[Oscar]

“where you sourced your information on medieval cohabitation” heard or read it in a doc, recently probably on France culture, roughly the equivalent of your NPR but specialized in arts sciences history and philosophy docs.

the finding was drawn from the notaries’ minute books, which, unlike the priests’ parish registers, recorded all contracts involving the division of property and communities of material interests. obviously this type of situation was more common in urban centres than in small rural communities.

I already knew from my history studies that the age of marriage was quite late in those days – all the more so if you take into account the much lower life expectancy. But I had always thought that the sexual question was regulated by the existence of brothels until people were in a position to start a family .

our problem is not that people are married or not ; our problem is that white people does not make enough babies.

I don’t believe in the story of a plot conceived from the outset to destroy marriage: it’s rather the sedimentation of multiple, seemingly minor decisions that produces the contemporary result

For example, financial support for women was introduced in response to the situation in the 1960s, when, unlike today, couples tended to break up on the initiative of men, leaving housewives with no professional experience to bring up children on their own.

But today this sedimentation is producing a legal situation that is intrinsically contrary to my interests, and I have no reason to support it just to fit in with a conservative clichéesque image of what the perfect society of 60 years ago might have been (it wasn’t, because it produced this situation).

you can live as a couple and have kids, and being really commited as the lifelong provider for them without being married. and I think that in this situation, it would be stupid to give a partner a right of control over the relationship that gives her a potential material interest in the case she wants to end it, especially since the prenups are of nzero valor since trampled by you own courts.

[Anonymous]

Id be interested to know where you sourced your information on medieval cohabitation. I’ve never heard that before and it sounds contrary to what is known of those societies but Im interested to hear this perspective. Secondly, one has to consider that the white man’s disdain for marriage in a western society was the intention of the design. A study just came out about women being a historic unmarried and barren by 2030 as the majority. Guess what – those aren’t Islamic women or Central and S American Aztecs. That study represents mainly the majority of western women. This has become the great challenge for whites to overcome. How do you win if you re being outpaced by reproduction of others?

[Oscar]

adapt to the terrain when you can’t choose it : there is zero reason for a mn to marry in the current state of affairs fort the reasons you quoted, I won’t add anything to that

there’s no reason for a western man to get married: he can have access to women and start a family without that. some people will immediately trot out the pseudo argument of Tradition, but :

1) Tradition got us where we are today, so it’s not a panacea
2) most of those who gloss over this theme are totally unaware of what life was like for European societies in past centuries, which have been widely mythologised. Do they know that in the Middle Ages, cohabitation was at least as widespread as it is today? And that many people, for reasons of inheritance, did not marry until very late in life?

The “ancestral tradition” invoked today is largely a creation of the bourgeois industrial age.

the structure of marriage is fundamentally gynocratic, as it retains the legal and financial protections of the era when women were legal minors, while combining them with the contemporary principle of individualism.

What sense does it make to get married when even fags can do it? really? despite their frustration with the princess-day they’ve fantasised about since they were little girls, any woman with a political conscience can only agree with this – or else she’s looking for pretexts.

marriage will become necessary again when it has once more become the indissoluble union of two lineages, sanctified by society, not a ‘thing’ you have to have done, like a cruise to the Seychelles, to tell yourself that you haven’t missed out on your life as a good little post-western consumer.

in the meantime, he’s just one facet of the prevailing vaginocracy. no intelligent man can subscribe to this trap

[deckenfarbe]

You have, in theory, the same risk with any woman. There are lots of the proverbial gold-diggers out there, make no mistake. There is also not too much value in a pre-nup, and many women will just view this as a vote of no-confidence, pretty much like you’re telling her that you’d like to continue going to bed with her, but nothing else. Also, prenups have been thrown out in court because the strong, independent woman wasn’t strong and independent enough to refuse to sign it, ie, coerced to sign it. Therefore, I’d rather suggest that you sit down and think hard about how you want to lead your relationship/marriage, discuss with her, make a deal with her and make it crystal clear that the deal holds, regardless of the law. If she goes ahead, good. If not, you probably dodged a bullet.

[Anonymous]

A Man, any Man, who becomes involved with a Woman in a Western Country runs a great risk. Current divorce rates average 65% within 5 years of marriage. Jeff Bezos of Amazon, despite his acumenical Aspbergery talent for automation did not have the simple foresight to secure a prenup agreement with his now ex-wife before he agreed to marry her.

NO Woman is worth a $38 Billion settlement, which is what she received for her term as Mrs. Bezos.

Despite his wealth, Bezos was judgement poor.

Simply, Western Men want Western Women, but not at all costs. A Western Man risks everything in this day and age if he decides to tie the knot. The bias against Men in the courts and legal system is blindingly clear. Of course, it was intentionally designed that way as a means to subvert Western Civilization. If Women want Men to commit to them they will have to ensure the Man knows he will not be Shanghaied in the event of a dissolution.

As mentioned in another thread on this forum, Women must be central to removing the welfare state from their respective Western Countries. Western Women must be handled with protective gloves and seen as liabilities until they prove otherwise.

[Author]

Posts