Reasons for Marriage

[glass half full]

l_e_g_e_n_d,

While I totally understand your theoretical solution with this topic, I think it best to stay within the bounds of reality. I'm not trying to start trouble here (really, I'm not...), just saying...We need to learn how to adapt and overcome what is really happening in our present-day times. Marriage is a good concept, because it is best for raising a family in America, at least. And guessing at least a third of the rest of the world. Some countries have other means for dealing with a family concept (for example, tribes in Africa). Our old American ways worked here for a very long time...

It is a well known fact that communities where parents are split and kids are emotional towards each other is not conducive to sufficient human upbringing (my family being an excellent example). It leads to a bad culture. The kids lack empathy, respect for parents and others in general. Look at the bad climate of emotions in our inner cities for example. Who can change it? Only the people who live amongst it all. One very good example of this is the change in America between the 1950's, and today. The crap that goes on now is basically a society run completely amuck, because a bunch of people decided that thousands of years of decency was all wrong, boring, lacking freedom, etc.

Yes I am here for the same reason many are...I'm learning the facts of how to enjoy the sexual freedom I plan on having the rest of my life, because after all, the boundaries are down, so fvck it! I had to keep my marriage til my girl was 11yo, because of State Law, before I could get custody. I have taken the Red Pill, I fought it off trying to save family but it's too obvious how our culture has become. It's not right, but if I have to move overseas to be treated like a man should, I will (after I save enough money to go.)

Most male/female relationships in America are good for six months, tops. (For Men, anyway.) Fvck that shyt. I was not put here to pander to women. And if kids are involved...(eyes rolling here)...I have friends who have a he!! of a time with this one too. Society is all f'd up from this very problem.

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, just sharing my idea about it all. I'm 51yo (although my sig won't change for some reason it says I'm 48...hell I'll take it!) I don't want to waste anymore of my one life supporting a system that supports men being treated as "meatsack atomatons" by bytches.

 

[Tenacity]

Let me rephrase: If all blacks committed suicide during slavery, blacks would be extinct. Are you not black? LOL

Ummm...all black people were not slaves, in fact there were some black people who owned slaves.

The distinction between religion and Nature’s laws is Nature’s laws will operate independent of our opinions and assertions.

Yeah but you've been making assertions and speaking on behalf of "Nature" this entire thread, for example you said this:

1. Nature doesn’t care about our beliefs;

2. Nature doesn’t care about our convictions; and

3. Nature doesn’t care about our ambitions.

Nature does care that we “embrace challenges” as to evolve, hence the purpose of our existence.

For one, who the hell is this "Nature" that you are referring to, and how in the hell do you know what this "Nature" wants for mankind? Your idea of "Nature" is basically just another religion, so what makes your religion the truth and the other 1,500 plus religions in the world a lie? Who is to say that whatever or whomever this "Nature" entity is, that we are even supposed to give a flying fvck what he/she/it has to think about how we should live our lives?

The Earth will revolve around the sun. And the human race will continue to perpetuate. Conversely, as I have found, religion(s) contain bald assertions that cannot be reconciled.

Your preaching of "Nature" is a religion as well, I don't know how you are separating your preaching of "Nature" as if it's separate from any other religion. It's a man-made belief system, this aspect of "Nature" I guess would be a Legend-made belief system.

Great question for you to ponder on, and I do believe based on your previous recurring posts and complaints, that this challenge may very well be in your cards. The question I have follows:

Qualify the scope: Your challenge is binary, specifically for you, and does not conflict with perpetuation of the species with either choice (e.g., you can impregnate a black--or--white/Asian). Nature's law of perpetuation is not offended either way. As well, you encounter a challenge with either choice: (a) Finding a black girl that meets your criterion; (b) Saddling with a white or Asian that meets your criterion but you are not sexually attracted to. Are you with me so far?

This is difficult, heh. I'm sweating. Which is the greater challenge, a or b? Which is the challenge that you must embrace? Ready for the answer?

<Drum Roll> Have you embraced both challenges (a & b) to understand the merits of both?

Again, Legend, you are promoting a religion based on this entity called "Nature" that we are all supposed to follow and listen to, even though it's not even clear what "Nature" wants us to do because at least the Christian God has a book/bible, where's Nature's bible? And even said Christian God's book/bible is FULL of contradictions, misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and the whole nine yards, to where you truly have no damn CLUE what's being said, promoted, pushed, or whatever.

This is the problem when men, who are supposed to be free thinkers, are shamed into some sort of man made belief system which is designed to control their supposed "free will" in making the "choices" that the people who setup the made made belief system WANT them to make, rather than making decisions that the individual wants to make.

Legend first you talked about the man-made religion/belief system of "doing what's best for your country", then you talked about the belief system of "doing what's best for your community", now you are talking about the belief system of "doing what's best for Nature".

I don't subscribe to these religions, belief systems, or prescribed ways of what a "real man" is supposed to do. I have a limited time on this Earth, I might see 85, I might only see 70, hell....I might only see 50. If I live to 85, I only have 53 more years left on this Earth which really isn't a lot of time. I'm going to enjoy my time here, have some fun, then once my heart stops beating I'll either go live in some paradise, I'll be thrown in some pit of fire, I'll go into a state of "non-existence" like I was before I was born, or something else will happen that either way I more than likely will have NO conscious awareness of.

 

[Yewki]

How do you guys care enough to write essays back and forth to each other?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

For one, who the hell is this "Nature" that you are referring to?

Who is this apocryphal "Nature” I repeatedly recite?

Let’s look at "Nature" from a scientific perspective:

It is well settled that matter comprises atoms, and the atoms comprise 99.9999999% empty space. Studies show that the elementary particles (“the “Particles”), which comprise .0000001% of the atom, behave and look like particles, but are not solid forms. The Particles are fuzzy waves of potential existence, with no certain location, direction, or defined shape (the “Waves”).

What is a fuzzy wave of potential existence even mean?

In accordance with the “double slit experiment” in quantum studies, the potentiality the Waves will “choose” is contingent on the presence of a conscious mind, which, by observing and intending to define or measure a particle, determines the aspect and location in which the Waves take form to create the Particle. Accordingly, objective measurement is impossible (the “measurement problem”). The measurement problem demonstrates that the Waves appear in a specific place only if you measure it; otherwise taking no identifiable form until a conscious observer looks at it. Thus, the very act of observation changes the Waves’ form and location. And so without directed consciousness, there would be an ever-expanding superposition of possibilities with nothing definite actually occurring.

Accordingly, a type of consciousness exists "outside of us" (seemly outside and thus quoted) that is aware of and responds toward our consciousness (observation). This outside consciousness is what I define as “Nature." The paradox is if this same Nature has physical laws which operate irrespective of us (i.e., gravity), then why does it respond to us on the quantum level?

More to follow hopefully tomorrow. Don’t have much time now.

 

[Tenacity]

Who is this apocryphal "Nature” I repeatedly recite?

Let’s look at "Nature" from a scientific perspective:.

Legend, I'm not disagreeing on the existence of "nature" from a life sciences or physical sciences framework.

You were NOT using the concept of "nature" prior from a life sciences (biology) or physical sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.) framework, you were using it in a "psychological belief system" framework which is one founded more on man-made characterizations of "faith" which have no testing, no studies, and no scientific research behind it.

You were telling men what they "ought to be doing" and using "Nature" as the foundation for your reference point. When the only "Nature" I know of is that in relation to life sciences and physical sciences, in which said "Nature" has nothing to do with the individual free will of man relating to how they choose to date, relate, etc., with women, their country, their community, etc.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Legend, I'm not disagreeing on the existence of "nature" from a life sciences or physical sciences framework.

So, by this definition, you agree that Nature exists from a science perspective. Is this Nature you acknowledge aware; does "it" hold consciousness? If not, (a) what is this Nature then; and (b) how do you reconcile its lack of consciousness with Post 183?

 

[Tenacity]

So, by this definition, you agree that Nature exists from a science perspective. Is this Nature you acknowledge aware; does "it" hold consciousness? If not, (a) what is this Nature then; and (b) how do you reconcile its lack of consciousness with Post 183?

The definition of consciousness is to be "awake" and "aware" of one's "surroundings."

- I would consider a plant a part of "nature", but is it awake and aware of surroundings?

- I would consider a star a part of "nature", but is it awake and aware of surroundings?

I would say no, I would even go as far as to say that consciousness in and of itself might be an illusion. Think about it, mostly everything we see is made of dirt and dust, which means once it's destroyed it no longer resembles the form that it had during the stage of when someone would have bene "aware" of it's existence, to add to such "surroundings".

In my opinion, nature is just a word scientists use to generically and broadly describe a group of organisms. I don't believe that "nature" in and of itself, has some sort of moral authority to call the shots for how someone should individually live their life.

Someone told me that Pook's writings were to reflect men back to how "Nature" wanted them to live, but the question then still remains, who the hell is this "Nature" that's been referred to, and why the hell should I care how he/she/it wants me to live my life?

 

[Asmodeus]

Legend... You make two errors...
First, you assume that nature is best. This is called the naturalistic fallacy. You are attempting to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of claims about natural properties. Bentham, Kant, and Moore have criticized this kind of thinking many times.
Secondly, not only do you commit the naturalistic fallacy but you are interpreting what you believe natural law is. Thus, you show that these concepts are open to interpretation and therefore they are subjective and based on perception.

 

[Asmodeus]

There is a conundrum for those who try to argue for universal truths. That conundrum is the inherent subjectivity of our experiences... You argue universal truths based on nature (as how you interpret it, which automatically makes it subjective). But here is the truth...
Even what is "real" can be argued with.
The sky is blue because of things that happen on molecular level...Becauase the atmosphere scatters short wavelength blue light more than than the other wavelengths. However, if one is colorblind they cannot see it and thus cannot perceive the blue. Thus, perception is more real than reality itself. Subjectivity therefore is the reality of our experience, if everything we experience is based off our perception how can there be something universal to everyone's experience?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Subjectivity therefore is the reality of our experience, if everything we experience is based off our perception how can there be something universal to everyone's experience?

Is not the law of gravity (as we describe it) an objective, measurable, quantifiable, universal law that everybody experiences irrespective of subjectivity? What about oxygen to breathe or the Earth's rotation around the sun? Can an individual escape these laws based on perception? What happens to your subjectivity argument here?

I believe there's a higher power due to intelligent design

Pulled this quote from another thread. Reconcile how there is intelligent design without consciousness? Also, you didn't answer:

b) how do you reconcile Nature's lack of consciousness with Post 183?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Only the individual can know for sure what's best for him.

Here is the crux of your contention.

Does every individual know what’s best for him? Because if this is not the case for EVERY individual, then your contention cannot stand. Is rape best for the raper, murder for the murderer, suicide for the committer, or sodomy for the pedophile? Do these individuals really know those are the best actions for them at the time of committal? Is there not a thought process involved before committing an act; and is it not possible for that thought process to be misdirected or damaged? If damaged thinking provokes an act, is the committer really doing what’s in their best interest?

 

[guru1000]

Legend, you make several cogent arguments.

You state that our purpose in the carnal flesh form is to embrace challenges to evolve, which I agree with. You also go on to state that we should align our volition with that of Nature's. However, by altering our volition to that which is not ours, are we not defeating the purpose of our carnal existence--which is to embrace our own volitions, no matter how faulty, so that we can make the mistakes, to learn from, evolve, and thus alter our volition to be aligned with Nature's out of genuine desire, not contrived desire? After all, if our volition is contrived, then we never genuinely change out of authenticity. Does Nature truly desire us to be joined to it as slaves or joined to it out of genuine desire?

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Hmm, Guru1000, let me ponder on that ...

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Yes, Guru1000, I agree. Nature does desire that we act on our own free will, as if it did not, why not simply join ALL of our will (including our free will) to that of our biology's (to eat, sleep, shvt, fuk) akin to animals, instead of making it free to make decisions that ultimately could go against nature. Thus, Nature's desire for our change toward it (embracing and overcoming challenge to learn & evolve toward Nature) can only be effected after going against it, and is to be founded of genuine origination, only after we have learned what is best for ourselves. Thereupon, Nature's will is egoless (which coincides with it being a "giving" energy) allowing us to go against it only to learn and return back to it once we are evolved enough to understand why we are returning.

If follows, then, that not only are we expected to embrace challenge, but we are also expected to make mistakes, as if our will is not aligned with Nature's initially, we need to make mistakes of our own volition, to understand that our choices were fruitless, and thus evolve with stronger lines of thinking/being, eventually aligning with Nature's superlative will out of genuine desire. This line further translates to other facets of life, wherein do we want others to honor/love us because we told them to (out of fear) or because they genuinely want to (out of love)? I know Machiavelli's thoughts on this. Any thoughts on this?

 

[Reyaj]

So I was reading this thread until it got off on some tangent and then I scrolled to the end... Something about how someone moved to China or something and changed his circumstances.... whatever lol

Can we bring this back to the original topic... cause its very interesting and I need it to help make a decision on whether or not I should consider getting married. I hope Colossus comes back too and posts because whether you agree with him or not he is someone very intelligent who is married and can argue and give perspective for it.

Here are the basics of what I see regarding marriage and its from my point of view on what I've experienced and what I've read. And anyone who knows my posts know I try to write from my own experience in the world as much as possible and not necessarily what MGTOW or DJ bible says or whatever dogmatic references are pulled up (no disrespect to either as I'm sure there's gold in both just making a point that real life experience trumps all!!!!!)

So I agree having the government put you in a situation where you can lose half your assets doesn't make much logical sense. And yes times have changed where a woman doesn't necessarily need a man to support her... but from what I've experienced it has not changed enough where "most quality women still want to get married and have that as a goal..."

Thats the bottom line here... Women of quality who were raised with some kind of structure (religious or otherwise) want to get married. No its more than they want to get married... that is one of their goals... Most quality women in the United States (this is where I live and can speak to) want to get married.

Let me repeat this "most quality women want to get married"

Let me repeat "most quality women want to get married..."

Again?

"most quality women want to get married"

Now what is the first reaction after reading that.... "Who cares what a woman wants" "never be beta and succumb to a woman especially in a raw deal like marriage...."

I am sure some variant of that right?

The other question and probably more important is "What is the definition of a quality woman?"

Well I can only give you my definition. To me a quality woman has values.... she is trustworthy, she is loyal, she is family oriented (at least to a degree), she is not selfish and will do things for you, she is not a slvt, she is intelligent, she is respectful.... To name just a few of the traits off the top of my head.

Now most women that have those values were raised in a traditional family or as close to one as there are these days. So they have learned that marriage is a progressive step for them in life... added with some romantic stuff like a wedding blah blah blah blah

So am I saying I agree with this mentality? Not necessarily but we have to face the facts, it is what it is....

Now I am talking about a certain age range here... Let's say 24 - 40... after that age its easier to find a woman who won't want to marry though the trade off is her years of mental and possible physical baggage...

So I am just ranting at this point... but I think the bottom line is that I have found that most quality women want to get married... So what are your alternatives?? Move to China or some other country?? Continue to pump and dump POF milfs??

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
Albert Einstein

 

[Scaramouche]

Dear Desdinova,
Even more reasons for getting married...In my Country it matters not one Iota in division of Children and Assets whether you are in a live in relationship or are married...Jophil told us only a couple of years ago that in Queensland his home State,you could be dragged through the Family Law courts and mangled by a Lady,even if you were just a regular visitor...And grab this,In his home State there had been a Landmark decision in the Family Courts,that awarded substantial damages in favour of a Lady,against a Married Man,who visited twice a week...No Children involved.....Point being,if you are in a live in relationship,it is really no skin off your nose,maybe even gain a few brownie points into the bargain LOL.
My Doctor,with whom I am on friendly terms,recently confided that he had remarried...I was quite shocked,but he reasoned that he was so darned busy,hated domestics and couldn't cook for toffee,without live in help he leads a Dogs Life...This is a Seriously wealthy Man!!.... I looked him in the eye and told him,Every day,he could hire a Daily help, eat out in a fine Restaurant,visit the local Bordello or have a home call...still be Miles in front with limited vulnerability.
The mantras of Scarra 26B....Never let them get their feet under your Table!

 

[BeTheChange]

So what are your alternatives?? Move to China or some other country?? Continue to pump and dump POF milfs??

You were doing ok for a while and then you just went full strawman.

Gents, the idea that the only way to secure the long term loyalty of "quality" woman is to marry her is a complete fallacy. Improve thyself and you will not have this problem.

However, I will say that if you do need to be more aware of a woman's innate need for security if you go down the non marriage route. People often talk about trust and marriage as one, but I believe a woman needs to trust you much more if she is willing to have a long term relationship without the security of a cash prize divorce if things should go south.

 

[phillies]

Nothing personal LiveFree. I had to make a point and so opened this thread up using a few pawns for counter-positions. You are more of the idea I loathe; the idea of escaping "challenge."

I find that challenges are brought upon us with enlightened purpose (if you look broad and deep enough), and by embracing, as opposed to averting, these "challenges," you transcend.

Carry on.

You're most certainly very emotionally involved in your putting down of other people's choices or philosophies. If you're not here to make friends or be liked then what? I'd think you're here to toot your own horn or put people down to make yourself feel better. You care far to much about other people's choices and beliefs.

 

[phillies]

Because you are making a contract to do something for the other person that has real value. If a woman gives up her ability to go support herself and handle her affairs independently in her own life to serve as your wife that has value. It's her job to be your wife in essence.

Now obviously there are lots of examples where the woman doesn't hold up her end of the bargain. But at it's core this is what the contractual part of the marriage is about. That's why gf without paperwork is NOT the same thing.

I mean you could go to work without pay too, but why would you? Likewise why would a woman agree to stay home, not work, not earn and be self-sufficient on her own without some sort of contract? Why would she bear your children for you and raise them in such a case? I know people do it, but this is the value exchange I'm talking about.

I'm discussing the traditional type marriage here since the post is titled "Reasons for Marriage". There actually are some valid reasons. But I agree wholeheartedly that the success of the marriage has everything to do with you as well as who you pick to wed.

My Dad equates it to a business partnership. He says you want to be extremely cautious who you get into a partnership arrangement with and that you need an excellent partnership agreement, because if they go south, they can go south badly. Same for marriage as I think we are all aware.

I'm not sure I'd marry again frankly. I've had children so that is done, and I would need to keep some sort of an active role in my business affairs. I'd be fine at this point with a LTR with someone worth being involved with and nothing further. But if being married was important to him I'd seriously consider it for the right man. And I would strive to be like my friend in CA, to make his life better, support him, and be his right hand gal.

You make it sound like women are making a sacrifice in marriage when really they're not. Most women get married so they can make their life easier, even if they do work they make less money, contribute less into and get more out of the marriage.

It's a bad deal for men and will be until they make it difficult to get free money from the man. Also if a wife won't put out or is just a sh1tty wife the man should be able to divorce her without get getting much if any compensation.

Most women aren't good wives or they bait and switch. If a wife won't put out, what good is she? She's worthless and if she won't put out he should be able to divorce her without having to give her free money. It's insanity how well women are treated in divorce.

 

[Reyaj]

You were doing ok for a while and then you just went full strawman.

Gents, the idea that the only way to secure the long term loyalty of "quality" woman is to marry her is a complete fallacy. Improve thyself and you will not have this problem.

However, I will say that if you do need to be more aware of a woman's innate need for security if you go down the non marriage route. People often talk about trust and marriage as one, but I believe a woman needs to trust you much more if she is willing to have a long term relationship without the security of a cash prize divorce if things should go south.

I'm not sure I grasp the strawman reference but I can tell by the context it's not a compliment lol

Listen for the record I am trying to make my decision on this so I'm not saying I'm firm on either position. I'm just stating what I observe in the real world.

But if you think most quality women aren't looking to get married you're delusional.