Edit: He's at heartiste.wordpress.com
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Something that always bugged me about marriage is the risks posed to you by a woman who becomes unfaithful. In the past, woman's unfaithfulness was punished, either by social ostracization, economic concerns, or legal barriers such as needing to provide a reason for divorce. Nowadays, none of those barriers exist anymore. A woman is not shamed for infidelity, in fact, if her friends see it as something good (like, say, if I'm not being a good enough husband for whatever reason, like being tired out after a long day at work) then they'll support her cheating and employ scary levels or rationalization that will make you wonder if women have any sense of morality at all. She's not threatened economically, so there goes that incentive, and she can divorce for whatever reason (no-fault divorce). So she basically has carte blanche to ruin your life. Who would enter into such an agreement? A sucker, that's who.
As Dalrock states,
As Dalrock states,
a man actually loses protection from cuckolding and is placed at a disadvantage regarding custody if he marries. The only potential benefit a man gains by marrying is the moral force the marriage vows hold on his wife.And as there's no longer any real material incentive behind the "moral force," (or really any moral incentive as I explained above) it's a really shaky thing to base your life on. The only thing holding a woman back is if other women shame and ostracize her. Which is less likely to happen nowadays and even if it does, she can always shop for friends who will agree with her.
Women don't seem to understand this. They don't realize the potential life-destroying problems a man could suffer if the wife doesn't feel "satisfied" or "happy" in the relationship. It's totally unbalanced and totally unfair. Unrestrained female choice completely supported on the backs of men.
Women seem to live in this fantasy world when it comes to marriage. They don't want to think about what'll happen if it goes bad, preferring to keep it all mysterious. I guess they don't really have an incentive to do so anymore.
Elusive Wapiti recently made an an enlightening post about the state of marriage on The Spearhead:
“A contract that binds two people together, ostensibly for the purposes of raising a family.”A quibble: marriage as presently constituted is a three-way contract between a man, a woman, and the State.A man is contracting with the State to support a woman, particularly if she has children, for decades, even if the woman decides to exit the contract.This is the state of modern marriage today. Which is why I find all this debate about homogamous marriage curious…it’s not like we don’t have polyandrous marriage already, so why the fuss?
The old Christian saying about not being able to "serve two masters" comes to mind. A woman can't serve both her husband and the state. It has to be one or the other. Feminism is all about making women choose the latter, as an astute poster on love-shy.com once pointed out.
I don't know how to fix this, other than to revoke the state's dictatorial monopoly over marriage. Fat chance of that happening. Off the top of my head, the best compromise would seem to marry without getting a marriage license, but there are probably hidden legal traps when it comes to that as well. I know some states and many countries around the world are starting to make marriage-like co-habitation, where you are considered married if you cohabit with a woman for more than a certain period of time.