As a purple pill incel I can only speculate as to the mindset of my fucked brothers and sisters.

However i was kinda surprised by the passionate responses these topics can and will elicit along with paternity tests and body-count.

But none of the discussions delve into what i think is the heart of the issue.

There is top tier gaslighting that society insists on subjecting men and women to, a gaslighting that they insist on subjecting to each other.

Marriage has been and will always be a legal contract.

However it is the only legal contract we insist should be made under the condition of mental impairment. We think that ideally the persons entering into the contract ought to have rose tinted glasses on which makes it difficult to sus out the users manipulators and abusers.
Now women are the weaker gender with far more to lose if they chose poorly, hence society has made laws to try and help them in case of financial and physical abuse. Even if there was nothing of the sort they try to equalize things such that they can continue the "lifestyle they are accustomed to". We cant hold them responsible for choosing poorly because that would be shitty to do so.

Even monetarily things are worded such that the lesser earning partner has the advantage. Which tacitly benefits majority f women in these situations because "hyper-gamy"

Basically even if things workout poorly for them they are insulated from the worst case scenario by society and their own desicion tree ( Assuming ofcourse that they survive the first ass whooping and ave the mental wherewithal to run out before the second )
And of course hypo-agency rules supreme

Men? they are fucked.

The prevailing view in the zeitgeists is that men marry not because marriage is the goal but because the woman they are with makes it worth it. When in doubt what is asked of him is " do you love her?"

IF he has voices concerns over the marriage to his partner he is likely to be met with tears and emotional blackmail and claims to him not loving her. Even on here a significant proportion of women believe that by asking for a prenup he is displaying a lack of trust.

​

And all of this is fair. What they feel is valid. and marriage is a decision you make when you love and trust someone.

​

But when the cornerstone of marriage is emotional why do men have to disproportionately bear the legal and economic cost? If marriage is a decision that is encouraged to be an emotional one why even attempt to divide property and savings as if it was infact a business deal?

​

Hell i will grant you this caveat. If you have children you need to pay child support. This is Not controversial

But then in the case of childless couples (even long term ones) why not divide it in terms of what each side brought into the marriage and what each side grew that to?

And even in the cases with children, you are going from the combined income supporting one house to supporting two houses. There is gonna be a dip in the standard of living, that is to be expected. So why attempt to saddle the higher income partner (man ) with the brunt of trying to maintain the standard of living for the other household even at the expense of his own? we are essentially enhancing her ability to pursue happiness while actively sabotaging his.

I think this is what rubs redpillers and divorcees the wrong way, outside of any truly horrific type of injury they themselves had to deal with.

Fact is Bluepill society tries to present marriage as a net benefit for men. And chides redpillers for having a mercenary attitude about it, ignoring the fact that women by default have a mercenary approach to love and relationship. Ignoring the fact that by signing that document they are essentially putting themselves in a weaker position if they are "higher earning partner"

It doesn't at all feel like something done in good faith and the paranoids over at redpill will obviously see this a method to extract the most value out of them at the "plantation". At that point I canteven blame them. It absolutely feels that way