Why is the RedPill so Anti-Marriage?

[Zimbabwe]

Liberal dating mentality is actually the "transactional" view of relationships. (Hence the liberal insistance on calling marriage a "contract" instead of a "covenant", allowing for divorce and legal proceedings as if it were a business partnership).

The corny Hollywood "romanticism" you associate with liberals is merely a big cope for the fact that their attitude towards marriage is entirely transactional.

The idea that traditional societies "were not sentimental and viewed marriage as a rational transaction" is liberal/leftist propaganda to make conservatives and traditionaliats seem cold and heartless.

Dating websites/apps is the final phase to this. You are encouraged to literally advertise yourself and your sexuality online, just like you would advertise a used car.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to marry a woman you truly connect with on a deep and intimate level.

This is far different from saying you should be allowed to leave your spouse if they fon't "make you feel good."

Both are opposite extremes.

The man who views marriage as a transaction (and his wife as a replaceable possession) is just as bad as the "hopeless romantic" man who is willing to put aside common sense and overlook red flags in favor of cheap sentimentalism and Hollywood notions of romance.

 

[member160292]

Oh, it’s you again. You’re about 10 years too late with this, Rollo Jr.

 

[Zimbabwe]

Oh, it’s you again. You’re about 10 years too late with this, Rollo Jr.

If that feeds into your cynicism, be my guest. I used to be pessimistic to the core but overcame it. At the end of the day, you put too much judgement into an internet-persona than addressing the gist of the message.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

I don't think the community is anti-marriage. It's against getting married in the current zeitgeist.

 

[SW15]

I don't think the community is anti-marriage. It's against getting married in the current zeitgeist.

This is accurate. I would say that the current zeitgeist started around 1990. The era of 1960-1989 set up the current zeitgeist. The introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, the growth of feminism in the 1960s-1970s, and no fault divorces starting in the 1970s were the bigger events contributing to it. During the current zeitgeist, this is the reality.....

There's about an 80% chance of AT LEAST one of the following 3 things happening over the lifespan of a marriage...

• Divorce
• Affair
• Long periods of a mediocre to subpar dynamic where the relationship just continues on based on inertia/societal pressure. The passion is gone.

The blue pill media occasionally publishes stuff about the fact that the pool of married people in the current time are having less sex than married people in the 1980s-1990s.

Why Are We All Having So Little Sex?

Matt, a 34-year-old data analyst from Texas, and his wife dated for seven years before getting married in 2013. When they didn’t live together, they...

time.com

Cosmo and the Kinsey Institute Present: A Data-First Look at Sex After 60

A first-of-its-kind Kinsey Institute survey examines older women’s fantasies, masturbation habits, libido, and more.

www.cosmopolitan.com

Of course, single people are doing worse with their sex lives than they were in the 1980s-1990s too.

Divorce is rampant and men don't do well in divorce court. See article below about statistics surrounding divorce....

Divorce Statistics - Alpha Male 2.0

I often point to the current high divorce rates as evidence of human beings not being creatures capable of, or even desirous of, absolute long-term monogamy, vastly preferring short-term monogamy and/or temporary marriages instead. Usually I refer to either the “standard” divorce rate most often...

alphamale20.com

 

[EyeBRollin]

Simple. In the West virtually none of the women are fit for marriage.

 

[Doctor Europeo]

The problem is not marriage. The problem is most girls are not wifey material. But if you can pull a girl who is marriage material and she passes the boner test, hell yeah marry her.

 

[devilkingx2]

I would recommend any man get married to a woman who makes/has more money than he does so that he can benefit from the laws surrounding marriage.

Imagine getting paid alimony for cheating on your wife lmao.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Simple. In the West virtually none of the women are fit for marriage.

But the guys are?

Far more woman on dating sites have their act together than men do and it's not even close.

 

[EyeBRollin]

But the guys are?

Far more woman on dating sites have their act together than men do and it's not even close.

No, they absolutely do not. The women on dating sites are broken, sloot bags, or both. They have no wife skills whatsoever. Half these bvtches can’t even cook.

 

[devilkingx2]

But the guys are?

Far more woman on dating sites have their act together than men do and it's not even close.

There's a lot of broke losers and weirdos on the internet and in the world

however the women online turn down plenty of decent guys just because they're not rich or Channing Tatum lookalikes so be careful taking their word for it.

Go more into detail about this... You mean like basic shjt like macaroni and cheese, or more intensive stuff like lasagna?

I think he means people that don't know how to cook even a basic dinner that tastes good. I dated a girl who literally screwed up mac and cheese (it was either too much or not enough salt)

I doubt there's anyone expecting a lasagna from their wife, not even my mom knows how to make that lol.

 

[RickTheToad]

Simple. In the West virtually none of the women are fit for marriage.

Aren't you engaged?

 

[RickTheToad]

I would recommend any man get married to a woman who makes/has more money than he does so that he can benefit from the laws surrounding marriage.

Imagine getting paid alimony for cheating on your wife lmao.

Seems pretty easy these days with females out earning males. My GF earns about double what I earn, but that's not including my real estate rentals.

Everyone, male or female, needs a prenup. Earnings stay separate, separate accounts, family commingling account, no alimony if you guys divorce, no division of separate assets. They say boo, you walk.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Simple. In the West virtually none of the women are fit for marriage.

Am I anti-cake because I've been looking for a cake shop and still haven't found one?

Or am I anti-cake because I'm too lazy to actually go out and find a cake shop, and I'm expecting a magic free cake delivery service to pop up?

There are three different types of anti marriage dudes.

One - I'm against marriage for my own reasons, to each his own.

Two - I'm against marriage and I strongly urge NOBODY to get married. (so I won't feel so bad)

Three - I'm low value and can't find a marriage partner so I'll reframe/externalize that that into being anti marriage.

But the REAL REASON most red pill is "anti-marriage" is that is the most comforting message the army of low value betas.

That's the idea that SELLS the most.

The one that gets you the most views on YouTube.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

The only women worth marrying are ones who have had 0-3 sexual partners, no advanced degrees/career, and was raised in a healthy (or healthy enough) household with a strong and close relationship with their father.

About .01% of women in America qualify for this.

 

[devilkingx2]

Three - I'm low value and can't find a marriage partner so I'll reframe/externalize that that into being anti marriage.

But the REAL REASON most red pill is "anti-marriage" is that is the most comforting message the army of low value betas.

That's the idea that SELLS the most.

The one that gets you the most views on YouTube.

A high value dude has no reason to commit to anyone

A low value dude has all of the reasons and none of the options.

That's probably why the redpill is anti-marriage. If you're a loser then your fat wife will spend all your money while giving you no sex;
and if you become an actual catch you won't benefit from limiting yourself to what one particular woman will give you.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

A high value dude has no reason to commit to anyone

He does if he values traditional relationships over a never ending stream of sloozes

 

[EyeBRollin]

Aren't you engaged?

Yes. She’s not a Western sloot.

 

[The Duke]

Liberal dating mentality is actually the "transactional" view of relationships. (Hence the liberal insistance on calling marriage a "contract" instead of a "covenant", allowing for divorce and legal proceedings as if it were a business partnership).

The corny Hollywood "romanticism" you associate with liberals is merely a big cope for the fact that their attitude towards marriage is entirely transactional.

The idea that traditional societies "were not sentimental and viewed marriage as a rational transaction" is liberal/leftist propaganda to make conservatives and traditionaliats seem cold and heartless.

Dating websites/apps is the final phase to this. You are encouraged to literally advertise yourself and your sexuality online, just like you would advertise a used car.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to marry a woman you truly connect with on a deep and intimate level.

This is far different from saying you should be allowed to leave your spouse if they fon't "make you feel good."

Both are opposite extremes.

The man who views marriage as a transaction (and his wife as a replaceable possession) is just as bad as the "hopeless romantic" man who is willing to put aside common sense and overlook red flags in favor of cheap sentimentalism and Hollywood notions of romance.

There was a time when men married women in order to purchase more land, preserve power, etc. The women didnt get much say. In the middle east arranged marriages are still common.

 

[Barrister]

A lot of us are red pill here but not necessarily anti-marriage - from a relationship perspective that is. The problem most guys have is that our current legal framework incentivizes women to divorce because they end up with a major payday on the way out at the guy's expense. And yes, I realize this goes for women if they are the breadwinners too, but I think we can agree that is a very rare occurrence. And there is little rhyme or reason to it. The overall reasoning for it is grounded in a patently false idea that both parties bring the same value to the marriage - it just can't be measured in money. So to make the lesser earner "whole," they are given at least 50% of the marital estate (many times more than that) - a marital estate that is usually about 90%+ there because of the man's hard work and earnings.

The problem is that very rarely, especially in a toxic relationship, are the two parties equally contributing to the marriage. This generally results in a very inequitable situation in divorce court and why guys, who usually are the breadwinners and the glue of the relationship financially, find themselves getting fu*ked by the court. Multiple this two-fold if minor children are involved and a support order gets put in place.