Getting Married Without a Marriage License: Solution to the Feminist Divorce Problem?
11-25-2012, 08:35 PM
I've been reading that some people are choosing to get married without making it official with their government. Just by getting married in a church or wherever you want, actually.
Has anyone done this here or know about this?
I just turned 30. I'm in between jobs and starting a new career as a Web Designer hopefully pretty soon. So even if I believed in marriage (I lean more against it), it wouldn't be smart for me to do it.
Here are my gripes with marriage. I'll make two lists: Biblical Marriage and Modern Western (Feminist-Inspired) Marriage.
Biblical Marriage:
The genders had to fulfill traditional roles. Women tended to the house and children. They had to be humble, meek women, both in dress and tongue. They had to be loving and supportive and submit to their husband's dominance. Even with sex. In the Bible it clearly states that it's a sin for either the husband or the wife to deny each other sex: something that would be labeled "pro-rape" and extremely "misogynistic" by even non-feminist Western women.
The husband had to love his wife "like Christ loved the church", as written by Paul. This meant that he fullfilled the traditional role of protector, the breadwinner: all around traditional Alpha male. He had to do most of the heavy lifting. And since throughout about 95% of our history the male had to do dangerous and sometimes deadly jobs to support his family, it's easy to argue that men had a tougher burden than their protected wives.
My main gripe is that this system makes sense and is the best way to raise healthy, productive children, but people only lived to be about 30 years old when this was invented. Heck, even 100 years ago, the average lifespan was about 50. Monogamy makes sense when you live such a short life. And since birth control and various and effective STD protections weren't around then, fucking around and slutting it up had some SERIOUS consequences for both sexes (but especially women).
Modern Western Marriage:
The wife has virtually no traditional duties. In fact, things like raising children and tending to the house (and forsaking a rigorous career path) are seen as symptoms of Patriarchical Opression.
The man? Well, he still has to fulfill all the traditional male roles and then some: he must now keep in shape and practice at least some Game to even have a chance of not getting divorced by his wife (unless she's really, really, really gross). One advantage is that modern technology has elmininated the need for a lot of dangerous and lethal jobs in the Western world.
So what do you guys think of all this?
I've been staunchly anti-marriage for a while now, but I've started to become soft on it lately. Ideally, I wanna keep banging like crazy until about 37 or so and then marry a traditional, Christian most-likely Easter European girl at least 10 ears my junior WITHOUT signing a US marriage license. This should give me some advantages, no?
Has anyone done this here or know about this?
I just turned 30. I'm in between jobs and starting a new career as a Web Designer hopefully pretty soon. So even if I believed in marriage (I lean more against it), it wouldn't be smart for me to do it.
Here are my gripes with marriage. I'll make two lists: Biblical Marriage and Modern Western (Feminist-Inspired) Marriage.
Biblical Marriage:
The genders had to fulfill traditional roles. Women tended to the house and children. They had to be humble, meek women, both in dress and tongue. They had to be loving and supportive and submit to their husband's dominance. Even with sex. In the Bible it clearly states that it's a sin for either the husband or the wife to deny each other sex: something that would be labeled "pro-rape" and extremely "misogynistic" by even non-feminist Western women.
The husband had to love his wife "like Christ loved the church", as written by Paul. This meant that he fullfilled the traditional role of protector, the breadwinner: all around traditional Alpha male. He had to do most of the heavy lifting. And since throughout about 95% of our history the male had to do dangerous and sometimes deadly jobs to support his family, it's easy to argue that men had a tougher burden than their protected wives.
My main gripe is that this system makes sense and is the best way to raise healthy, productive children, but people only lived to be about 30 years old when this was invented. Heck, even 100 years ago, the average lifespan was about 50. Monogamy makes sense when you live such a short life. And since birth control and various and effective STD protections weren't around then, fucking around and slutting it up had some SERIOUS consequences for both sexes (but especially women).
Modern Western Marriage:
The wife has virtually no traditional duties. In fact, things like raising children and tending to the house (and forsaking a rigorous career path) are seen as symptoms of Patriarchical Opression.
The man? Well, he still has to fulfill all the traditional male roles and then some: he must now keep in shape and practice at least some Game to even have a chance of not getting divorced by his wife (unless she's really, really, really gross). One advantage is that modern technology has elmininated the need for a lot of dangerous and lethal jobs in the Western world.
So what do you guys think of all this?
I've been staunchly anti-marriage for a while now, but I've started to become soft on it lately. Ideally, I wanna keep banging like crazy until about 37 or so and then marry a traditional, Christian most-likely Easter European girl at least 10 ears my junior WITHOUT signing a US marriage license. This should give me some advantages, no?
![[Image: dodgy.gif]](http://www.rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
