Fat chicks and trade cons have this thing in common where, despite knowing how people actually work, they'd rather try to shame everyone into becoming how they think people "ought to be", in stead of just getting with the program, accepting reality for what it is, and adjusting accordingly.

Fat chick goes: "Men bad for not being into fat chicks! Reason: Problematic society! Choose me in stead, or else shame on you! Men should lower their standards! Me seeing the inside of a gym, and stop stuffing my face = not an option!"

Trad-con goes: "Women bad for not being into dependable guy! Reason: Problematic society! Choose me in stead, or else shame on you! Women should lower their standards! Me leaving my Christian, blue pill ideals behind, and go out and get laid = not an option!"

@Typo-MAGAshiv

@woodsmoke, @derdeutscher, and I think @Vermillion-Rx to an extent are putting themselves into the shoes of the men who don't know about this stuff, and thinking about what would set them up for the most desirable life.

(...)

I mean, I personally know the things I need to do to maximize my odds of favorable outcomes. I'd rather live as things are with what I now know. But thinking about all the men who will never find a space like this or any other Red Pill material, I think they may have been much better off under the old system with marriage 1.0. Too many of them are just left with nothing.

This is where you and I differ on this. You seem to think "ignorance is bliss" for the unplugged guy. As long as he's plugged in, the old social contract is going to work for him.

I'd argue it's not, and that the ignorance us going to bite him in the ass. He will know frustration and misery in so many ways, even if he can't put two and two together as to why. Rather, not being able to put two and two together is going to make it that much worse. Because now he's going to think he "deserves" stuff, and be mad as a result.

Ref. "Michael's Story" - which really is a story about how guys hobble themselves, and grow resentful, by clinging onto the "good, Christian boy" thing, and working from the perspective of how women "should" be, and what women "should" appreciate.

Why should a man lose his house, access to his kids, etc because of fleeting feelings?

I agree with that. Divorce doesn't have to be unnecessarily difficult for neither women nor men. Draconian divorce laws (and practices) need to die in places where they haven't already (certain parts of the English speaking world, it seems).

@Durek_The_Bald I still need to go back and read through what everyone said. I was in the middle of getting caught up late yesterday afternoon but got interrupted and never got back to it.

however...

From what I remember seeing so far, I think the two "sides" (for lack of a better term) of this discussion are talking past each other a bit.

You, @mattyanon, and whoever I'm forgetting in my pre-coffee haze are looking at things from the perspective of guys who have been unplugged for a while.

@woodsmoke, @derdeutscher, and I think @Vermillion-Rx to an extent are putting themselves into the shoes of the men who don't know about this stuff, and thinking about what would set them up for the most desirable life.

For my part, life had and still has its problems and uncertainties no matter what time period one picks, and I can see the advantages (and disadvantages) in either one.

Because I like things being based on tingles and horniness, rather than duty, commitment, and potential punishment

Why not both?

Tingles can come and go. Why should a man lose his house, access to his kids, etc because of fleeting feelings?

covenants without the sword are mere words

• Thomas Hobbes

I mean, I personally know the things I need to do to maximize my odds of favorable outcomes. I'd rather live as things are with what I now know. But thinking about all the men who will never find a space like this or any other Red Pill material, I think they may have been much better off under the old system with marriage 1.0. Too many of them are just left with nothing.

@woodsmoke

The point I'm trying to make is mainly this:

Making it unnecessarily difficult for women to divorce men (through social norms, or even law) isn't a win for men. Because women have a number of ways to make a man's life miserable anyways. In the power dynamics between men and women, men have physical strength and competency - while women have the naggiddynag and manipulation. So it's not like you will know peace and happiness just because your wife can't practically divorce you (although she'd like to).

As @Typo-MAGAshiv said:

pre-1970-or-so a man wasn't nearly as likely to have it all yanked away from him just because the wife was boooooooored and unhaaaaaaaappy

But why would a man even want to be with a woman who's boooored and unhaaaaapy? Fucking get rid of that harpy before she gets rid of you (or makes your life miserable if she can't get rid of you). Divorce is a win for a man if "boooored and unhaaaaapy" is representative of the state of one's marriage.

I suspect pre 1970's, this was indeed the state of the majority of marriages. Second wave feminism happened because "boooored, unhaaaaapy, and low libido 4 U" was representative for a large chunk of married women's lived experiences. Are we supposed to believe their husbands were happy regardless? That life still would be fine for the dude, as long as the wife couldn't divorce for practical reasons? Of course not, it must've been freaking miserable.

None of which is to say you're wrong, of course, but which version of society is better very much depends on one's priorities and the perspective from which one is analyzing the problem. As Thomas Sowell famously said, there are no solutions, only trade-offs

Yeah, I'm onboard with socially enforced monogamy being a very successful model on a societal level. Absolutely no doubt about it, as cultures who've practiced this have consistently out-competed cultures that didn't. That's why I'm trying to be clear thqt I'm speaking about the individual man's lived experience - not what works on a societal level.

Counterpoint: the modern paradigm is great for those on top o' the game, those who have a natural drive to climb ladders and build empires and those primarily/only interested in easy access to casual sex.

It's pretty shit for the great majority of men who just want a decent life with a decent woman and something to show for their efforts.

Maybe. I'm not so sure about it. But I do know that I'm nothing special, and my wife is nothing special either, and I live a good, sex positive, fairly peaceful family life with a decent woman....so far.

And if things go to shit, and it's not working for me anymore for whatever reason, I'm free to leave her without much social repercussion, and minimal financial repercussions as well. But only less than half a century ago, I would have a hard time getting to see my kids. Because women were then deemed the most important parent solely based on them being women. Today though? Not so much.

I honestly wouldn't want it any other way. If she's ever boooored and unhaaaaapy in our marriage, I want her to be free to leave me. Because I like things being based on tingles and horniness, rather than duty, commitment, and potential punishment.

@derdeutscher

Look, I'm not going to pretend I'm above ruminating about the past - about not having cell phones, about having to call someone's door bell to see if they were home, having only two TV channels and five newspapers (and very little polarisation as a result). For sure, those times had their charm, and some things were "better" about them. I'm as much a sucker for nostalgia as the next guy!

But we're those times really "better" though? Now, I don't think so. I mean, take this as an example:

I still remember the days when the only way you could reach your girlfriend is calling her home, and her father than shit testing you endlessly before finally letting you go through

Charming stuff, for sure. But you could also look at it like, those (and more) were the hoops a guy had to jump through to get some ass once upon a time. Now, contrast that with today, were you can meet a girl, nut inside her asshole, and not even buy her a cup of coffe. What's not to love about that?

@Typo-MAGAshiv

to an extent you're right, but back then really was better in some ways. Having a house and a family wasn't so out of reach to so many men like it is now, and pre-1970-or-so a man wasn't nearly as likely to have it all yanked away from him just because the wife was boooooooored and unhaaaaaaaappy

If we look at statistics on what percentage of guys would get married (and stay married), and have families etc., it may certainly seem like before the sexual revolution was a better time to be a man.

I don't count those things as "success" though - not in isolation. Having a family, and having a good time of it is success. Staying married, and having a good time of it, is success. And likewise: Being childless and single, and having a good time of it is success too.

I don't think the typical statistical metrics really tell the full story of what it was like to be a man before.

For one, the sexual revolution happened because women wanted it. Feminism happened because women wanted it. When women said they wanted to be "free", what they really were talking about was being free of beta buxx. Because it's not in their nature to want that, never have been. That's why "one woman for every man, one man for every woman" always has demanded strict social control of female nature to work (and by "work" I mean on a societal level, not for the individual man's life experience).

I mean, we know female nature today. It's all there right in the open. And we know that stuff doesn't work for women. It only works so long as the tingles are there. Being "the stable, dependable guy" just doesn't cut it. And we also know that "hypergamously unsatisfied, tingleless wife = shit life". We've seen it, heard the stories, and some of us have even experienced it. There's no reason to think that "before" was any different, seeing as female nature is the same as it's always been.

There's a lot of apex fallacy and romanticism when looking at the past. But we do get little remnants here and there, of what it really was like for the average guys. Sayings like "hell hath no fury like a woman scorn", "happy wife, happy life", jokes about terrible wives, and old memes such as this: