[xy2k]

I realise that there is a significant proportion of forum members who are opposed to marriage - some have already said that they will never get married, marriage is for betas etc.

Fair enough.

But have you considered the impact of this:

Firstly, from a biological point of view, you will not pass on your genes.

Secondly, what will it mean for society? Isn't it our responsibility to bring up children - male children taught to behave like real men? female children to preserve their femininity? By not bringing up children, are we not shirking that responsibility?

Take this image that is oft quoted in admiration in this forum:


I'd assume that each of those men worked hard and also brought up good families at home.

Thoughts?

[Architekt]

(10-28-2012 06:57 AM)xy2k Wrote:  

Firstly, from a biological point of view, you will not pass on your genes.

Not sure if you missed the memo, but you can, in fact, impregnate women, even when you're not married to them.

Quote:

Secondly, what will it mean for society? Isn't it our responsibility to bring up children - male children taught to behave like real men? female children to preserve their femininity? By not bringing up children, are we not shirking that responsibility?

This is becoming very evident already. A lot of the younger generation is completely fucked up

[Way Cool Jr]

I'm convinced that at one point of my life I will feel the need to have children, I just don't want to have any before 35 or maybe 38 years old (I'm 24 right now).
Anyway having kids doesn't always imply that you also have to marry.

[americanInEurope]

Hope this isn't a troll posting.

I'm in love with a chick right, however:

1) I honestly don't want to stop fucking other girls. It's such a rush to fuck a new girl, or go to a new country and camp out for a few months, open yourself up completely to the experience and fuck new chicks. Not even just on a sexual level, but just having freedom is awesome! To put it bluntly, I'm not mature enough for marriage. I still wanna fuck and have freedom to go wherever I want.

2) Everyone I know that's in a marriage is unhappy. That goes for 99% of my co workers, my friends and family. Everyone. It's possible to be married and be happy for a few years, but kids exacerbate the unhappiness I think. In today's selfish western society, marriage is a relic from the past that just doesn't fit into our highly globalized lives anymore.

Companionship, partnership, love...these are things you can have w/o the wife and kids. Kids I think ruin marriage. But they also give your life meaning in ways you never thought possible as a single guy.

You don't have to get married to have kids. My parents split up when I was 4 and they both raised me, just not together. You can pass on your genes and and not have to be in an unhappy marriage together. If it's a happy marriage then great, but it's a terrible thing to raise a kid in a house of yelling, fighting, hitting and passive aggression between husband and wife. That was my mother's second marriage as well as my fathers. I had to become a stronger kid a lot earlier because my parents lived in different cities, but that may just be the way childhood will have to be from now on. So long Mayberry.

[Dr. Howard]

Its a risky proposition. Maybe it will become a new extreme sport with an advertisement like "been skydiving, swam with sharks, raced motorcycles and need a new thrill?!...try marriage! Danger, risk, unpredictable situations that few survive while having odds stacked against them, it has it all!!"

Onto the question though, its hard fucking work. Marriage no longer has social support, shame for cheating or divorce, no risk for leaving and other women that will encourage their friends to come to the dark side once they get there.

If you enjoy underdog challenges, which I kind of do, marriage and the prospect of having a couple of kids that may come out light years ahead of their peers just because of family structure may be exciting. you're a regular Sir Edmund Hillary if your goal is to be 90, a widower with 3 kids...great if you can achieve it but you will get f'd in the A if you fail and no one will give you praise for effort.

All of this reinforces the idea of being careful who you marry though, as most women value social acceptance and these days 'enduring' a marriage isn't acceptable.

[tiggaling]

The good thing about being a man is that you can have kids at any age.

For those few of us who can be out and about in the world, be with new women and have the energy and stamina to do that, going into a domestic situation isn't so appealing for the most part.

I know it can be good. But it can also be bad. I see that I want to develope myself enough so that I can be mature enough to make it really work on every level, and absolutely make sure I have the right woman for breeding. Why rush in? especially if you are a man who has the energy, looks and health of one ten years younger than him (which seems to be quite a few guys on here!)

[Wool Suit]

(10-28-2012 08:10 AM)wiscanada Wrote:  

Onto the question though, its hard fucking work. Marriage no longer has social support, shame for cheating or divorce, no risk for leaving and other women that will encourage their friends to come to the dark side once they get there.

If you enjoy underdog challenges, which I kind of do, marriage and the prospect of having a couple of kids that may come out light years ahead of their peers just because of family structure may be exciting. you're a regular Sir Edmund Hillary if your goal is to be 90, a widower with 3 kids...great if you can achieve it but you will get f'd in the A if you fail and no one will give you praise for effort.

This.

In theory, I don't find marriage a horrible institution. The problem is in today's society, particularly American society, it means absolutely nothing. It's a piece of paper and a $50,000 ceremony. That's it. Love, dedication, commitment. Dead. There is no consequence for getting a divorce if you're a woman. You shatter some poor guy's heart, demolish his bank account, take his children from him, and run off with Mr. New like your vows were completely meaningless. Which, of course, they were.

I mean, it's really astonishing when you get down to it. You stand there in front of your friends and family and make a lifetime commitment to another person, and then you bail in just a few years. As a man, where is the upside in that? If you bail, you lose money and your kids. If she bails, you lose money, your kids, and your sanity.

We live in a time where commitment means nothing, and that's a shame to me. I really don't like having to practice game, to treat girls like shit because that's what works to get them to act like, you know, women. Having a fulfilling relationship with a woman, where she's actually an engaging human being in addition to being great in the sack appeals to me. The problem is, it's so damn difficult. The Mt. Everest metaphor was particularly apt here, because those are the odds you're facing. And we're talking Hillary odds here, not the $20k streamlined "Summit Guaranteed" packages they offer today (Everest is a passion of mine). And that's just fucking ridiculous.

You know society is fucked when we consider an old widower who made it with one woman an almost dying breed. Blame feminism or whatever you will, but something is wrong with that. I see no problem in being in a dedicated relationship with someone who checks all the boxes; the problem is, those are nearly impossible to come by these days. Hence why so many of us outsource.

It truly is an underdog challenge. It's so much easier just to game girls into bed for a night or two and then never talk to them again. Finding a woman who is beautiful, feminine, a good partner, and who won't cut and run at the first sign of trouble is like winning the lottery today.

Marriage worked before feminism. Now it's just not really worth it, unless you're in a society where feminism hasn't spread.

[Teddykgb]

I plan on trying to spread my seed to as many females as possible without getting married.

[bacon]

there is zero upside to marriage for a man. none. if you want to stay in a relationship with someone and it works then just do that. why do you need the government to sign off on the validity of your relationship?

as for kids thats a personal decision but many guys become fathers against their will and many have kids with out really thinking of all the responsibility required. my advice is dont have kids unless you really really want them.

[j r]

The OP contains a whole lot of spurious assumptions. Take that picture for instance. It's a picture. Do you know anything about those guys? They look cool and pretty fearless sitting on that i-beam, but for all you know they could have been scumbags who spent their entire paycheck at the bar and then went home to beat their kids. Or they could have been hardworking, squared away guys who raised kids that turned into filthy hippies.

Bottom line: if you want to get married and have kids, do it; if you don't want it, don't do it. Either way, do it for your own reasons. Trying to figure out what is "best" for society, especially society 50 years from now, is pointless. Plus, if society is really going to collapse, your lone contribution won't stop it. And that means that you'd be damning your future progeny to a life of squalor and misery.

If there is one piece of advice that I would offer the younger cats on this board, it's this. All throughout your life you will be put upon by people trying to convince you to do things (get married, raise kids, work a job, fight a war, worship a god, give to charity) for some higher purpose. Most of the time that higher purpose is an illusion. There's nothing wrong with doing any of those things, but make sure that you're doing them because you want to do them. Even if those things turn to shit, which some of them will, remember that there's no dishonor in failing at pursuing your own ambitions. It's when you start failing at following someone else's ambitions, that is when you'll know true misery.

[Blackhawk]

This man (center in cap) married a stable woman (far left) and had three children with her.



And then at age 38 some switch in her brain flips and she's off in dreadlocks sleeping on the street and living on handouts from homeless shelters to "Occupy Wall Street".



Her job is listed in court papers as “protester” and her employer as “Occupy Wall Street.” Annual salary: $0. And of course she divorces him hoping for a big payout. She doesn't get it, fortunately.

Even the good ones can go bad. Quickly. (source)

[Tex Pro]

Marriage seems like a racket the days, at least in the USA.

Let some other sap become a beta provider. For me, I am going to enjoy my life.

[tiggaling]

Yes, Marriage itself. I don't get it. Actually I DO, I just don't want to do that. Friends have said, "the system" works better for those who are married. But I'm yet to be convinced. It is an institution that has become meaningless and outlived its time. People in the west these days don't seem to be able to be together for the long haul. The problem is that the children are then the one's who suffer. So I'd say, kids yes, marriage, I don't think so!

[Stitch]

To the OP:

You can rely on people to do what they perceive is in their best interests. And, plain and simple, society in its present form--in particular, "no fault" divorces--make it not in a man's best interest to marry so long as he is the primary breadwinner.

Prior to marriage, entering and maintaining the relationship is in the best interest of the (probably lower-income) woman (she gets some perks like status, some economic benefit, etc). It's also, to an extent, in the best interest of the man--he's getting sex and romance. This is a romantic relationship, and it works for both parties. If the woman leaves, she loses the continuation of these benefits, and if the man leaves, he loses sex. So both have incentive to keep it going, and it's actually fairly stable in a sense.

AS SOON as that piece of paper is signed, the man (assumed the higher wage earner) is a hostage. Because if he leaves, he loses half of everything he's made. But if the woman leaves, she gains half of everything, so it is in her interest to leave, take the money, and find someone who can provide more. She gets money and doesn't even have to put out! This works exceptionally well if the man has been so goddamn stupid that he for her education so she could get better employment in the future, believing she might actually work for the mutual benefit of the couple. Ask me how I know!

Bottom line: if you have done the work to make yourself a good prospect--gotten a good income, stayed in shape, made something of yourself--the romantic part of marriage may even seem tempting. But marriage is not a romantic contract, it is an economic contract, and with current laws, it's a pretty damn bad deal. ONLY consider it with the tightest prenup, and anticipate disaster. With marriage failure rates about 50-50, a coin flip, with a full 2/3 of them initiated by the woman, it's a VERY BAD bet, and the more successful you are, the more you stand to lose.

And trust me, this comes from a man who spent 20 years publicly defending marriage only to get fucked because a random switch got toggled in a woman's head. I'd love to be married again--I even know a great woman I'd love to spend the rest of my life with if I thought it would continue the way it has. But in the current legal system, I would be really stupid to risk even half of my next one year's income on a coin flip, much lest the next five, ten, or twenty.

[Samseau]

(10-28-2012 06:57 AM)xy2k Wrote:  

I realise that there is a significant proportion of forum members who are opposed to marriage - some have already said that they will never get married, marriage is for betas etc.

Fair enough.

But have you considered the impact of this:

Firstly, from a biological point of view, you will not pass on your genes.

Secondly, what will it mean for society? Isn't it our responsibility to bring up children - male children taught to behave like real men? female children to preserve their femininity? By not bringing up children, are we not shirking that responsibility?

Take this image that is oft quoted in admiration in this forum:


I'd assume that each of those men worked hard and also brought up good families at home.

Thoughts?

If you were actually interested in the answers to your questions, you could have used the search function. There are at least 3 huge mega-threads on these topics.

"Do you ever feel left out?" comes to mind.


But you aren't looking for answers, you're here to troll.

[Veloce]

(10-28-2012 06:57 AM)xy2k Wrote:  

Take this image that is oft quoted in admiration in this forum:


I'd assume that each of those men worked hard and also brought up good families at home.

Are you kidding? You think just because that photo's in black and white that somehow romanticizes the past and each one of those guys brought up a good family? Not likely, they're probably a bunch of wife-beating drunks who hitched up with the first hairy snatch that crossed their paths.

It's a dope pic of some dudes being dudes, but that's about it.

[Dr. Howard]

(10-28-2012 01:40 PM)Stitch Wrote:  

To the OP:

You can rely on people to do what they perceive is in their best interests. And, plain and simple, society in its present form--in particular, "no fault" divorces--make it not in a man's best interest to marry so long as he is the primary breadwinner.

Prior to marriage, entering and maintaining the relationship is in the best interest of the (probably lower-income) woman (she gets some perks like status, some economic benefit, etc). It's also, to an extent, in the best interest of the man--he's getting sex and romance. This is a romantic relationship, and it works for both parties. If the woman leaves, she loses the continuation of these benefits, and if the man leaves, he loses sex. So both have incentive to keep it going, and it's actually fairly stable in a sense.

AS SOON as that piece of paper is signed, the man (assumed the higher wage earner) is a hostage. Because if he leaves, he loses half of everything he's made. But if the woman leaves, she gains half of everything, so it is in her interest to leave, take the money, and find someone who can provide more. She gets money and doesn't even have to put out! This works exceptionally well if the man has been so goddamn stupid that he for her education so she could get better employment in the future, believing she might actually work for the mutual benefit of the couple. Ask me how I know!

Bottom line: if you have done the work to make yourself a good prospect--gotten a good income, stayed in shape, made something of yourself--the romantic part of marriage may even seem tempting. But marriage is not a romantic contract, it is an economic contract, and with current laws, it's a pretty damn bad deal. ONLY consider it with the tightest prenup, and anticipate disaster. With marriage failure rates about 50-50, a coin flip, with a full 2/3 of them initiated by the woman, it's a VERY BAD bet, and the more successful you are, the more you stand to lose.

And trust me, this comes from a man who spent 20 years publicly defending marriage only to get fucked because a random switch got toggled in a woman's head. I'd love to be married again--I even know a great woman I'd love to spend the rest of my life with if I thought it would continue the way it has. But in the current legal system, I would be really stupid to risk even half of my next one year's income on a coin flip, much lest the next five, ten, or twenty.

One trick, in some states is that inheritance is exempt from divorce settlement. If you trust your parents keep as much of your assets with them, when they pass away you get them back but they are untouchable. She only gets to benefit from them while she is with you. Like anything else having international options and being self employed or employed by people you trust gives you options.

I have yet to try it or really research it but its something I'd like to read more on.

[Andy_B]

If you're into the passing on your genes thing, becoming mormon is an option. They breed like crazy, and they're super isolated from selfish, suicidal secular society.

I'm actually an atheist but I've thought about joining the LDS church just to be able to raise kids in a traditional values environment. The situation in the mainstream culture is so bad, and I can't see any isolated outposts of traditional values anywhere inside it other than the religious communities.

[Goldin Boy]

You need an intervention from Mark Minter lol.

In my old college, organic chemistry was the hardest subject; the class average was always around a C-. Imagine if you registered, you're failing miserably so you withdraw. When you withdraw, you get an A+ on your transcript and a brand new car. That's how divorce works, a woman will (almost) always leave the marriage with more than she came in with. Guess where the more comes from?

Divorce is very likely. It happens 49% of the time! If 49% of the US's cars exploded when started everyone would walk.

Quote:

I'd assume that each of those men worked hard and also brought up good families at home.

That picture is from before the first wave of feminism. Women are intrinsicaly selfish, vain, opportunistic, and highly suggestible, after the 1960's all of the negative traits of women were ignored or celebrated. Those same guys would be divorced or jumping off the girder to escape their cunty wives in 2012. Hardwork doesn't matter anymore, you'll never get your dick wet if you're not confident, witty, and assertive. My brokest friends slay quality ass on the regular.

Women want men who are more than them, (taller, richer, slight older). Women make about as much as men do so you need game to gain the edge guys in the '50's had.

Quote:

But have you considered the impact of this:

Firstly, from a biological point of view, you will not pass on your genes.

I have a bird nest in my backyard with 2 eggs in it. Those bird reproduced without getting married! Wait, I think they might be onto something. Dick still fits into pussy if she's got a ring on or not.

The only guys I suggest get married are gay men who need a beard for social functions.

I must be bored, feeding the 's

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

One trick, in some states is that inheritance is exempt from divorce settlement. If you trust your parents keep as much of your assets with them, when they pass away you get them back but they are untouchable. She only gets to benefit from them while she is with you. Like anything else having international options and being self employed or employed by people you trust gives you options.

I have yet to try it or really research it but its something I'd like to read more on.

Hm, interesting. I read a thread on irrevocable trusts on another forum that touches on this too. I'm still researching but you can put your car title, home, in the name of an LLC you create(varies by state). Anything being held in trust for you can't be divvied up in divorce settlement as it's not in your name. I should talk to a lawyer friend about this.

If it catches on expect it to become illegal or banned in someway.

[the_conductor]

To all those who say they plan to have a lot children without getting married, how the hell are you going to do that without the risk of child support?

OP:You're probably not going to get any pro-marriage answers on a game board. Look other places if you want differing opinions.

People these days are too selfish for marriage anyways. They want fun fun fun and view kids as killing the passion in a marriage, instead of enriching it. Go to a country where where you can find a traditional women with better divorce laws.

Oh and I think most people here don't give a shit about giving back to society, doing what only pleases them even if it takes the whole society down, then abandon ship. You can argue about how hollow an existence like that would be, but not many would listen, and maybe they're right. Lots of guys as a result of "the red pill" and learning the system is rigged turn to hedonism and Machiavellianism.

[Tex Pro]

(10-28-2012 06:57 AM)xy2k Wrote:  

I realise that there is a significant proportion of forum members who are opposed to marriage - some have already said that they will never get married, marriage is for betas etc.

Fair enough.

But have you considered the impact of this:

Firstly, from a biological point of view, you will not pass on your genes.

Secondly, what will it mean for society? Isn't it our responsibility to bring up children - male children taught to behave like real men? female children to preserve their femininity? By not bringing up children, are we not shirking that responsibility?

Take this image that is oft quoted in admiration in this forum:


I'd assume that each of those men worked hard and also brought up good families at home.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are you are a

[ghostdog]

Do you guys ever look at a person in public and think, "Wow look at that unspectacular d-bag" but then realize that two people actually invested their resources into this person. This person is the whole world to these two people. What a mindfuck. My worry about having children is that I will breed someone like that into existence and never even realize it because it's my genes. The dynamics between people and other people's kids (finding them stupid, ugly, annoying) contrasted between people and their own kids (absolute love of their life) is something really remarkable.
Another worry of mine is having a girl. They say that if you don't want her to be a slut you have to read to her and make her smart, but you raise her in the West and teach her to be "smart" the chances of her becoming some phd feminist go up which is just as bad as a slut so wtf do you do?

[ghostdog]

I don't see a point to marriage without children. Childless couples have fun in the beginning when the wife is young and they have lots of sex and have lots of money. In the later years the sex unavoidably gets more stale as the wife gets older and there is no central project like a child keeping them together, it seems, so what would be the point?