695,976 posts

CMV - RPWives are mistaken, if a man submits to marriage, he cannot be high value.

Reddit View
April 27, 2016
11 upvotes

I believe RPWives are entirely mistaken about the value of a man who would willingly marry. Unless he is marrying into money (a rich woman or her family name), there is obviously no real benefit to marriage for men.

Some common pro-marriage tropes that are false:

  • Marriage is important if you want custody of your kids. - Having children, your parental rights are identical as the rights you would have as a legal guardian (in the USA), unless you lose your guardianship - which can happen in divorce, so marriage is not a protection against losing your kids.

  • Marriage is important if you want the kids to share your last name. - This is false. If a woman agrees to naming the kids with your last name, you may do that. If she doesn't agree, you have a bad woman on your hands, and marriage wouldn't fix that.

  • Marriage is required for high-class society. Many in high class positions are either unmarried or divorced. Marriage is neither sufficient to create a higher-class, nor required to become higher-class.

  • Marriage is safer for STDs. Anybody can cheat at any time, marriage, LTR, or otherwise.

The Truth about marriage:

  • A man who is high value is not only attracive, but undoubtedly astute, intelligent and has either the potential for earning money, or has already gotten a sum of money. A man who is high value and therefore astute must intrinsically understand the nature of what is and is not in his best interest. If he cannot determine what is in his best interest, he cannot be astute, and therefore is not a high-value man.

  • A man who is attractive but does not have these other qualities must be less optimal and therefore cannot be as high of value as the man who has these qualities, as the comparison of the two will clearly show one has a distinct advantage over the other in access to provisions as well as genes to pass on to children.

  • A man who understands what is in his best interest would not sign a business partner agreement that required responsibility from only one of the two members, while awarding the secondary partner sums of money if he walked away from his obligations.

  • Likewise, a man who understands what is in his best interest would not be willing to sign unconscionable contracts that can be unilaterally disposed of by either of the two other parties (wife or state), especially in the case that this contract promises cash prizes for the other party if the unilateral decision is made.

  • A woman does not respect a man over which she has power. If she has ultimate power over a man, he cannot be considered alpha, as he is subservient to her.

  • A marriage puts a women in a position of power over her husband by giving her unilateral control over ending the marriage with great financial risk and consequence to the husband. A marriage requires a man to continue providing for a woman, while simultaneously putting zero responsibility (providing sex) on the woman.

  • Because a marriage puts a woman in a position of power over her husband, she cannot respect that man, or, if she does have respect, it must be known that the level of respect for a man that she hold power over must be less so to a man that she holds no power over.

  • Because of these truths, it must then be surmised that a man who would agree to a marriage must not be one who is considered high value (astute, intelligent and money), nor one who understands what is in his best interest. Therefore, a man who would agree to marriage must be sub-optimal when compared to a man who is high value, attractive, and understands what is in his best interest.

  • Therefore, marriage is not an optimal strategy to find a high-value man.

Change my view.


Post Information
Title CMV - RPWives are mistaken, if a man submits to marriage, he cannot be high value.
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 11
Comments 266
Date 27 April 2016 06:39 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit PurplePillDebate
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/274915
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4gpx8l/cmv_rpwives_are_mistaken_if_a_man_submits_to/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
alphalong term relationship
Comments

[–][deleted] 68 points69 points  (1 child) | Copy

Honestly, I don't give a rats ass what anyone thinks of my "value" past my wife and friends. As long as my wife sees me as "high value", and my friends still find my company "valuable", why the hell would I care what anyone else thinks?

If I'm "low value" because I want a long term committed relationship that includes love, kindness, caring, compassion, and all the sex I could want, I'm good with it. I'm not trying to "out value" everyone else, I just want what I want out of life. I don't want to be the top dog, and don't want to take on what the top dog has to in order to BE the top dog.

I only need to be the top dog in my little bubble of reality, the rest of it can go to hell in a hand basket. I have no clue what "label" that is, and don't really care.

[–]madethisfortaleden6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Honestly, I don't give a rats ass what anyone thinks of my "value" past my wife and friends. As long as my wife sees me as "high value", and my friends still find my company "valuable", why the hell would I care what anyone else thinks?

And that attitude is what makes someone high-value.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment68 points69 points  (66 children) | Copy

Simple. For a woman that values and wants marriage, a man that does not also value and want marriage is not an option. He has no value to her.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points  (50 children) | Copy

Exactly. RP male users keep interpreting LTR/marriage focused women's statements on 'male value' as personal attacks on their standing and worth...when that's not the point at all. A person that wants to buy a cat, will see no value in looking at lizards or birds, or puppies. When a woman is focused on establishing an LTR or getting married - a man that rejects both of those things literally has no value in her eyes as far as "finding a man to date/marry." The man may have a whole host of traits, and behaviors that make him a valued worker, consumer, philosopher, inventor, musician, athlete [insert any other skills/qualities that would make him successful/desirable/respected to and by other people]. It's one of the most basic things any single RPWo or RPWi user should screen for.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂26 points27 points  (4 children) | Copy

Y'all RPW are kicking ass lately.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

Thank you!

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (1 child) | Copy

Tis true! It's like my sassy friend just broke up with her lame BF and I am living for it!!

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

[–]Bekazzled1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, it is true. I was just thinking about this.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy

This is wrong for the same reason u/hyperrreal explains OP is wrong. Value in this context is not personally subjective according to loaded criteria, but objectively measurable. Robin Williams and Ryan renolds would be high value whether or not they married, to the point that if they so desired they probably could have had non married ltrs with kids with hot young smart women, but possibly not celebrities.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂22 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy

By RP logic, what good is a man's "value" if it's not considered value by the high value women he's pursuing? According to what I've seen on TRP, the highest quality women are traditionally minded and feminine with a low partner count who are saving themselves for marriage or at least planning for marry young and commit fully. Sounds like that sort of women is looking for a man with similar values to her.

I mean, a celebrity could probably do what you describe, unless the hot young girl he's after is looking for marriage, in which case if she can pull one celebrity she can probably pull another - with similar values to her. If the hot young woman is okay with having children with a celebrity unmarried... do you imagine that woman being high value by RP standards? I mean, at that point I don't really see the male celebrity's value as high status in the eyes of women. And the sort of women who would be attracted to that sound like high drama, exactly the sort of mind game prone individuals TRP bemoans.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Interesting points. I maintain that value in this context is determined by the masses though.

[–]LittleknownfactsVaguely Uncivil Comment8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

Isn't it objectively measurable that if your looking for a man available for commitment to exclude men that are not available for commitment? Either they are or they aren't, you may not know from an outside perspective which it is, but it is an objective criteria.

[–]antariuszRed Pill Man-1 points0 points  (4 children) | Copy

Had robin Williams been smart enough to stay single instead of getting divorce raped, he'd probably still be alive today. Yet another blue pill tragic story.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy

he was diagnosed with lewy bodies dementia a few weeks before he died... it manifests as an incurable cross between alzeimers and parkinsons. you die slowly as you lose control of your body and your mental faculties.

his suicide had nothing to do with his marital status.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

He got that disease from marriage

ayyyy lmao

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Are you being serious?

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

No I just lost interest in the discussion and decided to get zany

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun43 points44 points  (82 children) | Copy

A man who is high value is not only attracive, but undoubtedly astute, intelligent and has either the potential for earning money, or has already gotten a sum of money.

I think this premise is where the argument falls apart. Someone who is high-value is someone who is valued-highly by others. Not someone who meets some abstract criteria for what high-value means. You've setup the issue to make being high-value mutually exclusive with marriage.

Which IMO is not a meaningful approach. We should look at value as a phenomena. So asking "Who do we think of when we think of a high-value man?" not starting with a definition and working our way from there.

And many people who are valued highly also get married. Maybe that's a bad idea, maybe not. But either way their value has not changed.

Here's an example of why one's marital status isn't a good indicator of value. Many shitposters on /b/ aren't married. Whereas Ryan Reynolds is married. The fact that Ryan Reynolds is married does not:

  1. Reduce his value
  2. Indicate low value, either in an 'objective' sense or relative to non-married men.

[–]buarthaDelights in homosexuality6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is a really clear, well-thought out argument. I don't usually do this, but here. You deserve it.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Just what I always wanted!

But seriously thanks.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

Someone who is high-value is someone who is valued-highly by others. Not someone who meets some abstract criteria for what high-value means.

Exactly so.

[–]disposable_pants4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

Someone who is high-value is someone who is valued-highly by others. Not someone who meets some abstract criteria for what high-value means.

There's a very real distinction between something's "real" value and it's market value -- that's how bubbles form. "Real" value is determined by more objective criteria; market value is determined by demand. Saying that objective criteria have no hand in determining value is oversimplifying.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's a very real distinction between something's "real" value and it's market value -- that's how bubbles form.

This is not the language I would use. Bubbles don't form because the market value of something becomes inflated relative to its 'real value.' Generally what happens is that predictions about the future market value of something end up being wrong.

Or in other words, it's not like there's some 'real' value out there to be discovered. It's that we're often wrong about what the market value is or will be. Then retrospectively we might use the language 'real value' to mean 'accurate market value.'

In a market, market value is all there is.

[–]lady_bakerRed Pill Woman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I want to buy this, because I am pro marriage. But isn't it just an extension of the apex fallacy?

The rules that most of us play by don't fully apply to A list actors, pro athletes, national level politicians, and blue blooded scions of wealthy dynasties.

EDIT: I'm sure you could come up with a lot of examples of high performing doctors and lawyers and entrepreneurs who fall below the A listers but above the middle class, and they would be married. But how successful are they at it?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (74 children) | Copy

We're talking about value to a woman. The point of the argument is that if a man is willing to get married, he's not high value, and therefore the strategy for women is not viable.

So he's adding up values that the RP perspective has been known for quite sometime and the abstraction of that serves no purpose. We're speaking generally about what most women generally want

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun28 points29 points  (30 children) | Copy

We're talking about value to a woman. The point of the argument is that if a man is willing to get married, he's not high value, and therefore the strategy for women is not viable.

I understand the argument, it just doesn't work. Ryan Reynolds is uber high-value to women. This cannot be debated. Ryan Reynolds is married. This also cannot be debated. Therefore, a man can marry and still be high-value.

You can argue that he got suckered into marriage. You can argue that marriage isn't worth it. You can argue that you can't be redpill-aware and get married. But arguing that you can't be high value and marry is simply not workable.

It's forcing a conclusion through rhetoric that does not hold in the real world.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (25 children) | Copy

The strength of the claim depends on the examples you use.

You can use Reynolds to support that claim. But I can use Robin Williams to refute it. Williams was married (three times). He was "high value" by some definitions -- he was one of the most gifted comedians the world has ever known, he was beloved by millions, he was world famous and had been for at least 20 years, and earned millions through his work. He was also a deeply troubled man who attributed much of his "value" to whether he was in a relationship with a woman. He didn't choose well at least once. His second wife was his kid's nanny; he married the nanny who he then cheated on; the nanny divorced him and cleaned him out. When Williams died he was essentially broke from his financial obligations to his second wife. Williams' suicide suggests part of the reason he killed himself was his growing inability to meet those financial obligations -- which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

You can marry, earn a lot of money, and still be "low value". In part it depends on the level of your knowledge and your mindset.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun22 points23 points  (17 children) | Copy

The strength of the claim depends on the examples you use.

It doesn't at all. The issue is that RPS is setting up a definition of 'high-value' which does not make sense. He's arguing, essentially:

  1. A high-value man is astute, intelligent, etc. among other things.

  2. An astute, intelligent person does what is in their best interest.

  3. Marriage is not in men's best interest

  4. Therefore, men that get married cannot be high-value.

The conclusion is contrived, because the whole thing starts with a false premise. I have explained this above. Premises 2 is also false, and premise 3 is highly debatable.

But to answer your argument specifically. Robin Williams was high-value. Robin Williams got married. His marriage did not work out, and he got taken to the cleaners. Sadly he took his own life.

The fact that his marriage was a failure does not mean he wasn't a high-value person. He was beloved by millions. It means he was a high-value person who made a mistake. And that's very common.

Virtually no one always does what is in their best interest. High-value people are no exception.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

The premise is like a bad LSAT question

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas6 points7 points  (3 children) | Copy

u/hyperrreal sledgehammer s another argument. Or rather, fences it with one of those gay skinny 3 musketeers swords he uses to twirl his curly sir Loras hair.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I think /u/cxj's comment is actually a decent neg lol.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

nice Internet comments. R they real?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy

I disagree that Williams was "high value". He wasn't very smart about women. He either didn't understand, or ignored, how sexual attraction and sexual relationships work. He was unable to overcome his personal demons (addiction, depression, fears of abandonment). He was a troubled man with issues that eventually overtook him. All low value.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

He was a troubled man with issues that eventually overtook him.

So were Steve Jobs, Prince, Ian Curtis, and Kurt Cobain. This is not a good argument. As I've explained, it's incredibly contrived.

It's irrelevant though. Because even if Robin Williams is low-value, the fact that one low-value man got married does not mean all men who get married are low-value. That doesn't follow.

Low and high value both men get married, because most people get married. Right or wrong, that's the way of the world right now. All I have to do so show that high-value men do get married. Which I have done.

Y'all need to frame this issue differently.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Not at all. When Williams married, he might have been high value. When he died, he was low value.

And it's not irrelevant or contrived. The fact of marriage is less important than why a man marries. Williams was low value in large part because he defined much of his own self worth on how others saw him. And that flaw contributed much to his undoing.

[–]super-commenting15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

When he died, he was low value

Millions of people grieved his death. That doesnt happen to low value men.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy

And it's not irrelevant or contrived.

It's both.

Regardless, I 100% disagree that Robin Williams was "low-value." He was among the most loved and celebrated actors of his time. That's not low value.

By your logic, some virgin angrily posting on MGTOW forums who "understands women" is higher value than an A-List celebrity. It's an absurd position.

However, I will say again, that it does not matter. Here's the argument I made previously which has gone unaddressed:

Because even if Robin Williams is low-value, the fact that one low-value man got married does not mean all men who get married are low-value. That doesn't follow.

Low and high value both men get married, because most people get married. Right or wrong, that's the way of the world right now. All I have to do so show that high-value men do get married. Which I have done.

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy

I think the term "high value" might be shedding more heat than light.

How about this: Robin Williams was highly attractive to women, because he was rich and famous and talented. However, he was very troubled, which means he would have been a poor choice for an LTR. AFAICT, both of you agree on those things. u/PemBayliss thinks that the nearly all highly attractive married men have some other issue (not necessarily mental illness, perhaps just being insufficiently redpill) which makes them unsuitable for an LTR; u/hyperreal disagrees.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun10 points11 points  (2 children) | Copy

I mostly agree with your assessment.

But my issue is how the argument/issue is being framed from the RP side. The topic is setup so that a specific conclusion can be arrived at.

We should be start by looking at the world, and examining who the high-value men are. And then see, ok are these guys getting married? Not choosing a definition of value that's loaded to reach a certain conclusion, even if it flies in the face of what value means to people in the real world.

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Can you explain what you mean by "high-value man"? I think it's very likely you and u/PemBayliss don't actually disagree about anything in the real world, you just disagree about how you're defining that word.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

I mean "a man who is valued highly by others." The issue should be approached phenomenologically.

[–]OfSpock4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

In fact the opposite is true, marriage is highly correlated with happiness and career success.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

"nearly all highly attractive married men have some other issue (not necessarily mental illness, perhaps just being insufficiently redpill) which makes them unsuitable for an LTR"

Close, but not exactly. It's more like nearly ALL men, married or not, attractive/arousing or not, aren't sufficiently redpill to pull off what modern marriage requires.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well, he was also certifiably crazy, lol, so there's that.

Believe it or not (and I know this is going to sound outrageous, but it's true), but many years ago I actually worked with his college roommate. That whole manic crazy thing he does? Yeah, apparently that's his actual personality. He was like that all the time. He was simultaneously entertaining as hell and utterly exhausting. My friend was only roommates with him one year - that was all he could take, lol...

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy

I'm not sure Robin Williams could ever be accurately described as "low value." I understand what you are saying here, though. He was, in many ways, a damaged man; had he been anybody other than Robin Williams, with Robin Williams' almost unknowable amounts of talent and drive, then he likely would have been a low-value schlub.

Either way, though, I think marriage had little to do with whether he, in particular, was high- or low-value. I think it rarely does.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Part of the reason WIlliams was low value was because of his antiquated, romantic views about women, his apparent lack of knowledge of how sexual relationships and attraction work, and his mental problems as evidenced by his past drug addiction problems and depression.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

None of which has to do with him being married.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

antiquated, romantic views about women, his apparent lack of knowledge of how sexual relationships and attraction work

These have much to do with him being married. I'd wager they're what caused him to get married. But, being married didn't cause him to have these views or cause him to not understand sexual attraction or relationships.

[–]speltspelt3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

Leaving an 100 million dollar estate is "broke" now?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well there are conflicting reports on this, aren't there? Williams himself said before his death he had financial problems because of his divorces. His publicist after his death said "nope, no problems".

I'm more inclined to believe Williams' candid statements during his lifetime than I am to believe PR hacks whose job it is to spin things so as to put the best possible face on them and to preserve the legacy of a beloved funny man (as well as to preserve the ability of Williams' estate to continue earning money after his death so as to pay said bills).

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

The point is they aren't mutually exclusive. You can be low value and get married or you can be high value and get married. Marriage, in and of itself, is not something only low value men choose.

[–]Wel108Red Pill Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I believe from a RP perspective, it's does that man retain the same value they had with the person prior to them being married? I agree and will say that the man doesn't lose value from a societal perspective, and to other women.

But I think you can see that on some level, emotionally, and financially, that men lose power when they decide to marry. As opposed to keeping a woman on her toes forever, knowing she's not entitled to anything if she chooses to leave.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

The point is not that you can't be high value and get married. The point is by getting him into a marriage you're lowering his value yourself. Its not a viable strategy because it lowers the value of whoever you end up with.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

The title of this post is literally:

if a man submits to marriage, he cannot be high value.

Not "getting married reduces a man's value." Maybe that's your position, but that's not what RPS is arguing. With that said, I also disagree that your value lowers necessarily by getting married.

It's true that married people often let themselves go. But this is hardly a requirement of marriage, or descriptive of all marriages.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Its the equivalent of rolling over and handing your SO a 12 inch dildo and some lube. It puts the man in a weak position when he's otherwise expected to be in charge at least a little.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy

We're talking about value to a woman. The point of the argument is that if a man is willing to get married, he's not high value, and therefore the strategy for women is not viable.

so to be clear. brad pitt, donald trump, george soros, all not high value men? who is a high value man? dan bilzerian? A reddit Stemlord making 80k and refusing to marry while reading mr. money mustache and thinking about retiring as a frugality millionaire?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy

Yes this is spot on. There are so many high value men that get married. Roger Federer, even George Clooney, the ultimate ladies man. This argument can be so easily refuted by these obvious examples. Unless someone would like to argue that ALL of these high value men are really "low value"

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

There is literally no path to success in the first world that does not entail a man being married you can't become president without a wife you can't become CEO without a wife unless you started a startup. Marriage will always be the culmination of adulthood in the eyes of all of the generations that are still alive and around you. A single man will never have the status of a patriarch. And the idea that high-quality women will relegate themselves to be forever girlfriends is ludicrous

RPS is making the classic mistake of stating how he thinks things should be as how things are

[–]ErrantBadger0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

On reflection there is a definite view of trustworthiness towards married men in business. I've noticed that men married for a long time are seen as less fickle than men of their own age with a new girlfriend every couple of years. It may not be fair but in business partner or client terms they are seen as thinking long term and not the type to change their mind depending on their current girlfriend.

Edit: If I turned up to sort out a contract and my clients over time thought I had several fly by night boyfriends I'd not be seen as so serious, which is unfair sure and no reflection on my abilities but that's the way it goes.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

there is literally ZERO status for aging bachelors in the world of men or the world of women. the idea that patriarchs wont always outrank bachelors is foolish. and no one respects a man with a "Forever girlfriend", it shows she's low value

[–]ErrantBadger0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I do disagree about forever girlfriends being low value as I know couples that are very respected and together decades but no marriage, however I think unmarried decades long relationships are still in the minority to married couples. Marriage does tend to show a united team and family hence it still exists let alone the bonuses.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

there is literally ZERO status for aging bachelors in the world of men or the world of women. the idea that patriarchs wont always outrank bachelors is foolish. and no one respects a man with a "Forever girlfriend", it shows she's low value

Atlas is making the classic mistake of stating how she thinks things should be as how things are.

The world is changing, and there are a lot of people in high positions who agree with my viewpoint. Marriage is dead. No amount of shaming will change men's opinions on this one. - that is what you're doing- trying to convince guys that the only path to higher status is through marriage. It's awfully convenient that this path benefits women.

That said, it's rather typical that your debate is on the status of men rather than the success. Women do like their status, it's like currency to you at the weekly wine-and-book club.

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill4 points5 points  (26 children) | Copy

Except women have showed you over and over that it is not what they want. Most women want to get married.

[–]MrCheddarCheese2 points3 points  (20 children) | Copy

This study actually proves otherwise. While not really statistically significant, slightly fewer women say they want to marry then men.

Of adults who have never been married:

55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday.

Of people who have been divorced/widowed:

A plurality (45%) say they do not want to get married again, and an additional 31% are not sure. There is a large gender gap on this question. Women who are currently unmarried but have been married before are much less likely than their male counterparts to say they would like to get married again in the future (15% of women compared with 29% of men). Fully 54% of these women say they are not interested in getting remarried (30% of men say the same).

All in all, this Reddit trope that it's only men who don't want to settle down is largely a farce. It's actually a phenomenon seen in both genders and perhaps even a little more prevalent in women.

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill2 points3 points  (19 children) | Copy

Maybe, but the overall thrust of the argument was that most women don't want to get married. Perhaps slightly fewer women prefer marriage than men, I do not know. However, most women, by far, want to be married. And that was the argument I was making.

[–]MrCheddarCheese0 points1 point  (18 children) | Copy

But that argument is demonstrably false. "Most" women do not want to get married. Only about half do. Half is not most. That was my point.

55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill2 points3 points  (17 children) | Copy

Actually, looking at your data, I don't agree.

When you ask about people who would like to get married someday, the 55% and 50% is from never married people.

Why is that a problem?

Simple: If out of 100 women, 60 got married and 40 did not. and that 40% said marriage was worthless and they never wanted to be married, then.... would we assume most women don't want marriage?

The problem is most women who want marriage will be married, and the women who never married arguably don't like marriage as much.

Here's the rest of the study, bolding those parts.

.Never-married men and women have similar views on this question: 55% of men and 50% of women say they would like to get married someday. (The difference is not statistically significant.)

That doesn't tell us too much about women as a whole.

However, what I was curious about is whether younger women or men are interested in marriage:

Among adults younger than 30 who have never been married, 66% say they would like to get married.

Which makes intuitive sense to me, because I think being unmarried at 30 may be more of a choice sometimes, as opposed to younger than 30 when you have not found the right person yet.

Anyway, women want to be married, interestingly men claim the same thing.

[–]MrCheddarCheese0 points1 point  (16 children) | Copy

You are missing the point. It's ridiculous to ask a married person if they want to get married, because, well, they're already married. When Pew Research asked people who have never been married if they wanted to get married someday, 55% of men and 50% of women said yes. Slightly more men than women said yes. Half of the women they queried said yes. Half is not "most."

You're quote about 60% of people under 30 wanting to get married tells us absolutely nothing about the gender split. It's talking about people in general, and doesn't tell us how many of that 60% were male and how many were female.

I never said women don't want to be married. I have refuted your point that most women want to be married. It's demonstrably false according to this research.

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill1 point2 points  (15 children) | Copy

I don't think you have refuted anything. Once again, the question was: Do most women want to get married? My argument was, yes they do. Never married women do not speak for all women. That is the flaw in your argument.

Let me also point this out,http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/

If you look at the graph on the first page to your left, you'll notice that never married men and women are respectively 23% and 17% of the entire population.

My point is that you cannot use 17% of the population to make an argument or a statement about how women feel in aggregate.

Now, some sources show that 47.7 women have been married in the US +8.5% of never marrieds who want marriage) and we get a bout 56.2 percent of women who have been or want to be married.

and that's at the most conservative and it's still a majority.

and because I can't resist editing: I need to throw this tidbit in there:According to the most recent statistics, Cherlin says, 84 percent of women with college degrees are expected to marry.

So there is some truth to the idea that one is missing on the highest value women by refusing to ever marry.

[–]MrCheddarCheese0 points1 point  (14 children) | Copy

There is no flaw in my argument. Of women who are currently unmarried, there can only be two subgroups: those that have never married and those that were previously married. The stats are right there in my original post.

Of the never married:

50% say they do not want to marry (as opposed to 45% of men who say they never want to marry)

Of the previously married (now single):

54% of women say they never want to marry again (as opposed to 30% of men who say the same).

Women who want to marry are NOT the majority. They're about evenly split (except for the divorced/widowed subset). The number of men who want to marry, however, is actually slighter higher than men who do not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

A man wanting what a woman wants does indicate value, and usually indicates the opposite

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Can you clarify that?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

It's like putting some bdsm equipment on your male partner and never taking it off. Maybe for some women having the guy be perpetually the bitch is a turn on but for most it takes the respect that might otherwise be had for the guy in the relationship.

On a second point, it takes the expectation off the woman completely. Oh you thought I was going to keep blowing you as much as before we were married? Well what're you going to do? Divorce me and then pay me to fuck other guys for a few years/decades?

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Hmm, this does not square with what i see in life or in relationships. You're entitled to your viewpoint though.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Thanks, as are you

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.6 points7 points  (7 children) | Copy

Generally, a lot of women want to get married. So if he won't, he's going to be missing out on plenty of high value women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

Or plenty of women who want to get married are going to miss out on a high value man. We can do this all day. It could be the man sees women who wants to get married as low value.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy

Eh, I don't think so. Women have more choices, even TRP admits that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

If he doesn't want to get married, that means getting with a woman who only wants to get married is a waste of his time. The women who want to get married are not usually the young attractive sweet kind anyway, that's more the "oh crap I'm running out of time" crowd of 30-50 year olds.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.11 points12 points  (3 children) | Copy

That's bullshit, plenty of women marry in their 20s. I did. After being with my husband for 5 years prior.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

And certainly he missed out on way more women than the guy who doesn't want to get married.

[–]SoRedSuchAlphaBisexual Purple Feminist Alpha7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm missing out on literally billions of women and so are you. But I've always felt that it's about who you catch, not who you miss.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That's the point of my comment. Everyone misses out on billions of women. The women who want to get married aren't something special to really regret missing out on

[–]betterdeadthanbetaHeartless cynical bastard12 points13 points  (4 children) | Copy

Nah bro. Reality doesn't reflect your view. Most top actors are married... most CEOs are married... top dudes in almost any professional field... married.

You have to plunge pretty far down in society to find significant unmarried male alpha populations. Think like degenerate gang members, prize fighters, convicts, etc.

I think its for exactly the reason some of the women here are saying. No truly valuable woman is going to accept being your bitch indefinitely. She's going to want commitment - that's the deal. Sure you could find one who is desperate enough for your alpha seed to forgo commitment. But she's going to be significantly lower value.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

100% dead on as always

[–]FatTakerBigender bug kin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

So what's the best thing to do for a woman, if she isn't from the higher classes? Saying "high value/class men marry more than everyone else" doesn't help if she's a prole. High class men might marry, but they don't stay celibate until marriage, and often not even after marriage (with other women anyway). Is it best to double down on finding marriage among these high class men, even though they aren't in her league? Even many of the RPWi didn't get their marriages through saving themselves. Why deny "sex first" method works, when it does?

[–]Thelyckyfrour-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

commitment

A piece of paper does not equal to commitment. That's nothing more than a business contract which is a clearly a bad deal no astute man will ever take. Doesn't matter if you're alpha as fuck or you are signing the contract with your eyes wide open and ears pointed. A bad deal is a bad deal.

If a woman leaves a man because he refuses to sign that contract, there was no love in that relationship to begin with.

Signing that contract is almost the same as selling your soul to the devil.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (3 children) | Copy

Some high value men get married. Others don't.

A man who is high value is not only attracive, but undoubtedly astute, intelligent and has either the potential for earning money, or has already gotten a sum of money.

This is your definition of a "high value man". He's attractive, astute, intelligent and has money or has the potential to earn it.

But what if an astute, intelligent, wealthy and attractive man disagrees with you on marriage. What if an intelligent, astute man, does not think marriage is bad? What if he believes it isn't unfair or particularly risky? Wouldn't a high value man get married then?

Oh, I know. Because if he was truly intelligent, then he would completely agree with you on marriage. Therefore, if a man disagrees with your conclusion on marriage, then he is not high value.

So to break down your argument even further, high value men don't get married because high value men don't get married.

Impressive.

Methinks your view is not going to be changed.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

But what if an astute, intelligent, wealthy and attractive man disagrees with you on marriage. What if an intelligent, astute man, does not think marriage is bad? What if he believes it isn't unfair or particularly risky? Wouldn't a high value man get married then?

If he objectively weighed the pros and cons of marriage, he would have to admit the cons column outweighs the pros column.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy

and yet very few of the wealthiest, most successful and, we can only deduce, most socially astute men have arrived at that "objective" conclusion. your personal opinion on the matter is not and will never be an objective fact. perhaps there is-- as the feminists would phrase it-- some intersectionality at play here that is causing lower class marriage rates to decline while upper class marriage rates remain steady.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Smart, successful people believe in stupid shit all the time. Some of the smartest, most successful people I've ever met in my life have been devout Christians.

I think that if they objectively looked at Christianity they'd think it was bullshit. But they don't. Does that make them stupid? No. Does that mean they lack the ability to accurately evaluate the world around them? No.

It means that for whatever reason, they don't approach religion in the same way they approach other parts of their life. But if these people were not intelligent or shrewd they would not be as successful as they are.

If he objectively weighed

This is where you're wrong. Intelligent, successful people are not always objective in their assessments. Especially in their personal lives. Plenty of successful people are alcoholics. Plenty of them are overweight. If they made purely objective decisions about their well being and their health, they wouldn't be addicts and they wouldn't be fat.

It doesn't make them any less successful. I can think of several famous alcoholics who fit your description of a high value man. I can think of several fat asses who also fit the description. I can also think of several married men who fit your description.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (19 children) | Copy

I'll challenge your view, but I probably won't change it.

A high value man can get married and retain his value. It depends on what we call "high value". If a man knows who he is, knows what he wants, understands the nature of men and women, understands how attraction and arousal work, understands the legalities and pitfalls of marriage, has more than a bit of relational and business savvy, in general has his shit together, and has accumulated some resources, he can marry and retain his value.

However, he has to vet and screen the ever loving shit out of any woman who he would marry, he has to maintain rock solid dominance, must insist on being the captain of the marriage, and must be ready, willing and able to walk at a moment's notice should things go south.

Most men are not able to pull that off.

Most of those high value men marry high value women. They marry women who, despite their natures, are able to be submissive and feminine, can submit to a captain, are capable first officers, and can keep themselves in good shape, aren't game-players or shit testers to beat the band, don't cheat (usually), and can at least act attracted to their husbands.

Most women are not able to pull that off.

This is why you were getting the pushback you were getting from the RPWs at the other thread. Most high value men can get married without it diminishing their value. Most of those "high value" men have some money and either come from wealth or amassed it themselves. And most of those high value men marry women who very well understand the power of that money and how they can harness it for the benefit of those around them.

Most men who show up at TRP cannot do this. So most TRP men who marry cannot be high value. But a man who is all of these things -- astute, has some business savvy, understands the nature of men, women, marriage, and the environment, and in general has his shit together -- he can marry and not lose his value.

Marriage is a bad deal for TRP men because most of them don't have their shit together, or are in the process of getting their shit together. Those guys should not marry.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is why you were getting the pushback you were getting from the RPWs at the other thread. Most high value men can get married without it diminishing their value. Most of those "high value" men have some money and either come from wealth or amassed it themselves. And most of those high value men marry women who very well understand the power of that money and how they can harness it for the benefit of those around them. Most men who show up at TRP cannot do this. So most TRP men who marry cannot be high value. But a man who is all of these things -- astute, has some business savvy, understands the nature of men, women, marriage, and the environment, and in general has his shit together -- he can marry and not lose his value. Marriage is a bad deal for TRP men because most of them don't have their shit together, or are in the process of getting their shit together. Those guys should not marry.

perfectly said

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl8 points9 points  (5 children) | Copy

You said some women "despite" their nature can be feminine and submissive....I thought it was supposedly in their nature to be feminine and submissive?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy

It's in women's nature to find hot men and fuck them in serial fashion.

From the link:

It’s a woman’s true nature to be slutty, unfaithful, a shitty marriage prospect, and attracted to cads. Unless the consequences for that behavior outweigh the fun. Remove the consequences, and we see their true nature.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl8 points9 points  (3 children) | Copy

Does that contradict it being in their nature to be submissive and feminine?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

It's not in women's nature to be submissive and feminine. Slutty |= feminine. Shitty marriage prospect |= submissive.

EDIT: Well, it might be in a woman's nature to be submissive, but ONLY with men to whom she is very sexually attracted.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't think you can say it's not in female nature to be feminine...I think what you could argue is what being feminine really means, and that it includes slutty behavior.

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's not in women's nature to be [...] feminine.

fem·i·nine
ˈfemənən/
adjective
1.
having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness. "a feminine frilled blouse"
synonyms: womanly, ladylike;
2.
GRAMMAR
of or denoting a gender of nouns and adjectives, conventionally regarded as female. noun
1.
the female sex or gender. "the association of the arts with the feminine"

So I take it you're one of those people who doesn't believe in inherent gender, but is firmly in the nurture side of the nature/nurture camp? That's interesting for a RP identified person.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy

Most men who show up at TRP cannot do this. So most TRP men who marry cannot be high value. But a man who is all of these things -- astute, has some business savvy, understands the nature of men, women, marriage, and the environment, and in general has his shit together -- he can marry and not lose his value.

But how astute, or business savvy is a man who willingly takes a contract which has two ending conditions: 1. Everything turned out as well as it could have in a LTR without marriage, or 2. Everything turned out worse?

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy

You are assuming that any given man is operating in an environment where he would in no way be penalized for maintaining an LTR as opposed to getting married. Further, you are also assuming that the woman in question would be amenable to foregoing marriage.

If the man in question is, say, an O-2 in any branch of the military and hopes to spend his career making flag rank, I will tell you right now that he will be greatly penalized for opting for an LTR over marriage. Even at the higher enlisted ranks, this tends to be frowned upon. My sister has a good friend married to a retired E-9, and literally every single person she knew at that rank is married. Every one.

I suppose you could hamster this further and say that no astute or savvy man would seriously consider a professional military career.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah, any man who decides that he is never going to get married is going to be doing his picking from an entirely different pool of women than a man who is okay with marriage. There is a ridiculous amount of hamstering around this very evident fact: "Any woman who wants marriage is by definition a woman you do not want! Any woman will be willing to forego marriage for a sufficiently high-value man!" If you say so, dude.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is the key, and this is why Whisper and RPS have been spinning furiously in RPWomen to convince women they should all just give up on the idea of marriage.

Since you haven't read what you're critiquing, I'll correct you. Both Whisper and I are proposing methods of meeting men to commit and marry. In my address a few weeks ago I posted that I thought that marriage still benefited women the most and it was a worthy goal.

I assume your version of RPW is based on second-hand nonsense you read here.

For the reference, this CMV was bouncing a hypothesis that I have. I'm not sold one way or another at the moment.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy

But how astute, or business savvy is a man who willingly takes a contract which has two ending conditions: 1. Everything turned out as well as it could have in a LTR without marriage, or 2. Everything turned out worse?

How business savvy is any man that risks everything they have on a Start Up? Data shows most startups fail, yet men keep on staring new companies...

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

risks everything they have on a Start Up

A startup has a potential payout.

A marriage has a potential to simply not be worse than a LTR of the same caliber.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

A startup has a potential payout.

A Start Ups chances of success are FAR worse than the divorce statistics.

OK so my point here being: YOU don't see any value in marriage. Fine. I do, and frankly I look at marriage pretty much the same way I'd look at a Start Up: with a good old fashioned cost/risk analysis. Now I know why men risk their fortunes on new ventures, and it isn't always the possible "pay off". Sure, everyone wants money, but they go into it KNOWING their chance of success is slim to none. Yet, they do it anyway, and a few of them make it.

I don't see my marriage any differently. I want one, and I'm trying to make one work even as I look around me and see them failing for others. You can call me a fool because you don't see any "value" in it, but my marriage is no different than your Start Up: we are both statistically going to fail, but we're doing it anyway because its what we want.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

A Start Ups chances of success are FAR worse than the divorce statistics.

But you can limit the risk by how much you invest.

A marriage is quite different- you're betting that it won't fail, and betting half of whatever you might make. Best case scenario you don't lose money.

I see no advantage to marriage over a LTR that acts like a marriage.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I see no advantage to marriage over a LTR that acts like a marriage.

I am close friends with two men that feel exactly the same way, and one of them has been living it for the last 17 years. (Same woman, kids, they even have a fence, but it chain link) I don't have a problem with it, and even if I did its not my concern. For the most part we share the same views about relationships, we simply agree to disagree on "making it official" for various reasons.

But NONE of that has a damn thing to do with my or their "value". They don't see me as "low value" because I'm married, and I don't see them as "low value" because they aren't. And as far as I can tell, none of the women in our lives see us or the others as "low value" for making the choices we have, because we stand by them.

If you ask me point blank: Sardonis, do you recommend marriage to men? My answer would be HELL no. I don't even "recommend" marriage to my boys, as much as I'd like to. I don't recommend anyone follow me, I'm still figuring shit out for myself. But that "low value" shit can take a hike.

In my mind, someone that lost their ass trying to create the "next big thing" is low value, because they make stupid choices with money. I'm sure many RP men would describe them as "bold Alphas" for taking chances and "doing their thing" etc. Same thing, different side of the coin.

[–]2wicetherice2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

To quote the above reply which you missed, "You are assuming that any given man is operating in an environment where he would in no way be penalized for maintaining an LTR as opposed to getting married. Further, you are also assuming that the woman in question would be amenable to foregoing marriage."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're completely missing the benefits afforded if either spouses' families have any generational wealth. And no, that does not just mean you get money from your rich spouse. Inheritances change when people get married, trusts get established, safe guards are put in place in case grandparents die before grandchildren are born. I get being UMC puts me in a minority but I hardly think men in my class who choose to marriage over LTR's are low value. It protects both parties and our family's money. Plus these men's kids won't have to take out student loans because Grandma and Grandpa paid for college from beyond the grave.

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

I do not think it is possible to change your view.

First, the idea that a man ¨submits¨ to marriage is silly. It is (usually) the man who proposes, therefore he is not only participating, but doing so enthusiastically. Why else would be buy a ring (or obtain it from family) and give it to a woman? Is someone holding a gun to his head? More than likely not.

I hate it so much when RP (or just people in general) say things implying that they were somehow forced to get married/commit. No on fucking forced you, you could have walked at any moment. Stop shifting responsibility and man (or woman) up. A high value person takes responsibility for their actions and accepts the results.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

Who benefits the most from a marriage? Who risks the most in a marriage? I think the term "submits" is quite apt in this context.

[–]DebatePonyLet's ride!6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

I think it varies from couple to couple on who benefits most in marriage. I would say that most marriages are mutually beneficial to both parties.

Anecdote: My father married into a fairly wealthy family, he benefited most from that.

Again, it varies from couple to couple who has the most to risk.

Anecdote: After having four children, my father left my mother (EDIT: after she was diagnosed with cancer). He was able to spread DNA to the next generation and skipped out on paying for college, clothes, and almost everything else. My mother then had to spend her prime years (ages 20´s - late 50´s/mid 60´s) raising children, and because of this, she had a hard time starting other relationships (who wants to take on 4 children that aren´t their own?), she is still single at almost 70, although not unhappy. My father was able to remarry since he was not encumbered with children.

So I disagree, ¨submit¨ is a silly term to use for something that takes active participation.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Women's SMV declines period. Getting married doesn't have anything to do with the inevitable drop so marriage is not a risk at all.

In fact, for women, its an insurance policy against the certain decline

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Who benefits the most from a marriage?

The partner with the lowest income. If you make significantly more than your partner, getting married may not be a good idea for you.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy

The mistake you are making is women always win in a divorce scenario.

An actual high value man is valued up front for his presence and who he is, not his money. If a man is viewed as high value, a divorce is thus viewed as a negative circumstance of the woman. A woman won't want to get divorced if she truly values her man.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (24 children) | Copy

Bullshit. A high value man does whatever makes him happy. And for some, that's marriage.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (23 children) | Copy

So the nebulous strategy of "being happy" supersedes actions that we can assume has the power to make one happy or sad?

That's nonsense.

You cannot simply say "I choose to be happy" but then also stop eating and die of starvation. Actions lead to happiness, not the other way around.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (22 children) | Copy

Yes and for many men, happiness is having a committed partner. And in our culture marriage still holds a lot of symbolic value for commitment. So yes there men who would happily marry. And they can be high or low value (and that's not even looking at the fact that the value of a man is highly subjective)

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (21 children) | Copy

Would you say a man who does drugs is high value, if the drugs make him happy?

[–]Mynorarana14 points15 points  (0 children) | Copy

You're probably young, but yeah eventually you want something comfortable and most of us are programmed to want kids. Look at jay z, clooney, brad Pitt. Their actual faithfulness can be brought up to question but even they eventually opted for something more.

[–]super-commenting2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Sure drugs are great

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (18 children) | Copy

Depends. A bit of weed sometimes? Yes. Harddrugs? No.

But of course, marriage isn't bad for you like harddrugs are, no matter how much you would like to believe that. If you find a partner who makes about the same, what do you have to lose?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

So if a man pursuing happiness without regard for consequence (such as drugs) is bad, then is happiness a good indicator of both a high-value individual and a good potential partner?

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy

Back up a minute. When did I say "without regard for consequence"? You expect us to just believe you when you say "marriage is a bad choice for men whatsoever"?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

Would you characterize Russian roulette a good idea, even if you survived? Even with only 1 bullet?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy

You're making false comparisons. Marriage is not as bad as you believe it is. Period. Maybe if you're a rich man marrying a poor meth addict. But then it's your fault.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

My point is, you don't have to fail for marriage to be a poor choice.

[–]___Jamie___0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Hard drugs dont make u happy long term. Eventually they destroy you and you become a shell of what you were. Your impulse control and body are destroyed. That is not happiness

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (10 children) | Copy

This is ridiculous. A man who does crystal meth or MDMA or cocaine is not "high value".

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy

Dunno about that last one. We used to live next door to a neighborhood filled with millionaire lobbyists in gigantic stone 1930s houses, and from what I understand, blow was not exactly uncommon among that population.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children) | Copy

Could be. I haven't run in those circles and don't care to, really.

[–]super-commenting8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

What is your definition of high value? Do you honestly believe rock stars and celebrities are not high value? Many of them do hard drugs.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

I meant the other way around obviously

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

Pfffft. A man who smokes weed sometimes is not "high value".

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wut? Is this one of those things that makes sense only if you are from your immediate social circle? Because the wealthy, popular and powerful include recreational occasional pot smokers.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Can be. If that's what makes him happy and it has no influence on his functioning I don't see why it's impossible.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

You've got to be kidding. Basically being into drugs is one of the easiest ways to raise your SMV, being an addict though is a different story.

Separate the fiend from the dealer

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Doesn't exactly raise your marriage value.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Really depends, most of TRP is low key racist so they'd consider the kinda wife you might get (whether she be black, hood but white or latin) "low value".

[–]czerdec10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy

You should perhaps learn the difference between absolute and relative values.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

All of my comparisons are relative to one lacking the qualities I suggest.

I.E. Astuteness is higher value that a man lacking astuteness.

[–]czerdec3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy

All of my comparisons are relative to one lacking the qualities I suggest.

So you're not taking account of variation in preference?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Let's say average preferences.

I'm sure there's a woman out there somehwere who likes paraplegic men with no eyes. But we won't be including them in our discussion.

[–]czerdec1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Let's say average preferences.

The average changes over time, that's how evolution happens.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That doesn't really change today's discussion.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill7 points8 points  (10 children) | Copy

A real man imo makes lemonade with lemons and doesn't reduce everything to a capitalist cost benefit spreadsheet.

You can be an ugly mofo with no money and marry an ugly broad with no money and the most "high value" hot thot will now want you, because plain and simply a women wants a man who's willing to commit, take risks and not overthink the bullshit.

If you treat her right and put the work into a marriage your woman will know that you could do it with someone else if she fucks up and the other women know what you can do for them too.

I'm not even married yet myself but I can totally see how married and loyal men are high value.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

married and loyal men are high value.

Marriage does not make a man high value. At best, a high value man can get married and retain his value and get the most out of his marriage. But the simple act of marrying doesn't increase his value.

a women wants a man who's willing to commit, take risks and not overthink the bullshit.

No. A woman wants a high value, attractive, sexually arousing man who's willing to commit. THat high value, arousing man will be able to take the risks and not overthink bullshit.

It's no secret that men who wash up at TRP did so because they weren't high value -- they were sexually and relationally unsuccessful, or at least were not getting what they wanted from their relationships and marriages. r/marriedredpill is full of men who have had to come back from the brink of sexual and marital failure.

[–]DrunkGirl69Manic Pixie Drunk Girl6 points7 points  (4 children) | Copy

I'm surprised you don't think marriage makes a man high value. Isn't that suggested by the idea of preselection?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Marriage is orthogonal to to value. Dustin Pedroia is a high-value man, period. It does not matter whether he is married or not. (He is.)

[–]connor10030 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Only if the wife displays sexual attraction to the husband - mere beta provider status is typically sexually repulsive to other women. According to the theory, at least.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

And thats where the theory goes wrong. A dog face dude can wife a 10/10 slayer bitch if he commits. The real problem that most guy aren't honest about is that for most guy's one partner isn't enough doesn't matter if shes built like Beyonce even an omega wants a constant stream of sex from more than one woman.

The only solution that I've found personally is to be spiritual, mindful and return to a child like amazement of everything that doesn't have to do with sex. Real passions and callings essentially

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well I guess a goalie who doesn't move still blocks a shot once in a while.

[–]TheSandbergPrincipleMuh Soggy Knees0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You can be an ugly mofo with no money and marry an ugly broad with no money and the most "high value" hot thot will now want you, because plain and simply a women wants a man who's willing to commit, take risks and not overthink the bullshit.

The amount of bullshit you guys spew is ridiculous.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Who's you guys? I dispute BP and RP

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You can be an ugly mofo with no money and marry an ugly broad with no money and the most "high value" hot thot will now want you, because plain and simply a women wants a man who's willing to commit

I don't think that has been demonstrated.

If you treat her right and put the work into a marriage your woman will know that you could do it with someone else if she fucks up and the other women know what you can do for them too.

And she knows she can take his stuff on his way out, so the next woman won't get nearly as much.

[–]lilchaoticneutralZeta Male/TrillPill2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

A real zeta male don't care if you take all his shit. Unless he was born into it and can't cope, it's an excuse for adventure

[–]MissPearlEditor of frequent typos.8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

I feel like this thread keeps going back to why TRP feels men shouldn't marry while neglecting that obviously high value, no matter how it is reasonably defined (fuckable, powerful, etc...) men do marry.

Beyond that, if you LTR you are going to get enmeshed assets and you are going to need to trust that person, eventually possibly with your life. You are going to have to make medical choices for each other- I was a year into dating Gentleman and bam, I was at his hospital bedside for 30 hours and I got paperwork wifed because he was too busy not dying and needed an able bodied gopher. If we didn't live in a common law favouring country with a sympathetic intake nurse, he'd be stuck with his mother, whom to put it gently, he prefers to love at a distance.

Flip side is that if we're responsible for each other that includes financially. You can move around the variables for the rules of who does what or owes what, but you still have tangled up property, from shared banking to shared furniture and if you take marriage off the table you just end up with marriage coming back up again as a common law thing like where we have here, where there are still cases you can be sued for post marital financial compensation. Now you might not like it, but it's still there.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

yes, he has created a solid RP argument for why high value men "shouldnt" marry and has called it a fact that high value men DON'T marry

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

The value of a man has nothing to do with marriage. A high value man is someone who is highly attractive to the opposite sex. If a RPW wanted to marry a man, she wants him! He is high value to her. If there is enough other women wanting to marry him as well then he is high value in general.

I think you meant a "smart" man won't marry.

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy

I think you are defining value as what you feel is value and not what a woman thinks. Since we make up half of the sexual market, yeah, our feelings are kind of important. For me, I do not give a rat's ass how high value or astute or whatever a guy claims to be. If he cannot give me kids or marriage, he is worthless to me as a partner and his value to me outside sex is zero. I suspect most rpw feel the same.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

But, let's say you had two men both available, both willing to commit, looks are equal. Would you prefer the intelligent one, or the dumb one?

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

I like everyone else would pick the best of all potential mates available, if both want to commit, are faithful and love me, I'll.pick the intelligent one.

Now you: you have 2 girls willing to have sex with you, who will you pick. Hotter or uglier one?

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

if both want to commit, are faithful and love me, I'll.pick the intelligent one.

Right, it seems like a silly question, but it does shed some light on the quandary. If you could have an intelligent man that commits, you'd prefer it over one that isn't. So intelligence isn't not a factor.

Now, people have pointed out that I may have presented a false dichotomy here between smart and unwilling to marry, or dumb and willing. But I think that all else being equal, a man who takes the risk must not have the same analytical skills as the man who does not.

Now you: you have 2 girls willing to have sex with you, who will you pick. Hotter or uglier one?

I know this one, the hot one!

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't think so. What you consider a risk vs not all depends on what your values and starting maxims are. And what is an acceptable risk vs not has a lot to do with your thinkibg style and your ideals as a person.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Your hamster is really quite powerful, I'm impressed.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]boogerpill0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Isn't the TRP idea that they still go after those good 20 year olds when they are 45? No one wants 45yo women.

What's so important about a legacy btw?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That depends on what each woman views as "high value". Things are not so black or white.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

He can be high value and at the same time be religious and thus value it.

I think of myself as high value and consider marriage in order to take her name because it would make my whole name sound awesome.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

Is this type of marriage lifestyle even very representative of the type of people on this sub? Many of us are either highly educated (or getting there), we come from middle to upper class families, and most of the women on here work, some in careers that have immense earning potential.

If you ask me, marriage isn't a bad bargain, but it certainly wasn't for my husband, as I am the one who has the higher earning potential (not yet though - hubby still makes $30k more than me at the moment). Neither of us came into the marriage with property (which would be non marital property anyway in the case of a divorce) and we both contribute our income to our lifestyle, property, etc. I'll admit he contributes more at this time because he makes more, but that will likely change in a year or two.

If we were to divorce today, I wouldn't get any alimony, and if we were to divorce 10 years down the road it's likely he would be getting alimony, not me.

Is this really a situation in which it would be bad for a man to marry? Are other people on here closer to situation or closer to something else?

This is why I think it's so funny TRP says "don't go after career women!"

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

This is why I think it's so funny TRP says "don't go after career women!"

agreed i wouldn't date any one but a career woman

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.5 points6 points  (12 children) | Copy

My fiance and I ran the numbers on marriage and it turned out that getting married to me would save him money in the long run, mostly because I would be on his insurance, even given the risk that I would seek alimony in the event of divorce. So at least in some cases it's in a man's financial best interest to get married.

Even granting that all intelligent, astute, and rich men don't want to get legally married (a fact which does not, from my observations, seem to be in evidence), it is perfectly possible that marriage to a man of slightly lower value than she would marry otherwise may be a better outcome, for a woman, than cohabitation. After all, you point out the benefits marriage offers women.

The contract is an equal contract. Neither men nor women are required to provide sex; if a man marries a wealthy woman, then he is just as likely to walk away with cash and prizes. The fact that many men choose not to marry wealthy women is immaterial.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (11 children) | Copy

Firstly the money he saves isn't his anymore, it's both of yours.

Second it is not an equal contract and it plays out like it's not every single day.

Thirdly you may say it's the "man's choice" but I think you'll find it more often is the women's choice to not marry down and that choice comes from an obvious place.

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.6 points7 points  (6 children) | Copy

Actually it's not, according to our prenup, which defines all bank accounts with only his name on it to be his. My "cash" would work out to be maybe a few thousand dollars.

Is someone tying you up and carting you to the altar at gunpoint? If 'yes', then I'm very sorry, but if 'no', then you have a choice about whom you marry. You can decide, if you like, to only marry women who have more money than you. (Indeed, some men do.)

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin🔪Yeetus that Feetus🔪0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

only 9 states are community property states,, california is not the only place on the planet

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Actually it's not, according to our prenup, which defines all bank accounts with only his name on it to be his. My "cash" would work out to be maybe a few thousand dollars.

I have seen prenups tossed out like they were used toilet paper, but if it makes you fiance feel better, good for him.

[–]ozymandias271That's not how evolution works.5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

shrug We did everything we could to keep the prenup from getting thrown out. I haven't been able to find statistics on how likely it is that a prenup is thrown out, but my understanding is that a lot of the ones that are thrown out are thrown out because they weren't notarized, because one person was coerced, because it was signed the day of the wedding, because they had clauses even most TRPers would agree are unfair, and so on. So there's a lower risk of my notarized, uncoerced, half-a-year-before-the-wedding, perfectly reasonable prenup being thrown out.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yup. These are the basic things that cause issues. Another one is if one party consults with an attorney to draft the document, and the other does not. Courts like to see equal bargaining positions when it comes to prenups.

And the more shitty the terms are, the more likely they are to be thrown out. Family courts are courts of equity.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah but how do you prove if it was coerced? Its fine as long as we have the possible criminal in front of us telling us she won't do the crime, but we won't really know until it happens or she dies.

The point is your husband didn't know either, not for sure.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Actually it is his if you have separate bank accounts instead of a joint bank account. Then both partners can have ultimate control over their own money.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

In a court of law they will be looking at all the assets from everywhere and deciding where they go, no separate bank account is going to stop that.

[–]questioningwomandetached from society-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah but you can hide assets in many ways if you think there might be a divorce down the line.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Wow you're right how did I not realize that hiding your assets illegally was the perfect fix to this solution. Its like its built in there and everyone knows that its ok to do it even know technically its illegal and will get you even more fucked in court if you get caught :|

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Buying into fantasies does not sound astute to me. Especially when that fantasy is actually poison and it's written on the label. Somebody who doesn't read the label isn't astute.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Is the argument about high-value men entering into marriage, specifically, or about high-value men entering into long-term/life-long monogamous relationships in general?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Marriage is a great deal for the person that brings less to the table.

The vast majority of women will only marry up, so by and large, marriage is a good deal for the vast majority of women.

As a man, I would only ever marry if she made a lot more than me.

[–]nemma8830/F/UK INFP -t. Engaged0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I presume she'd have to look a lot worse than you to even out those scales and actually maintain attraction to you though. If you tip the scales so you bring less value, you are valued less.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Health benefits in the military are a no-go if you aren't married. I have done my fair share of reading on here and want a legal divorce more than anything but my wife has had some serious medical bills due to an unexpected pulmonary embolism that resulted from giving birth to my daughter. She deserves the benefits so I remain married to her for the time being. I think it is reasonable. It's either a legal divorce or a postnuptial at this point.

[–]RhuntaRed pill christian /r/TRPCORE1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

People that marry because of faith can be high value too.

[–]Edwizzy1020 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

a marriage because of faith doesn't need a legal document

[–]RhuntaRed pill christian /r/TRPCORE0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Depends on the religion. In christianity it is mandatory.

[–]Edwizzy1020 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Please help me in looking at bible verses and I can't find government

[–]Edwizzy1020 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Ah I think I found it in romans. But it's only in romans and other verses say true marriage is between God and the couple.

[–]EGOtyst1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Simple question: Do you have, or want, children?

If you don't, or don't, then you are right. Marriage is pretty much not worth it.

The thing you are missing, though, is that women and men have different value standards, different goals, and different sexual strategies.

To put the shoe onto the other foot: men, why would you ever have a woman as an LTR if, since she fucks you, she is a slut?

The simple answer is that when it applies to you, it is fine, because you are the one making the choice. i.e. the shit a girl does with you doesn't make her slutty, since it is with you.

The man who chooses to marry a specific girl doesn't negate his value, since it is to her.

[–]Noxin__NixonPillPoppa1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Unless he is marrying into money (a rich woman or her family name), there is obviously no real benefit to marriage for men.

A lot of career paths traditionally demanded marriage. How many Governors, Congressmen and Senators are single? We have elected only two unmarried Presidents in history and one of them got married in office. Marriage is/was an optimal strategy for men who aspire to be these careers like politics.

[–]Archwinger2 points3 points  (11 children) | Copy

This is way too much overthinking. Here's the important bullet points:

Pre-marriage: I have to be an awesome man who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. In trade, you have to be an awesome woman who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. If one of us stops bringing worthwhile qualities to the table, we go our separate ways.

Post-marriage: I have to be an awesome man who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. In trade, you won't divorce me, take my children, my house, and an enormous chunk of my present and future assets. Probably. At least for now.

Before you're married, a woman will work to earn your love. She'll be pleasant, charming, and fuck your brains out.

After you're married, the only favor a woman needs to do to keep you working your ass off is refrain from divorcing you. That's what she brings to the table from now on: non-divorce. That's her sole contribution. Non-divorce.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

From the male side, you explained why marriage is a bad deal. But I think from the female side, you are eliminating high quality potential suitors by holding out for marriage. (my op above).

[–]SmurfESmurferson8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

From a low value female side, sure, they'll eliminate high value suitors.

But women who have no problem attracting high value men? Not an issue.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

From a low value female side, sure, they'll eliminate high value suitors. But women who have no problem attracting high value men? Not an issue.

I think that's a good point. For women who can compete, there will always be a market that they can demand a high price in. For women who can't compete well, should they settle for lower-value men who will commit?

[–]SmurfESmurferson6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

You have to play the hand you were dealt, and part of that is being honest with yourself.

If you're dealing with lower class/lower value guys who are bucking marriage, then, yeah, you're probably going to have to compromise commitment for romantic relations.

[–]Archwinger0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

I'll expand on my bullet points by adding the female viewpoint:

Pre-marriage: I have to be an awesome woman who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. In trade, you have to stay in a relationship with me and not screw me over by fucking me a bunch of times, wasting the good years of my life, then leaving me when you get bored. I have to completely trust your intentions when there's nothing keeping you here and I have no power.

Post-marriage: Ha! Now if you ever want to leave me, you have to buy me out. I'm trading you the good years of my life for the security of this one-sided contract. If you don't think that the mere fact that I'm willing to spend this time with you is valuable, you suck. Sex? Housework? Respect? That shit is extra. You have to earn that. All I'm giving you in exchange for marriage is my time.

[–]RobotPartsCorp2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

None of that makes sense if both partners earn good salaries. It seems like money is the root of the problems you mention and the power struggle is based on wildly uneven incomes. If two people have similar earnings, then as a woman, I wouldn't have that "you have to buy me out". I certainly don't have that with my partner (we are not married yet, but we are talking marriage).

If earnings are equal, then less pressure is put on both partners to equal out the exchange on the other end.

In essence, this becomes the norm:

I have to be an awesome man who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. In trade, you have to be an awesome woman who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. If one of us stops bringing worthwhile qualities to the table, we go our separate ways.

I don't see how that would change if my boyfriend and I got married. He already has a kid he pays child support for (but not a crazy amount, as his ex wife earns 2x what he earns and he turned down getting alimony from her). I do not have children. We are both career-oriented and very comfortably sitting in upper-middle class. We enjoy each others company so we are both getting a lot out of spending time with each other. Sex is great for both of us, so no one is "giving" the other sex. So, why would marriage be a bad deal for either of us?

[–]Archwinger1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

I have to be an awesome man who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. In trade, you have to be an awesome woman who brings worthwhile qualities to the table. If one of us stops bringing worthwhile qualities to the table, we go our separate ways.

I don't see how that would change if my boyfriend and I got married

Once you're married, nobody leaves for free. You've invited the government into your bedroom via a contract. Now, in order to split up, you have to go to court, get lawyers, agree on a division of assets, agree on custody if you have kids, agree on support amounts based on the custody, agree on spousal support if your incomes or ability to work (possibly due to child custody) are disparate.

I suppose in a theoretically ideal universe where you and your boyfriend never have kids are are absolutely identical in your contributions to the household, that would be pretty easy. But the real question is what the hell does marriage add that you don't already have?

What does either of you get out of marriage that you're not getting out of a perfectly happy and healthy relationship?

Security. That's what you're getting. He can't leave you for free. He can't leave you easily. It becomes expensive and a hassle to break up.

[–]RobotPartsCorp1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Once you're married, nobody leaves for free. You've invited the government into your bedroom via a contract. Now, in order to split up, you have to go to court, get lawyers, agree on a division of assets, agree on custody if you have kids, agree on support amounts based on the custody, agree on spousal support if your incomes or ability to work (possibly due to child custody) are disparate.

Completely agree but at the same time, it wouldn't be a walk in the park to part now as our lives are still rather entwined. Both of us would fair decently, but it would be stressful, but I don't see it being better for one of us over the other.

I suppose in a theoretically ideal universe where you and your boyfriend never have kids are are absolutely identical in your contributions to the household, that would be pretty easy. But the real question is what the hell does marriage add that you don't already have?

Less paperwork? Haha ok in all seriousness, the things I can think off the top of my head is we would save money on insurance, currently we both pay a TON for good health insurance, if only one of us took that on, that would be great. Then the other could take on the bulk of retirement savings. Teamwork makes financial sense. None of this is impossible to do outside of marriage but it is more of a hassle. Also, if he got sick, or died? That is all on me. I would be left with nothing to fall back on, and while obviously the majority of his money should go to his son, I would suffer the financial hardships and have to take on the cost of burial and settle settle debts I am tied to with him (which are not much but after losing 50% of our income...). If he is in a coma his parents have more a say in his medical decisions and I would be lucky to just be allowed to visit because I am not family. Even though I am the one who knows his wishes best, and I am the one we talk about these things to and can practically read each others minds. I would also want HIM to be the one to make medical decisions about me if I wasn't able. I just realized something that scares me...my parents are Jehovahs Witnesses, they could refuse to get me a blood transfusion if they wanted at this point. They are family, he is not, even though he would be the best to execute on my wishes. It is bad enough that when I got surgery recently, my mom and him had a playful what-if back and forth scenario where they fought over custody of my dog (in a joking manner but my mom really loves my dog...).

Security. That's what you're getting. He can't leave you for free. He can't leave you easily. It becomes expensive and a hassle to break up.

Yes but I am not seeing how that doesn't apply to both of us equally? Why would it be expensive and a hassle for him and not me?

Oh and I should also mention, marriage benefits my boyfriend socially. It doesn't help me really, as there have been times where being single has helped or would have helped me in my career and socially but the opposite is true for him. His career has that certain high-level business atmosphere, dinners with clients, events we go to where he introduces me to the big players. He has told me that I make him look stable, serious, and I "soften" his image.

[–]Archwinger1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

So you're in love with a guy, and the main reasons you want to marry him have nothing to do with love. They're all about how you stand to benefit financially from the marriage. It sounds like the love is already there, in your perfectly happy, healthy, non-marital relationship, but you want to get married for financial gain?

Even if the financial gain is mutual, you're still advocating getting married for financial gain. Medical powers of attorney are literally two pages long. The documents to declare beneficiaries for life insurance policies are 2-4 pages, depending on the company. And independent of being married, you should both have wills, prepared by a competent attorney, and not rely on state law and marital status to do the right thing with your estate.

So you think marriage is a good deal for the financial benefits, even though it ties the two of you together and makes a future split into a huge and expensive hassle. Because since both of you work, it would be expensive for both of you. Mutually assured destruction can keep you together if the love dies.

Is this what you always imagined marriage would be growing up?

[–]RobotPartsCorp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

So you're in love with a guy, and the main reasons you want to marry him have nothing to do with love. They're all about how you stand to benefit financially from the marriage. It sounds like the love is already there, in your perfectly happy, healthy, non-marital relationship, but you want to get married for financial gain?

Yes, we would both benefit from financial gain. You're not wrong. The love is already here. My understanding is that marriage affords both of us automatic protections and security that we would not get automatically without marriage. That and I mentioned in the previous comment that he does have social and career benefits he would enjoy as a married person (but he does enjoy as a partnered person too, so there's that).

Even if the financial gain is mutual, you're still advocating getting married for financial gain. Medical powers of attorney are literally two pages long. The documents to declare beneficiaries for life insurance policies are 2-4 pages, depending on the company. And independent of being married, you should both have wills, prepared by a competent attorney, and not rely on state law and marital status to do the right thing with your estate.

Completely agreed. We have probably talked about this almost as much as we have talked about marriage. My question is, if we get all the paper work as binding as it would be in a marriage, what would be the pros and cons of either? Seems like effort-wise, it would be easier to get married, if that is really the only difference specifically in my situation.

So you think marriage is a good deal for the financial benefits, even though it ties the two of you together and makes a future split into a huge and expensive hassle. Because since both of you work, it would be expensive for both of you. Mutually assured destruction can keep you together if the love dies.

It is either mutually assured destruction or mutual satisfaction. If we broke up today, it would be financially and emotionally hard on both of us. We are not staying together because it would suck to move out and separate our lives though. We stay together because we truly enjoy our lives together and we enrich each others lives. Honestly it would suck to break up but we both would get along pretty well after, just like we did before we met, we had awesome lives. We stay together though because we are two awesome people who built an even awesomer life together. Life is much easier with a partner, at least for the two of us. Yeah breaking up would be expensive and messy but that is a chance we are willing to take because our relationship working out is a huge reward in comparison.

Is this what you always imagined marriage would be growing up?

Absolutely. I have never felt that the romance is in the marriage, the romance is in the relationship. My parents had a relationship (married 40 years now) that it was obvious to me that they were (and are) each others best friends. They have each others back. They joke, they play, they date, they tell each other like it is, they are affectionate... To me that is what relationships should be and that is what I have wanted for myself. My boyfriends parents are incredibly similar (married 55+ years now) and it seems their dynamic is the same. So, we have the relationship with each other that we have always wanted. I am not silly enough to think that that's what marriage is. It is the marriage that was built on that relationship my parents had, they didn't have that relationship because of marriage though, their marriage was stronger because of their relationship. To me, the marriage is basically the legal benefits that are afforded to those in that committed relationship. We are still deciding if the legal benefits make sense or figuring out what is exclusive to marriage and what isn't. We are not sure if it is in either of our best interest or not. The fact is though, that we skip a lot of the traditional pitfalls of marriage by being financially secure and independent and not having children together. We also don't avoid the other pitfall of an expensive divorce either just because we are not married, since our lives are in fact, pretty intertwined enough as it is.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

agree

Or litigate those issues, at enormous cost.

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point  (19 children) | Copy

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (17 children) | Copy

What "high value" men are you referring to? I am sure that there are many pro athletes out there who choose not to get married. I am equally sure that nearly every flag officer in the US military, nearly every man who heads a Fortune 500 business, every Cabinet member and nearly every member of Congress is married.

If you specify what, exactly, you mean by "high value," this CMV will make a lot more sense. If you say that, by definition, no man who marries can possibly be "high value," then you are not making any sense, because you are saying that Kobe Bryant, Admiral William McRaven, and the President of the United States all fail to meet the "high value" standard.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.7 points8 points  (15 children) | Copy

Great point. Also, his argument makes very little sense. Most people who get married (at least the first time) are not mapping out the future potential consequences of it. Even if they should know better.

That, and many high value women are not going to be willing to have kids with you unless you're married. I know I wouldn't have kids unless I was married. So wanting kids with a high value woman, actually wanting commitment from your partner and wanting to commit to them (which many seem to actually want), and being in love and not seeing the future potential consequences are all valid reasons for why a high value man would get married.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy

Yeah, I'm not even getting into the whole "you can easily have kids without getting married" argument; as you say, high-value women are far less likely to entertain the prospect of having children out of wedlock. Further, even for men, there is a considerable difference between how others perceive a divorced guy who has kids and a never-married guy who has kids. (A large part of this is precisely because fathering kids outside of marriage is something that is extremely common among low-value people.)

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points  (11 children) | Copy

Yeah, I'm not even getting into the whole "you can easily have kids without getting married" argument

One of my best friends had a child with his girlfriend of ten years. They split a couple years after his son was born.

I can tell you - his life right now is easily as miserable as any divorcee. She doesn't have any legal access to his assets, but she is still the mother of his son, so he feels obligated to help her financially (because he wants the best for his son when he is with his mom), even as it kills him to do so. He still has to deal with her on an almost daily basis as they split parenting duties and make parenting decisions.

I don't think he gained much by not getting married.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy

I'll be honest with you, TRP advocacy for men to have children without the benefit of marriage absolutely bewilders me. Marriage confers presumption of paternity, it confers the right to make medical decisions for the child, it confers a whole bunch of parental benefits that are otherwise a pain in the ass to obtain. This article details the struggle one man had when his girlfriend decided to put their child up for adoption. And they were in a relationship; he had supported her throughout the pregnancy. But because they were not married, he had to do a lot of very fast, very expensive, and, I imagine, very panic-making work when she unilaterally decided to put their daughter up for adoption. It's appalling. And if he had been married, none of it ever would have happened.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains3 points4 points  (9 children) | Copy

It can be incredibly difficult (and costly!) to gain paternity of a child born out of wedlock. Where I am, you have the filing fee (around $275), the motion fees ($20.00 per motion) and the mandatory DNA test ($400-$600, depending on whether you can sweet talk them into a deal). Base, it is close to $1,000 just to get paternity if the mother is unwilling to sign an affidavit of parentage. Plus, there is a long time gap between all of that.

Marriage, if you desire children, is a great way to immediately receive legal protections.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy

It can be incredibly difficult (and costly!) to gain paternity of a child born out of wedlock.

Where I am, you get your name on the birth certificate, done deal.

[–]LeaneGenovaBreaker of (comment) Chains0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Where I am, a birth certificate means nothing to paternity. You can place a woman's name as the father if you so desire. Birth certificates only function as legal proof of the child, not anything to do with parentage.

You need either an Order of Filiation or an Affidavit of Parentage. An affidavit is inexpensive, since it's essentially a stipulation to paternity, but an Order of Filiation is expensive, and requires a lot of procedural steps.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy

I recognize that the law changes from state to state, country to country. A lot of states that I've personally dealt with, the law specifically presumes the father to have equal custody and joint decision making powers. If they want to change that arrangement (having previously not put anything into courts), they can either agree on a handshake, or take it to family court, where they will rule based on paternity and evidence. By the time it gets to family court, the unwed father will be in about the same position as a divorced father.

Before that, however, parental rights are assumed and inherent.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Yep. Meanwhile, actual high value men are paying 50 cents in tax per dollar earned, in large part, to feed these people's children.

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's only if the woman is very low-income. There are plenty of even low-middle-income women who do not qualify for government benefits. Trust me, I know more than a few, lol...

[–]FatTakerBigender bug kin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Lots of people are pointing out that men from higher classes marry, and it looks pretty much true. But how would this help a woman if she isn't from the higher classes? What if she's not in the upper segment when it comes to beauty, despite best efforts? Is a high class man gonna wait around for that?. Is the average woman gonna lock down this man using the "commitment first" method of RPWi? I'd say he's out of her reach whether she has sex with him or not.

I'm sure other men except for the higher class men also get married, but how do you plan to get them? Frankly, I've seen the "sex first" method work as well as fail. Even lots of RPWis didn't get married before they has sex. I understand needing to resist having sex with any man that makes you hot, but I see the merit in RPWo's methods.

[–]code5funMan of Fortune0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Since relationships and sex can be done without marriage nowadays, it became obsolete to sign that contract. You are right in your logic since there isn't something you can't do without marriage in a LTR anymore. Religion permitted sexual relations outside of marriage but is has lost it's value and with it humanity is loosing the concept of marriage. Your logic has a very bad long term consequence because you devalue marriage and with it the concept of family dies.

Your assumption is based on the thought that a woman can't respect a man which she has power of. Where is the love in this, does it mean anything to you at all? What happened to the relations where 2 people were ready to sacrifice everything because the loved each other? The biggest variable in the entire man-women relation is dismissed in this. You have no clue what effects your actions have.

[–]rulenumber3030 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

You don't get to say what smv a man has, that judgment is down to women who elect to be sexually available to him or not. It is fairly clear that many married men are still attractive to their spouse and/or women other than their spouse.

Are you keeping OK since the rpw/rpwi breakup? I mean just asking.

[–]redpillschoolRed Pill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

You don't get to say what smv a man has, that judgment is down to women

If there is any objective truth in the world, then it is also knowable.

[–]ReformedTomboyPurple Pill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This reasoning is hilarious to me. Fine there are high value men that won't marry becuase it will hinder his sexual and financial options. However, applying this to the rank and file man is ridiculous. The typical man (and this includes typical MGTOW, RP, MRA) is checking out of dating and marriage because a lot of them have found out the hard way that many women simply aren't checking for them and the price of finding an average woman willing to give them what they want is too high. They have decided that the juice isn't worth the squeeze and are checking out. They aren't deciding against marriage because they are just so high value, that's the story for very few.

[–]margerymRP ball and chain0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I don't disagree but I don't fully agree, either (and I haven't read all of the replies so forgive me if I am repeating anyone). I think it can be argued that men who marry (or want to marry) aren't high value because they forfeit quite a bit in the process. There is certainly an amount of independence, wealth, SMV, etc that gets knocked off of any married man, regardless of where he started. But I'm not sure that at the end of the day that's really relevant. Once a man marries what made him "high value" to a plate or to other men no longer matters. Who is he really trying to impress? The goal posts move once marriage is in play. I don't think you can really measure married men and single men by the same stick. So where it's true that married men are less of a single man it's like saying Mordor is hotter than Death Valley. So what? They are worlds apart. Literally. Not even the same universe.

I do disagree that a woman can't respect the man she is married to. Again, this comes down to us measuring both types of men differently. The modern wife certainly has more power legally than her husband but it's a mistake to hyperfocus on that one aspect of marriage and neglect marriage as a whole (ie it's more than just a legal document). Cherry picking.

Then we have the idea of what is in a man's "best interest". Does this not depend entirely on the man? Does it not depend on the woman he is choosing to join with?

No, none of this is really as simple as applying an arbitrary system devised on the internet by flawed individuals would have us think. It'd be nice if the answer to such a complex issue turned out to be this simple but it just isn't. The methodology here is flawed.

[–]margerymRP ball and chain0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

That said, I will give you this RPS- in general it is a bad idea for the modern man to marry. Unless he had something to back his woman as not being a harpy-in-waiting (like her being very religious or tied to traditional marriage outside of the marriage itself) he's more or less blindfolded on a cliff's edge. I don't think what you are saying is wrong or bad advice in general. To be frank, men are fucked. But abandoning marriage isn't necessarily the answer.

[–]adrixshadowIndigo Pill(aka dark and evil occult pill)0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

TRP I always found is about taking a peek behind the curtain on how women work.

That knowledge can be used everywhere.

Yes the law is not on your side but if you can't reproduce your legacy is dead.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Marriage WAS an option for men before the family courts in the west declared war on men. Now it is not an option for any intelligent man unless he marries a woman with a similar amount of money to him.

This is a relatively new issue. By removing fault from marriage disputes it has led to the destruction of the family unit. Marriage was once a legally and socially enforced contract. Now it is simply a device which takes away a man's reproductive rights, access to his children and his money.

Any man in the west who gets married is blue pill. This will change. Word will get out and very soon men in the west will refuse marriage and women will be stuck with betas and gammas as their only choice for marriage. Eventually even those donkeys will wake up after a couple of divorces and then they will swear off marriage.

The only thing I would say about your view is that it only applies in the west. If I lived in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, The Philippines, anywhere in Africa, Pakistan, India, Jamaica - hell almost anywhere but USA, Europe, Australia and Canada it is perfectly safe to marry. If I marry in Saudi Arabia and my wife were to cheat on me she gets beheaded. That is a significant motivator for her to suppress her natural hypergamy.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter