From my perspective it seems more like a societal issue than the institution of marriage itself. The couples who believe in the traditional covenant of marriage, those who regularly go to church, believe in God, and or have a better balance on life/ ratio make a better go of it than many others I know. Marriage as a contract with God and not the state are different things.
While all couples can have conflicts, traditionally the try their all to work things out. The problem with our overreaching government is that it wants to be in control of a woman's life. Placing all the benefits of a husband's contributions with welfare and programs.
it seems more like a societal issue than the institution of marriage itself
More precisely it's the fact that the culture and legal system encourages women to destroy the marriage and rewards them when they do. It's just not a smart risk to take with the system being the way it is right now. "Life-ruining coin flip" is an apt way of describing it.
The couples who believe in the traditional covenant of marriage, those who regularly go to church, believe in God, and or have a better balance on life/ ratio make a better go of it than many others I know.
If there were a reliable of finding a woman who a) has those beliefs) and b) won't change her mind the minute things get a little hard then marriage would make more sense. Of course fixing the systems that reward women's bad behavior would be even better. As it stands any man who gets married is gambling with his future and the odds are terrible.
While all couples can have conflicts, traditionally the try their all to work things out.
They don't do that anymore because the woman can just discard the man and steal his assets. The incentives for healthy relationships and marriage just aren't there. The system is pretty much designed to destroy families.
Those who cling to the dysgenic system will mostly die out over time. Reject the system and thrive. If it was that simple these problems would be solved in a couple of generations. But there are a few other pressures. There are solutions, but they will not be comfortable, but better in the long run.
Secede in place: separate your energy and support from the institutions.
Separate and build anew: Remove yourself physically and financially.
Revolt against the modern world: Consciously use your energy in opposition to the modern paradigm.
Oh btw all the downvoters, goo back to Reddit, you have no functional purpose being silent voters aside from admitting you can’t make an actual argument and seethe internally because of it. Actually, keep downvoting without engaging in discourse, it just makes you women.
Imagine being that pathetic. I don’t like your opinion so I’m going to downvote you because I can’t actually form an argument! Thanks for your childish “I don’t owe you anything” though, it’s adorable.
I’d rather have created a strong legacy and built a loving family than die with a bunch of money that the government then takes. For someone who hates feminists running things, Imp is always happy to agree with them on destroying the future.
I actually do find it rather sad how many friends of mine have had healthy, long lasting relationships, but are still sticking to their guns about not wanting kids.
I mean, I get putting that sort of thing off for a while, especially with practical concerns in-mind. I also get how many don't really want to deal with it at all. But I'd like to think at least having one or two kids at some point in your lifetime is maybe something that could be worth doing.
Julius Evola makes a strong case for sex without serving a biological purpose in his book: Eros and the Mysteries of Love.
Evola suggests that believing sex's only non-degenerate purpose is to procreate because of the pure biological function of sex is highly primitive and reduces humans to nothing but mere animals. Thus, viewing sex as nothing but a biological objective is in fact the most degenerative of all because you're suggesting humans have no spirit, no divinity, no enhanced meaning over and above the other animals. For people who believe in things such as God, then seeing sex as merely biological is the most degenerate of all.
Evola then goes on to argue for the purpose of sex as a spiritual calling to complete the human form in an idealized manner. He gives sex the potential for a very spiritual, passionate and uplifting experience then awakens the soul. Of course, much of the sex people are having these days doesn't fit this potential but he gives the potential for sex to be much more than merely biological a somewhat beautiful meaning.
I think sex can be an enhancing experience and there's nothing degenerate about seeking sex for something other than procreation but the way in which a lot of westerners, women especially, go about sex in modernity is in fact degenerate.
No, I don't think masturbation would really count from Evola's perspective given what I read. I don't think he'd readily call it degenerate but likely not the ideal.
Nothing wrong with traditional marriage. His ex, Grimes is wing-nut however.
From my perspective it seems more like a societal issue than the institution of marriage itself. The couples who believe in the traditional covenant of marriage, those who regularly go to church, believe in God, and or have a better balance on life/ ratio make a better go of it than many others I know. Marriage as a contract with God and not the state are different things.
While all couples can have conflicts, traditionally the try their all to work things out. The problem with our overreaching government is that it wants to be in control of a woman's life. Placing all the benefits of a husband's contributions with welfare and programs.
More precisely it's the fact that the culture and legal system encourages women to destroy the marriage and rewards them when they do. It's just not a smart risk to take with the system being the way it is right now. "Life-ruining coin flip" is an apt way of describing it.
If there were a reliable of finding a woman who a) has those beliefs) and b) won't change her mind the minute things get a little hard then marriage would make more sense. Of course fixing the systems that reward women's bad behavior would be even better. As it stands any man who gets married is gambling with his future and the odds are terrible.
They don't do that anymore because the woman can just discard the man and steal his assets. The incentives for healthy relationships and marriage just aren't there. The system is pretty much designed to destroy families.
Those who cling to the dysgenic system will mostly die out over time. Reject the system and thrive. If it was that simple these problems would be solved in a couple of generations. But there are a few other pressures. There are solutions, but they will not be comfortable, but better in the long run.
Thank you, Super Hitler. I'm sorry about killing Mecha Hitler back in Wolfenstein 3D. He left me no choice.
Edit: Somebody killed SuperHitler too. :(
You want a life ruining coin flip? Try college.
Any "sex" without the intent of producing children is just advanced masturbation.
It’s not sex, it is masturbation, we use sex from a dead language to begin with. Sexual intercourse has one purpose under scientific definition.
that's what I said
You don't want children? Don't have sex
it's that easy
He doesn't say anything about "commitment", he's talking about procreation, i.e., having babies and perpetuating the human species.
Oh btw all the downvoters, goo back to Reddit, you have no functional purpose being silent voters aside from admitting you can’t make an actual argument and seethe internally because of it. Actually, keep downvoting without engaging in discourse, it just makes you women.
Nobody owes you a response.
Imagine being that pathetic. I don’t like your opinion so I’m going to downvote you because I can’t actually form an argument! Thanks for your childish “I don’t owe you anything” though, it’s adorable.
Already proving my point 😂
Imagine whining about internet points.
Imagine downvoting without having anything to say? But please enjoy being pathetic
I’d rather have created a strong legacy and built a loving family than die with a bunch of money that the government then takes. For someone who hates feminists running things, Imp is always happy to agree with them on destroying the future.
Tradcuck.
I actually do find it rather sad how many friends of mine have had healthy, long lasting relationships, but are still sticking to their guns about not wanting kids.
I mean, I get putting that sort of thing off for a while, especially with practical concerns in-mind. I also get how many don't really want to deal with it at all. But I'd like to think at least having one or two kids at some point in your lifetime is maybe something that could be worth doing.
Julius Evola makes a strong case for sex without serving a biological purpose in his book: Eros and the Mysteries of Love.
Evola suggests that believing sex's only non-degenerate purpose is to procreate because of the pure biological function of sex is highly primitive and reduces humans to nothing but mere animals. Thus, viewing sex as nothing but a biological objective is in fact the most degenerative of all because you're suggesting humans have no spirit, no divinity, no enhanced meaning over and above the other animals. For people who believe in things such as God, then seeing sex as merely biological is the most degenerate of all.
Evola then goes on to argue for the purpose of sex as a spiritual calling to complete the human form in an idealized manner. He gives sex the potential for a very spiritual, passionate and uplifting experience then awakens the soul. Of course, much of the sex people are having these days doesn't fit this potential but he gives the potential for sex to be much more than merely biological a somewhat beautiful meaning.
I think sex can be an enhancing experience and there's nothing degenerate about seeking sex for something other than procreation but the way in which a lot of westerners, women especially, go about sex in modernity is in fact degenerate.
What did he think about masturbation?
Personally I find the "spiritual" view of sex - an idea promoted by both religious and non-religious people - to be even more disturbing.
No, I don't think masturbation would really count from Evola's perspective given what I read. I don't think he'd readily call it degenerate but likely not the ideal.
Porn is a significantly bigger problem