Why marriage is ruining everything!!!!!

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


That you formalize your relationship in a way that doesn't make a freaking mess, that usually ends up in courts? Yeah, governments tend to involve themselves in regulating that sort of thing.

Coupling up is basic programming. If tomorrow every nation on this planet blew up and most of the population was wiped out, and every relationship was torn asunder so that every coupling one person died..... by next week, there would be new families forming up, and new communities beginning, and new governance structures to deal with the needs of those new families.

I've been married more than once. Not sure whether that makes me more or less competent to talk about the topic.

It's possible to be happy married.
It's possible to be miserable married.
It's possible to be happy single.
It's possible to be miserable single.

That should cover it, no? Although I will say, if you are having doubts its better to err on the side of caution. Marriage is a little like one of those lobster traps with the wide mouth that narrows down. Easy to get into, much harder to get out of. And these days some of the legal aspects are difficult and perhaps in many cases unfair for men, when it comes to money and children. You are wise to be careful.

If you feel the hankering for an unconventional life, don't let anyone tell you you have to toe the line. I took the road less traveled and I have no regrets.

Originally posted by silent thunder
I've been married more than once. Not sure whether that makes me more or less competent to talk about the topic.

Just for the record - - my first marriage was about 10 years. He was jealous of his own children. When they started suffering - - I booted him.

My second and current marriage - - just celebrated my 22nd year.

I'm not anti marriage. Just don't do it for the wrong reason.

Originally posted by Aeons
[Coupling up is basic programming. If tomorrow every nation on this planet blew up and most of the population was wiped out, and every relationship was torn asunder so that every coupling one person died..... by next week, there would be new families forming up, and new communities beginning, and new governance structures to deal with the needs of those new families.

I'm not so sure about that.

There is some evidence that multiple women for powerful men and nothing for everyone else is the more natural state of affairs. Alpha males getting multiple females and the majority of men getting nothing. I've heard the opinion before that marriage is a kind of "sexual socialism" that eased the tension in the community by giving women to most men, allowing for more social stability, which is the key to more complex societies. But it is not necessarily the natural state of affairs.

And really, when you think about it, isn't this what goes on anyway, marriage or no marriage? We all know the playboys and rich d-bags who have an endless string of beautiful women, while the net is full of the anguished cries of sexless beta men.

Originally posted by FailedProphet
I'm not so sure about that.

There is some evidence that multiple women for powerful men and nothing for everyone else is the more natural state of affairs. Alpha males getting multiple females and the majority of men getting nothing. .

I actually agree with you. I don't think the 1 man - 1 woman - - - is the natural state (at least I think that is what you are saying).

I think there is a biological reason men are singular focused and women are multi-taskers (brain differences).

I fault Puritanical Religion for squashing the natural human social structure.

Might ruin things for some, but not for others. Marriage is and has been on the decline in the US anyway( see here ). Are we in a better position now?...Compare and contrast that decide for yourself. You're younger, give yourself some time to figure it out.

At your age, can say I never wanted marriage either and felt similar. Here I am, years later...married and happier, more so than i would be dating still; (examples in that) hoping the person i am dating is committed as I am... heartbreak and moving on to another...got old after a while. On the other hand, we have no kids, and may not choose to have them. Marriages don't have to be cookie cutter!

its just a large unnecasary expence. you can live together as a couple and have the same rights as a married couple. so why run up a debt just to get a peice of paper...... i think that every man beleives this but the women folk are stuck in their ways lol

Originally posted by DaveNorris
its just a large unnecasary expence. you can live together as a couple and have the same rights as a married couple. so why run up a debt just to get a peice of paper...... i think that every man beleives this but the women folk are stuck in their ways lol

Every society that is a patriarchy has no options except for marriage.

In female dominated societies, marriage is not.

Contention - blown up.

reply to post by FailedProphet


The beta males just don't know what to look for. The alpha males get an endless string of stupid, and the smart ones control themselves.

That beta males want only status women because they think that alphas want them - instead of going for women they actually like and are actually attracted to - says more about how the beta males want women as status to impress alpha males more than they actually want to have sex.

This is an interesting way of projecting one's want to affiliate with an alpha through sex with those favoured by an alpha.

Sublimination to dominants undermines male and female norms.

Originally posted by Aeons
That beta males want only status women because they think that alphas want them - instead of going for women they actually like and are actually attracted to - says more about how the beta males want women as status to impress alpha males more than they actually want to have sex.

Dead wrong. Men respond viserally and bioligically to the physical beauty of a woman's body.

It is a female trait - not a male one - to be concerned with "status" or to "want somebody because somebody else wants them." Women are turned on by status, men by looks.

I've been impressed with your insightfulness, particularly in the Brievik thread. But I'm sorry, here you are completely, utterly mistaken in your reading of what men want. You are projecting female needs and psychology onto males.

reply to post by football6


Sooner or later you will find someone whom you'll want to live with, and then the money both of you make may not be enough.

reply to post by football6


Google Marriage Strike, Zeta Male and MGTOW before you do something dangerous like get married or something even more risky like a pregnancy.


And Remember the four S's.
Stay Single, Stay Safe.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by FailedProphet
I'm not so sure about that.

There is some evidence that multiple women for powerful men and nothing for everyone else is the more natural state of affairs. Alpha males getting multiple females and the majority of men getting nothing. .

I actually agree with you. I don't think the 1 man - 1 woman - - - is the natural state (at least I think that is what you are saying).

I think there is a biological reason men are singular focused and women are multi-taskers (brain differences).

I fault Puritanical Religion for squashing the natural human social structure.

Sad. Do you know what is even sadder? The Agent Orange files show similar sentiments from Radical Feminist's(most of them are well placed in positions of power, are educators in Public Schools and come from affluent families) who called for the mass culling(mass murder) of the non rich men.

There is one problem with this: Such a civilization is doomed to collapse, stagnation and mass poverty.

See the Middle East.

Young men won't fight to defend a female hypergamous civilization; thus civilizations whose women do care for their men will be able to field enough soldiers to conquer rival civilizations. It is how the Mongols conquered most of Asia at a time when China all the way to the Middle East practiced what you suggest as the "natural norm".



Then again society still suffers from the Spartan Cognitive Dissonance. Men and women praise the Spartans but ignore the fall of Sparta or social conditions in Sparta, and in many ways emulate Sparta. Heck on could argue that Sparta was the very first Feminist State.

As at the age till retirement all males became defacto property of the state. Brutalized to an extent that would probably get someone the death sentence(or atleast life) if they did half the stuff today. Little boy's at the age of 7 beaten to within an inch of their lives routinely while their sisters learned how to read, write and lord over the slaves.

In the end Sparta was crushed by Thebes without any mercy. And in the end Sparta couldn't field enough soldiers due to Spartan young men fleeing Sparta and the institutionalized homosexuality and gynocentric society. And by the Roman era Spartan society survived only by holding outdoor "endurance contest's", similar to the old training methods; exploiting young Spartan boy's for a few coins from tourist's.

Such is the fate of the West.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

If the piece of paper means nothing, then it means nothing to you to sign it.

You're basing your argument on that point, and in my opinion, that point is beside the point. If that makes any sense.

If the piece of paper legally stating that you're married means nothing to you, then it means nothing to YOU. That's not to say though that it doesn't mean something to SOCIETY at large. because it does. To society it means that you can share benefits, and upon divorce or death, legally share assets. That's it. At the end of the day, a marriage certificate has nothing to do with love, and I think that's what fnpmitchreturns was trying to get at.

Here we are, 2012, and society at large is still under the impression that marriage=love. It doesn't. Pre-nuptual agreements should be enough to prove THAT point. I don't know who I feel for the most; the people who are married who claim they're in love simply because they're married, or all the people who believe that. This, I think, is one of those old fashioned values, laws if you will, that are outdated and have no use in this society. Kind of like one of those old west laws that states that it's illegal to shoe your horse on Saturday on Main St., or some such nonsense. If anything, it can be a very unhealthy way of thinking.

Marriage started out as a notion that for 2 people to truely be in love they had to take vows before God to consecrate their union. To make being together "right" in the eyes of God. I find it fascinating that as each year goes by it is proven that less and less people believe in God in the traditional sense, the sense that started this whole marriage business, while at the same time the divorce rate goes up. And while all that this is going on, people still want to cling to the notion that marriage is some sort of sacred union that shouldn't be touched by anyone else. Meaning that if another man or woman came onto a married couples' scene and sparks started to fly, it would be frowned upon by society. Both the person "tempting" one of the married people as well one of the married people would both be looked down upon as not doing the the "right thing". Sorry, but if the one married person was truely in love, they wouldn't have been looking in the first place.

So no, this makes absolutely no sense to me. It didn't make sense to me 20 years ago and it STILL doesn't. The real crime in this case is societies pre-concieved and ill fitting notions that the institute of marraige itself is more important than love. And to me, that speaks VOLUMES about organized religion and how stifling to our spiritual growth it really is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are plenty of people who are both truely in love AND married. All I'm saying is don't assume that just because two people are married, they're in love. There's a difference. And on top of that, just because you're in love when you get married doesn't mean you're going to stay in love. Sorry, but love isn't dictated by a piece of paper. Your benefits are.

I should know.

So why did I get married if I'm so strongly against it? Let's just say that sometimes there is no arguing with a woman. Even if you feel that something like marriage for the sake of it is wrong; she's right. If you've never been in those shoes, it's hard to explain it better than that.

To the OP: Don't concern yourself with marriage. Concern yourself with love. If you fall in love with someone THEN want to get married, go for it. But love is more important. And hopefully these words of advice will keep you from confusing the two like so many people today seem to.

Deny Ignorance friend.


Personal disclosure: Sorry for the rant. The underlying reason why I went off like that is because all this marraige business, and that's exactly what it is; a business, comes down to organized religion. The people who have been here a long time know how I feel about it and how it can get under my skin from time to time.

I think that most of you that think that have reduced neurochemical bonding mechanisms.

I think most of you would find this article interesting:

M arried with Infidelities

There are some powerful statements in this article that I think hit the nail on the head.

Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners. And that, Savage says, destroys more families than it saves.

The mistake that straight people made,” Savage told me, “was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous. Men had concubines, mistresses and access to prostitutes, until everybody decided marriage had to be egalitar­ian and fairsey.” In the feminist revolution, rather than extending to women “the same latitude and license and pressure-release valve that men had always enjoyed,” we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

we extended to men the confines women had always endured. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage.”

That's about the most interesting line in the whole thing IMO.

What I'd like to see is a medical professionals view on this. What is it, physically, that makes that statement true? Why do men need more of a physical release than women?

I also find it odd that the guy who wrote that article was raised Catholic and he puts more emphasis on the sexual part of marraige, or as I like to call it; a RELATIONSHIP, than he does spiritual part of it. Again, it seems to speak volumes about organized relgion in general and Catholics in parrticluar. I knew a few personally and you hear about them in the news periodically and they all seem to have one thing in common: hang-ups about sex. Madonna is the most obvious. Only her hang-up is that she makes no attempt to keep her sexual life, which is bizarre to say the least, private. I understand wanting to experiment and all, but that lady seems to have a problem with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are probably more Catholics in this world then there are Chinese.

Kinda scary when you think about it.

Originally posted by FailedProphet

Originally posted by Aeons
That beta males want only status women because they think that alphas want them - instead of going for women they actually like and are actually attracted to - says more about how the beta males want women as status to impress alpha males more than they actually want to have sex.

Dead wrong. Men respond viserally and bioligically to the physical beauty of a woman's body.

It is a female trait - not a male one - to be concerned with "status" or to "want somebody because somebody else wants them." Women are turned on by status, men by looks.

I've been impressed with your insightfulness, particularly in the Brievik thread. But I'm sorry, here you are completely, utterly mistaken in your reading of what men want. You are projecting female needs and psychology onto males.

edit on 1/12/2012 by FailedProphet because: (no reason given)

I think certain female traits need to be controlled compared to men. Guys will date up or down, short or tall, chubby or thin, but many females on the other hand still are consumed by the basic desires of finding the perfect provider. Basically how females go about selecting men is extremely cold/shallow compared to men picking a average sized girl over a unhealthy looking larger woman.

(This is just a generalization based on the majority)
-Many women in the west demand men be taller ( this is an issue for many asian men in America)
-Guys have to have a car and/or nice looking care depending on the female
-Men are shamed for being thin so to some degree body size matters
-Their male must earn equal or more
-Men can't show certain weakness even when women say it's ok. Instinct tells women it's a turn off when they see male weakness which is the reason men still won't open up to you.
-Women what men to see a degree of dominance which can be stressful if you're not that type of male.

As you can see a womans love is based on what her ideal male can become and do for her plus her children. A mans love is infinite, he loves you for you even when you look old and complain random things. Society screwed up when they made women's love out to be pure when coming from a science point of view it's a very shallow love, but again it's just nature.

(btw I don't hate neither gender. I see the reality of both genders as of matter of fact. Women are what they are and men are what they are. Everything I say is coming from a scientific point of view and NOT our illusionary make believe world concepts that most people live by.)