TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

9

I was debating this question last night with a friend. I had bumped into her at the market, and she commented on a mutual friend we had. One that I have a casual sexual relationship with.

She said, "you know Susan really likes you, you should stop being afraid to commit."

I didn't expect much more from this girl, since this feminist imperative has been a staple in our social diet since at least when I was born. But it made me wonder, because guys did used to value marriage and commitment. So I considered my options:

If I don't commit, I can have sex with whomever I please, including Susan.

If I do commit I can only have sex with Susan.

Evaluating these two statements, I'd argue not committing is in my best interest.

If I commit, I can potentially have children, maybe a family.

If I do not commit, I might still accidentally have children and be responsible for them, but I won't have a family unit.

I considered these two statements, then realized the first statement was missing something:

If I commit, I can potentially have children, maybe a family, until she determines she can leave, then I have the financial responsibility but no family.

When you consider both, it seems like having kids is a crapshoot- it works or doesn't, but commitment seems to have very little baring on the outcome.

So considering that a commitment like marriage is incredibly risky and a financial risk to boot, it would make sense that the risk involved with a marriage completely outweighs the benefit- which in itself isn't terribly different than the benefits of avoiding marriage altogether. Whereas the benefit to avoiding marriage is clearly measurable and involves little risk due to the volatile nature of marriage in the first place.

Is marriage or monogamy beneficial in today's market? Or are these feminist imperatives constructed to ensure maximum benefit for women, secretly shaming men for wanting benefits of their own?


[–]squarehouse 4 points5 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Well...marriage isn't the same thing as committing. A long-term relationship, even if it's boyfriend/girlfriend, is considered committing and is supposed to be exclusive. You can commit without marriage.

And if you have a casual sexual relationship with her...are you really talking about marriage? Do you feel that strongly about her that you want to marry her? Are you in love with her? A casual relationship, and the way you talk about, it sounds this one isn't going to be your long term partner. At least not yet.

[–]pk_atheist2 points [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

I suppose I've blurred the lines between the two here.

I see marriage as a logical end to exclusivity in the first place. But nevertheless, exclusivity without marriage provides no more security than non-exclusivity, so imagine the argument being made that marriage and exclusivity are different parts of the same framework, and compare it to non-exclusivity.

[–]squarehouse 1 point2 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

Not sure what you mean by security. I think you're thinking in a MRA frame here, which is fine, but it's not how I usually think of the issue.

In terms of the red pill, you don't get security in your relationship by legal contracts and government punishments, but by being your woman's alpha so she has no compulsion to stray. Don't be beta, don't marry an alpha widow, etc. Your only security is if your wife doesn't want to leave you.

[–]pk_atheist2 points [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

I mean it in two ways:

Security in a relationship is achieved by maintaining an alpha state, so your woman doesn't lose interest. Sure...

But Security in a legal sense is important. The major reason to be exclusive is for childbearing- right? So how secure are you if legally women can leave you penny-less in a divorce and extract child support payments from you? It seems from a legal standpoint, there is no legal security. Since marriage is a legal contract, I argue it's a pointless one to enter. You can game a woman without marriage.

But then I see the same problem without marriage. A woman can still up and leave, and leave you penny-less because of child-support laws.

So what's the best sexual strategy if exclusivity (which only exists in my mind for the sake of children) is all risk?

Edit: My argument then is this: Should we avoid children at all costs? Should we attempt having children short of exclusive relationships? Should exclusivity cross our minds, since it's only beneficial for women and only risk for men?

[–]squarehouse 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

I wouldn't avoid children at all cost. Honestly, when it comes to children, this kind of dwells outside of what the manosphere really talks about. It's just known that having children and being a good father doesn't actually protect him from female hypergamy.

[–]pk_atheist1 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

So avoid children until you are sufficiently rich enough to handle them and a potential child support payment...

.. or somehow be so alpha that the women you knock up find other guys to support your offspring?

[–]Zuke88 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

avoid children like the plague until you you have a position good enough to care for them, then make sure that you get to be in their lives, not just your wallet, either by using a pre nup or something like that... that's what I understand of this whole issue....

[–]squarehouse 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Nothing wrong with having kids. You're passing on your genes and values to another generation.

The whole reason we're talking about any of this at all, why we like women with great asses, why women fall for jerks, it's all about passing those genes on. So if we're boiling this all down to what's best for your hedonistic self in your short 70-some year long life, then you're really missing the point.

[–]pk_atheist1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, ok, but consider this- you want kids, but the current setup is a dangerous one since kids are more or less a legal loophole to your checkbook.

I'm not against kids, but maybe if you really want them.. do it in a man-friendly country?

[–]squarehouse 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Dunno. I see it like this: Child support is the tax on being alpha :)

I don't have to worry about this though...I'm not a wealthy man. If you're in a high income bracket then maybe you should be concerned.

[–]squarehouse 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

The major reason to be exclusive is for childbearing- right?

No. I think the main reason for being exclusive is to calm the tensions of jealousy. I don't have any kids and I'm not married, so I don't particularly know if marriage makes raising children easier in any way.

I do know that marriage is really just this traditional thing. You're trying to find some utilitarian purpose for it, and there might not really be any. It's a carryover from the days of arranged marriages, and when young women were traded like property. It's interesting that most of our traditions of romance actually derive from ages when women had very few, if any, rights or control over their own lives.

But right now...yeah, I don't see any upside to getting married, other than being official and it's symbolic in the sense of being eternally exclusive. You can have a committed relationship, but if you make the commitment for the rest of your life, that's probably how I would define marriage, no matter what legal protections or burdens are placed on this institution from time to time.

[–]pk_atheist2 points [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I think the main reason for being exclusive is to calm the tensions of jealousy.

But for who's benefit? Obviously the women would like that.

But, if it's for my benefit- would you say I've lost my frame if I'm jealous anyway?

Not that I defend every point of Rollo Tomassi, but at rationalmale, he stresses the importance of spinning multiple plates. Is comfort from jealousy something we should pursue in women? Or is comfort a sign that you're losing, and will soon be victim to hypergamy?

[–]squarehouse 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

But for who's benefit? Obviously the women would like that.

Heh...honestly, I think the man benefits more. There are probably few more destructive powers than a jealous man. One theme on Rational Male et al is that while women say they don't like being jealous, it still turns them on the idea that other women desire you. This isn't true for men.

[–]iggybdawg 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm married and find the biggest benefit is indeed having children that are definitely mine and having daily interactions with them.

I still have sex with my wife, but BJs, doggystyle, female vocalization are distant memories. I've only recently gotten past denial of the community and started my transformation away from being an AFC and surprised at how fast she's changing her tune after years of failure from trying to directly and rationally communicate my sexual needs to her.

[–]Swift3lade 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

What if you could HAVE the kids, minus the wife. Meaning you could go out and meet new people and still have AMAZING sex.

For me, I want kids, but I don't really want the wife. I don't wanna sleep in the same bed together - farting on each other and all the rest.

I want to expand my mind by meeting different people and talking about different things, rather than hearing the same boring story from a girl I've been with for 40 years.

What do you think of my ideal?

[–]iggybdawg 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you need to look into polyamory. I have several polyamorous friends. All of them are married, but openly date others. It's basically having lovers come and go, but not call it "cheating".

I might have gotten into that instead of running headlong into traditional marriage if I had found the redpill knowledge and broken my ties with religion before marriage.

However, I'm not fully transformed from AFC, so I can't stomach sharing my wife, which would be the "payment" per se of asking her to share me out.

[–]iggybdawg 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

or just move to Iceland. I hear they are more well adjusted there, in terms of 2 people have a baby together, no longer sex partners with each other, but amicably share child rearing.

[–]blueoak9 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"She said, "you know Susan really likes you, you should stop being afraid to commit."

Aside form the issue of commitment, this statement of hers is objectifying as hell. This Susan wants you, and that's all there is too it. You're wrong somehow - failure to commit, not a real man, whatever - if you don't do as she desires.

Your own will and autonomy in the matter are immatieral. You are reduced to an instrument for satisfying some want of Susan's.

Objectifying as hell.

[–]Swift3lade 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I get this more and more now-a-days. As I age, if I'm with a girl, apparently I OWE it to her to commit to her... and if I don't? Apparently I'm an ASSHOLE. This seems to be the trend in society.

As though the girl is giving something to you as PAYMENT (companionship ,sex and her time) and in return the man is expected to kneel down to her and marry her (at which point the payment of sex stops).

The longer I'm with a girl without marrying, the more of an ASSHOLE I am.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Lots of guys come to r/mensrights and similar places asking for advice ro help in divorce procedings. There is some stuff we can tell the guy not to do (try not to leave the house, never raise your voice, hitting a wall is considered assaulting her, etc) but none of the advice we give is going to make things work out. If you don't want to be at the total legal mercy of your SO you just cannot get married or have children. There is no other effective way to avoid having your life destroyed.

Imagine if you are married with kids and your wife cheats on you. What are you going to do? If you end you are likely to be ruined and barely see the children you love. So you probably are going to have to stay. This is going to totally destroy her atraction to you for good. In general a woman is going to be far, far less attracted to a man she has power over. Once you get married or have children your SO is going to subconciously realize she is the master.

[–]Swift3lade 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree, that's the whole premise behind the guy getting down on one knee. He is kneeling before the mercy of this woman. If the marriage ends, she (and the entire legal system) benefits!

Kiss your sorry life goodbye!

[–]thelostapostle 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only problem with your argument is that a lot (if not most) girls won't settle for being the side piece with no title. You can't just keep banging "Susan" or quality girls with no commitment, generally speaking.

The type of girls who will accept no commitment are much more likely to be the nightmare girls IMO. So, I would argue no commitment is in a way almost more risky. Healthwise. Emotionally. In terms of potential children as there is no stable foundation for a parenting relationship.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter