Preface: where does marriage come from?
If humans only engaged in sex, whenever, however and with whomever they desired - we'd have hookup culture on steroids. We'd passionately fuck for as long as it lasted, then we'd go our separate ways.
If we did this, humanity would be extinct long ago. Because:
Women cannot survive on their own. Children cannot survive on their own. Male attention would be almost entirely consumed by competition for a mate.
Just these 3 factors alone, would quickly send humanity into the stone age and would have all women and children die off within a few years!
Therefore, wise humans long long ago, invented the concept of marriage, wherein women trade in their sexual exclusivity for male investment in them and the subsequent children.
In other words: women give exclusive sexual access to one man for life, in exchange for being protected and provided for by said man for life.
Under this system, a woman must be sexually exclusive to her man, but he does not need to be sexually exclusive to her. As long as he can afford to take care of his women, he can have multiple wives. This has been the case through much of history.
Second preface: where does monogamy come from?
The problem with this system is that many women will flock to the few men who are wealthy and powerful. Resulting in a large number of men who are left without any women at all.
If you live in a system in which you can brutalize, enslave or kill these men - it can work to have polygamous harems described above.
However, this will result in a turbulent, tumultuous and violent society. Where increasingly larger groups of disenfranchised men, grow ever more resentful and try to overthrow the whole system.
Therefore, wise humans long long ago, invented the concept of monogamy. These humans came many generations after the humans who invented marriage itself, but they too, were a very long time ago.
How monogamy ACTUALLY works
Marriage itself is unnatural. It is a conscious choice, to choose long term gain over short term tingles. A lifelong commitment of responsibility, to make it happen.
"It" being sex for women and investment for men.
Responsibility is a tool of the patriarchy!!! Responsibility is misogyny!!!
To spell it out more clearly: by getting married, a woman is promising to give her man a lifetime of sex, children and some housework - in exchange of being taken care of for the rest of her life.
Just as he is responsible for doing his part regardless of his mood, so too is she responsible for doing her part regardless of her mood. Such is the nature of responsibility.
Retarded ideas surrounding monogamy
Today's women see this responsibility as rape. Because if she isn't in the mooooooooooooood, it's rape!
However, if he isn't in the mood of paying for her entitled ass, it's financial abuse.
Furthermore, she expects to slut it up during her years of peak beauty and fertility - making it impossible for her to offer any exclusivity to him, as her pussy has already been plowed by dozens of men in her past. Yet, she still expects to LvLuP to a hVm who will still give her, his full investment.
And if he sleeps with another woman, he will be considered to be the biggest monster there is.
Conclusion
Women want the freedom to slut it up to their heart's desire, while also expecting full male investment in them.
It doesn't work that way.
Foe starters, you aren't giving him exclusive and unlimited sexual access. You therefore don't deserve his exclusive and unlimited investment.
But even if you did give him exclusive and unlimited sexual access and you were the perfect wife - you'd only deserve to be fully taken care of. You still don't deserve monogamy.
And if you say that your religion demands monogamy - I bet your religion also demands that wives be submissive to their husbands and to be responsible for giving them regular sex.
You want it both ways, but reality won't let you have it both ways.
Reality is a tool of the patriarchy!!!
Get a cat and die alone. You don't deserve a man. A man definitely does not deserve to eat your shit.
Cheers!
Lionsmane8 1y ago
sigh sometimes dealing with women is akin to dealing with terrorists. And pussy is the only thing they can take hostage.
polishknight Endorsed 1y ago
One minor quibble: We live in a post-feminist and chivalrous era for so long, we assume that women were entitled to demand protection and support from the man (at his own expense) in a relationship marketplace.
Er, no. The notion of chivalrous patronage is a recent one where medieval courtship was romanticized and pushed onto the masses, but overall, it was the woman's father (Patriarch) who decided whom she would marry. (Watch The Bachelor as the guy talks to the girls' fathers just before he takes them to the "fantasy suite") The husband was legally obligated to support her like his children, but he could require her to work, even harder than he did, and it's common in other cultures that illustrate this as women work in the fields as the men relax. I've even seen photos of women clearing minefields while the husband, and his oxen, look on (because hey, you can still farm if the wife dies but lose the oxen?)
Modern chivalry is an extension of court-ship (hence the word) medieval courts where knights courted the daughters of wealthy noblemen ("ladies") whose fathers would then give him huge... tracts of land. Do you think Monty Python made that up out of nothing? MEN practiced hypergamy.
I know a chad who actually did just this. He got all the tail he wanted but he married a daughter of a family that owns hundreds of millions of commercial real estate in Alexandria. I'm reading Madame Bovary and it begins with a father who was handsome marrying a wealthy woman and living the easy life.
The notion of a woman being Jane Jetson lounging around all day while the men worked was a brief period of western history and it's astonishing how quickly it was dismantled. I, for one, am thankful.
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
Fair enough. I'll clarify.
The point was not to get into the history details of any particular place or time - as to do that would require an entire library of history books.
The point was to observe certain fundamental principles that are always present in marriage.
Male responsibility is something that can be found in every form of marriage imaginable, including today's feminist fueled dumpster fire version of marriage.
There was never a time or place, in which men were not responsible for women. Ever.
The details of responsibility and its commensurate authority, vary from time to time and place to place. But one thing remains constant: that men are responsible for women.
What's different now is that men are still held responsible for women, by the law and in society. However, women today have no responsibility towards their husbands. Whereas in marriage of the past, a woman had certain responsibilities towards her husband in exchange for his overall responsibility for her.
Boar_excrement 1y ago
To paraphrase Rollo: What women want is unlimited hypergamy with men blissfully unaware of it. Always trade up and put out without consequence. So design a system that allows total access to Chad and make the other men pay for it. After all, there are too many icky betas not to make use of them.
moorekom Mod 1y ago
They want a shot at Chad and they want to lock down Chad. All the complaints you see are because of their incapability to do that.
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
That's assuming "lock down Chad" is even in the realm of possibilities. However it's impossible to apply r-strategy and K-strategy mate selection at the same time, they're exclusive to each other.
The woman is intellectually incapable of recognizing this, because she views her own mate selection choices (r/K-strategy) as attributes of men.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
Yeah, it seems women's evolved machiavelism works only on betas. Using power moves on Chad always backfires. The funny/sad thing, they keep doing it and never learn
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
First mate selection is strictly about choosing mates from abundance. It's not about what you do with the choice or which attributes are present, once the selection has been made.
For example, you choose a woman with a certain mating strategy (like looking at the size of her tits) and slept with the one with the biggest tits. The latter means the choice has been made. It's irrelevant what personality your choice has or if she grew up with a single mother, because you already made your choice. You used a certain "big tits" strategy and ended up with a certain mate, you wouldn't have chosen with a different strategy. Yeah it would be so nice, if "big tits" could cook well, but you still would have to apply a different strategy, ending up with a different larger cup woman.
Choice and strategy is what women don't understand at all. They don't understand Red Pill, they don't understand Female Dating Strategies. If she r-selects, she ends up with Chad, instead of a K-selected man. That fact is ungraspable for a woman. That's why in the dead monogamous traditions mate choices were made by the fathers for their daughters.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
You are right about the last part. Although women are inherently machiavelian, they are unable to startegize or think long term. This extends to mate selection. Dads know best, but oh well, women have the same rights as men. That also means they can own up to their decisions, right? Riiiight?
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
A wife won't be sexually attracted to a mate K-selected by herself or by her dad. So it's going to be duty sex and cheating for her beta provider - as usual.
That's the thing the Purple Pill guys don't get, who somehow think they can combine the Red Pill with marriage: Female mate selection is completely incompatible with the social construct of monogamous marriage as it happens to be the law in most countries. Arranged marriages are not about sex. Sexless marriages are the norm, the rest is duty sex.
This is because sexual attraction (RP) is incompatible with lifelong marriage (BP). Due to this fact women prefer serial monogamy, which is the reason why they switched to LTR: a covert contract for male commitment with an easy hypergamy escape route for the female.
So all those guys trying to seek BP goals using RP, because they can't get K-selected anymore, just end up in a dead bedroom and their marriage turn ending at some point.
Lionsmane8 1y ago
Yup. Tradcon societies (of all religious and cultural backgrounds) have devised ways to address female AF/BB dual mating strategy. Shaming, divorce, eternal damnation etc. I always say, it takes a village to raise a kid and a village to keep a woman in check (or faithful). That being said these startegies do not address the core issue as you bring up, which is an issue of attractiveness. Tingles uber alles
NotaBene 1y ago
I don't think it's "purple pill" to believe that it's at least possible to keep hypergamy in check. I've seen it work at medium scale in an extremely blue/liberal state.
Women are pack animals, and if the pack of women do something as a group, the rest usually fall in line without question. Therefore, if you have a woman who runs with the right pack, you can set the boundaries of acceptable behavior without much fuss.
Typo-MAGAshiv Mod 1y ago
Back when i was still on that retarded shithole platform, reddit, I'd frequently see wahmyns and bloopies on feminist subreddits saying stupid shit like that.
My favorite was one where they were wailing and gnashing their teeth over a screenshot of one of my comments in which I had said that if my wife fails to uphold her vow "to have and to hold", then I see no reason to honor my vow to "forsake all others".
These morons were saying "there's nothing in wedding vows about sex! He's an entitled incel who thinks he owns his wife!" (A married incel? Yeah, ok retard)
What the fuck did they think "to have and to hold" means?!
Oh wait, I forgot:
understanding one's vows and honoring those vows is a tool of the patriarchy!
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
Yeah....
The double think is astounding!
Here's what I like to do. I'll ask them to tell me what a man owes his wife and what responsibilities he has towards her, whether he's in the mood for it or not. (If they don't catch on, give some examples. Like him not paying for anything)
They will start rambling on and on about the responsibilities of men.
Then ask them to list the responsibilities that wives have towards their husbands.
Sit back, smirk, take a puff from your cigar and a swig from your whiskey and just watch the conundrum you put them in....
lurkerhasarisen Mod 1y ago
Been traveling and sick lately, but I just saw this. @Typo-MAGAshiv
They have no problem coming up with "obligations" that wives have toward their husbands, but the difference is that the husband's obligations are specific, concrete, and absolute, while the wife's are vague, nebulous, and conditional.
His are written by lawyers - hers are written by poets. Consequently his are enforced by men with guns and hers are not enforced at all.
Edit: I should add that since hers are conditional, and she has sole discretion as to whether the conditions have been met, it's not really fair to consider them to be "obligations" at all. Of course such consistency is a tool the patriarchy, and only an incel would be so uncouth as to point that out.
Overkill_Engine Endorsed 1y ago
Also, harem societies cannot fully utilize the productivity of lower tier men while enforced monogamy ones can. Sure, the harem society can try to point them at external competitors and attempt conquest and theft of women from external societies, but their lower tier men aren't as invested in the continuation of their society and are going to be harder to control. So the moment they go up against a cohesive society that better utilizes/enfranchises their lower tier men, they are going to get fucking crushed.
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
And no longer can be enforced due to the invention of hormonal birth control. That's why we've gone back to harem society 60 years ago. I wrote about all this.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 1y ago
I dunno', man... the Mongols did pretty well. The khans turned the equation on its head: rather than using war as a means of killing off the excess male population inherent in harem societies, they outsourced the dying to their enemies. Foreign men died, which produced a surfeit of available women in the conquered territories... the beta men who comprised the Mongol hordes were so good at killing that they amassed harems of their own.
Obviously that's not sustainable (and it wasn't): when you run out of foreigners whose men you can wipe out you're right back where you started.
whytehorse2021 1y ago
I was just studying the history of this. You can go back to tribalism and see how the dynamics would play out. Rape was actually a huge risk for women and death was a huge risk for men. This led to the father being a daughter's protector and then giving her away to a suitable man. The father would also raise his sons to be strong and capable so they don't die if they're taken off to war or hunting lions.
The natural social proclivity of humans had them gather in tribes of up to 100. This increased dramatically with domesticated animals and farming. Then increased again with industrialization. All throughout the times there has been increasing specialization of individuals. But if you just think about the evolved specializations you had hunter/gatherers when men were hunters and women were gatherers.
So when we talk about monogamous marriage and how did it come to this, there is a long history of evolutionary, social, and economic things to factor in. By the time we got to the Abrahamic religions, everybody had questions about wives, inheritances, orphans, widows, etc and that became a large body of the text in religion and focused on monogamy et al. This created very prolific societies and led to large conquests which defeated many weaker non-monogamous or less advanced societies.
The problem with ending monogamy in the present is we don't have any wars to dispose of the 80% of men unattractive to women. So this is probably an entirely unique phenomenon. Combine that with women having state protection and provisioning as well as their own income. We can see that men have responded by developing game, going MGTOW, going to the global sexual marketplace, reverting to distractions(porn and games, etc).
I don't know where it will end up but the Morgan Stanley SHEconomy article gives us an idea. 80% of men will either drop out of society or get foreign brides. 80% of women will be forever single, waiting for the 20% of men to pick them. We can't expect men to just wait around wasting their whole lives because they're not a 9 or 10. I sure as hell didn't. Got my foreign bride 17 years ago.
I think the real kicker here is what happens when Western men snatch up all the hotties from abroad and the foreign men are left with a shortage? Will hypergamy turn all foreign women into the 80% waiting for a foreigner?
Positive-Lifeguard80 1y ago
You're just blaming the "problem" on men. However it's women being forced into monogamy by their biology: getting pregnant when having sex. This no longer works due to women having access to hormonal birth control and them being able to be promiscuous with no consequences.
And as a result, monogamy is dead and will stay so forever.
Loneliness-inc Mod 1y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
My point was to speak about the dynamics and not about the history. Because history is a vast subject that spans many centuries in every place on earth! But the evolving dynamics of mating, marriage and monogamy, can be observed across the board. The exact details may vary, but general trends can definitely be observed.
You can look at it that way.
Or, women can adjust their expectations. (I know I know, gasp gasp gasp).
If marriage is about looooooooooove, mooooooooooood and tingles as its foundation - marriage is completely and utterly fucked. Sure, it can work sometimes, but it isn't working for most people.
However, if marriage is - first and foremost - about responsibility (to each other, to the children, etc), then love and tingles are simply the fuel that warms the marital home.
Fuel that must be actively replenished all the time.
This is how our great grandparents treated marriage (in many cases). Point is, this mindset is doable, even for women.
Therefore, if a woman chooses otherwise and fails, her failure is a direct result of her actions.
Do you have a link for this?
whytehorse2021 1y ago
https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/womens-impact-on-the-economy
We don't see women adjusting their expectations. Instead they are doubling down. The recent rage against passport bros is a perfect example. We've already reached such low fertility rates that the population is going negative, even when you include immigrants. Millions of men leave the US every year and never come back. It's pretty much set in stone at this point.
Bulba 1y ago
I don’t think getting foreign brides will ever become mainstream. I’ve met guys who would rather die as incels because they think they deserve a local girl. It hurts their sense of pride.
whytehorse2021 1y ago
It goes mainstream for a while and then the women start with the man-shaming and dumb guys fall for it. It dies down for a while and then comes back. Over time more and more guys know a guy who has a nice foreign wife and they see through the shaming.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 1y ago
I agree. I've lived as an expat, and being a high-earning American white dude I was automatically in the top 20% (I'm married so it didn't matter to me personally, but for single guys it's like fishing with dynamite... in an aquarium). If I had been single and looking to wife up a foreign, multilingual hottie with a college degree and a traditional upbringing, I could have done so.
But that's fundamentally different from being one of those guys who travels to a foreign country and essentially buys a wife from her impoverished family because they don't know how to talk to women.
Feminists and white knights like to pretend that all cross-cultural marriages fall into the latter category, so it's viewed as pathetic rather than strategic. They desperately want to keep HVM from viewing it as a viable option to avoid getting divorce-raped by western harpies.
Bulba 1y ago
By the way I don't see anything wrong with buying a wife, romantic love is a modern invention. Marriage has always been a business deal between a man and a girl's father.
If you're against arranged marriages then you're a bit of a feminist yourself, albeit unconsciously. Because arranged marriages were removed from society through feminist activism.
lurkerhasarisen Mod 1y ago
Feminist? ME? Are you high?
Way to miss my point. Anyway, if you can find anywhere that I said I was philosophically opposed to arranged marriages, quote it and I'll be happy to rescind it. I have never done so as far as I can recall.
But there are different kinds of arranged marriages. When the Duke of X arranges a marriage for his son to the daughter of the Earl of Y, that's an arrangement between peers. When some 35 year old, autistic, kissless virgin flies to Malaysia to buy an 18 year old waif who knows 100 words of English from her family that lives in a grass hut... that's categorically different.
We're talking about perceptions here, and the perception that feminists like to convey is that anything that doesn't give the woman 100% control over everything is misogynistic. (They don't care that men never have that.) Arranged marriages fall into that category, including marriages where a western man with no social skills buys a wife from her impoverished third-world family.
Objectively speaking, even though everyone involved ends up better off than they otherwise would be, it snacks of human trafficking. While marriage is transactional; that's not all it is. It also creates a class of people who are worse off: namely, the men in that society whose top women get poached by foreigners.
The point (which I will make again since you seem to have missed it the first time) is that high value western men can - and do - get high quality foreign wives (although AWALT still applies), but feminists like to pretend that every such arrangement is human trafficking rather than two high value people making a conscious decision to maximize their opportunities in the mating market. That narrative is B.S., which is why it deserves to be opposed.