Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Marriage Is For Chumps’ Category

I used to hang with a guy who was a natural ladykiller, and a borderline sociopath. He said what was on his mind, and that meant a lot of fights and a lot of fucks. I picked up some valuable lessons in human social dynamics from him.

He married young, before his pickup powers had gained steam and he realized the full extent of his talents. In time, he cheated with better looking mistresses. The marriage was doomed, but it managed to sputter along for a child-less six years. His wife turned into a spiteful witch hell-bent on revenge. When my natural buddy and I were out with friends, his now ex-wife would sometimes call at 11pm just to bitterly remind him of an unfulfilled issue with the post-divorce allocation of funds or assets.

Anyhow, one time his quasi-stalker ex-wife was invited to the same event he was at, along with his friends and myself. The time since hadn’t been kind to her; she had gained a few and looked to be wearing too much make-up.

She approached, and acid started to spit right away. He wasn’t one to air private laundry in public, so she vented for five minutes while he listened. When she paused to take an angry breath, he delivered a shiv so cold it could’ve turned her into a White Walker.

“If we were never married, I wouldn’t look twice at you today.”

The best shivs are the cuts that find our deepest buried fears, and expose them to the light.

Read Full Post »

Commenter Yup wants us to notice something very telling about Trump’s wives.

Trump’s had 3 wives.

1st wife: 14 years

2nd wife: 4 years

3rd wife: 11 years and counting.

Guess which wife was American.

😂 I’ll take “4 years” for $5.5 billion, Alex.

Read Full Post »

J.R.R. Tolkien was a deep thinker who knew the world of women as well as he did his fantasy worlds. Reader Modern Primitive draws attention to Tolkien’s fatherly letters of advice to his son, Michael Tolkien.

Don’t know if this has been posted yet but here’s some letters from Tolkien to his son vis a vie women and marriage.

http://glim.ru/personal/jrr_tolkien_42-45.html

Go from number 43. Tolkien seemed like a pretty red pilled dude, identifying many subjects and trends discussed here at the chateau, although it’s probably more that society in general was much more red pilled than we are today by way of not opting to put on its own blinders.

The Great Men of the past were more redpilled than the Weak Manlets of the present, because they were smarter and wiser, but also because they lived during times when their homogeneously glorious White society wasn’t actively crushing crimethinkers. First, here’s Tolkien on the danger posed to men of befriending women before be-fucking them:

‘Friendship’ then? In this fallen world the ‘friendship’ that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman. The devil is endlessly ingenious, and sex is his favourite subject. He is as good every bit at catching you through generous romantic or tender motives, as through baser or more animal ones. This ‘friendship’ has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails. Later in life when sex cools down, it may be possible. It may happen between saints. To ordinary folk it can only rarely occur: two minds that have really a primarily mental and spiritual affinity may by accident reside in a male and a female body, and yet may desire and achieve a ‘friendship’ quite independent of sex. But no one can count on it. The other partner will let him (or her) down, almost certainly, by ‘falling in love’. But a young man does not really (as a rule) want ‘friendship’, even if he says he does. There are plenty of young men (as a rule). He wants love: innocent, and yet irresponsible perhaps.

FYI, Tolkien and CH are on the same page. Here’s an old Chateau post about the cruel impositions of impossible friendships between men and women.

The reason for the post title is this bit by Tolkien where he warns against pussy pedestalization.

There is in our Western culture the romantic chivalric tradition still strong, though as a product of Christendom (yet by no means the same as Christian ethics) the times are inimical to it. It idealizes ‘love’ — and as far as it goes can be very good, since it takes in far more than physical pleasure, and enjoins if not purity, at least fidelity, and so self-denial, ‘service’, courtesy, honour, and courage. Its weakness is, of course, that it began as an artificial courtly game, a way of enjoying love for its own sake without reference to (and indeed contrary to) matrimony. Its centre was not God, but imaginary Deities, Love and the Lady. It [pussy pedestalization] still tends to make the Lady a kind of guiding star or divinity – of the old-fashioned ‘his divinity’ = the woman he loves – the object or reason of noble conduct. This is, of course, false and at best make-believe. The woman is another fallen human-being with a soul in peril. But combined and harmonized with religion (as long ago it was, producing much of that beautiful devotion to Our Lady that has been God’s way of refining so much our gross manly natures and emotions, and also of warming and colouring our hard, bitter, religion) it can be very noble. Then it produces what I suppose is still felt, among those who retain even vestigiary Christianity, to be the highest ideal of love between man and woman. Yet I still think it has dangers. It is not wholly true, and it is not perfectly ‘theocentric’. It takes, or at any rate has in the past taken, the young man’s eye off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. (One result is for observation of the actual to make the young man turn cynical.) To forget their desires, needs and temptations. It inculcates exaggerated notions of ‘true love’, as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose. (One result of that is to make young folk look for a ‘love’ that will keep them always nice and warm in a cold world, without any effort of theirs; and the incurably romantic go on looking even in the squalor of the divorce courts).

The bolded parts are crucial. Pussy pedestalization, contrary to what White Knights for Her Faire Maiden profess as the benefits of their beta male worldview, can actually make a man more cynical about women, because he has her propped on a queenly throne for which she is ill-suited by the nature of her fallen sex to occupy.

Bonus Tolkien! The man expounds on sluts, careerist gogrrls, female practicality (and aversion to romanticism), the allure of badboys, and women’s greater predilection for monogamy.

You may meet in life (as in literature1) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton — I don’t refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy ‘conquests’, or even enjoy the giving of pain – but these are abnormalities, even though false teaching, bad upbringing, and corrupt fashions may encourage them. Much though modern conditions have changed feminine circumstances, and the detail of what is considered propriety, they have not changed natural instinct. A man has a life-work, a career, (and male friends), all of which could (and do where he has any guts) survive the shipwreck of ‘love’. A young woman, even one ‘economically independent’, as they say now (it usually really means economic subservience to male commercial employers instead of to a father or a family), begins to think of the ‘bottom drawer’ and dream of a home, almost at once. If she really falls in love, the shipwreck may really end on the rocks. Anyway women are in general much less romantic and more practical. Don’t be misled by the fact that they are more ‘sentimental’ in words – freer with ‘darling’, and all that. They do not want a guiding star. They may idealize a plain young man into a hero; but they don’t really need any such glamour either to fall in love or to remain in it. If they have any delusion it is that they can ‘reform’ men. They will take a rotter open-eyed, and even when the delusion of reforming him fails, go on loving him. They are, of course, much more realistic about the sexual relation. Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as a rule talk ‘bawdy’; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don’t find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal too absorbing) to them: but it is just plumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke?

They have, of course, still to be more careful in sexual relations, for all the contraceptives. Mistakes are damaging physically and socially (and matrimonially). But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous. Men are not. …. No good pretending. Men just ain’t, not by their animal nature. Monogamy (although it has long been fundamental to our inherited ideas) is for us men a piece of ‘revealed’ ethic, according to faith and not to the flesh. Each of us could healthily beget, in our 30 odd years of full manhood, a few hundred children, and enjoy the process. Brigham Young (I believe) was a healthy and happy man. It is a fallen world, and there is no consonance between our bodies, minds, and souls.

A realtalker like Tolkien, if he lived today, would be banned from so many colleges and charged with violating so many feminist safe spaces that he’d land on the SPLC’s hate watch list. Which should tell you something. (Specifically, 2016 America is a shamefully effete den of faggotry and cuntery.)

Read Full Post »

Courtesy of reader BK, a link to an economic analysis of woman-coddling divorce laws.

CH, thought you would like this article – economist looks at how no consent divorces have changed savings rates and women’s leisure time – the result is that men are saving more to protect themselves and women are taking a lot more leisure time.

Quotes from the research paper:

By regulating when divorce can occur and how resources are divided when it does, divorce laws can affect people’s behavior and their wellbeing both during marriage and at divorce. Household survey data from the United States shows that the introduction of unilateral divorce in states that imposed an equal division of property is associated with higher household savings and lower female employment rates among couples that are already married.

This sounds like a legal backdoor to re-institute “barefoot and pregnant” as a family norm.

During the 1970s and 1980s, divorce laws were rewritten around the United States. Until then, mutual consent—the consent of both spouses—was often a requirement and upon divorce, property was assigned to the spouse who held the formal title to it; usually, this was the husband.

Then, profound state-level reforms brought about the so-called “unilateral divorce revolution.” Most couples now entered a legal system in which either spouse could obtain a divorce without the consent of the other and also keep a fraction of the marital assets, often close to fifty percent.

Here come the negative externalities! (which feminists always miss)

This study explores the impact of the reforms—unilateral divorce and equitable property division—on the economic behavior of couples.  In the US, these reforms affect no small number of people, as forty percent of married couples and about one-third of all people over their lifetimes are divorced. So how did the unilateral divorce revolution change the consumption, the labor supply decisions, and ultimately the wellbeing of married and divorced couples?

There are at least two ways in which we might expect the reforms to affect household behavior. First, because divorce is one of those events for which people cannot buy insurance, savings can act as self-insurance, allowing people to face some of the financial costs associated with marriage dissolution. Different ways of dividing property can affect the insurance role of savings. Second, even among couples that do not split up, a change in divorce laws can change a spouse’s options outside of the marriage. For instance, a property division regime change that favors one spouse can improve her position inside the marriage, particularly if she can obtain divorce without the other partner’s consent. This reallocation within marriage could result in changes in private consumption, savings, and labor supply.

Muh incentives and disincentives.

From this “difference-in-differences” exercise, two main facts emerge on the impact of unilateral divorce in states with different property division regimes. First, in states with equal division, households reported higher net savings (around 16%). Second, in such states, women who were already married became less likely to work, by approximately 5 percentage points. By analyzing additional time use surveys between 1965 and 1993, I find that the decrease in the labor supply of women was associated with an increase in the amount of leisure time they enjoyed.

So how is this result explained by the behavior of spouses in marriages operating under no consent divorce laws?

With these features, the model provides a qualitative explanation for the observed empirical patterns. In states with equal division of property, the law favors women at the time of divorce. When the equal division of property grants them more resources in the event of divorce than they are receiving in the marriage, unilateral divorce means that they can use the threat of divorce in their favor while remaining married, thereby increasing their leisure.

How’s that oppressive patriarchy working out for you feminists? Heh.

At the same time, married couples save more because spouses’ individual incentives to save are distorted because they cannot choose how to allocate savings between man and woman in the increasingly likely event of a divorce. Because mandated equal division of property does not reflect the allocation of resources within marriage, it ultimately distorts household saving behavior.

Influenced by the specter of no consent divorce law, marriage has moved from a “build a nest egg” model to a “build an insurance against property loss” model.

So how do divorce laws, which were passed when men and women’s economic outcomes differed substantially, affect wellbeing today? Simulations from the model suggest that, as intended by the policymakers who promoted it, the equal division of property gave more assets to women in the sample compared with a title-based regime that would grant them about 40% of household wealth. Thus, for couples that married before the 1970s, the reforms likely achieved the goal of supporting women through divorce. However, their effect is more nuanced if we believe that today’s couples may have a different, more egalitarian, distribution of resources within marriage.

Here’s a thought: How about crafting equitable divorce law that isn’t deliberately intended to favor women? There must be a word for favoritism in the law…. oh yeah, injustice.

Read Full Post »

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,😆 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 »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,590 other followers

%d bloggers like this: