Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Marriage Is For Chumps’ Category

Charles Darwin – yes, that guy – once drew up a pro and con list for getting married. His list is reprinted here, in readable format.

darwinmarrynot

The standard Chateau view of marriage is that it is a raw deal for individual American men, as currently constituted, (it wasn’t always thus). However, there are good reasons for monogamous, heterosexual marriage to continue as a cultural norm and societal buttress. Ol’ Charlie hit on a number of the pros. It’s really not a good idea to have children outside of marriage, particularly over the long term (single mommyhood erodes civilizational capital). Over the short term, it’s still a bad idea unless you belong to one of the few human races in the world (think: Swedes) who can handle having children within an unmarried, cohabitational context. (The verdict is out on how sustainable the Swedish method is, considering how quickly their evolved suite of mental characteristics compels them to hand their country over to the kebab crush.)

fr tho, Darwin’s other marriage pros could nearly as easily be gotten with a live-in long-term girlfriend, but to give him credit that was most certainly not the case back in his day. Also, :lol: at “Better than a dog, anyhow”.

A lot of Darwin’s marriage cons are inarguable; men must betray their masculine urge to wander and explore once they are hitched to home and wife. Most men aren’t keen about keeping themselves in good graces with relatives; women have much more affinity for nurturing family ties. It is absolutely true that wives, and to a lesser extent husbands, get fat and lazy after marriage. A wife and family are a responsibility that will cut into a man’s free time, (many men are ok with trading in their free time for the comforts of domestication). Less money? Sure. (Don’t be fooled by the lure of a double income. Wives – and long-time cohabitating girlfriends – will just spend twice as fast and twice as much what they spent when they were single.)

Darwin was very concerned about an increase in his “anxiety” from marriage, as he wrote it twice. Potential marital money problems vexed him, too. The provider beta was a real catch in Darwin’s day that isn’t as true today. Women didn’t HATE HATE HATE betas back then with the same bubbling spite. But the ability of a provider beta in the Darwin era to leverage his provisioning skill for prime poon meant that he couldn’t slack off and give his date a bag of Skittles for her birthday, and recline smugly knowing a blowjob was coming his way regardless. Jerkboy Game in Darwin’s time probably had more limited appeal to women than it does today.

Read Full Post »

Padawan125 needs the assistance of the CH readership on no less a problem than salvation of his brother’s soul.

CH and readers, need your help here. I always find the BOTM [beta of the month] stories hilarious. However, it’s not hilarious when your own brother deserves his own BOTM story. I don’t know how to shake him out of his beta-ness and I need help.

My brother has been married for 5 years with kids. I have always questioned his decisions and wanting to marry her but have been “supportive”…as in keeping my opinions to myself. Although recently, his wife pushed me over the edge. It was recently revealed that she has been cheating on him for 2+ years. The texts that she sent her lover was revealed to my entire family. She has no respect for my brother and openly despises him. Even admitting in text that she couldn’t divorce him yet because she wanted to wait to get more money out the deal. Her cheating even brings into question the true paternity of his youngest child.

When this was all revealed my brother approached me for help in getting a divorce. Somehow, less than three months later, he changed his mind and is now back with his wife. Nothing that I do or say has swayed his decision. I have tried the following approaches:
–Shamed him for not being a man, lacking balls, and allowing his wife to have all power and how his wife has openly insulted him in front of everyone.
–Tried to bribe him by telling him to come live with me, quit work, and I would support him until his mind was back on track.
–Told him how accepting her back was him saying to her and everyone that it is ok for people to treat him with disrespect.
–It sets a bad example for his kids showing them that they have a weak father.
–etc, etc, etc

I cannot even look at my brother anymore and want nothing to do with him or his wife. My parents are urging me to “support him and his decisions” because “life is too short.” I am sick to my stomach and want to repeatedly punch him in the face to wake him up.

What do I do here? I want to believe that he is not a lost cause and there is something that I can do to help him grow a pair. Do I continue to ignore him and focus on my own life? I don’t want to lose my brother, but at the same time I cannot bring myself to interact with him.

“Life is too short”, like its cousin aphorism “live and let live”, are the ritardando notes of the powerless feeb. Yes, life is too short…. to live under the heel of a bitchy cheating whore wife.

Unfortunately, Padawan125, there is no easy solution to your brother’s crisis of the id. He is in that sad masochistic zone that all men who feel like they have no options in the mate market occupy, nursing the dying embers of his self-worth. Impenetrable layers of misery rationalization bunkers protect his bruised ego, and there isn’t much psychology of persuasion magic that’ll bust through.

Except for one thing…

The love of another woman.

Or at least her welcoming vagina.

Spend some time on the town with your brother (minus the wife of course). Insinuate the teachings of Game into your conversation. Get him flirting with any woman at least as attractive as his wife. If you feel the urgency of your brother’s situation demands rule-bending, then invite (or pay off) a cute pivot to accompany both of you on a night out. Be sure to allay your brother’s beta-reflex concerns and inform him that your girl guest is your “friend”. What he doesn’t know is that you instructed your friend to shamelessly flirt with him.

The strategy is to get your brother believing in his sexual market worth again. If he senses that other women are a real possibility, then those ego bunkers will start to crumble, and he’ll slowly pull away from his shrike wife. If he can get a kiss close with a cutie on one of those “bros’ nights out”, his nuptial breakaway is practically assured.

Godspeed, because you are doing the Lord’s work. “which lord?” Come now, let’s not spoil the moment with nagging technicalities.

Read Full Post »

Executive Summary: There’s a tight link between female fertility and divorce.

Do women initiate the majority of divorces because men are innately “badder” than wives? Or, is it more likely something else which motivates wives — something intrinsic to the demands of their female desires — to push for marital dissolution at greater rates than husbands push for it?

CH has tackled the subject of female-initiated frivorce. It’s good to revisit the topic for clarification, because there are a lot of people who still labor under delusions about the malign effects on society of the divorce industrial complex, and what exactly incentivizes wives to file for the majority of divorces.

Feminists like to point to statistics that supposedly show that divorced women experience a fall in their standard of living as proof that wives are reluctantly initiating divorces to get out of marriages to ill-behaving husbands. There are two problems with this highly misleading statistic (assuming the stat is true in the sense it is being used):

1. The presumption that women are thinking through the long-term and less tangible financial consequences of divorce when the short-term and more tangible incentives are all in the woman’s favor.

A woman who knows she will get half, the house, and custody with child support thinks she will hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the prospect of diminished career potential or sexual market value. Incentives matter in human behavior, and front-loaded incentives matter more than downstream disincentives.

2. The drop in a divorced woman’s standard of living, if true, is likely based on a faulty comparison with her standard of living while she was married. The better and more relevant comparison is between the standard of living of a divorced woman and her life as a single woman before she got married. Do divorced women live better than they did as single women BEFORE they got married? That is the useful metric which will shed light on whether divorce really is a bad economic decision for women.

Regarding the supposed post-divorce drop in women’s standard of living, WPrice added:

I tend to reject the statistic, because it usually refers to a feminist study from the 1980s (when academic feminism had carte blanche to make things up). However, it’s true that a woman’s income often looks low on paper following divorce. This is because child support, child tax credits, EIC, property transferred to woman from ex-husband and other benefits are not counted as income. In the meanwhile, it looks like a man’s expenses have gone down, because he no longer gets to claim these expenses on his tax returns. The truth, however, is that she gets all of the supposed increase in his living standard and then some directly in her pocket. The statistic is so deliberately dishonest that it ought to be called what it is: a lie.

Divorce is deliberately set up to ensure that women lose as little as possible when leaving their marriage for whatever reason. Men, of course, are punished no matter what the reason.

The reason our laws, and in particular divorce laws, are biased in favor of women, has to do with the human psychological underpinnings that emerge from the Fundamental Premise.

The divorce rate skyrocketed right after no-fault divorce was passed in CA in 1969, followed by most other states. It has since declined from its mid-1970s high and leveled off (but still nowhere its historical lows in the US pre-1969), so whatever shock to the marital system no-fault divorce instigated seemed to have worked itself out by the 1980s.

CH is fond of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation, but there’s another one we love just as much for its pithy descriptive power:

Options = Instability.

A young woman in her nubile prime has more romantic options than a same-age young man. This makes commitment at that age inherently unstable (especially for naive beta males). The formula reverses for men, who experience a rise in romantic options as they get older and gain social and financial status, (and given that men of all ages are attracted to female youth and beauty, there would be incentives for an older husband to trade his status for a younger second wife).

Theoretically, then, we should find that female-initiated divorce is mostly by YOUNG wives, and male-initiated divorce by OLDER husbands. And that is pretty much the case… but for the former only.

From Dalrock:

As I’ve shared previously the data shows divorce rates are highest when the wife is young and has the incentive to commit divorce theft, and lowest when the wife is older and the husband has the incentive to commit divorce theft.  Divorce is actually least likely when conventional wisdom suggests it occurs most, when the wife is older and the husband has the opportunity to dump her for  a younger woman.

On the surface, this result is strange. But thinking about it, I can tell you why the divorce rate doesn’t follow a symmetrical “U-curve” that reflects older husbands “trading up” for younger second wives: men, unlike women, are simply more comfortable keeping two lovers simultaneously. Husbands don’t have a problem screwing a mistress and coming home to a doting wife. Wives DO have a problem screwing around and maintaining a happy facade with their cucked beta hubbies.

In short, men have a harem mentality. Women don’t.

One glaring correlation that emerges when examining divorce trends is that the divorce rate mirrors women’s likelihood of getting pregnant (aka how fertile she is, aka how hot she is).

The divorce rate and the female fertility rate, if superimposed, are practically IDENTICAL. Divorce is, to a great degree, a function of a woman’s sexual desirability and her options in the sexual market. The more romantic attention from desirable men a young wife can command, the more unstable her marriage.

If stable marriages are a noble societal goal, then encouraging later marriages would work to lower the divorce rate. But, this strategy also works to lower the marital fertility rate, as older mothers have fewer children than younger mothers. Plus, beta males with rising SMV (sexual market value) don’t much like marrying road worn and put away hard women in their 30s, and they won’t if they don’t have to.

A better social strategy would be to instruct young men in the ways of seducing women — both premaritally and maritally — so that they can better tame and redirect their young wives’ hypergamous compulsions to themselves and away from alpha male interlopers. Still another possibility is pairing off younger wives with older husbands, for a balanced SMV match. Or, removing the disincentives to stay married that have become part of divorce and family laws.

(FYI, women will always receive the bulk of child support, and child custody, because women are naturally disposed to the task of child-rearing in a way that men aren’t. Most men don’t much like the drudgery of child-raising, but for that minority of ex-husbands and fathers who crave the joys of being a full-time dad, the family court system should be reformed to better sympathize with their needs.)

Bottom line: If divorce laws are grossly unfair to either sex, they need to be changed. Lamely indulging in “life is unfair” white knightism posturing is no excuse for accepting the continuance of bad laws. (Perspective: “racial quotas are wrong.” “life is unfair.” See how that doesn’t work?)

Read Full Post »

There’s a new trend in wedding photos of brides holding their grooms aloft in their arms that exemplifies the cultural and even physical de-masculinization of Western White men and de-feminization of Western White women.

Brides and grooms are agreeing to this farcedy (farce + tragedy) under the pretense that such pics are “cute” and show their “fun-loving side”. Funny, all I see is a nauseating beta curled up like an infant in his aggrofemme’s arms.

This photo was submitted by a newlywed wife who offered, “This is his favourite”. Keep in mind as you view the wreckage that the “””man””” chose this photo as his favorite because it perfectly captured everything he was feeling on his wedding day.

“eek… a mouse!”

Maybe you think the gayfaced thing above is a closet case. A strong possibility. So try to explain this one:

American men are so fagged up I can’t even. Good luck trying to explain this to your future son when he asks why you let mommy carry you over the threshold like an overgrown toddler. News bulletin, dad: Sons have a strong need for an alpha male role model to look up to, and that usually means you. Way to let him down.

One wonders where the psychological castration and infantilization of White men and the phony propped-up machismo of White women will end. What is the end game? Millions of bicurious plushboys ruminating on the potential of everyday objects to double as rectum ticklers? Millions of screechy, thin-skinned feminist SJWs driving the economy to a halt with productivity- and innovation-killing HR complaints?

The best outcome that could happen now would be for this sociosexual inversion to reach an absolute nadir until the system snaps and the degenerate poz mafia scatter like cockroaches as the pendulum swings violently backward, scything away the filth and disease of infected ids.

Read Full Post »

Nothing.

Or, more precisely, less than nothing. She became unhappier.

The husband bent over backwards to fulfill his wife’s every demand, and the result is tragicomically predictable: gina tingles extinguished.

For the past year or so, my husband has ceased to be able to turn me on, to the point where I am almost repulsed by our lovemaking. Recently, I broke down and told him everything. Since then, he has done everything in his power to get us back on track. The problem is now me! Even though this is all I’ve wanted, I can’t bear to be touched in certain areas.

Never mind the couples therapist answer. As per usual for the quality of output typical of this field of inquiry, it’s garbage. A commenter’s sarcastic jab gets it more right: “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.”

Ok, just to torture the CH reading audience, here’s a sample of the couples therapist’s answer (a woman, natch):

This “hot potato” syndrome is not uncommon: one partner has an issue, but once he throws it off, the other catches something too hot to handle. In many ways, it is a good thing that your husband is responding so energetically to your plea for change, and you did an excellent job of moving beyond what had become a long-term impasse.

Yes, clearly what the husband needs to do is more of what didn’t work at all.

For example, you say you don’t like to be touched in certain places, so the exact details of this must be gently communicated to him, and he needs to be shown exactly what you would prefer.

As the feminist sages tell us, women are really turned on by having to read an instruction manual to their men on the proper use of their bodies during lovemaking.

You have done very well so far – be brave enough to address the next steps, which are largely about better communication.

“Better communication” to solve all your relationship problems! Empty platitude, the stock in trade of marriage counselors everywhere. The unhappy wife wrote to the worse-than-useless psychotherapist shell entity informing her STRAIGHT UP that she told her husband everything, and he did everything he could to meet her demands. What part of that suggests this relationship needs to be addressed with “better communication”? Sounds like they were communicating their marriage to an early bed death!

I shouldn’t be surprised anymore, but the alacrity with which marriage and couples counselors and creeeeeeedentialed “psychotherapists” resort to droning bromides devoid of any explicit advice that might prove useful to saving relationships but carries the baggage of gently disturbing the gentle egos of gentle wives with gently feminist views about the moral supremacy of the female prerogative and the assumption of the male’s automatic fault in any scenario stuns even experienced observers of the junk therapist scene such as yours truly.

This couple deserve better advice than what a one Pamela Stephenson Connolly can offer them. CH to the rescue…

To the wife: First, make sure it isn’t some serious physiological issue, like CVD or something that could affect your sexual response. For that, see a medical doctor, i.e. a real doctor. But, odds are it isn’t a medical problem.

The way to bet is that your husband is a beta male — that is, dependable, reliable, generous, deferential… and utterly unsexy — and that his beta maleness got worse the longer your marriage went on. It’s not uncommon for men to get soft in body and attitude once they’ve settled into the marital comfort zone.

If this is the cause of your turtling sexuality, I’m afraid anything you do could only make matters worse. This is because there is a natural disconnect in your female brain between what actually turns you on and what you think SHOULD turn you on. You will, therefore, be unable to give your husband any advice that would work.

To the husband: STOP doing what you’re doing, and do the opposite. Instead of appeasing your wife, ask her to do things for you. No, DEMAND of her those things. Stop supplicating, and instead assume that you are God’s gift to womankind and can do no wrong. Apologize for nothing, make no excuses for her. Be unpredictable. Leave her for a spell, preferably unannounced. Tease her, poke fun at her, squeeze her hip fat with a disapproving glare, flirt with other women as she watches. In sum, initialize the first sequences of Dread Game.

After a few weeks of this wifely romantic reprogramming, grab her when the mood hits you, and start tearing off her clothes, oblivious to her mewls of protest. If your psychological preparations have been successful, she will relent and shake off an orgasm like a dog shitting a peach pit.

If not, consider cutting her loose and saving your newfound self-confidence for another woman who will submit to your love in the way every man secretly desires a woman to do. Even the effete hipster manlets.

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of commenter mendozatorres, a quote from Mary Haweis, authoress, who sounds spookily prescient about our current state of marriage as she reminds her readers that marriage sans concessions is a boon for women and a raw deal for men.

Alas, when people complain of men not marrying (even they who are able), they forget how little women offer in exchange for all they get by marriage. Girls are so seldom taught to be of any use whatever to a man that I am only astonished at the numbers of men who do marry! [ed: we all are, mary.] Many girls do not even try to be agreeable to look at, much less to live with. They forget how numerous they are, and the small absolute need men have of wives; but, nevertheless, men do still marry, and would oftener marry could they find mates – women who are either helpful to them, or amusing, or pleasing to their eye.

–The Art of Beauty by Mary Eliza Haweis, published in 1878.

I wonder what the prime fertility years sex ratio was in 1878?

Mary Eliza Haweis is a friend of the Chateau. She understands — more nobly, she admits — that men must necessarily sacrifice to marry, while women enjoy lavish gains and the fulfillment of lifelong dreams when they marry. This inherent marital risk bias favoring women implies that the institution should be structured to supply men with some up front guarantees of return on investment or indulgences to fulfill, at least occasionally, their own male-specific romantic prerogatives.

Not surprisingly, Mary looks to be a fairly attractive woman by the standards of her time. It’s not quite an ironclad rule, but the way to bet is that attractive women are likelier than homely women to have familiarity with the basic truths governing the behavior of the sexes. After all, what kind of woman will be more in need of soothing platitudes to make it through the day without pondering the existential release of the razor blade poised lengthwise?

Read Full Post »

Census Bureau data show that 70% of men aged 20-34 are unmarried. The trend is unmistakable, and predates the current recessionary unpleasantness: More men are dropping out of the marriage market, and this gradually escalating abandonment has been going on since the 1960s.

CH has discussed ad infinitum the various causes for the marriage strike (hint: it’s not just men avoiding the altar). Sometimes, theory isn’t enough to wake people up. You need to hear the pained words echoing from the charnel house known as the modern secular mating market. A commenter to that linked article, Tom Watson, writes,

This isn’t an article about maturity, its about conformity. Society is upset that men aren’t conforming to some crazy imaginary standard being set for them. This isn’t the the 1950’s, the economy has entered permanent contraction, so it’s pretty simple, we can’t afford to marry princess and give her the castle she wants. I don’t want want to be a cog in the machine, I want to see the machine grind to a stop.

What was it? 80% of women list shopping as their number one hobby? But you want to attack men for playing video games? Pretty selective. I want to live a life of minimalism, where I have enough money to cover the basics, I don’t need a 2000 square foot McMansion in burbs to get by, I don’t want to commute to a soul crushing job and end up like the age 50+ man drones I see drowning themselves in alcohol, fast food and TV just to numb their existential pain.

Modern culture to me is spiritually dead, I don’t feel like using my one shot at life running on the never ending treadmill of materialism just because cupcake wants me to, what kind of man would I be then? Definitely not my own. F#CK THAT!!

Yes, the trope about vidgya gaming and porning men as the cause of marriage dissolution conveniently neglects to include materialistic, shopping and social media whoring women. I do think technology has contributed to divorce, but technology cuts both ways; it’s enabled the worst instincts of both men and women.

One other point which Tom didn’t mention, (but which was strongly implied): Fat, classless, slutty women aren’t high grade investment properties. No man wants to slave away to buy a 2,000sq ft mcmansion for a blob. As I keep reminding tradcons like Douthat and Murray, the obesity epidemic is as much a cause, perhaps a bigger cause, for the retreat of men from marriage as any economic factor.

Tom is also a victim of SCALE. When he says, “Modern culture to me is spiritually dead”, what he’s really saying is, “The nation is too big, diversity too overbearing, community too shattered, women too morally base, for me to feel any sort of connection or duty toward it.”

Tom, you can be your own man by learning how to charm women, falling in love, and making them a part of your life…. outside the realm of the state. Feed your heart, starve the beast.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,469 other followers

%d bloggers like this: