Marriage Follow Up

So, my post about marriage, (which you can read here); created a lot of controversy, as was expected. But the thing that came up the most which I found puzzling was the question and the demand that I answer, ‘what is in it for men when it comes to marriage?’ It was peculiar because the benefits have not changed in 100 years, the dynamics have due to society, feminism, and a bunch of guys who don’t have game, go into marriages blindly either believing the feminist lies of equality causing their wives to lose not only sexual attraction but respect in these same men, which leads to divorce rapes etc. I believed in the game-o-sphere that it is and was a common belief that running game was the teaching of men how to be masculine and essentially shift the power back to the masculine, they way girls secretly desire, as opposed to the mangina and beta way of complimenting and cuddling. Seduction, both short term and long term, was pretty widely accepted through these parts. Yet, you bring marriage into the equation and suddenly all this becomes useless and pointless, and not an option, not something you should trust, not something that’s solidified as truth, and not something more than a few tricks that you can pull off on a few random lays. I don’t believe that to be true. Game is more powerful than a few tricks, but it shows a lack of faith in game that utterly surprised me.

First, the ‘what is in it for men’ question that came up. The theory being that because you can get the same benefits without marriage, that someone living with someone for 40 years and raising kids is going to offer you protection against the courts and taking half your stuff, as opposed to marriage – that there is no benefit to marriage at all. Well they do offer the same benefits, and there is no difference between getting married, and co-habitating. Especially when you have kids – except taxes, you will be able to get good tax breaks if you are the financial provider of the family, one of the things still around (at least in Canada) – Child support risks are the same if you raw dogged it with some bar slut, or the girl you chose to marry, accept you have a much better read (I’m assuming) on a girl you would be marrying, rather than a possible psycho that will want to get pregnant just to try and trap you and get money – seen those before, a lot. What are the benefits? Companionship, well cooked meals, an appropriate mother for your children, surrounded in a home that you are in command of, and you built with the mother in order to raise children in a stable loving environment; constant sex (again I’m assuming your marrying a decent looking babe or else why would you marry her?) chicks are also good at organizing mundane crap that I don’t want to do, they can do laundry, make appointments, take care of day to day house issues, and some are actually fun to be around for a great deal of time. It’s nice to always have something soft and doting and loving to be at your side for life. Geesh I could go on, and really didn’t think I needed to, but if I didn’t, I’ll keep seeing comments like, “you still haven’t said what the benefits are.” These are not all the benefits, and yes you can get these without getting married, and if you can do so, I applaud you. It actually takes someone more skilled in game to basically marry a chick without marrying her. But we here want the truth, and only the truth, and many many men will want to get married, despite the risks. It is still better to tell them the risks and show them the path of potential successes, rather than saying just don’t to it. The risks here, and some states, and states coming soon to your neighbourhood, are the same as marriage. So opting out of the marriage thing isn’t viable where I live at the very least.

Opening a restaurant is one of the riskiest business moves you can do. The risks/rewards are skewed in the favor of failing, and losing everything. Should someone not open a restaurant? Should no one? Is someone experienced in restaurants more likely to succeed at this industry than the person who has false illusions about owning a restaurant and has no clue how to do it? I’m saying there are plenty of things in life that are risky, and telling people to just not do it sounds like the old parental advice of, oh don’t continue on with your dream, the chances are too great to fail. Well, this is what living is, to fail is to live, as much as succeeding is. I am not going to shut off areas of life that I may want to experience just because it’s risky. Money and wealth isn’t a constant or guarantee anyways, you can be ripped off by your accountant, make a bad investment, be a narcissistic nut like Nicholas cage. It’s not whether you do something in life its how you do it.

Was I telling every guy to get married? No. I was suggesting that if you are going to get married, learn game, and you can be successful in it, and it’s the only way you will be? Did I say it was a guarantee? Did I say everyone should do it? I find it amusing what the reactions were. I simply was advising that taking a hard line stance on marriage is based out of fear, and not that the same fear wasn’t justified. It is, and that’s why you have to be smart about it, and everything else you do in life. There are no guarantees in life, I don’t like the way the marriage laws are now, but that doesn’t mean I can’t marry and successfully game a chick for the rest of my life while I raise, or don’t raise children.

It also seems there is an assumption that I was saying, every man should get married. If you have a desire to marry, for whatever reason, you should not marry someone just for the sake of that. You should only marry the girl that fits the mold of wife and mother to your children that you have set the criteria to first. Of course, when I wrote the piece I kind of thought this stuff was obvious.

20 thoughts on “Marriage Follow Up

  1. ” the benefits have not changed in 100 years”

    This is not true. Traditional marriage was a contract based on property rights, wherein the man traded his resource production and protection for the reproductive capacity (children) and sexual availability of the woman. Children born within a marriage were literally the legal property (and responsibility) of the man, whereas children born outside of a marriage were the legal property (and responsibility) of the woman (hence, many fewer single mothers).

    In current State-based marriage, the man loses the rights to his children and a substantial portion of his future production, while the woman has no legal obligation to provide either sex or reproductive services (only as she wishes).

    So it is not true that the benefits of marriage have not changed in the strict legal sense.

    As for the rest of what you said, of course there are pros and cons to marriage, just like anything else in life. Men should weigh the costs/risks and benefits and make their own decision without being swayed by shaming language.

  2. I read the previous post and I still think you’re off the mark. You mischaracterize fear for prudence. You miscalculate a man’s ability to maintain power in a situation where he’s clearly at a disadvantage. Do you believe there’s a woman anywhere that doesn’t know the legal game is rigged in her favor? The point you make about risk being inherent in any activity actually works against you. Why would someone choose to tack on another layer of artificial risk on top of the inherent risk? And I believe the premise you operate from is false (the benefits are still the same from 100 years ago). If the benefits were still there, I believe more men would be willing to take the chance. The benefits are almost non-existent(with many viable substitutes) and the risks and bias against men can’t get any worse. It’s just not a smart option from almost any perspective, especially an economic one where you’re considering alternatives and substitutes.

    Substitute almost any other analogy and I think you’d see where this is falling short.
    Why not just buy penny stocks? Any stock could go in the toilet. What are you, afraid? You can still make the same money as you could before investment banks created artificial booms and busts based on government insured gambling.

    You get to race Michael Phelps in a 100 meter contest. You can choose to race him in a pool swimming or on grass running. “I choose grass.” “What are you, afraid?” No, it’s called not being a god damned fool.

  3. You’re analogies prove my point actually. There is risk in any stock yet people blindly buy them even know they don’t understand them. The people who succeed have knowledge about that game, and thus play with a different set of risk then someone with out knowledge. Just like marriage, a man with game knows the game, the risks are lower, than the many fools that get married blindly.

    You come from an illogical absolute mindset. Get married, guaranteed to get fucked over, no matter what. Or giving you some credit, you think no matter what you do you face the same exact risks. My point is, that’s not true, if you have game.

  4. Reading comprehension fail

    All I did was show that you made an incorrect statement by saying ”the benefits have not changed in 100 years”

    I never said anything about “Get married, guaranteed to get fucked over, no matter what. Or giving you some credit, you think no matter what you do you face the same exact risks.”

    I clearly said: “there are pros and cons to marriage, just like anything else in life. Men should weigh the costs/risks and benefits and make their own decision”

    Seems like you are the one writing from a predetermined, illogical and absolute mindset.

  5. Yes I agree with the weighing the pros and cons, where did I ever elude otherwise, if you want to get into a reading comprehension fail. You seemed to have missed this obvious statement insinuated by having game. That’s kind of the thing with game.

  6. My reply was for John not you btw.

    As for the benefits being different, why would you think I meant legally when I specifically brought up the point that it’s not in my post?

  7. Calling me absolutist in my position on marriage is a misread. I never even imply it will always lead to being fucked over, but only that it is almost always a subpar choice among your options.

    You missed the purpose and context of my analogies. The people doing well in stocks/equities are playing with the government subsidizing their risks (not guys doing proper research). Just like women in marriage have the government in their corner. Maybe you think you’re smart enough to beat the house, but we simply disagree about the efficacy of game. You’re just a degenerate gambler if you’re willing to put the majority of your assets, the lives of your children, and your future earnings into the hands of some broad with the belief you can run top notch consistent game that she’ll accept for the next 40 years. Be my guest, sir.

    Anyways, good luck with the blog. It doesn’t seem as if we’ll find much common ground on this topic.

  8. John wrote, “Maybe you think you’re smart enough to beat the house, but we simply disagree about the efficacy of game.” I think that this is the crux of the matter. The problem with marriage today is that there are no societal support structures as there were in the past. The laws favor women; slut-shaming is verboten; and divorce is no longer stigmatized. In this environment, does tight game lessen the risk of divorce? Is game alone sufficient to reduce the risk of divorce to make marriage a good calculated risk for men? Donlak asserts that tight game does so. Well, probably. If tight game reduces risk, by how much does the risk fall? I don’t know. No one knows. Each of us can make our best guess as to how much the risk will fall; there will be no agreement on this question. But how many men are willing to make this wager with their lives, potential children, and property when the benefits are marginal? Very few red-pill men indeed.

    There are men who are improving their game in marriage and getting good results thanks to (mainly) Athol Kay. But how tight does a man’s game have to be given that he will not have any support from society’s laws or mores? Again, I don’t know. I cannot say with any confidence that game alone is sufficient to keep a woman’s hypergamy in check long-term and reduce the risk of her becoming unhaaaapppyyy and leaving for cash and prizes. I say this because I’m convinced that marriage needs the support of society in order to survive as an institution. Laws must protect men; sluts must be shamed; divorce must be stigmatized. Men still need game under these circumstances to have a happy marriage. But the risks are much, much lower under these circumstances. In today’s society, a man’s game must be compensate for the societal breakdown of marriage in order to have a happy union. Again I ask the question, Is game alone sufficient to lessen the very real risks of divorce for marginal benefits? I don’t know, but my suspicion is that it is not sufficient. Otherwise, men would not have shaped civilizations so that men married virgins and did not have to worry about divorce rape.

    I am open to revisiting this position as more evidence becomes available. If men with tight game marry under these circumstances and have successful marriages, I could agree with Donlak that tight game is sufficient for a happy marriage. However, given that many, if not most red-pill men have decided for themselves that risk of marriage greatly outweighs the benefits and that game is not sufficient to reduce these risks, I’ll probably won’t be able to collect enough data to change my opinion.

  9. The life you describe where the wife does all of the house chores and raises the children is an ideal but rarely practical. The only scenario that works is if one is able to be the sole bread winner. With a working spouse, dishes, laundry, etc., cannot be done effectively by one person. Kids are extremely time consuming.

    Also, the idea of long term great sex is laughable. It just doesn’t work that way!

  10. And this of course too. Many men forget that, with the right woman, a man can have his cake and eat it too. You have to have the right frame of mind as a man, and be with the right woman for you. I absolutely agree there’s no reason to draw a ‘no marriage’ line in the sand. Thanks for speaking up on this. I’m not surprised you have, you always are right there on the edge pushing forward.

  11. You should be aiming for equal rights, which you no longer have within marriage. Thus aim for LTR, even with kids, under the assumption your masculine or alpha stance keeps her with you, keeps her from pushing you into that legal disadvantageous construct. If you still go the marriage way, you are simply dumb. You give her a call option on your wealth for nothing in return. Nothing to do with fear but being smart in navigating today’s world.

Reply to this post

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s