[OkStudies]

On one hand marriage is almost universally seen as one of the biggest possible mistakes you can make. Yet, I can't tell you how many guys (including on this forum), particularly American ones, who say they want to "eventually" get married. Like the institution has some sort of cult-like pull over men.

The fact is, you don't *have* to be married to have kids with a woman, and it does'nt make you somehow less morally virtuous. So long as you have the will and (financial) capacity to support children, you can have them within a non-married long term relationship just fine.

A piece of paper saying your married and giving your "wife" the legal right to take half of your assets and a portion of your income is not morally superior to simply co-habitating with the woman you'd like to have children with. Neither does it protect you from her desires, whims or liking other men.

So the question is, why?

[Kabal]

(12-20-2013 11:35 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

So the question is, why?

For "blue pill" men, this is not idiosyncratic to marriage, but rather another symptom of a broader phenomenon.

Most men do not have the backbone to say "no" to what "society," women, their peers, etc. demand of them.

For guys on this forum, they (correctly) assess that most "quality" American women will not have kids outside of marriage, so marriage would be a necessary condition to optimize the mother of your children.

When I'm ready to have kids, in America or abroad, I might just start blasting inside random girls that I think will make acceptable mothers. Too much randomness in life to try and optimize and fine-tune things to death, especially if part of this optimization process is taking on the negatively convex (huge downside, limited upside) risk that is marriage.

As long as the girl(s) is (are) of adequate IQ and conscientiousness, your future kids will likely turn out fine. A contract with the state is not going to affect your children's life trajectory. You can still spend time with your kids without marriage, thus providing them with paternal guidance.

[Sonsowey]

"I blasted into a random girl who was conscientious and I bet her IQ was at least average. My kids will be fine"

Hmmm dunno about that one...

[Sawyer]

Because many men still realize how important a stable family with a mom and a dad was in their formation.

As bad as marriage may be, it can be difficult for a man to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

There's nothing red pill about not giving a child the best chance possible for success.

[OkStudies]

(12-21-2013 12:48 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Because many men still realize how important a stable family with a mom and a dad was in their formation.

As bad as marriage may be, it can be difficult for a man to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

There's nothing red pill about not giving a child the best chance possible for success.

That is "society" talking and thinking for you. There's nothing saying you can't have that in a partnership/cohabitation. It's the exactly the same thing minus an official state sanctioned piece of paper. The only thing that binds couples together is oxytocin. Throw out the piece of paper.

The only difference is she can't take half your assets/demand alimony if she breaks it off (which depending on her attractiveness and age, she probably will eventually). Why set yourself up for that just because "society" defines a "stable" family as getting piece of paper?

Marriage does not "save" the family at all. It's an illusion. When you think about it there is absolutely no reason to get married in most modern, western democracies. Not even to have kids.

[la_mode]

I don't think it's always blue pill. Although, for the most part, it is.

Some of the most red pill guys I know are very alpha married guys with hot wives. The lifestyle doesn't appeal to them when they're married to a 9.

[Sailor]

I am Uruguayan and i think the same way . I don't even care about having kids but if i do,their mother must be my legitimate wife,church and courthouse included.I guess i'm a prude

[birdrussell]

this came up in conversation the other day and the only thing I could think of as a legitimate reason to get married is maybe for a tax benefit. Either you make a shit load of money or your wife doesn't work or both but that's it. Because I don't foresee either of those being the case for me I argued that a ceremonial wedding might possibly be the most I would be willing to commit to and with that at least you have a card to play. It's easier to show a chick the door if you don't have that legally binding document that entitles her to half your shit and money than then half of that half more for the child. I'm in the military and it doesn't even matter if the courts say you don't owe alimony that chick can hit you up on pay for the rest of your career and then hit you up on retirement and VA benefits. I don't know about other people but I'm trying to move to PI or the DR on my full pension not be paying some dependapotomus to sloth around a house she isn't even paying for getting fat off my income.

[Flavius Aetius]

"We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring."--Demosthenes (384–322 BC), Red Pill Greek Statesman

I would not want my son or daughter (if I ever have kids) to be a bastard child. I want him/her to have a proper domestic situation with a strong father and a nurturing and compassionate mother who both demonstrate to him/her what normal family values are. The nuclear family is essential to the well-being of kids.

I grew up with only my mom (dad divorced when I was 2--never met him). I never had a father figure in my life. It stunted my development as a man and poisoned my perception of family/marriage. Evolutionary biology has showed us that the nuclear family is the best option for raising children. Don't fuck that up. You will create screwed up kids.

[eradicator]

(12-21-2013 12:48 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Because many men still realize how important a stable family with a mom and a dad was in their formation.

As bad as marriage may be, it can be difficult for a man to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

There's nothing red pill about not giving a child the best chance possible for success.

Why do you need to be married to have the mother, father and child together? Find a woman you want to have a family with, don't marry her, but start having children with her, assuming you both want them.

[Vicious]

If you have to marry. Get her pregnant FIRST.

BOOM. Her bargaining position is instantaneously diminished. She will be far more willing to sign papers just in order to get you to marry her now.

Sure she could leave you and force alimony but then you haven't made a correct assessment of her to begin with.

[Parlay44]

Marriage was a way to take ownership when women were considered property. But since women are "liberated" now it really no longer applies.

A girl I know was telling about her best friend and how she always "gets in line" when she's in a relationship. But when she's single she's a rampant party girl. It's all an act fellas. Once they get the security they go back to their cunt like ways and you're left to pick up the check. Don't do it.

[not_dead_yet]

(12-20-2013 11:35 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

A piece of paper saying your married and giving your "wife" the legal right to take half of your assets and a portion of your income is not morally superior to simply co-habitating with the woman you'd like to have children with. Neither does it protect you from her desires, whims or liking other men.

So the question is, why?

If you live in a state that recognizes common-law marriage, then there's no meaningful difference between your approach and the blue pill approach. Even if you stay unmarried, the state is always lurking in the background waiting to come after you for child support.

I think the best default advice is don't get married and don't have kids. If you have kids, you might as well get married unless you live in a country that you can flee.

[MrLemon]

(12-20-2013 11:35 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

On one hand marriage is almost universally seen as one of the biggest possible mistakes you can make. Yet, I can't tell you how many guys (including on this forum), particularly American ones, who say they want to "eventually" get married. Like the institution has some sort of cult-like pull over men.

The fact is, you don't *have* to be married to have kids with a woman, and it does'nt make you somehow less morally virtuous. So long as you have the will and (financial) capacity to support children, you can have them within a non-married long term relationship just fine.

A piece of paper saying your married and giving your "wife" the legal right to take half of your assets and a portion of your income is not morally superior to simply co-habitating with the woman you'd like to have children with. Neither does it protect you from her desires, whims or liking other men.

So the question is, why?

Why? Because they understand the law, which apparently you do not.

If you have kids with a woman, and live with her, the state considers this equivalent to getting married. So you are already stuck. If you get married, you get some benefits that you don't get as a single person living with the woman.

So it's perfectly sensible to get married if you want to have kids with a woman.

On the other hand if you don't want to have kids, or you get a woman pregnant accidentally, then absolutely you should NEVER get married.

[OkStudies]

(12-21-2013 12:37 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 11:35 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

On one hand marriage is almost universally seen as one of the biggest possible mistakes you can make. Yet, I can't tell you how many guys (including on this forum), particularly American ones, who say they want to "eventually" get married. Like the institution has some sort of cult-like pull over men.

The fact is, you don't *have* to be married to have kids with a woman, and it does'nt make you somehow less morally virtuous. So long as you have the will and (financial) capacity to support children, you can have them within a non-married long term relationship just fine.

A piece of paper saying your married and giving your "wife" the legal right to take half of your assets and a portion of your income is not morally superior to simply co-habitating with the woman you'd like to have children with. Neither does it protect you from her desires, whims or liking other men.

So the question is, why?

Why? Because they understand the law, which apparently you do not.

If you have kids with a woman, and live with her, the state considers this equivalent to getting married. So you are already stuck. If you get married, you get some benefits that you don't get as a single person living with the woman.

So it's perfectly sensible to get married if you want to have kids with a woman.

On the other hand if you don't want to have kids, or you get a woman pregnant accidentally, then absolutely you should NEVER get married.

In what "state"? Be specific. Every state is different and has different laws. Your accusing me of not knowing shit but can only be vague about what you know.

I'm seeing a lot of mindless bromides about so called "bastard children" (wtf is a "bastard child"? Come on the red pill knows better than that).

Let me ask you this, does having a kid before getting married and then suddenly getting that "magical" piece of paper not make your kid a "bastard child" anymore?

Does having a kid in a loving long term relationship make your kid a "bastard child"? Where does this end and begin?

"Marriage" will not protect you or your kids. A piece of paper won't protect you. Do you really understand that? A woman can simply divorce you after 5-10 years of getting bored and then take your shit. You're then fucked. She doesn't give a shit if you have a "family", so whats the difference? It's not stability.

[Tytalus]

It's what religions have been telling people to do for a long time, and so there's a moral weight to it. People who don't get married and have kids together are seen as irresponsible for good reason. The primary purpose of marriage is to protect children, until states started legislating the opposite.

What many of you are forgetting or just completely unaware of are all of the anti-bastard laws of the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

There used to be huge legal penalties if you were legally considered a bastard - it was on your birth certificate and it had a huge negative impact on your future.

[Timoteo]

It's more about wanting to see your children every day, instead of having to negotiate from the start just to be a weekend dad. If they're under the same roof with you, hopefully you're there long enough to influence them and solidify a relationship that subsequent boyfriends/stepdads can't alter. If you aren't under the same roof from the beginning, some other dude and their mom will have greater influence over your kids than you. If you must get married, I believe having kids should be the only reason to do so, though it isn't NECESSARY to marry to have kids. There are pros and cons to doing it either way, and each man has to make the personal choice regarding which situation is more suitable to him.

[reaper23]

i live with my gf and our kid. gf is hot. we're "engaged" with no plan to get married.

after a few more years of this we will likely be common law married.

child support comes whether you were married or not.

[Excelsior]

It should be noted for that this entire discussion is highly Eurocentric. The penalty for being born to parents who were not in a monogamous marriage has historically been most severe in Europe, particularly the Western half of the continent.

In most parts of the world, there was greater toleration for what Europeans would term "bastardy" and for marriages that were not strictly monogamous. Europe is the only place in which you'll find widespread instances of strict socially imposed monogamy and the violent rejection of "bastardy" that goes with it.

So, with this in mind:

(12-21-2013 07:08 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  

What many of you are forgetting or just completely unaware of are all of the anti-bastard laws of the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

There used to be huge legal penalties if you were legally considered a bastard - it was on your birth certificate and it had a huge negative impact on your future.

...In Europe.

(12-21-2013 06:01 AM)Flavius Aetius Wrote:  

"We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health, and wives to bear us lawful offspring."--Demosthenes (384–322 BC)

...in Europe.

Quote:

I want him/her to have a proper domestic situation

...by western European standards.

Quote:

with a strong father and a nurturing and compassionate mother who both demonstrate to him/her what normal family values are.

...according to Western Europeans.

Quote:

The nuclear family is essential to the well-being of kids.

...according to Western Europeans.

Quote:

Evolutionary biology has showed us that the nuclear family is the best option for raising children.

I do not believe that the field of "evolutionary biology" (which is concerned principally with the study of evolutionary processes that produced Earth's current biodiversity) has established this.

Quote:

Don't fuck that up. You will create screwed up kids.

Not necessarily.

[Kingsley Davis]

“Monogamy is as important as the wheel and fire in establishing our civilization.”

[augen sehen]

Maybe it's my thinking or the girls I've been interacting with, but stable, decent girls seem to see it as a step towards legitimacy as well. Whether the marriage comes before or after the first kid, marriage is on their list.

One of the pros with marriage is that it is a definite bond to her in a way that simple cohabitation isn't. She can't up and leave on a whim, there's a long process. Same with kids - custody isn't guaranteed in either case, but you have a stronger chance of getting custody with both marriage and genetic material on your side.

The main problem is the "she gets half + alimony" part of divorce. Can be alleviated by marrying someone of a similar socio-economic level and having her continue working in the marriage.

All that aside, I can't understand women who divorce at 40+. Do they really think they're all that in the dating market? Like, seriously? I blame the stupid cougar culture and related TV shows.

[MrLemon]

(12-22-2013 10:20 AM)augen sehen Wrote:  

The main problem is the "she gets half + alimony" part of divorce.

Again, if you cohabitate with kids (as you seem to be advocating) she gets half anyway. The divorce courts just consider you married. The certfificate or lack thereof is irrelevant.

(12-22-2013 10:20 AM)augen sehen Wrote:  

Can be alleviated by marrying someone of a similar socio-economic level and having her continue working in the marriage.

Actually I think a working wife is more likely to divorce, not less, because she will convince herself that she doesn't need your income. it depends on her income level. Working wives who make more than their husbands are 90% guaranteed to divorce.

I think the only model that succeeds in the long run is the traditional household, man as breadwinner, woman as caregiver who, if she works, makes significantly less money.

Of course if you have a sudden windfall, let's say a couple million bucks in stock options or inheritance, this model all breaks down and she will divorce you. It's all very calculated. Women have cash registers in their heads.

Being a red pill husband means, you know how to keep the woman educated about the financial disaster of divorcing you. She must never think for a minute that it's feasible. She must see that divorce will result in her and the kids living in a trailer park somewhere or even worse, them having to move back in with grandparents.

Admittedly all this is based on my experiences. People in other cultures might think otherwise.

[MrLemon]

(12-21-2013 07:45 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

It's more about wanting to see your children every day, instead of having to negotiate from the start just to be a weekend dad. If they're under the same roof with you, hopefully you're there long enough to influence them and solidify a relationship that subsequent boyfriends/stepdads can't alter.

Agreed. Having kids is a massive lifelong burden. If you are going to take on that burden legally, why not get the benefit? Getting to play with your kids and take them on trips is the payoff. You have better odds of getting these things if you are married.

However, we must again remember that the best option for many men, in todays man-hating world, is no marriage and no kids.

To simplify:

Best: no kids, no marriage
Worst: kids, no marriage
OK: kids, marriage

[Courage Reborn]

Lots of conflicting data in this thread.

Can a lawyer (Slubu?) or someone who knows the detail of state laws chime in on specifics?

Before entering into a marriage contract, it would be good to know what the specific conditions are which entitle her to "half", and what the conditions are for getting let off the hook (she earns the same as you?)

I believe it depends on the state?

What about in eastern Europe?

[SheriffBart]

The part I get stuck on the most is the idea of having my kids taken away by some kangaroo court. It is viscerally repugnant to me. Just based on that, I have a hard time considering the idea of having children in the U.S.A. If someone tells me that they're going to take my children from me, the first thought that will enter my brain is, "Over my dead body." If your kids aren't your own, then nothing really is and it's time to replace the system.