Why is the RedPill so Anti-Marriage?

[The Duke]

Liberal dating mentality is actually the "transactional" view of relationships. (Hence the liberal insistance on calling marriage a "contract" instead of a "covenant", allowing for divorce and legal proceedings as if it were a business partnership).

The corny Hollywood "romanticism" you associate with liberals is merely a big cope for the fact that their attitude towards marriage is entirely transactional.

The idea that traditional societies "were not sentimental and viewed marriage as a rational transaction" is liberal/leftist propaganda to make conservatives and traditionaliats seem cold and heartless.

Dating websites/apps is the final phase to this. You are encouraged to literally advertise yourself and your sexuality online, just like you would advertise a used car.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to marry a woman you truly connect with on a deep and intimate level.

This is far different from saying you should be allowed to leave your spouse if they fon't "make you feel good."

Both are opposite extremes.

The man who views marriage as a transaction (and his wife as a replaceable possession) is just as bad as the "hopeless romantic" man who is willing to put aside common sense and overlook red flags in favor of cheap sentimentalism and Hollywood notions of romance.

There was a time when men married women in order to purchase more land, preserve power, etc. The women didnt get much say. In the middle east arranged marriages are still common.

 

[Barrister]

A lot of us are red pill here but not necessarily anti-marriage - from a relationship perspective that is. The problem most guys have is that our current legal framework incentivizes women to divorce because they end up with a major payday on the way out at the guy's expense. And yes, I realize this goes for women if they are the breadwinners too, but I think we can agree that is a very rare occurrence. And there is little rhyme or reason to it. The overall reasoning for it is grounded in a patently false idea that both parties bring the same value to the marriage - it just can't be measured in money. So to make the lesser earner "whole," they are given at least 50% of the marital estate (many times more than that) - a marital estate that is usually about 90%+ there because of the man's hard work and earnings.

The problem is that very rarely, especially in a toxic relationship, are the two parties equally contributing to the marriage. This generally results in a very inequitable situation in divorce court and why guys, who usually are the breadwinners and the glue of the relationship financially, find themselves getting fu*ked by the court. Multiple this two-fold if minor children are involved and a support order gets put in place.

 

[bmp2cpm]

I would recommend any man get married to a woman who makes/has more money than he does so that he can benefit from the laws surrounding marriage.

Imagine getting paid alimony for cheating on your wife lmao.

I did this in my first marriage. I do not recommend it. It was a disaster.

I brought in 40% of the pay and I made what most here would consider good money.

Wives resent their husbands when the husband makes less than them. Impossible to lead your wife when you make less than her.

The more money we made, the more my first wife spent. No financial plan, just always carrying tens of thousands on credit card balances. My financial future was dependent on the whims of first wife’s emotions.

I did get $40K in the divorce though, which is over $100K today due to compound interest. Small consolidation for the h*ll I lived through.

Current and forever wife makes about 25% of what I make. She follows the budget, she lets me lead the financial plan and most other things.

She makes me laugh and smile every day.

She keeps the house incredibly clean despite my inherent messiness.

Always go for women who are younger, shorter, and make less than you. Otherwise, the relationship is doomed from the start. This is biology.

 

[The Duke]

Always go for women who are younger, shorter, and make less than you. Otherwise, the relationship is doomed from the start. This is biology.

+10, spot on. Thats experience talking. Ive tried it every which way. For you guys who are just starting out, burn this into your brain. It will save you grief down the road.

 

[SW15]

Yes. She’s not a Western sloot.

She is currently living in a Western nation. Western culture is poisonous to women.

Western Culture Poisons Women – Roosh Valizadeh

Are you familiar with twin studies that are supposed to determine how much of our personality is influenced by genetics versus the environment? Well I have my own twin study going on in Poland, where I observe girls who have lived in America and Britain with those who have not. The differences are s

www.rooshv.com

The problem most guys have is that our current legal framework incentivizes women to divorce because they end up with a major payday on the way out at the guy's expense.

The problem is that very rarely, especially in a toxic relationship, are the two parties equally contributing to the marriage. This generally results in a very inequitable situation in divorce court and why guys, who usually are the breadwinners and the glue of the relationship financially, find themselves getting fu*ked by the court.

A great example of this would be the older of my two divorced cousins. His divorce settlement was expensive and he didn't even have any kids in the marriage. He paid X amount of money upfront + spousal support for 1 year + to a woman. I considered that a horse shiit settlement. Why the fucck did she deserve one cent for anything? That divorce settlement was essentially a payment for past vaginal access. This is part of why I say men usually pay for sex in one way or another. My cousin was paying for sex during the marriage for various things to keep her around + that ending payment. Expensive vagina there.

I wonder how pay his settlement could have been because it was done through the mediation process. It's not like it went to a court. @Barrister -- I know you are an attorney, but your specialty isn't family law. You are likely well versed enough in family law though. I've always wondered if that settlement would have been worse had they both lawyered up, done depositions, gone to court, etc.

A lot of us are red pill here but not necessarily anti-marriage - from a relationship perspective that is.

I'm not necessarily anti-marriage. I am realistic and evaluate statistical trends.

The odds of a marriage being a success aren't that great.

There's about an 80% chance of AT LEAST one of the following 3 things happening over the lifespan of a marriage...

• Divorce
• Affair
• Long periods of a mediocre to subpar dynamic where the relationship just continues on based on inertia/societal pressure. The passion is gone.

I don't want to deal with any of those 3 things.

My parents had an unhealthy relationship dynamic throughout my childhood, culminating in a not so amicable divorce when I was 15.

 

[Serenity]

I'm not necessarily anti-marriage. I am realistic and evaluate statistical trends.

The odds of a marriage being a success aren't that great.

There's about an 80% chance of AT LEAST one of the following 3 things happening over the lifespan of a marriage...

• Divorce
• Affair
• Long periods of a mediocre to subpar dynamic where the relationship just continues on based on inertia/societal pressure. The passion is gone.

I don't want to deal with any of those 3 things.

My parents had an unhealthy relationship dynamic throughout my childhood, culminating in a not so amicable divorce when I was 15.

There are those who haven't a clue, so they're left to gamble on the chances given by statistics. Then there are those who recognize what part they play in significantly shifting the odds in ones own favor.

Statistics about this catches all the idiots, all the clueless people and everyone else. I doubt you believe most guys possess the knowledge we do, if you were to apply the best knowledge then the statistics you present are invalid for you.

It is rather easy too, observe the 20% and the 80%, what are they doing right and wrong? Learn, apply and be in the 20%.

Just something to add to your realism, you aren't solely a victim to chance.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Liberal dating mentality is actually the "transactional" view of relationships. (Hence the liberal insistance on calling marriage a "contract" instead of a "covenant", allowing for divorce and legal proceedings as if it were a business partnership).

The corny Hollywood "romanticism" you associate with liberals is merely a big cope for the fact that their attitude towards marriage is entirely transactional.

The idea that traditional societies "were not sentimental and viewed marriage as a rational transaction" is liberal/leftist propaganda to make conservatives and traditionaliats seem cold and heartless.

Dating websites/apps is the final phase to this. You are encouraged to literally advertise yourself and your sexuality online, just like you would advertise a used car.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to marry a woman you truly connect with on a deep and intimate level.

This is far different from saying you should be allowed to leave your spouse if they fon't "make you feel good."

Both are opposite extremes.

The man who views marriage as a transaction (and his wife as a replaceable possession) is just as bad as the "hopeless romantic" man who is willing to put aside common sense and overlook red flags in favor of cheap sentimentalism and Hollywood notions of romance.

I'm going to piss off a lot of people here so pepper your Angus.

99% are fraudin. No receipts. Are playing house yet shilling jargon and pedaling rubbish on game. No receipts. Don't approach. Can't pull. Bash marriage YET ARE PLAYING HOUSE. Secretly or not so secretly.

0 skin in the game.

Outside of Troy Francis who is actively competing vs the majority of house husband's, I can't be bothered to listen to hypocrites. There's Clarey who says just how bad at it is and a few more I can count on 1 hand.


Most off putting is hearing the entertainment of dunking on their own men mocking the difficulty of the game in 2022 with a smile on their face. Hiding in marriage.

Date younger?

BRB guys, dating the old folks home.

Marriage bad.

BRB guys, bending the knee.

I can't stress it enough. Vet your guru's.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

There are those who haven't a clue, so they're left to gamble on the chances given by statistics. Then there are those who recognize what part they play in significantly shifting the odds in ones own favor.

Statistics about this catches all the idiots, all the clueless people and everyone else. I doubt you believe most guys possess the knowledge we do, if you were to apply the best knowledge then the statistics you present are invalid for you.

It is rather easy too, observe the 20% and the 80%, what are they doing right and wrong? Learn, apply and be in the 20%.

Just something to add to your realism, you aren't solely a victim to chance.

+1

What a huge difference going out does and I don't know ... get girls vs mental masturbation to stats.

I'd argue that the stats are so bad, it's got a lot of fellas inactive. It's almost counter intuitive. Dare I say intentional?

Keep guys on the plantation. Some new magic bullet is coming out tomorrow by someone playing house. Nothings changed in the last decade.

Wait wut?

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

This is accurate. I would say that the current zeitgeist started around 1990. The era of 1960-1989 set up the current zeitgeist. The introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, the growth of feminism in the 1960s-1970s, and no fault divorces starting in the 1970s were the bigger events contributing to it. During the current zeitgeist, this is the reality.....

There's about an 80% chance of AT LEAST one of the following 3 things happening over the lifespan of a marriage...

• Divorce
• Affair
• Long periods of a mediocre to subpar dynamic where the relationship just continues on based on inertia/societal pressure. The passion is gone.

The blue pill media occasionally publishes stuff about the fact that the pool of married people in the current time are having less sex than married people in the 1980s-1990s.

Why Are We All Having So Little Sex?

Matt, a 34-year-old data analyst from Texas, and his wife dated for seven years before getting married in 2013. When they didn’t live together, they...

time.com

Who Has More Sex, Married People or Single People?

Things have changed over the past few decades.

www.cosmopolitan.com

Of course, single people are doing worse with their sex lives than they were in the 1980s-1990s too.

Divorce is rampant and men don't do well in divorce court. See article below about statistics surrounding divorce....

Divorce Statistics - Alpha Male 2.0

I often point to the current high divorce rates as evidence of human beings not being creatures capable of, or even desirous of, absolute long-term monogamy, vastly preferring short-term monogamy and/or temporary marriages instead. Usually I refer to either the “standard” divorce rate most often...

alphamale20.com

You pointed out that huge change over the past decade. Evident particularly because you go out.

There has to be separation from the state and marriage but there isn't. The alternative is to go scorched earth.

If a fella plays house, pull her when young 18-23, and plan a escape should things go tits up.

Woman kidnapped kid, flees the country, and claims domestic? Imagine if a man tried that. Insert victim narrative. ....!

All he can do is cut loses and move on. Maybe reconnect later on in life.


This is the **** **** dudes need to look out for.

 

[Serenity]

I'd argue that the stats are so bad, it's got a lot of fellas inactive. It's almost counter intuitive. Dare I say intentional?

I'd argue the "stats" presented above are numbers pulled out of his ass based purely on his opinion rather than any rigorously scientific discipline. I can't respect that, but as I pointed out, it's irrelevant because it's a skill and not pure randomness like a lottery. We can do something about it, masturbating over numbers isn't one of the things that's going to make the number more favorable though.

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

I'd argue the "stats" presented above are numbers pulled out of his ass based purely on his opinion rather than any rigorously scientific discipline. I can't respect that, but as I pointed out, it's irrelevant because it's a skill and not pure randomness like a lottery. We can do something about it, masturbating over numbers isn't one of the things that's going to make the number more favorable though.

+1

A lot of it is sperging out over the Internet in rabid fashion sometimes for hours all from the comfort of playing house. The height of disingenuous and utter stupidity. Outside of Troy Francis, who goes out &&& will demo the game?

Agreed. The stats aren't great but even the over emphasis on the numbers puts men further into inaction. A miniscule of men approach. The numbers are going lower and lower over time.

**** it. I get it. People gotta eat and make money but guys need to exercise common sense. I referenced it before. Paul Janka Chad in 90s early 2000s boasts a 1/9 record. 11% success rate PRIOR to social media. It's hard mode more than ever.

I hear that Stat. I get it. I keep moving &&& I go get more girls.

 

[Barrister]

A great example of this would be the older of my two divorced cousins. His divorce settlement was expensive and he didn't even have any kids in the marriage. He paid X amount of money upfront + spousal support for 1 year + to a woman. I considered that a horse shiit settlement. Why the fucck did she deserve one cent for anything? That divorce settlement was essentially a payment for past vaginal access. This is part of why I say men usually pay for sex in one way or another. My cousin was paying for sex during the marriage for various things to keep her around + that ending payment. Expensive vagina there.

I wonder how pay his settlement could have been because it was done through the mediation process. It's not like it went to a court. @Barrister -- I know you are an attorney, but your specialty isn't family law. You are likely well versed enough in family law though. I've always wondered if that settlement would have been worse had they both lawyered up, done depositions, gone to court, etc.

I'm not necessarily anti-marriage. I am realistic and evaluate statistical trends.

The odds of a marriage being a success aren't that great.

There's about an 80% chance of AT LEAST one of the following 3 things happening over the lifespan of a marriage...

• Divorce
• Affair
• Long periods of a mediocre to subpar dynamic where the relationship just continues on based on inertia/societal pressure. The passion is gone.

I don't want to deal with any of those 3 things.

My parents had an unhealthy relationship dynamic throughout my childhood, culminating in a not so amicable divorce when I was 15.

Typically in a family case, a judge will rubber-stamp just about any wacky agreement parties will put in front of them. Judges actually hate family cases more than anything and will avoid them at all costs. So your cousin doing something weird and off the wall like he did through mediation may have been to his benefit honestly (under the circumstances of course). By paying her up front, he eliminates the ability for her to come up on some type of modification on support and get even more money out of him.

And yes, you always bring those stats up and I do think they are valid. Sobering - but valid. I think going through lulls is unavoidable in any LTR - marriage or otherwise - but I do think it is possible to avoid it being the really damaging kind and keeping a good relationship for the most part. Extremely difficult of course, but it is possible.

 

[SW15]

Typically in a family case, a judge will rubber-stamp just about any wacky agreement parties will put in front of them. Judges actually hate family cases more than anything and will avoid them at all costs. So your cousin doing something weird and off the wall like he did through mediation may have been to his benefit honestly (under the circumstances of course). By paying her up front, he eliminates the ability for her to come up on some type of modification on support and get even more money out of him.

My cousin might have done ok in mediation. Paying his ex-wife X $ amount upfront + spousal support for a period between 1-2 years might have been the best he could have done. He got her to go away permanently, which has value. She also moved to another state, which was good for my cousin since he never had to see randomly see her around the city again. He lives in a metro area of around 300,000 people, so it’s possible to randomly run into someone. In a metro like Dallas (7 million), it’s very rare to randomly run into an ex-girlfriend. It is also very rare to run into some woman that you had 1-3 dates with & either did or did not have sex with.

My cousin having a childless divorce was advantageous in the fact that not co-parenting means no future contact.

I considered that settlement not good. However, I was already in my 30s when it happened & it didn’t really change my views on marriage.

That cousin remained rather blue pill about marriage post the aforementioned childless divorce. 1.5 years after divorce finalization, he got engaged to a different woman, married a few months after that, & had 2 children in marriage #2 quickly after that. It was a rapid succession of life milestones. I have never been able to understand it on any level.

I would have no interest in paying one cent to someone after a childless breakup. I would also have no interest in co-parenting (many divorcees do this) or paying any spousal support. I’m glad I’ve never married & had no children.

As I approach 40, I’m still considered unusual to have never married & had no children. I’m an early Millennial & Millennials are supposed to be less likely to marry & have children. Even for Millennials, most still follow the blue pill marriage & family path from a prior era. I guess that path is what keeps family law practices going.

 

[EyeBRollin]

As I approach 40, I’m still considered unusual to have never married & had no children. I’m an early Millennial & Millennials are supposed to be less likely to marry & have children. Even for Millennials, most still follow the blue pill marriage & family path from a prior era. I guess that path is what keeps family law practices going.

No, it is actually highly unusual to not want any offspring. No need to reframe it. It is not normal for humans to desire living and dying alone.

 

[SW15]

No, it is actually highly unusual to not want any offspring. No need to reframe it. It is not normal for humans to desire living and dying alone.

I never said that I didn’t want children.

There hasn’t been a great time in my life or a great woman situation in my life where having children has been a feasible option. I graduated from a costly MBA in 2008. The career setbacks I faced from graduating into 2008 took me a good portion of the 2010s to resolve. It has taken me a long time to get my career to a decent place.

There has also been turbulence in my woman life, a reality that has been somewhat affected by the lack of stability in my work life. I think my woman life would have had some issues even with a more settled working life.

I’m 39 now. Even if I were to have kids at this late stage, it would start to impact my retirement planning. Additionally, I have concerns about the state of the world going forward. There has been tremendous geopolitical turbulence since January 2020 & it has been a very uncertain world since 9/11 happened when I was 18 years old.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I never said that I didn’t want children.

There hasn’t been a great time in my life or a great woman situation in my life where having children has been a feasible option. I graduated from a costly MBA in 2008. The career setbacks I faced from graduating into 2008 took me a good portion of the 2010s to resolve. It has taken me a long time to get my career to a decent place.

There has also been turbulence in my woman life, a reality that has been somewhat affected by the lack of stability in my work life. I think my woman life would have had some issues even with a more settled working life.

I’m 39 now. Even if I were to have kids at this late stage, it would start to impact my retirement planning. Additionally, I have concerns about the state of the world going forward. There has been tremendous geopolitical turbulence since January 2020 & it has been a very uncertain world since 9/11 happened when I was 18 years old.

Despite all this- overwhelming majority of people still have that biological inkling to have kids… so they do.

Perfect sounds like the enemy of good here. Modern women do the same thing until they are 40, single, and live with a bunch of cats.

 

[SW15]

Despite all this- overwhelming majority of people still have that biological inkling to have kids… so they do.

Perfect sounds like the enemy of good here. Modern women do the same thing until they are 40, single, and live with a bunch of cats.

None of the women I’ve had sex with over time have prioritized children during the time they were having sex with me. Most were using birth control. My ambivalent stance on children has had not much impact on my relationships or children. I lean more towards no than yes on the issue of children.

I was more open to marriage prior to me fully swallowing the red pill. The only way I can see marriage working is with 2 devoutly religious people. I didn’t do the hardcore religious path because I wanted to have pre-marital sex.

I think the comparison of me to a modern woman has some validity. I have dated some of those modern women who are childless deep into their 30s. Many do the cat ownership thing, which I can’t deal with because I don’t like cats & am allergic to cats.

 

[Pandora]

But the guys are?

Far more woman on dating sites have their act together than men do and it's not even close.

I dont know what you mean by having their act together. The vast majority of student loan debt and credit card debt is owned by women. Women on those sites often prostitute themselves to make ends meet. I think the men and women are equally in bad shape.

 

[DreamAgain]

Red pill guys are anti-marriage because it is the smart thing to do when they reach their failed destination that plate spinning leads them.

There are very few women that are marriage material once you enter your late 20s/30s. The smart guys have identified the proper targets during high school / college / first few years after college (up until age 25). This can be adjusted if the woman was studying to due a masters/phd up until age 28 or so.

However, society has not informed them to lock up the good ones early but to "spin plates". It is just like picking fruit from a tree. You want to get the best fruit early and not the rotten leftovers that the other animals will fight over.

 

[DreamAgain]

My goal was to do this but circumstances beyond my control as an son of immigrants to the US who were poor did not allow me to do so. I was never comfortable inter mingling with the other "normal" white kids who were upper middle class / rich, where my family drove a bad car, had very modest living conditions, etc.

In college I was too busy studying a difficult degree and chasing internships for the summer to devote proper time to finding a wife.

In retrospect I would have studied less and went out more because I probably could have my current job without doing that research or a lower gpa, but at the time I didn't want to take chances.

After college I wasted time with a oneitis who I thought was marriage material but I was blinded by looks and ignored a lot of red flags as she was the hottest girl I was ever with.