People think that if you marry the girl, that you “got” her.
Marriage is the girl getting you. A true win is the girl cooking and cleaning and fucking and sucking you in return for next to nothing. Marying her is giving her a lifetime contract and a free ride to get fat and lazy and complacent and to become a righteous bitch.
Marrying a girl is giving up all your options and power, in return for a risky and depreciating annuity.
The height of success for a man is not lifetime monogamy. It’s getting whatever you want, if you had limitless options. Which for many of us would look a lot more like dating one or more twenty somethings, no matter how old we got, and perhaps accepting an offer to have kids with one or more of the girls, but never offering monogamy.
Love is easy to fall in and out of. It takes just a few dates to get started, a few weeks to be in full bloom, and less than a year to cement as deep pair bonding. You don’t need decades to have a good one. You can have a new great love every few years – your brain only needs about 1 year after a big love to re-set and be able to love deeply again. Two max. And some men can have real non-monogamous love.
So marriage is a sign of failure for a man. Or at best, of serious compromise. It means the man gave up and no longer wants to try.
Like I said in another thread historically western society has restrained alphas with marriage and monogamy.
So you are saying men’s motivation is social peer pressure.
I’ve said before that society is women. Lately I’ve changed my stance and said that society is women plus beta providers – often also called white knights, beta chumps, femcunt supporters, or manginas.
So marriage is inclusion into “legitimate” society. It is inclusion into female culture.
Nicole mentioned that marriage “legitimizes” your heirs.
Ok, but my quesiton still stands. In this day and age, men really don’t need women to legitimize their heirs, and men have no need for society to proof them. A business decision? George Clooney’s career seems to be doing fine.
Now if you are going after a vote, then ya, you’ll need to play by societies rules – meaning the rules of females and manginas. But if you are going after career, you don’t.
So again – why do men try to do the socially acceptable thing, when it is nothing but risk and negative consequences to the man?
Random Xpat Rantings 
1) because you hand hand and want to keep a woman.
2) You want legitimate children, and this matters to you.
3) Social pressure.
4) Expectations.
5) You plan on escapades anyway, and think you can get away with it.
6) You don’t really think about it.
Arnold… what was he thinking?
“2) You want legitimate children, and this matters to you.”
Meaning the man buys the frame that marriage creates the legitimacy. If I want to invest my name and resources into a child, how is marriage going to help with that? The mother, the child, the school, all his friends – all of society will know who the father is. It will be clear to all that he is not a bastard – he is loved and supported. His parents will likely be living together at least part time. Everything the same except for no marriage diploma for his parents.
Once upon a time marriage meant you were serious about your rights and responsibilities to your children. Nowadays you get no rights through marriage. The contract is broken – it’s not the same contract.
If I have legitimate children, that doesn’t mean I’ll marry the mother.
In other words, why continue to let women write the rules? Why sign a contract that is biased against you? In Mad Men Don Draper had the correct business instincts. Why sign a clause of non-competition binding you to one employer, when you can have the same job and salary and benefits as a free agent?
The contract people think nothing about signing is a trap – and all you have to do is simply say no.
Marriage costs you hand. If you can arrange the same setup without marriage, your chances of maintaining hand rise. A marriage without hand is a life of quiet desparation. A partnership without marriage is passionate and fun – until it’s not – at which point you are spared the pain of divorce.
In other words – no reason at all. Just a pressure in your head that is easy and painless to ignore, and that will eventually go away.
Yes, but you can have that also without marrying – so why marry?
Oh, but we do. We fret and we worry. And then we marry.
We must be biologically mentally impaired by love. Lobotomized by the siren.
You got it.
Xsplat, I’d say its because we’re only 50 years or so removed from the 1960s and the beginning of the downfall of American society. The detesting of marriage/settling down hasn’t sunk in yet—many men still buy the Hollywood Beta Man propaganda, where nerdy white knights get the girl by “waiting” for her to realize you’re perfect (while she sleeps around).
But also, men naturally seek companionship. Most men in the manosphere would love to have a time when you get a virgin woman to marry who works hard to be attractive and take care of the home and please her man. Most men dreamed of such a girl growing up, and would never cheat if they got her.
Sooner or later, however, reality hits you upside the face. But even with a cold spalsh of reality, we still tell ourselves pretty little lies. It takes a lot of work to convince the prisoners that the shadows on the wall aren’t gods, even after you show them the sun.
Sooner or later, men in a society learn, and society falls apart. Let’s hope it accelerates more quickly this time, so all these whorish women perish.
The funny thing about letting women write the rules is that they are natural followers. They follow what they’re given more often than not.
How do you use chi kung in relation to sex and domination? You’ve never went into too much detail with the nuts and bolts part of it and I’m rather curious.
Chi-kung is tricky to talk about. Lately I consider it a systematized synesthesia. Studies have recently shown that synesthetes can use their synesthesia to advantage by holding more information in mind at once. What chi-kung does is to co-opt the kinesthetic felt component of awareness and integrate it with very subtle usually unconscious cues, as well as of course very subtle sensations in the body, plus it builds up a virtual body of mental mappings of parts of the body that don’t actually exist. With chi-kung you can litterally feel below your feet. It’s similar to the phantom limb experience, only you create phantom limbs. Only they aren’t mere phantoms, as there can be meaningful information felt in them, and so they are practical. It’s practical to feel grounded, as you feel below your feet, as the rest of your body will relax and you will gain focus and a quiet peaceful steady steadfast feel.
So, as to how feeling your body and feeling subtle cues to your environment and feeling deeply engrossed in the subtle cues others are giving helps with domination? Consider that people are naturally attuned to each other. If you are more conscious of the energetic emotional dynamics by incorporating the unconscious cues into a felt conscious body of feeling, you can manipulate the other person. You can feel her vibe and alter it.
The language of chi-kung is more practical than the way I just described it. In chi-kung we talk about real energies, and it is much more practical to talk and believe that way. However if you want to at the same time hold a scientific viewpoint, you can think in terms of sinesthesia and phantom limbs.
That’s a pretty good general explanation of it. I was curious because different parts of the energy body are connected to different functions. Some, like the heart, tend to be primarly emitters rather than absorbers in my experience.
I don’t feel the connection or the movement as much until I pop some energy up my spine and out of my crown. I’ve found that whenever I try to reach out to something, the path of least resistance is for the energy to extend out of the crown. If I’m circulating energy I push it out of the crown then drag it back down into the hara then to the root and up again.
I’m not sure how personal our energy bodies are that we develop, and what is more universal. I do know that various different meditations seem to create very different experiences – or energy bodies. There is even the free form style, where you let your body just invent new forms on the spot. So I’m going with that there is some universal framework, but a great deal of leeway for personalization of chi-kung experience.
Of course shooting energy up the spine and out the crown seems to be near universally available. At least, for those that it is available to! That was my first main wake up call.
Solid post.
Have you ever tried to argue this point with a woman? It doesn’t always go the way you plan. Oftentimes they look at the fact that you dont want to marry and are perfectly content with serial monogamy as a sign that you are a member of the walking wounded. It cant possibly be because thats actually what you want so it must be because you were hurt. What a crock. I had this argument with a girl i met Saturday night. I explained at great length that I was perfectly happy being single and had no intention to marry. First she thought I was a dick, then she felt bad because I must have been hurt real bad, then she came home and had sex with me. Silly woman, they always want what they cant have.
Pingback: No one has ever made a case for marriage that moves my emotions. « Random Xpat Rantings
I’ve known some men to marry expressly to reduce their options. They like the state of having decided, having committed. It seems to free their energy for other pursuits. If there’s compatibility (of SMV, personality and character, values, neuroses, acculturation, desire for children, libido, etc.) and maturity in the two individuals, I’ve seen Western marriages work very well to the point where it’s hard to say “Jesus, this guy would be better off unmarried!”
But sure — for guys for whom there’s a real and deeply felt opportunity cost, to get married is egregious folly.
Anyway, for most people, nothing works — or doesnt work very well at least — because they lack the self-knowledge and competence to know, and then get, what they want out of relationships.
Ya, some marriages work very well. My Dad’s 2nd marriage seems a good example of a happy coupling, while his first didn’t look at all good to me.
It’s a complicated algorithm, self knowledge and dating value self actualization. The more you learn and the more you build your value and the more you put your learning and value to practice the more your options change. And that changes what you want.
We are built, as humans, to want what we can get. I think I got that right. Unrealistic expectations make us unhappy. It’s the theme of countless cartoon shows and sit coms. In my day everyone had seen the Gilligans Island episode where people get the magic power of ESP, and their lives then all turn to shit. Turns out that people getting what they want only causes trouble, is the recurring theme. Don’t want so much, all the TV shows explain. I recall that it’s said in religions and even in some scientific studies that accepting what we have is a means of realizing happiness.
But the flip side of that is ambition, and improving your lot.
We can’t have ambition though. Because we can’t know what is a realistic goal. Until we learn and build our value. Then and only then can our goals change; when we realize that high ambitions are realistic.
Huh… ambition as consequence of achievement rather than (or as well as) cause of it. There’s an insight there.
It could be true too that in the past, men’s lives (and SMVs) were more stable, and were cast younger, making marriage more feasible. At any rate, if one decides to marry it seems to me treating the marriage as a devotional exercise (within reason, or even beyond it) might be the right attitude to carry. That was Joseph Campbell’s notion of it (the myths guy) and he was no dummy.
Pingback: Why ambition is unnatural « Random Xpat Rantings