august Wrote:This is why this conversation is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Everything that you're saying is centered around moral presuppositions. This stair_fail fellow was doing the same thing, and recall who I was defending in my response to him that you took your initial issue with. Everything that I'm saying is more or less from a position that stands against this type of moralising. All the talk of morals is exactly why you (and me, and really any man, for that matter) have to deal with the situation as it currently exists, because morals are whatever Women and Wife Guys say they are... aka "Man Up!" and Marry That Fat, Ran Through Thirty Year Old Cow.
Arguing as you have that women
should be the property of men is also a moral judgement. If you aren't willing to moralize, then you don't have grounds upon which to criticize our current society. Perhaps you believe that no one
should attempt to enforce moral rules on another person, so natural law can reign, but this is still a moral rule.
Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:M...f_Napoleon. Napoleon was, and shall eternally remain, a sensitive young man, by the way.
Napoleon is exceptional in a lot of ways. Kinda funny how a body count of 9 isn't that high today.
I raise as counterexamples of "dampened political fervor" every normie/cyborg guy I know who stopped caring and drifted politically leftward after finding a girlfriend. As well as the Wife Guy stereotype you mentioned earlier.
Quote:Because that's not what would happen. I'm not as much of a doomer on all of this as you may have come to think, and I truly believe that you and many others are eventually going to find a nice girl that you will undoubtedly fall in love with and experience all the joys that come with that. But a Volcel Revolt Against the Modern World is not going to lead to a massive awakening. Hypothetically, wouldn't it make sense to say that if men were unconstrained by monogamy and marriage, they would biologically seek to have as much sex with as many women as possible to ensure genetic progeny? Obviously, this isn't (or wasn't) the most effective reproductive strategy for civilisational longevity, since it was replaced by monogamous relationships. But with monogamy and marriage, does man not forego what is at least a theoretical potential for as much sex as he can attain? Of course he does. So again, the fundamental and absolutely necessary requirement to incentivise man to marry: ownership. Does he have that? Not at all. Then, isn't everything technically a sunk cost? That excerpt from Aidan's book talked about this... or maybe all of that was just "repulsive coal".
Men do have some tendencies to sleep around, yes. But we also have natural monogamous tendencies, with romantic love being the obvious example that Zed discusses in more detail. Men aren't motivated solely by the desire to have sex as much as possible. If a man marries, he forgoes potential opportunities to sleep around, but if he does not marry, he forgoes the love that he could have had for a wife. Raising their progeny to be strong is also something that many men want to do, and this becomes more difficult without marrying the mother.
Primitive human cultures and even other species like some birds also behave monogamously, nature has the ability to grasp consequences beyond the short term.
Quote:I almost can't give serious comment to this. Just reread what you said here and think about this "value" in terms of economics or investing. Would you ever put all of your money (aka no diversification) toward purchasing shares of a company that gave you 0% ownership and no real guarantee of future dividend payments? Would you ever make a loan to someone who can one day just decide that they don't feel like paying you back and who can legally void the agreement that you both had with each other with no repercussions?
Business ventures always carry some risk that someone might randomly run away with all the money or burn down the offices. Managing risk (prenups, choosing the right woman) is part of the game. In modern marriage, laws and economic incentives undoubtedly favor the woman, but it can still often be rational for a man to marry the right woman. A good wife should have some emotional attachment and financial dependency on you, as well as a shared interest in raising your children together. This control should be a lot more than it currently is, but the "ownership" you have of her is more than 0% (though not enough for a voting majority).
Even in a traditional marriage, where your wife is practically considered to be your "property", your control of her is not absolute. She still necessarily holds a partial controlling share in you because she is capable of making decisions and you have some responsibility for her welfare.
Quote:Better chance of hell freezing over. You put too much faith in today's broader masses, as they currently exist, being able to have competent (let alone eugenic!) realisations like this, I think. Wouldn't they have recognised it by now?
Every normie doesn't have to independently arrive at this conclusion, their minds can be changed by media if we obtain real political power. Even if we achieve political power by force or on the back of another issue that has little connection to marriage, it would be good to have messaging in place and an example already set to abolish the female vote and return to sensible marriage norms.
What stair_fail said earlier basically sums up my objection:
stair_fail Wrote:Going around fucking whores "but in a masculine, trad way" is just playing right into the hands of the people who have torn down western society.
Perverse anti-nature laws have damaged the fabric of marriage, as we have discussed. Something ought to be done about this (e.g. get rid of no-fault divorce, repeal women's suffrage, and get most women out of the workforce). However, if the only factor causing a decline in lasting marriages was that marriage has recently become a bad deal for men, would that not suggest that marriage is a great deal for women? So why do women often wait until they're in their 30s before "settling down"?
Of course: while they're young, women find the prospect of being sexually promiscuous more appealing than marriage, and this isn't because marriage is a farce, because from a woman's perspective it's a good deal. It's because they've been permitted by society, technology, and other men, to act like whores. My moral prescription: we should shame them for being whores, we should delete dating apps from the Apple Store, and we should not fuck them unless we're going to marry them.
BAP's view on this issue is short-sighted and self-defeating in application. He hates older nagging women who want to "longhouse" men, yet also promotes sexual promiscuity, which as a side effect leaves women (and men) childless into their 30s, who form a political bloc seeking to impose their maternal instincts on the nation instead of the children they don't have, because they wasted their youth on birth control hopping between casual relationships.