyle, because I realized without a LTR I don't need to participate in the rat race at all. Only produce the minimum to survive, then spend most of my time with spiritual search (which lead to Christ).
So, that means I'm not a really good deal for a gold digger now without a house, a car and a boat to put a wife in it. But it also means that I don't have to give a fuck about protecting my assets from divorce, because all my assets are a rental apartment, a car sharing ride and a little pile of cash. A nightmare to consumerism.
For me the work supporting a family starts with the marriage being consummated and the first child being born. Not beforehand.
wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:
We progressed so far in civilization that the most life-threatening thing a man can encounter in the West is civil marriage.
It's not about "convincing". It's not about tricking young inexperienced men with wrong promises into marriage. I'm all in for being openly honest about the huge risks, because that makes husbands a more valuable resource again instead of the current abundance.
One thing not to do is to blame the effects of divorce on women. Women have no power. It's the state stripping you from your assets to redistribute it to women. But it's doing so anyway all the time. It just becomes more obvious and "personal" with a divorce.
But the main fact to accept is that one cannot predict the future. Third world country not stripping assets from "rich" Westerners might suddenly decide to do so.
Bullshit, tell that to the good men thrown in jail and treated like criminals because they can't pay their support to the wife, or the men that off themselves when their wife takes the kids, takes everything and leaves them with literally nothing. Yes, it is actually life threatening for many men.
Don't deflect the responsibility of women all to the state, that's a complete cop out. The state gives the women the power to strip men bare of their livelihood but it's still up to the woman whether or not she decides to pull the trigger and invoke the powers of the state.
I'm not satisfied with MGTOW answers but in this climate tradcons really do a shitty job of selling marriage to men with a straight face. Some of these answers almost sound like they come out of PragerU
The typical MGTOW proposes building up wealth and then keep it by not marrying and not reproducing, while "having fun" with that nihilistic-hedonistic outlook. An outlook which - at my mid 30s - spiritually started to look like being a divorced man without having had a marriage beforehand.
Fact is: You lose your pre-martial wealth by marrying (not by divorce). That needs to be communicated clearly. And the correct answer to that assessment is that building up pre-martial assets has become entirely pointless. Which is the reason why I chose not to do so. The Black Pill turned me into a frugal lifestyle, because I realized without a LTR I don't need to participate in the rat race at all. Only produce the minimum to survive, then spend most of my time with spiritual search (which lead to Christ).
So, that means I'm not a really good deal for a gold digger now without a house, a car and a boat to put a wife in it. But it also means that I don't have to give a fuck about protecting my assets from divorce, because all my assets are a rental apartment, a car sharing ride and a little pile of cash. A nightmare to consumerism.
For me the work supporting a family starts with the marriage being consummated and the first child being born. Not beforehand.
So you are essentially advocating a missionary type of lifestyle. I've encountered couples and kids of those people and they seem happy on the whole. This might be a strategy to pursue for some, but it might make for difficult living conditions which few women would sign up for, not to mention many men.
bacon said:wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:wwtl said:zeke_a88 said:
We progressed so far in civilization that the most life-threatening thing a man can encounter in the West is civil marriage.
It's not about "convincing". It's not about tricking young inexperienced men with wrong promises into marriage. I'm all in for being openly honest about the huge risks, because that makes husbands a more valuable resource again instead of the current abundance.
One thing not to do is to blame the effects of divorce on women. Women have no power. It's the state stripping you from your assets to redistribute it to women. But it's doing so anyway all the time. It just becomes more obvious and "personal" with a divorce.
But the main fact to accept is that one cannot predict the future. Third world country not stripping assets from "rich" Westerners might suddenly decide to do so.
Bullshit, tell that to the good men thrown in jail and treated like criminals because they can't pay their support to the wife, or the men that off themselves when their wife takes the kids, takes everything and leaves them with literally nothing. Yes, it is actually life threatening for many men.
Don't deflect the responsibility of women all to the state, that's a complete cop out. The state gives the women the power to strip men bare of their livelihood but it's still up to the woman whether or not she decides to pull the trigger and invoke the powers of the state.
I'm not satisfied with MGTOW answers but in this climate tradcons really do a shitty job of selling marriage to men with a straight face. Some of these answers almost sound like they come out of PragerU
The typical MGTOW proposes building up wealth and then keep it by not marrying and not reproducing, while "having fun" with that nihilistic-hedonistic outlook. An outlook which - at my mid 30s - spiritually started to look like being a divorced man without having had a marriage beforehand.
Fact is: You lose your pre-martial wealth by marrying (not by divorce). That needs to be communicated clearly. And the correct answer to that assessment is that building up pre-martial assets has become entirely pointless. Which is the reason why I chose not to do so. The Black Pill turned me into a frugal lifestyle, because I realized without a LTR I don't need to participate in the rat race at all. Only produce the minimum to survive, then spend most of my time with spiritual search (which lead to Christ).
So, that means I'm not a really good deal for a gold digger now without a house, a car and a boat to put a wife in it. But it also means that I don't have to give a fuck about protecting my assets from divorce, because all my assets are a rental apartment, a car sharing ride and a little pile of cash. A nightmare to consumerism.
For me the work supporting a family starts with the marriage being consummated and the first child being born. Not beforehand.
So you are essentially advocating a missionary type of lifestyle. I've encountered couples and kids of those people and they seem happy on the whole. This might be a strategy to pursue for some, but it might make for difficult living conditions which few women would sign up for, not to mention many men.
Of course, that separates the wheat from the chaff. Which is kind of the point. There are only a few women and men actually fit for marriage.
I'm not proposing going as far as I did for everyone, but the typical beta provider tries the opposite extreme: Working his ass off to produce as much pre-martial wealth as possible to look like a good provider to a woman finished with the carousel. And then complains when it's all stripped from him.
There is nothing wrong with working your ass off once you have large family to support. But as a bachelor IMHO it makes no sense. And it can only happen, because in the West marriage gets delayed over a decade from when it's supposed to happen. While both young men and women are encouraged stay single with casual sex, so they can have a "career" to support that doomed lifestyle.
What we actually need is a new, standardized, non-state sanctioned, 'marriage' contract for red-pilled men.
Such a contract would replace state marriage, so it is a form of private marriage, just like many muslims do in the UK, where they do the religious ceremony but the state registration may happen later (or not at all).
This contract would set out the terms of the 'marriage' and what is expected from both sides (raising children, in case you there is any confusion).
Basically, western man is too soft, and not willing to fight enough the system, this is a war and men need to be putting in more effort to make their voices heard and their views represented. Men need to fight each step of the way. Too many men think life is just about making money and then 'being set'.
The best thing any man can do right now is undermine the system as much as possible.
If your a high value, red-pilled man, then prove it. Get your girl to sign that new marriage contract.
I see a lot of men in the community (and outside) bragging about their alphaness and how many notches they got. I see few men bragging about that marriage contract they got their wife to sign that basically has the marriage on our, red-pilled terms.
Men should opt-out of state marriage and only take part in 'private' marriage contracts.
Such a contract would replace state marriage, so it is a form of private marriage, just like many muslims do in the UK, where they do the religious ceremony but the state registration may happen later (or not at all).
This contract would set out the terms of the 'marriage' and what is expected from both sides (raising children, in case you there is any confusion).
Basically, western man is too soft, and not willing to fight enough the system, this is a war and men need to be putting in more effort to make their voices heard and their views represented. Men need to fight each step of the way. Too many men think life is just about making money and then 'being set'.
The best thing any man can do right now is undermine the system as much as possible.
If your a high value, red-pilled man, then prove it. Get your girl to sign that new marriage contract.
I see a lot of men in the community (and outside) bragging about their alphaness and how many notches they got. I see few men bragging about that marriage contract they got their wife to sign that basically has the marriage on our, red-pilled terms.
Men should opt-out of state marriage and only take part in 'private' marriage contracts.
^ Absolutely love the idea... but even a laymen like me can see the "she agreed to this contract under duress & emotional blackmail excuse". I will get married one day so I'm not a MGTOW... but a lot if their talking points are Bang On! If a man gets divorced... there's no way to escape a ugly split if the ex want it!
Delete Double Post
I would like to see a situation where male contraceptives are reliable, and nearly all men are aware of red pill truths about women's behavior and marriage risks.
In this environment, I'd like to see a new marriage contract that gives the man rights to custody of his children, and strong protections against divorce. In turn, the wife would be protected if he was the one who filed for divorce without just cause.
Now, with male contraceptives and a red pill understanding, men would refuse to impregnate any woman without having this new contract in place. If a woman wasn't willing to agree to the new terms, she could just go without bearing any children, because no man would willingly go off the male contraceptives with her in the absence of the contract.
This is my dream future, although I am too old to see it happen and reap the benefits.
In this environment, I'd like to see a new marriage contract that gives the man rights to custody of his children, and strong protections against divorce. In turn, the wife would be protected if he was the one who filed for divorce without just cause.
Now, with male contraceptives and a red pill understanding, men would refuse to impregnate any woman without having this new contract in place. If a woman wasn't willing to agree to the new terms, she could just go without bearing any children, because no man would willingly go off the male contraceptives with her in the absence of the contract.
This is my dream future, although I am too old to see it happen and reap the benefits.
scenicway
Sparrow
I’ve never heard of premarital assets being stripped or shared. Can you elaborate where you heard this?
The typical in California is to split post marital assets 50/50 and pay alimony for half the marriage length if the marriage is under 10 years. If the marriage is over 10 years then the length is the judges descretion. This is standard.
As to the thread title, there are plenty of happily married people. Marry for character not looks. Make sure you fully vet them. It’s not rocket surgery.
The typical in California is to split post marital assets 50/50 and pay alimony for half the marriage length if the marriage is under 10 years. If the marriage is over 10 years then the length is the judges descretion. This is standard.
As to the thread title, there are plenty of happily married people. Marry for character not looks. Make sure you fully vet them. It’s not rocket surgery.
Someone here doubted the happiness studies they had over the decades:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
There were not long ago great graphs on google going back to the 1950s, but Google seems to have scrubbed the data, but even in the 1970s it was better.
Bit this is how it went down - relentless programming to tell women that they missed out on something for not getting a "career", for being kept in marriage hell, for not having the hotter more successful husband!
It was all a ruse just as they knew exactly how no-fault divorce would destroy marriage giving women way too much power - this all coincided with the relentless propaganda, with the call to jump on the sex carousel until the end 20s.
Babyboomer men were just convinced with the stupid free love mantra while in reality they had way more power and satisfaction in the monogamous marriage bond as well.
Obviously now they have destroyed the institution so that Red Pilled men cannot really get married in many Western countries, but this frankly is just a by-product. The bigger destruction happend in the female mentality while the legal issue is just the tinder to the bonfire.
Go and watch that takedown of the movie Stepford Wives - the title is fitting.
It's really telling that the hostile elite says: "Trust us, you are unhappy! You will be much more happy as a strong independent woman hopping on the carousel until your 30s and then divorcing your husband in your late 30s!" They mainly had to convince the women while giving them also the legal power to blow up marriages and cripple husbands. The men went along initially thinking that free love would men more sex for them while in reality only the 10-20% got far more sex with women who they would have had married before in their prime in the 1960s. Later it was too late to stop the genie as more and more men got gang-raped and women suddenly were dissatisfied with everything. The elite also got their will and could finally lower the real wage costs as women pushed into the labor force and undercut male labor before mass migration could do it stronger in the coming decades.
There is nothing wrong with the original marriage institution - however this kind of marriage is akin to shitty gay marriage which is more like room-mates sharing rent and fucking constantly on the side.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
There were not long ago great graphs on google going back to the 1950s, but Google seems to have scrubbed the data, but even in the 1970s it was better.
Bit this is how it went down - relentless programming to tell women that they missed out on something for not getting a "career", for being kept in marriage hell, for not having the hotter more successful husband!
It was all a ruse just as they knew exactly how no-fault divorce would destroy marriage giving women way too much power - this all coincided with the relentless propaganda, with the call to jump on the sex carousel until the end 20s.
Babyboomer men were just convinced with the stupid free love mantra while in reality they had way more power and satisfaction in the monogamous marriage bond as well.
Obviously now they have destroyed the institution so that Red Pilled men cannot really get married in many Western countries, but this frankly is just a by-product. The bigger destruction happend in the female mentality while the legal issue is just the tinder to the bonfire.
Go and watch that takedown of the movie Stepford Wives - the title is fitting.
It's really telling that the hostile elite says: "Trust us, you are unhappy! You will be much more happy as a strong independent woman hopping on the carousel until your 30s and then divorcing your husband in your late 30s!" They mainly had to convince the women while giving them also the legal power to blow up marriages and cripple husbands. The men went along initially thinking that free love would men more sex for them while in reality only the 10-20% got far more sex with women who they would have had married before in their prime in the 1960s. Later it was too late to stop the genie as more and more men got gang-raped and women suddenly were dissatisfied with everything. The elite also got their will and could finally lower the real wage costs as women pushed into the labor force and undercut male labor before mass migration could do it stronger in the coming decades.
There is nothing wrong with the original marriage institution - however this kind of marriage is akin to shitty gay marriage which is more like room-mates sharing rent and fucking constantly on the side.
Scorpio Rising
Sparrow
A while back I posted about our wild parties in the 1970's which was the decade when things really began to cut loose, not the 60's. Before the so called sexual revolution began in earnest a kind of reverse 80/20 rule was in effect. For generations the worst thing that could happen to a "good girl" was to lose her reputation. You had to be going steady if not engaged (still lots of young marriages back then) to have a chance. Even then sex was doled out in slow steady increments, often stopping short of going "all the way." The 20% or so of young women who would "put out" were still for the most part not wildly indiscriminate. The 70's began to chip away at that but even then no one was accumulating triple digit notch counts and eventually almost everyone got married and at least tried to settle down. I actually think the 80's was in some ways a bit more conservative than the 70's, the AIDS scare having more than a little to do with that. In the 90's I believe is when things really started going crazy. Despite it all many Boomers had Gen X and even Millennial kids who followed a more or less traditional path to marriage. I know a lot of these kids that are now adults making their way in modern day America. As for your pro traditional view point I am in now way criticizing or disagreeing. Yes today's modern women is much less happy than their mothers and grandmothers were.Simeon_Strangelight said:
John Dodds
Robin
Simeon_Strangelight said:
Boomer here .........
Nobody convinced me of anything, I complied with the laws, or I went to jail.
No free love or sex parties either.