Reasons to get married
- Thread starter RealDeal
- Start date
- Status
"No decent women" rings about as true as "no such thing as game".
Both read "unwilling to make compromises to my current lifestyle to achieve the things I want".
Both read "unwilling to make compromises to my current lifestyle to achieve the things I want".
BassPlayaYo
Kingfisher
Leonard D Neubache said:
Marriage is a legal contract, it's not a relationship. If you willingly agree to a contract that's not in your best interest, most people will think you're a fool, but everyday men sign on the dotted line and wake up to the cold realities of what they've gotten themselves into many years later. The brainwashing is deep and entrenched when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a bad deal because it favors women, plain and simple. What deal would you or anyone here accept that clearly favored the other person?
BassPlayaYo said:
I would personally prefer that the state had nothing to do with spiritual matters, and Christian (and pagan) marriage predate any of our governments.
That said, it is part of the foundations of our society. You can complain about it being a bad contract but I challenge you to find a modern, prosperous society that doesn't legally enshrine it.
Of course you are well within your rights to declare that we have reached a cultural "Mad Max" point of no return and simply refuse to participate traditionally in any and all facets of our society that built the greatest civilisations in the world. You can declare "it's every man for himself" if you like, but you'll find it a pretty lonely life. Washed up cat ladies aren't the only ones to regret never starting a traditional family.
Perhaps I'm biased given that I live in the sticks where ironically the principles that our civilisation was built on are still adhered to.
BassPlayaYo
Kingfisher
Leonard D Neubache said:
Like I said the brainwashing on this is deep...
You can have a lasting relationship, children, the works without getting married, not getting married does not result in you having a lonely life. The marriage contract is specifically designed to protect the interests of women, an attempt to equalize the power differential between them so that when the marriage ends the woman can still be "equal" to the man even if she wasn't equal to him when the marriage began. The marriage contract is all about raising the status of women at the expense of men.
Stop using talking points of the marriage advocates.
Leonard D Neubache said:
If we take as a starting point the very fact that "women" are indeed not at the center of the issue, then, and only then we can actually have a debate.
So only there we can agree, but unfortunately, that is where it all ends.
If we take as a starting point the realistic approach to nature of women, one devoid of all sentimentality and chivalry, then we can agree that male assessment of women is same here as is in Japan. Remember, not for whiteness, or being German or being rich or poor or successful or religious. Of being a woman.
That being said, the entirety of the debate gravitates about how society defines marriage. Today's marriage perhaps is overwhelmingly defined by women, and that exactly is what we mean by current definition of marriage. While women are same everywhere, definition of marriage is not.
There are by no means, in any society, two definitions or three definitions of marriage. Unless some society has by miracle two parallel legal systems influenced by two parallel cultural foundations.
Delusional, false judgement that sanity of marriage today depends of "quality" of a chosen bride, is a straightforward affirmation of matriarchy and female centricity in domain of public life and is in direct opposition to judgment that traditional societies held, that we supposedly look to as inspiration. These societies defined marriage from purely idealistic, hence masculine viewpoint, stripped of all sentimentality, typical nordic chivalry, servility and submission. Women were objects of marriage, not a conditio sine qua non. The whole concept of marriage was a concept of woman being sold to a suitable groom, for the whole purpose of advancement of traditional families.
Hence, the attitude that we need to make work to make ourselves appear desirable to women, by displaying set of traits they find desirable, is completely disastrous. Not only is women's judgment on what is important completely flawed and superficial, but males who try to achieve that standard are inevitably leading themselves to their doom. If not financial, than to spiritual doom, guaranteed. You see, it was women's father in past, that decided whether a man was suitable, and he surely didn't make that decision by trying to find out whether a man will willingly spend his hard earned property on amusements and how high is his social status among the plebs.
Anybody who figures out the above, has a rather easy task to figure out how such marriage, from bottom to top, leads to undermining, and ultimately destroying any society, and how a woman at it's center, acting as a completely independent agent with her own individual ego, is a dangerous foe. And how "choosing a right woman" is a completely delusional concept which does not at all grasp the scale of the problem, which surpasses any individual situation.
All of this being said, i completely support marriage and reproduction in their traditional form. But unfortunately, i cannot honestly, without issuing a grand lie, recommend it to anyone today, and still wish him fortune in life.
Leonard D Neubache said:
I believe even the owner of this website came to a conclusion that dropping your intellectual goals in order to submit majority of your 24 hour daytime and life to poosy chasing was a complete waste
You can still live a Masculine life in the west when it comes to the women you allow into your life. It requires the adoption of ultra masculine rules. Combines the RP rules of Neomasculinity with the independent wise guy's manual which is one of my side projects.
The typical wiseguy has a mega GAF attitude with women, the smart wiseguys - sons and grandsons of the originals have taken the rules they grew up with into business - particularly businesses where they depend on NO ONE else for a number of reasons that are several chapters in the IWGM - Independent Wise Guy's Manual.
All goes back to the wisdom of the ancients Sun Tsu, Ghenghis Kahn, The Ceasars, and Niccolo Machiavelli who wrote the first Wise Guy's handbook "The Prince" ... The Prince dealt with all of the ways to gain and maintain power which is remarkably salient to this day. What he did not cover because the thought of it was unthinkable as unnecessary in his time is what we refer to today as red pill knowledge.
I have touched upon this before and it is likely to rile the typical SJW and strong so-called independent women - a woman is like a bitch puppy and will behave the way you train her - suffice to say you have to get them when they are young and trainable as an old junkyard dog bitch is just vicious and a creature of its environment and essentially ruined and untrainable as a loyal bitch. Think of it, Maslow's needs and Pavlov's dogs experiments have been built upon but never overruled. Ancient wisdom is the core wisdom of life.
The care and training of the modern Bitch may be controversial yet based upon the wisdom the ancients have passed down to us - is never the less true and likely to be some of the most useful if not controversial chapters in the IWGM.
Is it better to be loved or feared?
The typical wiseguy has a mega GAF attitude with women, the smart wiseguys - sons and grandsons of the originals have taken the rules they grew up with into business - particularly businesses where they depend on NO ONE else for a number of reasons that are several chapters in the IWGM - Independent Wise Guy's Manual.
All goes back to the wisdom of the ancients Sun Tsu, Ghenghis Kahn, The Ceasars, and Niccolo Machiavelli who wrote the first Wise Guy's handbook "The Prince" ... The Prince dealt with all of the ways to gain and maintain power which is remarkably salient to this day. What he did not cover because the thought of it was unthinkable as unnecessary in his time is what we refer to today as red pill knowledge.
I have touched upon this before and it is likely to rile the typical SJW and strong so-called independent women - a woman is like a bitch puppy and will behave the way you train her - suffice to say you have to get them when they are young and trainable as an old junkyard dog bitch is just vicious and a creature of its environment and essentially ruined and untrainable as a loyal bitch. Think of it, Maslow's needs and Pavlov's dogs experiments have been built upon but never overruled. Ancient wisdom is the core wisdom of life.
The care and training of the modern Bitch may be controversial yet based upon the wisdom the ancients have passed down to us - is never the less true and likely to be some of the most useful if not controversial chapters in the IWGM.
Is it better to be loved or feared?
Not an expert on the law as far as kids are concerned; I believe in most US states a man will be required to pay child support if he takes on the role of their father.Laner said:
(Therefore if we're talking about an unmarried couple with kids, the man will get the short end of the stick as far as custody goes in the event of a split, meaning a man could be court ordered to pay child support yet still denied visitation rights).
However they won't become married unless they agree to it voluntarily so the "half of everything" rule wouldn't apply.
---
On a related note I found this video informative. Apparently views on marriage and sex were more 'red pill' prior to the Romanticism movement of the 18th century.
Some of the trends this movement apparently started are the notion that there is just "one special person" out there for everyone, and that love is about "blind acceptance" and that people should never have to "change" or work on themselves in order to find a partner; hence this seems to tie in with the 'blue pill' mindset today of the 'nice guys' who think they shouldn't have to "do anything" to be attractive to women and that they're "entitled" to be liked by women just because they exist.
(Likewise even though Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is portrayed as an "ideal" of Romantic love, in reality the play was more about the stupidity of naïve teenagers; by today's standards it's actually more of an example of an emo kid who think's he's going to be "together forever" with his HS sweetheart and kills himself when it doesn't work out).
---
However though I've never been married, I do think that relationships have a lot more to do with sex than people like to portray; just biologically speaking the entire reason men and women get together to start with is about sex and procreation; if people are getting together just to "avoid loneliness" then they might as well just find a roommate (this is what Epicurus actually advised; that men who don't want to be lonely should start their own commune or "frat house", and that marrying just to avoid "being single" was a dumb decisions that often lead to misery).
What's your guys opinion on this last bit?
BassPlayaYo said:
This has come up a bunch of times over the years. Just because you are not married, it will have nothing to do with the outcome of separation when children, real estate and investments are concerned.
Own a house with your live in girlfriend?
Own an investment property?
A kid?
All the same, married or not.
The marriage contract being about raising status for the woman is on point, but at the expense of men is not quite true.
If you are marrying a woman who comes from a normal, decent family, who have normal decent friends, then the marriage ceremony is meant to hold them socially accountable to their peers and more so to their matriarch. Good families do not take divorce lightly. And once your father in law has invited all his business associates, golfing buddies and clients to the wedding, you bet your ass you better stick with this woman. Same goes for the women, even doubly so. Women from good families who just walk away from a marriage because of feelings are often doing so at the expense of her families name, and will often be alienated by the women for decades.
Marriage is meant to hold people accountable for their actions. But when half the women out there come from single mother homes, this accountability is gone.
If you marry, only marry a woman who has this accountability ingrained into her by generations of good parenting.
You made a valid point, from what I can tell the laws weren't "designed" to enhance women at the expense of men; they're basically a holdover from outdated times in which women typically didn't have careers, didn't have access to birth control, and were dependent on the husband rather than the state for support (also meaning that infidelity and divorce had much more natural consequences for the woman).Laner said:
In modern society however the laws have become somewhat warped to that effect though. While today women can earn as much as men, often initiate the divorces themselves, and simply let the taxpayer fit the bill for the kid in the event the dad doesn't, the laws haven't updated to reflect the changing times and the state still insists that men "man up" and support the woman and her kids even when she's making $70,000 per year and hitting up every hot guy at the club while her husband is out working.
Likewise while the state loves to collect taxes whenever it can, it would rather draft innocent men into being sources of welfare for the kids whenever possible; hence them requiring innocent men to pay for children conceived through infidelity sometimes even after DNA proof has been provided (while at the same time denying them custody rights because "they aren't the real father").
Basically while modern feminists love the "liberation" they still don't really want to give up the chivalry. This is likewise why it's hard to get any bi-partisan agreement on the unfairness of these laws; e.x. some social conservatives like these laws as much as progressive feminists do since they hate the idea of some deadbeat dad being able to make a baby and bail out on the responsibility.
Laner said:
Without wanting to sound bitchy at all, what universe do you live in brother ?
I live in a country which is 10x more conservative than Canada or US, and even here people don't ask too much questions about divorce. It's usually "meh, just didn't work out".
Walker
Robin
Leonard D Neubache said:
USA, before 1965
https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-45191-post-959114.html#pid959114
Probably a bunch of european and asian first world states, but I don't know the details of their marriage contracts.
You might try some sleight of semantics like "USA always enshrined marriage legally" so let me clarify in advance what I'm saying - in 1965, tweaks to the USA's version of the contract started being made which made it much worse to sign yourself under. It is not unprecedented for a better version of the marriage contract to exist, and there is no shame in looking for a better version abroad if your home country doesn't have it.
Orion said:
I am sorry to hear that. I live in Vancouver, but I am from the Alberta Northern Rockies. Divorce has become a bit more common, but in no way has it stopped my friends and family from turning it into a HUGE deal.
If I was to put a number on it, I would say 90% of the people I associate with come from intact homes.
This has not been by accident. In my family, the men and women both are held to very high social standards. This translates into my friends, who I chose, as well.
Be selective in who you spend your time with. I had no interest in getting into relationships with women from broken homes, and as crazy as it sounds, I don't hang with any guys from broken homes either.
It wasn't always this way of course. The last 10 years have been especially hard in making sure I surround myself with good people, which means moving on from those who are not.
My universe has been by my design.
The post above is excellent, although we have all drifted from the OP.
Reasons to get married:
Because you want to start a stable family and raise children in a traditional environment that will give them the best start in life,
and/or
you want a foreign woman for same,
or
you want a foreign woman as an indentured servant
or
you're desperately lonely.
As stated above, in many countries including mine you become financially bound by law if you have lived with a woman for a certain period of time and/or sire children by them. In my country it's called a de-facto relationship, and even gay men have successfully claimed half of their former partner's assets under such laws. In the case I'm thinking of the relationship lasted only five years, but de-facto status can be imprinted on you by the state in as little as two. This is part of the welfare initiatives that (as suggested above) seek to turn earners into welfare providers AFTER their tax has been deducted.
The bottom line is this. If you don't want to get married then obviously it's a very bad idea. I don't want to get poked in the eye with a fork, so no matter how many positive replies I get on a thread titled "reasons to poke myself in the eye with a fork" I'm not going to poke myself in the eye with a fork.
If you want to get married then there's no sense asking for good reasons to do so. The better question is "how do I start a good marriage and keep it so."
Perhaps I over-react because when there's a hundred posts about the decline of Western society and a hundred posts about how "marriage is a raw deal and I'm never going to have kids" I don't take the time to determine whether each individual member holds a hypocritical view on the two matters.
There seems to be a sense that marriage as an institution went backwards from '65. I wouldn't argue against that. The seeds of its demise were sown back with FDR's "New Deal" when the state began to become a viable alternative to a husband. From there it was only the slowing momentum of social values that reinforced the need for marriage.
On paper kids and marriage seems like a bum deal, but when you have a good family you wouldn't trade them for anything, and when things get ugly (a process well underway) then tribe is all you're going to have. It's worthwhile to remember that being a successful bachelor for life is luxury of our decreasingly prosperous civilisation, just like being a spinster.
Reasons to get married:
Because you want to start a stable family and raise children in a traditional environment that will give them the best start in life,
and/or
you want a foreign woman for same,
or
you want a foreign woman as an indentured servant
or
you're desperately lonely.
As stated above, in many countries including mine you become financially bound by law if you have lived with a woman for a certain period of time and/or sire children by them. In my country it's called a de-facto relationship, and even gay men have successfully claimed half of their former partner's assets under such laws. In the case I'm thinking of the relationship lasted only five years, but de-facto status can be imprinted on you by the state in as little as two. This is part of the welfare initiatives that (as suggested above) seek to turn earners into welfare providers AFTER their tax has been deducted.
The bottom line is this. If you don't want to get married then obviously it's a very bad idea. I don't want to get poked in the eye with a fork, so no matter how many positive replies I get on a thread titled "reasons to poke myself in the eye with a fork" I'm not going to poke myself in the eye with a fork.
If you want to get married then there's no sense asking for good reasons to do so. The better question is "how do I start a good marriage and keep it so."
Perhaps I over-react because when there's a hundred posts about the decline of Western society and a hundred posts about how "marriage is a raw deal and I'm never going to have kids" I don't take the time to determine whether each individual member holds a hypocritical view on the two matters.
There seems to be a sense that marriage as an institution went backwards from '65. I wouldn't argue against that. The seeds of its demise were sown back with FDR's "New Deal" when the state began to become a viable alternative to a husband. From there it was only the slowing momentum of social values that reinforced the need for marriage.
On paper kids and marriage seems like a bum deal, but when you have a good family you wouldn't trade them for anything, and when things get ugly (a process well underway) then tribe is all you're going to have. It's worthwhile to remember that being a successful bachelor for life is luxury of our decreasingly prosperous civilisation, just like being a spinster.
fighter said:
Hollywood nonsense.
People divorce for lots of reasons.
Diogenes said:
This is gold and can easily become an excellent viral meme.
Considering that whenever a wife cheats on you,
she still gets half of your wealth , your children plus alimony for children
plus alimony for herself,
and that the system is very gynocentric, it is all rigged in wives favour
Pride male
Hummingbird
I cant think of reasons to have kids.
- Status