TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Trying to Redefine TRADITIONAL Marriage

BlackDragon
October 1, 2018

What does it mean to argue in good faith?

This means that you back up your points with facts or logic rather than doing so by twisting or purposely misstating either your argument or the argument of the other person.

Whenever someone does that when I am debating a topic, I know Iâve won. If you have to strawman what Iâm saying, or if you have to twist your point into something that it isnât in order to (theoretically) win a debate, thatâs a clear indication that you canât back up your point, and that my point is likely valid.

As Iâve said before, there are far less people defending traditional monogamous marriage (TMM) today than there were 10+ years ago when I was first talking about this stuff publicly (as well as personally with people I knew or women I dated).

Yet, there are still some people who are clinging to the bullshit fantasy that if you “screen for quality” and âfind the right person” in the Western world, getting legally, traditionally married, combining all of your finances, and expecting absolute sexual monogamy from both yourself and your spouse forever is a really great idea.

It is, of course, a ridiculous and stupid idea, and reflects an adolescent level of thinking. I wrote a long article here that lists over 40 arguments people who defend long-term monogamy use and their responses. After discussing this topic for a decade or more, no one has yet to âstumpâ me on why TMM is a good idea in the Western world and in the modern era.

But letâs get back to that arguing in good faith thing. If I tell you that TMM is a horrible idea and you respond that you just canât wrap your head around the concept that your future wife might get sexual with another man at some point (which is still a risk even with monogamy, since the already high instances of women cheating on men in marriages have increased by over 20% in just the last few years, and thatâs only the women who are honest enough to admit it), or if you say that your entire religious family will hate you if you have an open marriage (then donât tell them, you idiot), then while your arguments are invalid, you are at least arguing in good faith. In other words, youâre not attempting to twist the argument into something it isn’t in order to make your point.

But there is one argument I see made by lots of TMM defenders that isnât arguing in good faith at all, and is indeed twisting the argument into something stupid.

Iâve seen this argument many times and perhaps you have too. It usually goes something like this:

Just because two people got divorced doesnât mean it didnât âwork,â Blackdragon. It maybe worked just fine, based on their own definitions of “work.” They were married, then happy, then decided to get divorced. Who are you to say it didnât work? Maybe it worked just fine for them.

This is one of the dumbest, lamest, and most disingenuous arguments people use to defend both TMM and monogamy. I shall demonstrate why.

Please raise your hand and tell me if youâve ever seen a recently divorced person say anything like, âMy marriage worked great! I loved being married, and I loved getting divorced! It worked out exactly as I planned.â

Yeah, I havenât either. Pretty much 100% of people I have ever met who have gotten divorced (and Iâve met hundreds of these people; you probably have also) reported to me, quite clearly, that their divorce or the marriage was bad and that it was something they didnât want. Either they never wanted the marriage and the marriage sucked (most divorced women say this) or their divorce was terrible and/or they didnât want to get divorced (most divorced men say this).

Not one person, that I have met at least, has ever said they got married and divorced at the right times to the right people exactly the way they planned all along. Not one. They all said that the marriage and/or divorce was a huge disappointment and failure.

Iâm sorry, but if you got traditionally married and then you divorced, your marriage didnât âwork.â To suggest such a thing as an argument to defend TMM is stupid as shit on your part.

I know this might be a shock to you, but traditional marriage means you get married and then you never get divorced. Instead, you fight, have drama, and then work things out and stay together. Thatâs what traditional marriage means. Your pastor who married you isnât going to think that getting a divorce is a marriage that worked, so stop being a disingenuous idiot. Thatâs not traditional marriage.

You canât redefine traditional marriage to fit your own internal definition. You can invent your own type of marriage (I did), but unless youâre the Emperor of the Western World, you canât redefine what is traditional. Society has already defined that for you (sadly).

I keep italicizing traditional marriage because thatâs what weâre talking about when weâre talking about long-term monogamy or TMM. However, if you want to remove âtraditionalâ from the equation, now youâre being more logical and arguing in good faith.

I myself have redefined a new type of marriage that I have so much faith in that I actually did it myself: OLTR Marriage. It differs from TMM in the ways that I described here. Moreover and more importantly, unlike these irrational idiots who defend TMM, I clearly defined what âworksâ means in the context of my OLTR marriage (I clearly explained it here) and Iâm going to stick with that definition regardless of what happens in the future.

Unlike monogamy defenders, if my marriage fails (by my own clear definition) Iâm not going to do a bullshit 180 and say that it âworkedâ when it clearly did not. People who defend traditional monogamous marriage should do the same⦠but because they know it doesnât work, they canât.

Another way of getting around the word âtraditionalâ in traditional marriage that some people are now trying is serial marriage, which I first described here. That means that on the day you get married, you are actually planning or at least strongly assuming that youâll divorce this person down the road. Many women secretly do this, and more and more Alpha Male 1.0s from the pick-up artist and manosphere worlds are starting to do this as well.

If you do that, then sure, you can define your marriage as âworkedâ even if you get divorced around the approximate time frame you were planning on doing so all along. For example, you marry a younger woman to shut your mom up and to get your bullshit right-wing Societal Programming out of your system, plan on having two kids with her (to get that out of your system as well) and divorce her after about seven years of marriage when she crosses over age 30 and gets too old for you. That’s a ridiculous and insane plan for multiple reasons, but that’s your plan.

So you have your two kids and get divorced at six years. Okay, sure, that more or less “worked” because that was pretty much what you planned. (Now have fun losing half your money, paying alimony, and fighting in court for the right to spend time with your own kids, you fucking dumbass. But that’s a different conversation.)

But again, please raise your hand if youâve ever talked to a person who clearly admitted to their fiancé (or even close personal friends or family members) right before the wedding that they were planning or strongly assuming they were going to divorce that person down the road once they got bored or irritated with them.

Yeah, me neither.

Please raise your hand if you’ve ever met anyone who, on their wedding day, planned on divorcing the other person on a certain timetable down the road and successfully succeeded in actually getting the divorce anywhere near that timetable.

I’m sure that’s happened somewhere at some point, but I’ve never seen it.

As Iâve said before, serial marriage may not traditional (meaning it is less irrational), but itâs not very functional either. And it wonât make you happy. People who do serial marriage donât get enforceable prenups, assume near-forever monogamy from their spouses, so they encounter the same set of problems as TMM folks. I donât recommend it for anyone (unless you enjoy drama).

So for you monogamy defenders, the next time youâre tempted to use the silly argument that âwell maybe that divorced couple did have a marriage that worked,â then please, for the love of Pete, stop being a disingenuous idiot and just admit that TMM doesnât work in the modern era anymore.

The current collapsing Western society would benefit far more from brave people inventing new, more viable ways to long-term pair-bond with spouses (and raise children, if desired) than pretending a permanently broken system isnât broken.

If you live near Mexico City, Buenos Aires or Bogotá, Colombia, I’m doing mini-seminars in these cities in November regarding both woman skills and business skills.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog Caleb Jones.

Caleb Jones archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

Post Information
Title Trying to Redefine TRADITIONAL Marriage
Author BlackDragon
Date October 1, 2018 12:00 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Blog Caleb Jones
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/blog/Caleb-Jones/trying-to-redefine-traditional-marriage.22888
https://theredarchive.com/blog/22888
Original Link https://blackdragonblog.com/2018/10/01/trying-to-redefining-traditional-marriage/
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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