https://rumble.com/v4ng5sr-njf-on-marriage.html
5 min clip
summary:
- you can't take risks
- you can't trade your comfort for resources toward a greater goal
- women have absolute legal power
- women have no obligations or duties in how they behave
- most of the masculinity exhibited by married men is performative and trivial
- every mechanism to control a wife's behavior is seen as "abuse"
Even knowing all of this, and generally agreeing with it, I still think the costs and sacrifices are worth it as long as you go in for the purposes of having children. Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
Nick is a very talented guy, but being gay or at least bisexual, his perspective is a little biased. Yes, dude is gay. He had a date with a catboy and got caught with a tab of gay porn on one of his alts.
He is correct on the broad strokes, without a doubt, but I agree with you that kids are extremely valuable. Also, this concept is growing increasingly foreign and I get the feeling that many people here haven't even seen it in action, but there is such thing as a woman with her head screwed on straight, or at least as much as could ever be expected for a woman. The chance that Brittany Sellner is going to divorce rape Martin Sellner, for those of you familiar with alt-right personalities, is pretty low.
I sound a little pollyanna for these parts, but let me remind you we're talking about the survival of the human race. Artificial wombs aren't coming to save you.
Probably, but it still comes down to a basic risk analysis. When a woman has the legal power to upend your life, take your home and half or more of your income, take your kids, take your pets, take your friends, possibly accuse you of things that will land you in prison, and do so with utter impunity and no risk to herself, the question of whether she actually will do that is secondary.
The problem is not that we think every woman would, but that any woman could. And that makes the risk too great.
That goes beyond even risk aversion, into societal suicide. Any woman could poison you as well, or just outright murder you, both possibilities exist. You risk being murdered every time you sleep when you get right down to it, that's why humans domesticated dogs. Life is risk.
If you aren't having children, the only way you're contributing to society is if you're a Tesla level genius inventor. And let's be real, nobody here is.
But if you demand that any and all risk to you be eliminated or else you won't participate in society, then you're going to get written off. Not to mention that that kind of unreasonable attitude is pretty much an exclusively female mindframe.
No one is demanding an entirely risk-free environment before they start dating again. What any sane man wants is a fair contract that enables both parties to pursue redress if one of them breaks it, and we don't have that. Women broke the social contract. It is not the responsibility of men to fix it.
And you aren't going to get that.
Life has never been fair for men, that's the entire purpose of the Y chromosome and why its instinctually considered the disposable portion of humanity, its designed to be filled with rapid mutations that fail or succeed and we don't even bother to mourn the failures because they are in fact meant to die off to improve the gene pool.
You don't have to accept their treatment of you, but whining about basic human evolution is exactly what women do until they are fat, eggless and broken.
It doesn't matter how much you talk about the hypocrisy in society and how badly men are treated. At the heart of it no one cares. Men have to be taught to do so, women are literally disgusted at the notion.
Its an unwinnable battle because its trying to logic an emotion.
You did demand that. You said it doesn't matter whether they would but that they could, and that so long as they could the risk is too great.
Okay, it seems we broadly agree on a lot here but this is a bit ridiculous. I want kids very badly and I'm young enough that realistically I will probably have them down the line, but the notion that you have to be Newton level to contribute to society is retarded. Be a good influence in your community, for your nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. and that is absolutely a positive contribution to society.
Why is it retarded? Sustainment of the population is at least three children per couple. If you aren't managing at least one kid, then your existence equates to nothing more than the consumption of resources.
The only people who truly manage to make significant contributions to society that justify their lives, are people who can contribute enormously to technology or else save hundreds of lives. Perhaps Tesla is an exaggeration but frankly for most people it's all or nothing, especially in our society of filler jobs and consumption industries.
Her kids. Ideally they'd be yours too, but there's no guarantee. The only thing certain is that the government will force you to pay her money because of them, regardless of who their father really is.
AWALT
I'm considering making a post on this, but because I've been going to church for basically my whole life, I know a lot of women in various life stages and many of them would fit the definition of a "good woman." If you've been lovingly supporting your husband and kids for 60 years, what more is there to say? AWALT, but Christianity and religion in general tempers the Pandora's chaos of womanhood. That's how civilization has been able to survive for thousands of years.
Civilization has been able to survive for thousands of years by men leading. And not just the good ones who "manned up". Most people agreed on the role of men and women and their nations supported them.
Yep, and without the greater religious force impressing the hierarchy and meaning of life on you, it all falls apart. Ever notice how the satanic is joined with the feminine? Baphomet is half-woman.
There's a lot of things you don't know about the innerworkings of a relationship that you'd never know from casual observation though. Does she put out? Is she actually attractive? It's one thing to stick around for the husband's stability and resources but it's another to actually give men what they want.
That's what I was getting at when I said a significant portion of marriages that don't end in divorce rape are still miserable. Divorce rape is a major risk, but not the only one. If she sticks around is she making the man's life better or is he a beta slave waiting for the sweet mercy of death?
It's also why "look around, all kinds of men are in relationships" isn't a valid counterargument to the 80/20, 95/5, or whatever rule. We know that women will leech off men for resources. They do it to non-Chads all the time. Men want a good relationship, not a grifting whore who works him into an early grave to pay for the lifestyle she feels entitled to while she fucks the guy she actually wants on the side.
It goes without saying that nothing is perfect, but if husband and wife love each other and the children grow up healthy, no one can say it's not worth it. Also "is she attractive" is definitely observable from the outside lol.
Yeah but if I say all women are categorically bad then I get to excuse not even trying.
They don't have to be categorically bad for marriage to be a shitty investment. The probable downside just has to exceed the probable upside. With a 50% chance of divorce rape and a significant chunk of marriages that last being miserable the odds are not in a man's favor. That doesn't even account for the magnitude of the rewards of a good outcome being massively exceeded by the horrific punishments that a bad outcome entails.