Since I see a lot of marriage nay-sayers here, I wanted to talk about a Political Party I'm putting together that I hope will help restore marriage and fathers to some semblance of a respectable institution.

It works in 5 steps:

1.) Ban abortion nationwide, and prosecute anyone who practices it for murder.

2.) Ban no-fault divorce, asset division, and alimony. Obvious givens.

3.) Ban all financial benefits to marriage. Marriages will effectively become civil unions, in practice.

4.) Cut welfare, food stamps, and other social spending programs to whatever extent necessary to fund step 5.

5.) Give every married couple that has had or adopted 4 or more children a monthly stipend. This income will be lost if the couple divorces, but not if one spouse is widowed. Children had before the union don't count.

If you want to join up with us, just search "Nationalist Party of America" on Twitter, and follow us.

RStonePT 6y ago

Why the fuck are you looking for herd validation on your life choices?

This is shit that women on the View pull. If you're going to rattle on how red pilled you are, try to make it past your introductory paragraph before looking for validation from the internet

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

What do you mean introductory paragraph?

Snowboard18 6y ago

I would, only because I like stability in my personal life, but I would have to vet the FUCK out of any potential candidates

monsieurhire2 6y ago

There are many reasons not to get married.

Piggish behavior by a subset of women when confronting by a muscular guy with a dangling schlong in a setting perceived as consequence-free is not one of them.

Men do these exact same things for a number of reasons. Many of them do it just to get it out of their system so they can have that experience and move on. Some of them do it because they are single and lonely, and want to experience human contact and beauty. Of course, many get shamed for being "weak" and "stupid," but the sage, meaning a self-aware person who understands their own motivations, can do things like this and walk away, while the fool persists in their foolishness, unaware of the vicious cycle they are caught in.

Is it surprising that women behave similarly to men in a similar situation? Not at all, at least not to me.

Back to the subset thing. Not every bachelor and/or bachelorette party consists of this kind of debauchery. The sex industry markets it through Hollywood to make you think it's a normal rite of passage, even as they satirize the consequences. I suppose for people who are virgins or sexually inexperienced, there is the fear that they will be shackled to someone who is lousy in bed for life, but then, whose fault is that?

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

I agree, and that's why I ask you to read the very first lines of the post. If you think the point of this post is that 100% women behave the same way, you didn't get it. The point is that the value of marriage has decreased so much culturally in our society that this behavior is acceptable for "marriage" which for most people the exact opposite rules come into play. Soon, it'll be like Brave New World.

monsieurhire2 6y ago

Well, I do agree with this. I never liked what went on at bachelor parties. I kept wondering where these "traditions" came from. I'd wager it's the influence of industry groups through the film and TV shows, where these kinds of parties are depicted as normal, when they are just one more thing to piss away money on.

SeasonedRP 2 6y ago

-Men do these exact same things for a number of reasons.

Men and women aren't the same, and their behavior should not be the same. Most women can get in a sexual situation with a man anytime they want, whereas most men can't get with a woman anytime they want. Hence bachelor party traditions have no place in women's pre-wedding activities. Women behaving like a group of drunken sailors is offputting, to put it charitably. Any man with an ounce of self respect would cancel the wedding if his bride-to-be acted like this at her bachelorette party.

monsieurhire2 6y ago

I never said they WERE the same, I said they DO the exact same things...

I agree that the behavior is off-putting, but I think that it is equally off-putting for either gender, though for different reasons.

I mean, a guy is PROBABLY already on the fail route IF he is getting married in the first place, so it's a fail that would include the accompanying bachelor party. Then you have the thirst that it demonstrates. The guy is telling his friends and family that he is so hard up, that he needs to hire hookers to get one last taste of sexual "freedom." More like enslavement.

It's pathetic behavior no matter how you look at it.

askmrcia 6y ago

I scrolled way too far for this but you're absolutely right.

For anyone freaking out over these stories, not all Bachelorette parties are even close to being this wild. In fact I'll say most aren't.

Even when the girls go to Nashville, Put In Bay, or whatever the fuck, the most they do is drink, dance in a big circle in a club for three hours with NO guys, run around like idiots with the pink balloon penises and go to sleep in their filthy two bed hotel rooms that is being shared with 8 women.

A girl I'm dating went to a Bachelorette party earlier this year and none of the girls were big drinkers. All they did was go out for dinner and one bar (not night club) and was home by 11pm.

Sounds lame I know, but not every or even most Bachelorette parties are sleeping with strippers. I learned to take shit from reddit with a grain of salt anyways. It's like these dudes typed in bachelor pornos in Google and said to themselves that this is what happens.

I like talking shit about women like the rest of you, but in this case I gotta be real.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys are really social and actually leave your rooms on Saturday nights?

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Yeah I actually looked up bachelorette pornos, believe it or not, it was referred to in one of the original articles. Of course most of it is glaringly fake. The term is ' dancing bear' or something

Onidramon 6y ago

"be gentle jakey"

far more scarring than anything ever written, animated and filmed in the history of the horror genre

[deleted]

[deleted] 6y ago

It's literally a scene from The Office

SMRII 6y ago

In a perfect world where unicorns exist? Absolutely.

In the real world? God no

BoJvck34Empire 6y ago

I was a male stripper from 21-23... Got the most blowjobs of my life, can confirm this. Even had a threesome, bachelorette parties are shitshows, even if the bride to be is unwilling, she’ll get pressured into it from a friend.

The stripper above is a lot better then me, because I for one had a blast at those parties and often went all the way (I was injecting exogenous compounds, body and testosterone was at a peak)

SmilingWatermelon 6y ago

When your T is that high, saying no ain't really an option lmak

BoJvck34Empire 6y ago

When you’re testosterone is super high and some milf exclaims “slap me with your cock mister” you do it and do it happily.. The guy from the excerpt above is weird lol

TBtgoat 6y ago

The only reason I'll ever get married is because I want to have kids one day. The only reason.

Phoenixtorment 6y ago

Can you explain the connection between marriage and having kids (in modern times), is this an American thing? What are the benefits for the kids, as opposed to not being married?

Why would you need to get married to have kids?

TBtgoat 6y ago

I want to have kids because I want to pass on my legacy. Everything I had to learn the hard way, served to my successor. Hopefully a boy or 2. I heard having a mother in the picture helps a lot. Honestly, still really young and don't know too much about the nuances but I want my kid to have the perfect living conditions.

rubber-duckie 6y ago

You're a fucking random ass dude on Reddit, you don't have a legacy.

I swear some of you believe you descended from a mixture of Nordic Vikings and Roman soldiers .

So cringe. "muh legacy"

TBtgoat 6y ago

Hey man, I hope that whatever you're going through you find the strength to overcome it. Life is a beautiful thing and one day you'll look back and wonder why you ever had any doubts. Good luck

RedPill-BlackLotus 6y ago

Raise my hand. I'll do it, I did it, I want sons.

If your wifes friends are all CC riding whores then get ready for a bad time.

The only reason to get married is to make humans, because the only thing more dangerous for a man than marriage is having kids.

If a man wants a son, he will need a woman, and he will have to get married. Even if he legally dosent get married, all the dangers and challenges that come with legal marriage, also exist in common law when children are involved.

Marriage is for making a family only.

Always add value, improve, and be her best option. The burden of performance is always on us and I like it that way. They dont perform for shit unless its on the stripper pole.

Its never been a better time to be a man. 80% of us arnt even trying.

trueliberal1 6y ago

If a man wants a son, he will need a woman, and he will have to get married.

I would argue that daughters need an in-house father as much as sons. Otherwise, they end up on a stripper pole, or in more modern terms, as a web cam girl on some porn site.

[deleted]

MatrixofLe3adership 6y ago

I'm just here to criticize your parenting skills. I have 0 children by the way.

ex_addict_bro 6y ago

Raise my hand. I'll do it, I did it, I want sons.

They're playing Switch already. The only "red" thing about your parenting is probably that red joycon.

[deleted]

Za--Warudo 6y ago

dont listen to this dude marriage is a massive scam no amount of hamstering will change that

RedPill-BlackLotus 6y ago

Do you want a family and children? A son in particular.

Dionysus-VIOLENCE 6y ago

dont listen to these incels, raise a family.

Onidramon 6y ago

Yeah, those fucking incels. You'd have to be involuntarily celibate not to want to get married and start a family. Can you imagine a world where there were guys who weren't virgins and yet somehow went around having sex without wanting to have marriage and start families? How would that even work? What's next? Candy for breakfast?

Dionysus-VIOLENCE 6y ago

you are too psychopathic to have a meaningful relationship with another human being, please don’t torture somebody by trying to ever

-6

[deleted] 6y ago

[deleted]

RedPill-BlackLotus 6y ago

Having kids isn't worth what what marriage currently is

Do you have any kids?

I'd sooner adopt or be a single dad than entertain marriage

I'll take that as a no. Raising a family as a single father is a retarded idea, kids are a lot of work. If you think you can take that on, then you do you man. I agree that a single dad is 10 x better than a single mom, but a man and a woman, with a strong example for masculinity, and the feminine is still the best configuration that gives your kids the best possible chance of developing into a robust adult.

A single parent family setup as a choice is a mistake in my opinion, with one exception, if your rich as fuck.

If you dont want to get married, dont get married. This sour grapes mindset that you have is gay as fuck.

Besides, how do you assign worth to something you dont have?

Marriage is a risk, no doubt about it. It's a good thing testosterone makes us risk adverse.

[deleted]

[deleted] 6y ago

[deleted]

Za--Warudo 6y ago

pretty much sums up my point tbh

if ur gonna raise kids then at least do it somewhere that doesnt have the fucked up laws of current year

ur basically playing russian roulette with ur finances and 4 of the cartridges are loaded

[deleted]

TBtgoat 6y ago

Regarding your comment about being rich as fuck. Isnt it recommended to be married bc children need a mother, not because you don't wanna do as much work? I'm assuming if you're rich you can hire people to help with the kids. But they still won't have a mother. Isn't that the actual issue with single parents?

RedPill-BlackLotus 6y ago

You could hire a mother figure. A team of them. It would be a more optimal solution, and the child would have access to more competent adults. Because they are screened.

It takes a village to raise a child but that's not how we operate anymore. If you were uber rich you could simulate that.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

No read my earlier suggestion. It's somewhere here.

wrightedgeworthy 6y ago

You go guy!!!!! show the girl how real man act. /s

No dude....just no. Having kids is what marriage is for. I guess it's up to you if you just want to die without leaving anything to the world but I'll take the chance and have kid anyway.

Single dad???? pffffttttttt...I bet you ran away the moment your cousin/nephew/niece start shitting. Even worse, how do you expect to have energy to work while you have to make your baby sleep, eat , entertained and healthy? That's right, you need full time parents to take care of the routine stuff then you can be the fun dad that you imagine on weekend . I bet you never take care of 0-2 years old for more than 3 hours in your life.

[deleted] 6y ago

[deleted]

wrightedgeworthy 6y ago

ROFL the next thing you will say is gay marriage is the way to go as single dad is enough but how about double dad?

Origami84 6y ago

You don't need to be married for that. It will take extra work, but you can find a gf that doesn't need to be married. Or a co-parent. Especially in the post-30 crowd, there are chances. But absolutely don't sign on the dotted line that you will "marry" someone.

RedPill-BlackLotus 6y ago

You don't need to be married for that. It will take extra work, but you can find a gf that doesn't need to be married.

Cool, try that, see if it works. Make sure you familiarize yourself with common law family law before you start.

askmrcia 6y ago

Cool, try that, see if it works. Make sure you familiarize yourself with common law family law before you start.

I see this bs all the time on reddit and I swear I just think it's something you guys made up.

My older brother lived with his baby momma for 10 years and no common law marriage thing ever came up.

After they split, he's currently living with another woman and has been for the past 6 years.

Still no common law marriage. This is in Ohio.

Point is, you absolutely can just live with your gf and be fine.

[deleted] 6y ago

[--removed--]

TBtgoat 6y ago

This is an interesting take. It would honestly be my top option if it was doable. But is it? I'm still very young but I know I want children and I know that I want to raise them as best I can. Having a mother helps. If I could have all the benefits of giving my children a mother without the burden of marriage, I'd be down. How realistic is that though?

askmrcia 6y ago

It's very realistic. I stated in the comment above how, but I'll do it here too.

My older brother had a house in his name and lived with his baby momma for 10 years.

Both their kids are now over 18, but my older brother never paid child support. My brother left and lived on his own while the baby momma kept the house.

My brother didn't marry for the reasons you see here, he didn't want to pay alimony and he absolutely would have because the baby momma lost her job due to a gambling addiction.

This common law marriage thing is a bunch of bullshit. I never seen or heard anyone getting married due to it other than people on reddit. Now I'm basing my experience from Ohio and Indiana.

A lot of my friends who are in their 30s and 40s are now doing co parenting.

The kid lives with the mom, but sees dad on weekends. No marriage. And technically the kid can see dad whenever like picking them up for football practice during the week.

This is the way to go. Do not get married. There's absolutely zero reason to do so. You'll be fucking yourself because the divorce will happen.

The only marriages I see last are when people get married in late 40s and over and they have kids from their previous partners.

TBtgoat 6y ago

Honestly that's all good news to me. How do women take it though? I feel like many women would despise the idea of playing the role you described. If you're alpha enough they'll gladly do it? Is that the logic? In 10-15 years when I'm ready for kids do I make that crystal clear up front? I've just never heard of such suggestion until now

mrssmithhh 6y ago

A woman would have to believe herself to be pretty worthless to agree to a situation like that upfront. In a woman’s mind, the man is basically declaring her to be someone not worth investing in. This means commitment is not real, it’s simply temporary. When things gets hard or inconvenient, the man will leave. This means her most attractive years will he uses up by a man who will then leave her without love or protection.

All of this also means that the kid gets shanked, too. Children and moms are inextricably linked. A dad believes the mom isn’t worth investing in, it absolutely sends the message that the kid is not worth investing in. Or at least the kid is only worth as much as convenient to the dad.

Pick a woman with very high standards of integrity, from a good family, with high moral standards and a circle of friends who mirrors those standards in their daily actions. Commit to her 100%. Without 100% commitment it’s already doomed to failure anyways. Do you succeed at diets you don’t stick to? Marriage is the same way. If you go into it looking for ways To get out, then you’ll only send the message to the woman that the relationship is temporary and she should also look for ways to get out at her convenience.

askmrcia 6y ago

It depends on the woman. Yes you are absolutely right. The women that come from traditional married parent households will no doubt want to get married.

In that case, I say be smart. Not every woman is going to take you to the cleaners. Don't marry a gold digging, drug attic retard. My mom divorced my dad and she could have absolutely raped him in divorce court, but she didn't.

She had her own money so she didn't need alimony and both of them agreed that my mom should get the kids.

Keep in mind, my moms parents were married forever and never had a divorce. So the way she was raised made sense to not want to rape my dad in divorce court.

Now my older brother, he tells women up front that he will never get married. This of course drives a lot of "good" women away. So the three women he lived with were all fine with him not wanting to get married.

As for your question I say find a woman and explain to her that you don't want to get married and why.

That's what I'm seeing people do and with all these crazy workaholic women.

Lateralanouncer 6y ago

Hell no. Been there done that. The only way not to get divorced is to not get married.

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

u/RedPill-BlackLotus is right.

If you are getting married, for whatever reason, you definitely want to avoid marrying those with CC- riding friends.

These “friends” have a crab bucket mentality, they don’t like seeing their friend is getting married unlike them.

And they would be happy knowing their friend (the bride to be) had a little “fun” before her wedding and is deep down like them.

It’s unfortunate that a lot of these women will hamster their peer pressuring as banter/a joke.

Ruining a marriage before it even begins.

Truly despicable.

Hjalmbere 6y ago

CC-riding friends: A definite red flag.

himanshudash 6y ago

But why would you marry a woman with cock carousel riding friends. Didn't you birds of same feathers flock together , no matter how redpill you are you can't change her nature.

"A woman is her friends" - u/himanshudash

[deleted]

monsieurhire2 6y ago

Men do the same exact thing, in my experience. They will "test" the relationship by either disparaging the woman, the institution of marriage itself, or by hitting on the woman to see if she takes the bait. It seems to be some sort of instinctual social firmware that serves the purpose of "stress-testing" a potentially disastrous relationship before a commitment is made. If the people shrug off these tests because they are secure in their relationship, everyone just moves on and accepts it as the new frame or "reality." If people fail the tests by giving into the temptation, then the group gets to sit back with popcorn and enjoy the drama.

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

“Some people aren’t looking for anything logical... some people just want to watch the world burn”

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

If you are getting married, for whatever reason,

Do Not Marry

It's that simple. It's a terrible deal for men: lost attraction, instant beta-bucks categorisation, financial evisceration during and especially after marriage, loss of respect.

Upsides: there are no upsides for men. None, zip, nada, zero. All downsides... if you're lucky it will cost you everything. If you're unlucky you'll be paying alimony too.

Next_Flow1 6y ago

I'm sorry I'm an outsider and hope I'm allowed here, but do you guys also identify as MGTOW?

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

StevenConfident 6y ago

MGTOW and TRP differ in a few ways. As I see it:

- MGTOW is just dudes doing their own thing, living life as they see fit, and oftentimes seems to avoid serious relationships with women.

- TRP is focused on analyzing the two genders' sexual strategies, how they differ and how you can use that knowledge to your advantage as a man.

You could technically be both, but from my experience most people here aren't MGTOW.

shaggyctes88 6y ago

Not necesarilly, you aren't allowed or any of that cult shit, learn, apply and see what it does for your life. Ps: I'm sorta MGTOW but I keep sex partners, it's up to each one to figure that out

FightGuard 6y ago

Upsides: there are no upsides for men.

Swiss passport? Very rich parents/grandparents meaning you are not her beta?

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Passport: sure, if you're not too compelled to stay with her, which you usually are.

Rich parents: oh hell no..... you won't see a penny of it.

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

I don’t disagree by any means, but all marriage nay-sayers don’t mention this;

What if you want children?

What’s your solution to this?

yomo86 6y ago

Kids

The safe method: If you want kids get a surrogacy, let a lawyer draft the contract.

The unsafe but better than marriage: Just fuck bareback. Paying child support is cheaper than alimony. A kid gets 18 someday a woman can, depending on the state, be unemployed forever.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Be very rich. And very powerful. let quite a few different women raise the kids till 10 and then take them all in. Obviously this does not work without req 1 &2

max_peenor 6y ago

Stick your dick into her raw and if something comes out stick around. You don't have to be married to be a father. Don't mix your finances. Keep a separate residence in common law states. Share in taking care of the kids. It's really not that difficult.

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

“Keep a separate residence in common law states”

Can you elaborate more on that... are you suggesting that the child bounces around between your place and it’s mother’s place?

max_peenor 6y ago

Not necessarily but I recommend you discuss this with an actual lawyer. It might be ok that you spend a lot fo time under the same roof, as long as you explicitly maintain a separate residence and accounts. Or it might not. The states differ.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

How the fuck does marriage benefit you if you want children???

Why would you financially incentivize the mother to destroy the family?

"Here girlfriend, sign this contract that means I will pay you cash prizes and alimony if you divorce me".

Why would any man do such a thing?

I don't get it...... how exactly does marriage benefit you if you want children? It confers zero rights and huge obligations on you, and makes the potential mother treat you like shit. And offers her money to leave.

Please explain why you think marriage is a benefit in this case.

nobody_thinks 6y ago

Why would you financially incentivize the mother to destroy the family?

this guy gets it

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

Ok, so if you want children, could you detail how you would go about having the kids out of wedlock?

And how would you propose the idea of this to your girlfriend in a time where many if not all girls (who want kids) believe in marrying for kids?

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Ok, so if you want children, could you detail how you would go about having the kids out of wedlock?

Insert penis into vagina

And how would you propose the idea of this to your girlfriend in a time where many if not all girls (who want kids) believe in marrying for kids?

"Take it or leave it".

Her desire for a retirement plan at my expense is NOT MY PROBLEM. If she needs marriage to have kids, she can move along. Find a girl who doesn't need to financially destroy you as a condition of procreation.

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

Good rebuttal, consider my view changed.

monsieurhire2 6y ago

"I can't marry you honey! I love you too much! I want us to be life partners, and I don't want you to lose attraction for me by entering into an unfavorable legally binding situation that incentivizes you to emasculate, and ultimately castrate me!"

ALSO

"I only see those side-pieces while simultaneously forbidding you from cucking me so I can still be the center of your world for the greater good of our life-partnership! You wouldn't want some weak cuck that can't get other women, would you???"

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Orrrrrrrrrrrrr

"I'm not getting married, let's look at a fair agreement that suits both our needs".

TemoC_ 6y ago

This. Marriage potentially fucks you over. Not gonna argue there. I’m more concerned about the child being raised correctly. In a household with a maternal influence and a paternal influence. What kind of ideas would you like to instill in his/her little brain. I’m concerned about what kind of person I’m going to set off into the next generation.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

I’m concerned about what kind of person I’m going to set off into the next generation.

Good, you should be.

Marriage in it current anti-male form should not be part of the deal.

I would also argue it is anti-child: motivating the mother to destroy the family seems counter productive to the aims of society.

But children are never the motivating factor... it's all about women.

codespher3 6y ago

The I saw my mom one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=CtFr6PUAKHQ

Sixtusson 6y ago

Real question is how do I break into this? Nothing like fucking cheaters...but getting paid for it.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Become a male stripper. I know, right?... I'm thinking about it too.

Sixtusson 6y ago

Talk about creating an abundance mentality, and getting to see women as they actually are when they see no rules...the dude that says he doesn't fuck brides on his site talks about getting blown by married women in front of the bachelorette...he breaks away from the main event so that three girls can see his dick, one with a bf, one married and the bride, but gets interrupted the first time, then the girl with the bf eggs on the married girl to blow him in front of the bride Of course he fucks them...

trueliberal1 6y ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with the institution of marriage. The problems with marriage today are problems that have been created during the past 50 years. Marriages before the invention of the birth control pill were largely satisfying to both genders. The birth control pill resulted in women defecting, pursuing short-term sexual relations with multiple men and betraying their eventual husbands. Make no mistake, this is a product of the environment today, not a problem with marriage itself.

Marriage is fundamentally a formal agreement of two people to compromise and cooperate so that they can achieve together greater satisfaction in life than they could achieve separately. Both men and women need to compromise their own self-interests for the benefit of the couple. Men had to give up sexual relations and offspring with potentially many women and had to provide protection and provisioning to a woman and their children. Women had to give up getting the best genes for her offspring to obtain commitment from a man. Historically, this was a net benefit to both genders in terms of practical, genetic, and emotional results.

However, over the past 50 years marriage has become a terrible deal for heterosexual men because of several changes in western society. First, women have reneged on their end of the deal of not sleeping with other men. By the time a woman is ready to marry, she has an N count of at least 20 and most have at least 50. That's not an exaggeration. Exceptions are so rare, and lying about N count so universal, that a man simply has to assume that any woman has slept around and is not marriage material.

This first change means that women are no longer capable of pair bonding, are likely to betray men both in terms of affairs and divorce, are likely to treat their husbands worse, and are incapable of fulfilling the emotional needs of a potential husband that are deeply rooted in evolution.

Second, the family court systems and the misnamed "no fault" divorce has made marriage today, without exaggeration, indentured servitude for men. It is a ludicrously dangerous institution for men as their entire financial life and very freedom are greatly at risk. Men are placed into prison for not being able to pay child support after losing their job through no fault of their own. This happens even if the woman committed paternity fraud and it was proven to the court. Under today's laws, it is absolutely insane for a man to get married.

These two things make marriage a non-starter for men, but they both are products of the past 50 years rather than something inherent to marriage. There are still people alive today who demonstrate what marriage could be if neither of these recent changes had taken place.

My parents are from the Silent Generation. They have had the same friends their entire lives including about 50 couples from their generation. Out of those 50 couples, exactly 1 got a divorce. One. Period. That's it. And every one of those other 49 marriages were, and still are in the case of those still alive, happy as can be. Sure, they had marital fights, but they loved each other, supported each other, and kept each other mostly happy.

I'm a Gen Xer. Over half of my friends who got married got divorced. I think another quarter will divorce sometime in their lives. It's even worse for Millennials despite the fact that few of them marry.

Environment matters. Culture matters. Sexual strategies matter. The problem isn't marriage. It's what our society has done to marriage over the past 50 years. And unfortunately, this problem isn't going to get fixed over the next 50 years.

Dls95405 6y ago

A moving eulogy for the family unit. Civilization is crashing.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Thank you. That was helpful.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Yes, out parents generations (and past ones) are VERY different. I was thinking about this too.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

This is not about difference in time. This is about understanding female nature and how marriage fits into her plans much more than it fits into yours.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Marriages before the invention of the birth control pill were largely satisfying to both genders

I really doubt this. Women weren't any different back then, even if the circumstances were. Women completely hid their sexual desires and for the most part pretended not to like any form of sex in order to avoid sex with their husbands.

The only upside was very low expectations.

Marriage is fundamentally a formal agreement of two people to compromise and cooperate so that they can achieve together greater satisfaction in life than they could achieve separately.

Right... that's how men see it. Women see it as an opportunity to retire.

Male and female interests cannot simply be aligned with a contract. She's much more likely to play the "share what you earn" card than the "let's build something together" card.

Women just don't put as much into their relationships, and giving her a guaranteed meal ticket just makes this worse.

I'm saying marriage was always shit, it's not a recent thing.... although perhaps in olden times there were some upsides for the man.

Definitely agree about how bad it is now.

max_peenor 6y ago

Women see it as an opportunity to retire.

Bloops get all vaginal when we say this, but yet again, it's because they are idiots and don't understand. Yes, we understand women work now and make money. The truth is that has been going on for a long time. This retirement isn't just from a paycheck, though it can be. It's from having to work on relationships. Commitment is their goal, not what happens AFTER it. They make that the man's problem.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

yeah.

Men think women will be grateful for their sacrifice.

But the reality is you get treated according to your power. Give all that up and welcome to a deadbedroom beaten down life.

trueliberal1 6y ago

> Marriages before the invention of the birth control pill were largely satisfying to both genders

I really doubt this. Women weren't any different back then, even if the circumstances were. Women completely hid their sexual desires and for the most part pretended not to like any form of sex in order to avoid sex with their husbands.

The genetic code and brains of humans haven't changed much over the past 10,000 years. However, life today is way different than it was in the Stone Age or Bronze Age. Genetic code does not create effects in a vacuum. Human instinct is adaptive. Human nature changes based on the environment.

Women are conformists. The environment influences their behavior far more than it does men, and even men are highly influenced by environment. Contrast modern America with modern Afghanistan and medieval England. Big difference, right? It's all environmental. And that's just men's behavior. How much more does environment matter to women's behavior given how conformist they are?

Hell, you can see women changing their behavior in reaction to how individual men they interact with behave. This is the entire basis of pick up artist theory and is extensively documented in the red pill community.

I reject the idea that women and intersexual relations are immutable. It is empirically false, and if it were true, then how you as a man behave around women would not matter. Human instinct hasn't changed, but how that instinct is manifested is a function of environment.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Human instinct hasn't changed, but how that instinct is manifested is a function of environment.

Right.

My central tenet is basically this: while women outwardly conformed to the "good wife" image (they had little choice), inwardly and in the privacy of their own bedroom nothing has changed. Women weren't sluts for beta bucks back then just because that's what men wanted.

Imperator_Red 6y ago

Women weren't sluts for beta bucks back then just because that's what men wanted.

They had no choice. There was no such thing as marital rape until like 30 years ago, and if she legitimately refused to have sex with her husband, then the marriage would be dissolved for failing to fulfill her obligations and she would be cast out on her own into shame and poverty.

max_peenor 6y ago

Marriages before the invention of the birth control pill were largely satisfying to both genders.

When why is the phrase "Happy Wife, Happy Life"? Marriage is an investment into female happiness in exchange for the occasional access to sex. The only reason men agreed to this is because at lease most of them got SOME sex. Now that women have renegotiated the marriage contract (and ten PPD tard's heads explode) and removed that last part, it is no longer a bad deal for men--it's NO deal for men.

DO NOT MARRY

trueliberal1 6y ago

I wouldn't base life decisions off of trite expressions.

My point is that marriage has changed greatly for the worse over the past 50 years. Surely, you do not deny that.

As to the question of whether or not there was ever a time when marriage was a net plus for men, I would simply point out that if it was never a good compromise for men then the institution would never have taken off. Yet time and time again, we see marriage taking off whenever agriculture replaces hunter-gathering.

In Britain, this happened twice. When the Romans colonized Britain, the natives went from polygamy to monogamy. When Rome fell, the natives abandoned agriculture and monogamy going back to polygamy and hunter-gathering. Then when agriculture was re-introduced many generations later, the natives went back to monogamy. Clearly there is some associative advantages here.

I whole-heartedly agree that marriage today is bad. But the empirical evidence does not support stating that marriage under any set of laws and culture is bad. There are trade-offs between polygamy and monogamy. Neither is best for all men under all conditions. Environment matters.

max_peenor 6y ago

I wouldn't base life decisions off of trite expressions.

That would make you a very small percentage of the population.

But the empirical evidence does not support stating that marriage under any set of laws and culture is bad

No, you can't twist it like that. You need to explain why something is good for people to do it, not that it doesn't appear to be bad. And when is polygamy bad for me? You'd have to construct some arbitrary rules to make it that

Hmmm.. Just like we have with marriage.

trueliberal1 6y ago

I wouldn't say I was twisting the evidence. Marriage used to be a good deal for men because it satisfied their desire to lock-in parental certainty and to optimize the prosperity of their offspring.

Polygamy is great for the top 10% of men who have many concubines, but it is terrible for the bottom 70% of men who are sexless in such societies.

This is why monogamy always takes off when societies transform from hunter-gatherer to agriculture. Monogamy gives men a reason to contribute to society and societies that used this carrot to motivate men dominated and wipe out societies that did not.

There are still people alive today from the Silent Generation who are a testament of what marriage used to be. Yes, marriage is a compromise, but compromise is necessary to build something better than what you can build alone. Is marriage a good deal today? Hell no, it's terrible. But that's because of the changes in law and society over the past 50 years, not because the idea of men and women compromising their selfish short-term interests for a lifetime of committed cooperation is inherently a bad or flawed concept.

Cooperation works. It just doesn't exist today between men and women, and that's why intersexual relations are at an all-time low. Men and women from the Silent Generation and before were far more satisfied with their relationships than men and women today are. Both genders are miserable and you see that all the time. Men are thirsty as hell, and women end up as cat lady spinsters. This is precisely the result of a complete lack of cooperation between the sexes.

Heck, even sex is becoming rare. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201811/7-reasons-why-young-people-are-having-less-sex

Japan is even worse and may be an indication of where the West is heading. http://trail.pugetsound.edu/?p=8857

--> Young people are opting out of sex and love altogether, preferring online porn, virtual-reality girlfriends and anime cartoons. --> --> This year the JFPA published a study which found that 45 percent of women aged 16-24 “were not interested in or despised sexual contact.” More than a quarter of men felt the same way.

I'd rather be in a society where I had the opportunity to marry a quality woman and the freedom to choose not to than be in a society where I had no opportunity to marry a quality woman. Marriage was always a compromise and there were always trade-offs between short-term and long-term mating strategies. However, the sheer terribleness that marriage is today is a recent phenomenon that started with the Baby Boomers. It only seems that this is the way things always were because most people weren't alive when things were different.

max_peenor 6y ago

satisfied their desire to lock-in parental certainty

Well, as we now see, it doesn't actually, but nevertheless I used to think that way. Now I think we just have this grinding drive to fuck and if we HAVE to deal with the consequences of it, we want to know it's at least our consequence. Don't get me wrong--I like kids. I have plenty of them. But if kids weren't a consequence of sex, I'd still want to fuck just as much.

Polygamy is great for the top 10% of men who have many concubines, but it is terrible for the bottom 70% of men who are sexless in such societies.

The problem is you are casting this criterion on a particular social order with a particular demographic. You aren't saying polygamy is bad. You are saying a large n umber of men don't have access to it.

trueliberal1 6y ago

Polygamy is bad for the 70% of men who are sexless as a result since they would have options under monogamy. Polygamy is great for the 10% of men who are getting most of the women.

All things are trade-offs. You may like the trade-off of polygamy instead of monogamy, but only a fool would deny that there are zero things that men lost over the past 50 years. Whether or not polygamy is better is an opinion. Whether or not there is a trade-off is not.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with the institution of marriage

There's a lot of wrong with marriage and it has noting do do with last 50 years.

Lets start with the fact that you reject your male sexual strategy and adopt hers. You willingly and deliberately sabotage yourself, your time and your mission in exchange for her promise of fucking only you. OTOH she can deny you any time she wants so she holds all the power b/c you are married to her (on your time, money and effort), can't get another pussy (grounds for divorce) and can't get sex from her (she controls you).

By marrying you're signaling that she "has" you. Her mission is complete, objective achieved - get control over him so he will provide for me. This game has been played for last 10 000 years, perhaps even longer.

Finally, I would like to point out that I find the act of kneeling in front of a woman to seek her permission extremely revolting. Its deliberate submission to appease a woman simply b/c you want to keep fucking her.

Imperator_Red 6y ago

Yes the entire basis of society was always rotten. Every advanced civilization just created marriage out of thin air for no discernible reason whatsoever. It benefited almost no one yet everyone kept doing it for several millennia because reasons.

Difficult to see how anyone could actually believe this.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

Marriage wasn't thought up. It became a thing after someone, most likely a man, decided that if he writes a book that says his wife shouldn't cheat on him, she won't. We codified our own insecurity. Repeat that over the course of 10 000 years and it will seem like marriage is natural.

Look at ten commandments that god, personally(!), gave Abraham. Omnipotent, omniscient god decides that "don't fuck his wife" is worth being on top 10 list. Not hunger, not slavery, not wars or cancer or natural disasters. Makes you think what people back then had on their minds in m-f department. Seems not that much different than MRP subreddit.

Imperator_Red 6y ago

I’m not sure if you’re actually retarded or just fucking with me.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

Since you started first, you get to pick.

trueliberal1 6y ago

> Lets start with the fact that you reject your male sexual strategy and adopt hers.

This is incorrect. Marriage does not fully fulfill the selfish self-interest of either gender and never has. Under a balanced set of laws, marriage is a compromise in which each gender gets certain critical perks in exchange for giving up others. Men give up using their resources to attract other mates and gain a much higher degree of parental certainty -- if the marriage contract is enforced by law and social pressure. Women give up acquiring resources from other men and shopping around for the best DNA in exchanged for guaranteed protection, resources, and support.

In game theory, the branch of mathematics that deals with conflicts of interest between different parties, players can either cooperate or defect with other players. To cooperate is to give up the best possible outcome for yourself to gain a better outcome for everyone in your interaction. To defect is the opposite of cooperation. It's betraying your fellow players for short-term gain.

So why cooperate if your giving up the best possible outcome for you? Because if you defect and others do as well, you won't get that best possible outcome. You'll likely get the worse. See this video on Prisoner's Dilemma as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHS-htjGgSY

Under the conditions of marriage before the pill, the Nash Equilibrium was to marry for almost every woman and almost every man. Under the conditions of marriage today, the Nash Equilibrium is to not marry for every man. Conditions matter. The payoff table matters. Cost-benefit trade-offs matter and they can and do vary with time and environment.

> OTOH she can deny you any time she wants so she holds all the power b/c you are married to her (on your time, money and effort), can't get another pussy (grounds for divorce) and can't get sex from her (she controls you).

You are talking about marriage today. Historically marriage was far more balanced than it is today.

> By marrying you're signaling that she "has" you.

That depends on the husband. There are plenty of husbands throughout history and even today that maintain borders and rules in marriage. Not all husbands are pussies. More so today than yesterday, but you can see many counter-examples in red pill videos. Rollo Tomassi, the author of The Rational Male and the godfather of the red pill, is married. His marriage isn't what you are envisioning.

> This game has been played for last 10 000 years, perhaps even longer.

Monogamy and marriage are the results of the agricultural revolution, which happened between 1500 and 12,000 years ago depending on the society. Agriculture made it necessary and profitable for men to pool their resources on a much larger scale. Wealth could be built up and permanent settlements formed, something impossible with the hunter-gather societies that preceded agriculture.

Monogamy and marriage were carrots given to the vast majority of men who would not have reproduced at all during hunter-gathering. Only about 5% of men had children in hunter-gather societies. These men would gain exclusive sexual access to a woman and the ability to have children. In exchange society gained massive economic prosperity by coupling the workhorse of the economy to the male sexual drive and desire to have a legacy. Later monotheism was invented to further enforce this contract.

The fact is that monogamy would never had existed if both genders didn't gain something from it that made it worth the cost. And it's only the decoupling of sex and reproduction that caused this agreement to failed. Feminism is the result of the pill and earlier technological improvement. There is no feminism in a hard society where the survival of women and their children is not guaranteed.

> Finally, I would like to point out that I find the act of kneeling in front of a woman to seek her permission extremely revolting.

That is a proposal, not a marriage, and it's only one of an unlimited number of ways of proposing.

> Its deliberate submission to appease a woman simply b/c you want to keep fucking her.

Men generally don't marry because they simply want to keep fucking a woman, and that would be a terrible reason to get married. Men generally marry because they want to have children and raise those children in the best and most stable environment. Marriage is trading off quantity of offspring for quality of offspring. Having a father in the home is critical to the well-being of both sons and daughters.

Most of parenting is giving up your own self-interest for your children's interests. That doesn't mean a parent gives up all of his or her happiness, but it does mean the children come first.

[deleted] 6y ago

[--removed--]

JamesSkepp 6y ago

Marriage does not fully fulfill the selfish self-interest of either gender

Yeah not fully. You switch from 100% you (do as you please) to 90% her (monogamy, providing, helping raise HER child) and 10% you (helping raise your child IF you don't divorce).

Men give up using their resources to attract other mates

That's the point. She's attracted to resources you provide (BB) instead of being attracted to you (AF). That's the exact thing I'm talking about, she married you not b/c of sexual attraction but b/c of things you provide. This is the "playing her game" I'm referring to.

gain a much higher degree of parental certainty

You don't need marriage for that. Do a test and you know with 99,9% certainty.

Women give up acquiring resources from other men and shopping around for the best DNA in exchanged for guaranteed protection, resources, and support.

No, they don't give it up. Hypergamy is always on, thus if she knows she "has you" you stop becoming the prize, you cease to be the top alpha for her and she starts looking around. You cannot turn of the hypergamy or bribe it with resources.

In game theory,

Sure, maybe cooperation is reasonable and better. But the thing is you're not dealing with rational players. She might know and understand that "marriage cooperation" is better (dubiuous term, better for whom and in what context?) but she doesn't operate on logic, she operates on feelings. And her feelings tell her "now i'm secure, i know i shouldnt do it, but the proverbial pool boy seems to have a big dick". That's how much game theory means to her.

Historically marriage was far more balanced than it is today.

Hystorically wives used sex as bargaining chip for thousands of years, not "recently". I'm pretty sure few thousand years old Bible has some verses about it, which basically means it was so common that thet had to put in in a fucking Bible that's supposed to be a word of god. That's pretty good indication it's definitelly not recent and pretty widespread.

That depends on the husband.

If you promise to be monogamous - she has you b/c you're the one offering to forgo other pussy. That's the most important thing here. Go to MRP and read on how they implement dread to get out of dead bedroom situation, that's in short among other things, renegotiating the marriage and bluffed rejection of monogamy.

Rollo Tomassi, the author of The Rational Male and the godfather of the red pill, is married. His marriage isn't what you are envisioning.

Street racing in Ferrari during rush hour on rainy day is guaranteed crash. Unless you're Michael Schumacher, in which case your chances of crashing are far lower. In both cases you're doing something stupid and your main goal is to not to crash instead of winning.

Only about 5% of men had children in hunter-gather societies.

If you're referring to 17-1 ratio, I think that was debunked or at least shown to be bungled up in interpretation.

There is no feminism in a hard society where the survival of women and their children is not guaranteed.

Most of that paragraph I can agree on. I would add that we earned alpha status by doing alpha things back then, this was made obsolete by technology and we ended up with forgetting how we were the dominant sex. Trad-con is the embodiment of that loss of memory. Trad-con men feel entiteled to be the leader of women without understanding that that has to be earned, they think it's natural order of things. It's only natural if you're alpha.

That is a proposal, not a marriage, and it's only one of an unlimited number of ways of proposing.

Yeah I was nitpicking, but the stereotypical image made for a good summary/metaphor.

Men generally marry because

Men generally marry b/c every other man they know marry, women tell them to marry, so do their families. It's generally goes like he bangs some chick, they date, she hints commitement, finally she gives him the talk, he accepts the new rules, then she hits making it official and "moving forward, were not growing", then they marry. An then he ends up on deadbedroom, MRP and ask TRP.

Marriage is trading off quantity of offspring for quality of offspring

That'snot true at all. Quality can be simplified to how you upbring them, that's your character, and what environment that grow up with, which in most cases boils down to money.

mrssmithhh 6y ago

I understand how marriage seems like it puts men in a absolute vulnerable position and gives women total power, and as we all know, power corrupts.

Some counter points: women are afraid that men never turn off their sexual strategy either. Ever heard of men wanting side pieces, or leaving their middle aged wife for a 20 secretary? No woman can stop agin unless she simply dies. Women have fear, too.

Also, in traditional marriage, a woman is made very vulnerable by having to exclusively rely on her man to provide for her and the kids. What if the man doesn’t want to share his resources? What I he is a failure and he can’t do the resources in? Then the whole ship goes down, and the wife and kids go hungry either because he won’t share or can’t.

Women are constantly afraid of losing their powers of attraction by becoming a housewife and mother. Pregnancy and motherhood is tough on the body, and it’s hard to maintain a hot body when you’re being taken over by nutrient-sucking narcissistic aliens that need you 24/7. On top of that, there’s nothing very alluring or sexy about the daily activities of running a house and being a mom. It’s hard to be that fun, easy-going, up-for-anything girl when you know you have to do x,y, and a to make sure the kids have food, clean clothes, a clean house, and fun/nurturing activities. Many women can and do slack on being a good housewife and mom, but trust me - I am often up at 4:30- 10 just doing things around the house/with kids. The chores are endless. Women know that men like the ego boost of finding a young, carefree girl to conquer and become infatuated with. Why would a man want to keep sexually pursuing a woman who is only getting older, more familiar, and loves in relative monotony bs the cute stranger at a bar? It could easily be said that marriage is a losing proposition from a woman’s perspective too. She gets financial security for her kids. Forget love, since a man’s love is so tied to physical beauty.

You see? Everyone could be afraid of marriage. But the truth is that it is the only winning solution for both genders. It’s what civilization depends on, and both genders are better and happier when we play the monogamy game and work to be our best (which, in the end, makes our spouse happy).

JamesSkepp 6y ago

But the truth is that it is the only winning solution for both genders.

Sexual strategy is amoral b/c sexual strategy only cares about propagation of the genes. The DNA doesn't care about civilisation or the feelings of the person. Thus from that perspective winning is reproduction at any and all means. From that you can deduct that a "win" for a man can be fucking 100 women and not caring about the offspring (statistics will do the rest) or for a woman it can be getting impregnated by an alpha while a beta provider cares for the child.

Conversly a "loss" for a man look like getting tied down by one woman with one child (while he could have "bigger than 1" number out of 100) or for a woman not being able to fuck the alpha b/c her beta orbiters mateguard her so much that she can't risk her opinion without everyone finding out (IOW she doesn't fuck the alpha, but doesnt' fuck the betas either).

It’s what civilization depends on, and both genders are better and happier when we play the monogamy game and work to be our best

Monogamy, not marriage.

mrssmithhh 6y ago

Not necessarily disagreeing with you. All of your points are valid and truthful.

Monogamously bonded marriage-type relationships are the safest, surest way to ensure DNA survival and health. Even polygamous marriages crest too much resource competition for the children, and Dad invests more time with the children of the favorite wife than other children, or spends too much time and energy looking to add more women rather than cultivating what he already has. Father’s are vital to a kid’s development. Monogamy works to make fathers more directly involved with a few children, rather than just creating many and then disappearing. The DNA which wants to propagate so desperately also needs to be thriving and healthy in order to improve its chances of living on.

Monogamy, not marriage.

This one is a bit trickier, I think. If we all loved in a totally free society, I don’t believe legally binding marriage would be a thing. A man and woman could simply agree to endeavor to raise children together and then give the children whatever resources they created themselves. We do not live in a free society, and most societies are not free. Legal marriage is “supposed” to lawfully protect the property and inheritance of the kids and woman, assuming that the woman would be unable to make resources on her own (due to having and tending kids). It was to delegate who got what after the man died, and this was necessary because it was vital to a culture’s success to make sure the kids weren’t left out in the cold. If daddy didn’t provide then the group at large would have to, and the child living off of charity, with less resources, less emotional investment and time from a father, usually ended up as a liability to the group rather than an asset. Children raised without fathers (or just raised with minimal father involvement) do poorly in almost every area of life. Boys without dads become criminals or just become a dead weight to their society. Boys with dad’s, who have direction, channel their testosterone into productive things. Marriage was also an incentive for a boy to be a positive member of society. Dangling the intimacy of sex as reward for being a contributing person created very good things for a group of people. No job? No woman. No ambition? No woman. And being legally married worked to protect the family and the property of the family. The woman was considered property of the man, and it was assumed he would care for the woman because all men who work for their own property tend to care about the welfare of their property. Ownership is important.

I don’t see monogamous marriage as a moral strategy. I think that as long as no one is being forced, and everyone agrees to the terms, then even orgy-style-let’s-raise-the-kids-in-a-brothel could be moral. I just think that, once kids are involved, the other not way to really ensure they do well is monogamous marriage. It’s smarter. Don’t blame women for monogamy. You’re many women love the resources for an entire lifetime, but would love to have the freedom to be with the man who made them feel something. Lifetime monogamous marriage is the only way to go if you want anything other than low IQ, criminally inclined, instant-gratification type culture.

trueliberal1 6y ago

Rollo Tomassi, the author of The Rational Male and the godfather of the red pill, is married. His marriage isn't what you are envisioning.

Street racing in Ferrari during rush hour on rainy day is guaranteed crash. Unless you're Michael Schumacher, in which case your chances of crashing are far lower. In both cases you're doing something stupid and your main goal is to not to crash instead of winning.

You can't do what Micahel Schumacher does. However, you can certainly do what Rollo does.

That said, the vast majority of women today are not even remotely marriage material. So the chances of a typical man finding and obtaining a woman who is truly wife material are remote today. That's unfortunate, but true. Yet, this illustrates my point. Women used to be marriage material before the pill. It's not that marriage is inherently a bad idea for men. It's that marriage as it exists today is inherently a bad idea for men.

Even if a man finds a woman who is wife material today, it's very risky to marry her given the laws, the family court system, and the culture. Yes, these are all big things that must be considered when deciding whether or not to marry, but the fact that they are things to be considered proves the point that it's the environment not the idea of monogamy that is flawed.

trueliberal1 6y ago

Yeah not fully. You switch from 100% you (do as you please) to 90% her (monogamy, providing, helping raise HER child) and 10% you (helping raise your child IF you don't divorce).

This wasn't how marriage always was, and isn't how a red pill marriage like Rollo's would be.

You don't need marriage for that. Do a test and you know with 99,9% certainty.

Emotions are based on what was advantageous for the DNA of your ancestors. Genetic tests are a recent phenomenon. Men have always valued exclusive access to a woman's sexuality in a LTR because paternity tests weren't an option. As a result, monogamy on the part of the woman is necessary for a man's emotional investment in a LTR and most men still like having that exclusive access with at least one woman. It's evolutionary.

If you are going to discard emotion and just go on practicality, what is the purpose of having sex without reproducing? Men still value sex even when they know there is no chance of offspring. Hell, they value it more without the offspring.

But the thing is you're not dealing with rational players.

The game does not require that other players be rational. Game theory deals with irrational players as well.

I would add that we earned alpha status by doing alpha things back then, this was made obsolete by technology

Muscle has been mechanized, but that does not mean that being alpha is obsolete. Alpha is about attitude and valuing one's self far more than about muscle. If anything, technology overall has made the male mind more important. All the technology you see before you was created by men. Technology amplifies the difference between those who accomplish and those who don't.

Men generally marry b/c every other man they know marry, women tell them to marry, so do their families.

Men were pressured into marrying by society in the 1950s. Those days are long gone. With so many people staying single, there is no pressure to marry today. That said, my point stands that many men would want to marry in order to raise their own children in the best possible environment if the marriage laws, family courts, and our culture weren't so toxic to marriage.

Most men want to impregnate as many women as possible without devoting any resources to the offspring AND ALSO find one or a few women with which to devote all their resources to raising a family and maximizing the prosperity of those offspring. In other words, the default male strategy is to pursue both quantity and quality.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

This wasn't how marriage always was

I was like that for the most part, simply b/c she holds most of the cards after you willingly gave up yours. As for Rollo, ask him about how his marriage lokks like.

monogamy on the part of the woman is necessary for a man's emotional investment in a LTR

No, not monogamy. Not getting caught cheating. Welcome to game theory.

The game does not require that other players be rational. Game theory deals with irrational players as well.

"marriage cooperation" is better (dubiuous term, better for whom and in what context?)

Sure, this is why I added the above comment. "Marriage cooperation" might be logically better but I can easily see how "marriage cooperation is good but not getting caught is better yet".

Anyway, this is speculation since both of us have zero experience in game theory applied to m-f dynamics. Also, all this game theory sounds like how it should be like, not how it is - this is what we deal in here and on MRP.

but that does not mean that being alpha is obsolete

Didn't mean this as obsolete. More like, efficient, practical, easier. If my job is to dig coal 12h a day for 5 years, I'm gonna get strong (alpha). But why dig if a machine can do it for me. In modern times alpha is a choice you have to commit to.

Men were pressured into marrying by society in the 1950s.

Men (and women) were pressured to marry long before modern times.

there is no pressure to marry today

You're saying it like being pressured to marry is a good thing.

AND ALSO find one or a few women with which to devote all their resources to raising a family and maximizing the prosperity of those offspring

You're describing serial monogamy warped into life long monogamy.

I'm getting the feeling you're a trad-con-ish dude longing for "good old 1950's times where men were alpha and women were submissive". You have a distorted image what 1950s looked like in actual RP, under the hood realities. You also have BP blindspot, namely, you think women become different (or should be) after getting married. In reality getting married is natural part of her hypergamous strategy. "The best trick Satan did is he convinced people he doesn't exist". Same thing here, she doesn't change, it was her plan all along to make you think that she will after you marry her.

trueliberal1 6y ago

I'm getting the feeling you're a trad-con-ish dude longing for "good old 1950's times where men were alpha and women were submissive".

People just to applying labels too quickly. I'm about as far from a trad-con as you can get. I'm a STEM atheist liberal. Doesn't quite fit with trad-con. Doesn't fit with the left either.

You also have BP blindspot, namely, you think women become different (or should be) after getting married.

I don't remotely believe that.

In reality getting married is natural part of her hypergamous strategy.

The manifestation of hypergamy in the Millennials is nothing like it was in the Silent Generation. Only 1 of 50 couples from my parents' social circle have divorced. Meanwhile half of my gen-x friends have divorced and even more of my Millennial friends. Culture and laws make a very big difference in how hypergamy is manifested. The human genome hasn't changed, but how genes are expressed is influence by environment. Woman nature is not a constant, but a function of laws and culture.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

Doesn't quite fit with trad-con

Longing for 1950s, marriage was great, marriage is compromise. As I said, vaguely trad-con-ish.

I don't remotely believe that.

Here's the list, only from your first comment mind you:

women need to compromise their own self-interests for the benefit of the couple.

Doesn't happen, never did.

women have reneged on their end of the deal

No such thing ever happened b/c there ws no deal to begin with. Women don't do deals, women obey the boundaries you set for them. Marrying a woman is a form of submitting to her RP m-f dynamics. As the Grandfather of Manosphere said: For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.

incapable of fulfilling the emotional needs of a potential husband that are deeply rooted in evolution

Women didn't evolve to fulfill men's needs. Let alone "evolved to fulfill her husband's needs". My assumption is you think women change after marriage, case in point. Aside from that, if women did evolve to fulfill her husband's need (of low or zero n-count) and that evolution took place over the course of 2-3 millions of years, are you certain that during the 2-3 millions period it haven't ever dealt with high n-count situation?

The manifestation of hypergamy in the Millennials is nothing like it was in the Silent Generation

Culture and laws make a very big difference in how hypergamy is manifested

Sure, but you see we always went against hypergamy. Now that we have fairly deep understanding of it, we should incorporate it instead of longing for times where it was artificially curbed.

Stop looking at this like that b/c you're looking for ways to control women. You can't, you can only control yourself.

trueliberal1 6y ago

Longing for 1950s

McCarthyism, conformity, reverence to the state, very high income taxes, the cold war, constant fear of nuclear annihilation, primitive technology

No, I have no longing for the 1950s. Nor was pre-pill marriage and sexual relations specific to the 1950s. You could pick any decade for the past 3000 years before 1960 and the same dynamics would apply.

Here's the list, only from your first comment mind you:

Your example doesn't match your initial supposition. Yes, I believe that any long-term relationship (business, romantic, etc) requires compromise. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the net benefit of cooperation exceeds that of defection, which it often does in the long run, then it's a good deal. However, that does not mean that I'm longing for 1950s style marriage.

All I'm saying is that marriage has gotten a hell of a lot worse over the past 50 years. That means, by logical necessity, that it was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago. That does not mean that marriage was perfect or always a good idea, just that it was a lot better. Something has been lost.

For me personally, I've aged out of even considering marriage, so this is largely an academic conversation, but academic conversations have value providing understanding for future generations. My point is that a blanketed statement that marriage has always been a bad deal for most men is simply not supported by the empirical evidence. If marriage were always a bad deal for most men, then it would never have taken off as an institution.

Women didn't evolve to fulfill men's needs.

I don't see how that's relevant. Man didn't evolve to fly airplanes, but we can.

My assumption is you think women change after marriage

I don't believe that at all.

Aside from that, if women did evolve to

If the premise of a statement is false, then the conclusion is irrelevant.

Evolution is not just zero-sum games and not just cooperation. It's a mixture of conflict and cooperation. Just take a look at handedness. If we were an entirely competitive and defecting species, almost exactly 50% of people would be left-handed and 50% right-handed. If we were entirely cooperative, 100% of people would either be left-handed or right-handed. Instead, we're a mixture. And that mixture shows a high degree of cooperation with a significant amount of defection.

I don't buy into the school of thought that male-female relations have to be a zero-sum game. There is both opportunity for cooperation -- although not much today -- and temptation to defect. However, male-female relations have clearly deteriorated a lot over the past three generations. As such, I think it's inaccurate to paint all of human history in the same color as today.

Stop looking at this like that b/c you're looking for ways to control women.

There is nothing I said that implies the desire to control women. My position, which I haven't stated yet, would be to remove laws demonizing men and to change our culture to value men more. Note that doing either of these things does not mean devaluing women -- although sex and women's interests are certainly overvalued.

What I have implied is that in the long run cooperation is generally far better than zero-sum games and that intersexual relationships today, not just romantic or sexual ones, are often viewed as zero-sum games, and that just creates needless problems.

Sure, but you see we always went against hypergamy. Now that we have fairly deep understanding of it, we should incorporate it instead of longing for times where it was artificially curbed.

I think we're splitting hairs. Yes, hypergamy has always existed. Similarly, men's desire to impregnate as many women as possible while not providing any resources to the offspring has also always existed. Both of these serve the individual defecting but at a great cost to the other. It's not the optimal outcome for the whole. This is a classic two-player game like Prisoner's Dilemma.

All I'm saying is that a system in which cooperation is encouraged will result in greater happiness for all players than a system in which defection is encouraged. We currently live in the latter.

One final thought. It is theoretically impossible to reach the speed of light. That may sound like an academic issue since we're no where close to achieving that speed for very practical matters. However, the fact that there is a hard physical limitation on speed tells us something fundamental about the universe regardless of what is practical. It tells us what the first principles are.

Similarly, marriage today is such a bad deal and marriage women so rare as to be effectively extinct. However, the fact that marriage was not a terrible deal in past generations and women were largely marriage material before despite hypergamy still applying as much as it does today, tells us something fundamental about human nature, specifically that most of what is causing strife between the sexes today is not hard-wired human instinct but rather environmentally caused.

There is no evidence that intersexual relations 100 years ago were as bad as they are today. No evidence that defection was as common or as devastating as it is today. Yes, hypergamy and defection have always been here, but the behavior of both men and (even more so) women was significantly different.

Should men avoid marriage today? Definitely. Does that mean marriage was always bad? No. Does that mean that marriage is forever fubared? No. Will marriage become a good deal within our lifetimes? Almost certainly not. The problems faced today are 50 years in the making. It's going to take another 50 years to fix them. Does that mean we should not bother trying to fix them? No. The quality of life of our descendants has value.

How can we fix them? As individuals there's damn little we can do. We can support politicians who aren't white knighting and politically correct. We can stop being thirsty for sex and doing whatever it takes to get laid. We can improve our own lives and stay out of LTRs. This affects the market. We can spread wisdom that we learned so that knowledge accumulates and benefits subsequent generations. We can avoid fallacies like confirmation bias. We can live balanced lives.

In the end, it's all about balance. One doesn't have to demonize women to acknowledge their severe shortcomings. One doesn't have to put women on a pedestal to acknowledge the good characteristics.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

You could pick any decade for the past 3000 years before 1960 and the same dynamics would apply.

I meant 1950s in m-f dynamics, not in general. Anyway, let's agree on pre-1960. You say it's the moment when marriage went bad, I say marriage was always bad deal and it's good the true nature of woman and the extend to which they follow it was allowed to be exposed. There would be no TRP without 2 things: internet and sexual revolution.

I believe that any long-term relationship (business, romantic, etc) requires compromise. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

There's no compromise with women. There's no 50-50 relationship. You're not dealing with rational creatures, she will never stick to her compromise, OTOH she will "feel of you less" for caving in to her LTR/marriage shit test. You compromised your alpha frame, something she was initially attracted to. Therefore once you get married, you become the beta, and the unconquered poolboy is now alpha. Read Rollo's Cardinal Rule and Emotional Conquest. And BTW, you called him the Grandfather of Manosphere but I don't think you've read him that much at all.

All I'm saying is that marriage has gotten a hell of a lot worse over the past 50 years. That means, by logical necessity, that it was a hell of a lot better 50 years ago.

You're a slave and your master sold you to a coal mine. Previously slaves only worked in vineyards. Therefore logically it was much better to be a slave 50 years ago.

I don't buy into the school of thought that male-female relations have to be a zero-sum game.

Go to my profile, find Marriage is BP post, read all the discussion bellow it, here's what I wrote as a comment:

You're missing the point.

Imagine you have a tiger that you're raised from a pup. It never seen other tigers, it never seen how to hunt and kill pray. You're raised it to be gentle and kind, you have nothing to be afraid from it, you trust it with your life.

That doesn't change the fact that the tiger is inherently, by the virtue of being a tiger, a 300lbs killing machine, one of the best ones that nature came up with. Thus treating this tiger like you would treat a cat or a dog is going to get someone killed sooner or later, it might not be you, it might be the guy who got scared by a big cat and started to run - and the instincts of the tiger kicked in.

That's the point. Your wife not being exposed to feminism changes little b/c feminism is not causing hypergamy, feminism is not the reason behind AF/BB, feminism doesn't make her cheat on you and so on. It's her nature, her genetic makeup, her instincts that cause this. Believing that your wife is different b/c she's from a culture not influenced by feminism is the same as believing that your tiger would not kill any animal b/c it was never exposed to other tigers.

change our culture to value men more

What I have implied is that in the long run cooperation

Women do not cooperate, women submit to alphas they find sexually attractive. You can't make men more valuable by law just as you can't make them more sexually attractive by law.

All I'm saying is that a system in which cooperation is encouraged will result in greater happiness for all players than a system in which defection is encouraged. We currently live in the latter.

Good. We are, as far as basic needs go, mostly independent from the nature (excluding some small tribes). We don't need to be artificially cooperative anymore (marriage must be a part of civilisation), we can now choose "cooperation" (marry if you want) based on pure m-f sexual preferences. Which basically means serial monogamy at best.

There is no evidence that intersexual relations 100 years ago were as bad as they are today.

Women and children first (Any particular reason why?). Your life sacrificed for her honour or life simply b/c she's a woman (not even a wife or family, just a random woman). Being an ass kissing gentleman - indoctrinated (they got used to this BTW). Provide for your wife (b/c she can't get a job or even worse "its a mans job to provide"). Arranged marriages (no need to be alpha, but you get what you get not what you want). No easy divorce (welcome to deadbedroom). So yeah, it was great back then.

the fact that there is a hard physical limitation on speed tells us something fundamental about the universe regardless of what is practical. It tells us what the first principles are.

Not really. First of all, speed of light can change depending on medium light travels through. Then there's theoretical speculation that our laws are local not universal, meaning there can be a universe in which the speed might be different and/or not limited at all. Next DAFS on Alcubierre Drive, you don't cross the speed limit, you move entire space and that has no speed limit, no laws are broken. Finally, with the advent of metamaterials and literally new kinds of physics, it's entirely possible we will be able to break lightspeed like we broke sound barrier.

Back to the m-f stuff: marriage does not come from nature, most species are not monogamous. Neither are we. In short, we invented marriage to have paternity certainty (aside from inter-tribe politics via marriages).

It's going to take another 50 years to fix them.

Classic marriage will not have it's renaissance. Most changes to m-f dynamics (and to civilisation in general) happened b/c we adapted new technology. With the advent of what we have now in tech and on drawing boards, it's gonna be hard to predict how m-f relation will look like 50 years from now, one thing is sure there will be no balance only variety.

proplfax 6y ago

the pretend badasses on MRP would call you a faggot

Protocol_Apollo 6y ago

But don’t males also have a dualistic mating strategy?

Spread the seed as far as possible AND find one woman to raise a child with?

The child needs protection (this only an alpha can provide), resources (betas can provide this as well as alphas) and nurturing.

If alphas ran amok just solely impregnating women and leaving, most of their offspring would die either due to a lack of someone providing resources or nobody being strong enough to protect the child and it’s mother during pregnancy and after.

MattyAnon Admin 6y ago

Spread the seed as far as possible AND find one woman to raise a child with?

Yes, and by marrying you give up on a big chunk of that and legally define yourself as 100% beta.

If alphas ran amok just solely impregnating women and leaving, most of their offspring would die either due to a lack of someone providing resources or nobody being strong enough to protect the child and it’s mother during pregnancy and after.

Yes.

Women need resources for child rearing.

This doesn't affect the central premise that marriage is a shit deal for men.

overwhelmingodds 6y ago

True, yet it depends on the definition of marriage. In Islam the women cannot deprive the man of sex. Reciprocally, the man cannot deprive the women of his commitment and responsibilities (financial, social, emotional, etc.). The modern marriage is not a marriage, it is a rape in and out of itself for men, as not only they must deliver commitment during the mariage, but also after the divorce and potentially for decades, whereas women do not need to deliver even during the marriage. Bonkers.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

In Islam the women cannot deprive the man of sex

In Islam women can be stoned for cheating, yet according to what I read years ago, confirmed by recent thread on Middle East written and commented my people living there, there's a cheating epidemy there.

The modern marriage is not a marriage

It's not that the marriage had been good for men some time in the past. It was always bad, it's just that recently it had gotten even worse.

overwhelmingodds 6y ago

In Islam women can be stoned for cheating, yet according to what I read years ago, confirmed by recent thread on Middle East written and commented my people living there, there's a cheating epidemy there.

Preferring to skip this as it is out of context and the subject is way deeper than one-phrase answer, out of TRP interest.

It's not that the marriage had been good for men some time in the past. It was always bad, it's just that recently it had gotten even worse.

I don't believe it being such a bad deal for men say 2-3 generations before and beyond, as established social and religious conventions used to enforce engagement, commitment, and taking responsibility for both parties. Nevertheless, if you are an HBM9 chad marriage is indeed a losing bet from any stance.

JamesSkepp 6y ago

I don't believe it being such a bad deal for men say 2-3 generations before and beyond, as established social and religious conventions used to enforce engagement, commitment, and taking responsibility for both parties.

BetaBux is not recent invention. As I wrote in another comment there are verses in few thousand year old Bible about wives denying sex to husbands. If that was worth mentioning in the Bible, it must have been pretty common thing.

overwhelmingodds 6y ago

It could be true, but I cannot agree with the logic here. Similar verses exist for murdering, for example, but as we know it most people are not murderers.

Betabux has been known throughout humanity I believe, but not to the degree of intricacies that we are aware of today thanks to TRP (which was possible due to internet and women going so much down the rabbit hole in destroying themselves and manifesting deepest parts of the female psyche). There are sayings of Mohamed (p.b.o) for instance that discourage marrying non-virgins if there are virgin options, overtly stressing their incapability of bonding. Mind you the type of women he talks about might have experienced one, maybe two men throughout her life, which is not even comparable to the headcount of a below-average millenial cumbucket.

AreOut 6y ago

just tell her to sign a prenup where you are allowed to fuck other women if she doesn't want to do it anymore, if she doesn't want to sign it find the one that wants, they do exist

JamesSkepp 6y ago

Prenups are know to be discarded in courts, assuming you can sign a prenup like that in the first place.

[deleted] 6y ago

[--removed--]

[deleted] 6y ago

"I think the weirdest time was when I saw my mom at a bachelorette party... When I saw her of course I wanted to just leave without doing anything for the party but she insisted I stay. I decided to do my routine and I thought I was nailing it until my mom started telling me things like "be gentle jakey."

This is literally a scene from The Office. Troll successful LOL

trueliberal1 6y ago

I was greeted by an old lady (70+) grabbing my dck through my outfit, like I was her grandson

What was your relationship with your grandmother? That's not how grandmother-grandson relations are suppose to work.

RightHandWolf 6y ago

What was your relationship with your grandmother? That's not how grandmother-grandson relations are suppose to work.

Except for a few places where banjo music can be heard on a regular basis.

It's a family affair! But did you ever see Jody and Buffy do this?

slip-down 6y ago

Obviously these are the extreme cases, but this posts is one of the biggest reasons not to get married (depending on what you want). If this doesn't Redpill you, nothing will. That being said, I know plenty of guys who don't give a rats ass. They just make it known that they are getting theirs on the side...and honestly, this scares their women from doing that shit. Of course you have to be a man of value.

My advice to most men (especially here). Is walk away...use your most powerful tool. No closure no BS.

Smoov_Biscuit_Time 6y ago

Reading this turned my stomach.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

Why do you think I posted it?

[deleted]

FlowFreal 6y ago

Yup.. in an LTR right now

A lot of these posts lately have been about women always cheating. Sucks.

The-Wizard-of-Oz- 6y ago

See, the LTR is fine but you have you to strengthen yourself. That's what matters.

AutoModerator 6y ago

Why are we quarantined? The admin don't want you to know.

Register on our backup site: https://www.trp.red and reserve your reddit name today.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Dionysus-VIOLENCE 6y ago

yeah I am going to get married one day, its not for everyone though.

-1

grandmasbroach 6y ago

You can just give me half your shit if you want. I'll save you a bunch of time and heartbreak too. You realize that only 6% of marriages last until death? Why the fuck would you do that with those odds? They're about twenty to one. You know that, right?

Name a single benefit a guy gets from marriage he can't get elsewhere? I'll wait.

[deleted]

Dionysus-VIOLENCE 6y ago

6% lmao. shut the fuck up incel, blocked

grandmasbroach 6y ago

You realize that I can actually see if you blocked me or not, right? if you blocked me, I wouldn't be seeing this, nor would I be able to respond... Idiot. Lol

Don't believe me, just go get married, and in 10 years come back and let us know how that worked out. Statistically, it isn't in your favor.