I don't personally believe modern marriage is the healthy choice to make BUT I am also not naive enough to think there should be nothing anchoring men to the children they produce. Some men think so highly of their own sense of honor and morality that they forget how prone they are to giving in to the urge to ditch their old wives for a younger woman. I've seen it more often than I can count. That's pretty much why child support and alimony exist. Yeah they're unfair now but men really can't pretend they didn't have a hand in the motivation behind those laws. It's really hard to get too mad about it when you put it in perspective.

Nothing you can do. Go try and police women's actions and see what happens. The patriarchy is dead. You are literally living in a time where the female imperative is openly celebrated and incentivized and the make imperative is demonized and castrated.

The only answer is to raise your value high enough you're above the bullshit, try and raise your daughters to be better ( good fuvcking luck), and never ever fucking ever get married if you're not already.

Enforced monogamy was developed to mobilize the industrious nature of the beta male, specifically in Western culture.

Men who are involuntarily celibate, won't be inclined to participate in society. And why the hell should they? Just because they're far less desirable than the men on the top doesn't make them any less inclined to be sexually successful. Hell, if anything it makes them more motivated. Which leads to terrorism and rape gangs like in the middle east.

This breakdown into free market practices in the sexual market place coupled with the removal of guilt/shame in regards to riding the cock carousel has led to a whole generation of men who are doomed to genetic death- and they know it, which is why we're seeing a rise of "toxic masculinity" ie men who cannot be men, and have no place in today's society even as lowly providers due to the fact that women have entered the work force as well as secured political power through social welfare programs.

For all of religion's faults: the leaky roof, the draft shutters, the poor foundation, the broken door (metaphorically speaking) at least it stabilized the sexual market place. As it stands now, the upheaval we're currently experiencing is good for the individual as well as mother nature, but bad for today's society.

This is Pandora's box. There is no going back. Women will never give up the right to vote. They will always have access to birth control. They will never exit the workforce. The internet will always be with us. Automation will render the beta male obsolete. Any Traditional Conservative who advises us to go back to the "gold ol' days" is delusional.

We as a race either boldy march into the brave New world and learn to adapt or we will fall back into times akin to the dark ages. There is no going back to "enforced monogamy."

I think Karen Straughan is right when she said that it'll take older women, i.e. women like Heather, in order to start the change process and address the issues facing men.

But there are three unpalatable things at play here.

The first is emotional. The situation is so dire that men's voices are silenced and shamed. Put another way, women have become so irrational and entitled that when men are saying stuff like "Hey, razor company, I don't want to be treated like a defective woman and lectured to by you and some art school moron", women are incapable of addressing the issue. Instead we get feminists whining about it and every young woman constantly making it about MUH OPPRESSION! This creates alienation and a generation of men who are irritated by women. The damage is done.

The second is economic. Heather may be doing something important and work needing to be done but she is directly benefiting economically by this situation. So not only is Plain Jane selling her panties and nudes to betas and the workforce is bending over backwards to accommodate women who regularly underperform on the job, men's plight is now the economic gain of women.

In short, men are sexually, economically, and emotionally frustrated and women are capitalizing off of it.

Which brings us to:

Funny enough, her proposed solution to both of these problems (AMALT and AWALT) is enforced monogamy--which I agree with.

The third issue is relational.

Men are given a choice between enforced monogamy or female hypergamy because women, by and large, hate freedom. They're incapable of making independent choices. This has and will continue to lead to a rigid bureaucracy which constrains men's choices, sexually and otherwise. It's essentially talking men back onto the plantation with no suggestion of reforming law which stacks the deck against men.

And who is a man to be sexually monogamous with? Women who are already run through, act like angry children, probably have loads of debt and other emotional issues, and are the very ones who shamed them and dismissed their issues. Seriously, that's your offer? Fuck off.

So, once again, men will be the caretakers of women, likely without none of the prior benefits and all the constraints and challenges of post-feminist modernity.

Shit deal.

"The biological inclination of men is to mate with youngest, curviest, most fertile pretty thing they can find, and once their offspring from one woman has been raised to some level of independence, it's off to find the next, most nubile 20-year old."

That's just a biological "inclination." That's why we have things like "culture" "civilization" and "morality." I mean, it's also a biological inclination to compulsively masturbate, shit and defecate at will, walk around naked, kill people for their stuff or for the luls, but the vast majority of us are civilized and don't do these things, or if we do, we do it within some sort of civilized framework, or else we get locked up with the rest of the animals.

Whenever I hear women justify their hypergamy with this "he'll just find a younger, hotter woman and leave me," I think, "No, not if you are actually a pleasure to be around, don't act like an asshole, and add value to the relationship."

I mean sure, everyone can be tempted, but the average guy is not going to leave. Even the above-average guy. It's really the guys at the apex they are thinking about, and worrying about. And so what. So he has a mistress. That doesn't mean automatic disenfranchisement. If anything, the wife can leverage that to secure her position, but tolerating it and winning brownie points from the grateful hubby who can have his cake and eat it too. And that's just one outlier scenario. The guy can just as easily sublimate his adulterous inclinations into politics, community, a hobby, inventing something.

Starting at 11:15, the interviewer introduces the "seems-like" cause and effect of not-having-the-conversation-in-the-open, to cause the conversation to be more toxic. There's no proof to that statement, but they both agree with each other that that is exactly what is happening.

I think it's a bad assumption. But I would say the converse, in a sense, is true. The conversation can only happen in a closed group. If the conversation were to be held openly, ... Oh, even in a closed group, we can be "quarantined". Reddit maintains a list of NSFW subreddits making it a breeze for me to see thousands and thousands of posts, with pictures, objectifying naked women. Yet, we can't have a conversation. Like women with Fallopian, Reddit with censorship, they control the tubes.

I think the interviewer and interviewee both see topics like TRP, MGTOW, Incels, whatever, as aberrations, as outliers. When in my case, I'm a man pushed-to-far. I'm expected to be the man they think I should be, instead of me being the man I know I am and should be.