Is marriage fine if you treat it as you're supposed to - as a contract?

Eyes_Of_The_Dragon · 2016-10-07T16:23:46+00:00

Marriage is a contract where the fine print is discovered after you've signed and is at the whim of the court.

FraterGGNM · 2016-10-07T16:20:10+00:00

As a contract, it is awful, at least here in the U.S. Either party can dissolve the contract at any time for no reason, and the court will either dissolve all assets acquired during the marriage and award them using their own idea of what is "fair", or it can award specific property to either party depending on how such is negotiated. Would you form a business with someone who could destroy the business and walk away with half of it's worth ore more at any time for no reason?

2016-10-07T18:03:22+00:00

There can't be a fair marriage contract in a gynocentric society.

lonewolf-chicago · 2016-10-07T17:17:36+00:00

Marriage is for suckers. If you get fooled once, shame on you. Fooled you twice then you're a blue pill cuck mangina bitch.

anyone that gets hosed over and then doesn't learn is a dumbbass and deserves everything he gets or gets taken away. If my stubborn sicilian hard-headed brain can learn after the first time, then there is no excuse for anyone else.

My-Name-Is-No-One · 2016-10-07T16:46:55+00:00

No. Unless you want to accept the terms of that contract, which means you put everything on the line, meaning you have everything to lose and nothing to gain, or if you want to live in denial of women's nature and assume that she'll hold up her end of the "deal." Marriage is a graveyard for men.

2016-10-07T16:49:21+00:00

It's a contract where you don't know the terms until after it is dissolved.

byers18901 · 2016-10-07T17:32:55+00:00

No marriage. The contract as it is now is not in a man's favor. Losing half your assets and the ability to see any kids produced in the marriage should make this readily apparent for any person with half a brain.

Darth_Bicycle · 2016-10-07T18:04:54+00:00

Dr. Joseph Tainter has said that we are ”a species that muddles through”. What he means by that, is that we come up with things that work for a while, until they don't. And then we have to come up with new solutions. It's never perfect, but we muddle through.

I suppose it was like that with marriage back in the day; It somewhat worked. The wife nagged and bitched and manipulated as they always do, but at least the farm didn't burn down and you had some help. It was far from perfect but it allowed our species to muddle through for a while.

Today, it's over with. The women just use marriage and state to extract resources from men. And that scam also works until it doesn't. MGTOW is one of the signs that it's not working anymore and the women have to come up with a new scheme to extract resources from gullible men in the future. Unless of course they decide to co-operate, but I'm not holding my breath. I'll be six feet under when(or if..big if) that happens.

chronoic · 2016-10-07T17:23:14+00:00

Yea if your fine that the small print that says.

"As a man you understand

1) whats yours is hers, and whats hers is hers

2) looks at her, your the bitch now

3) you give up your life and freedom."

GenesisRunner · 2016-10-07T17:25:20+00:00

As with anything else, it would be a viable option for those wanting to cohabit with a partner IF the terms were mutually beneficial and fair. That, however, is not the case in this day and age.

Let's take a typical US mortgage contract as an example. The fact that I will end up paying nearly 100% in total interest over a 30 year period may not seem fair at first, but it is a mutually protective contract. If my house increases to 200% of its current value within the first 10 years, I don't have to fear the bank evicting me and reclaiming the property to be financed to someone else at a higher value.

THAT is what makes a mutually fair contract. Bank lends me money and I agree to pay interest. If I do not pay, bank evicts me. But as long as I am an honorable client, the bank has no power whatsoever to reclaim my property without cause. Marriage, on the other hand, well - it's too obvious that we shall not go into it.

SeriousSquash · 2016-10-07T16:52:05+00:00

The rules will be made at the time of the divorce, not at the time of marrying. The state can do to you whatever it pleases.

EndOfDates · 2016-10-07T17:12:55+00:00

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Unilateral+Contract

2016-10-07T18:04:03+00:00

I believe that originally, marriage was beneficial for all involved. This is no longer true so there is no sense in it.

2016-10-07T17:31:38+00:00

Having spent years of my life in contract administration I can tell you that most of the time the parties to the contract are already pissing at each other before the ink is dry.

mg-tower2 · 2016-10-07T18:06:33+00:00

Today it's a stupid non-contract that keeps changing according to whims of violent and corrupt democratic mobs and their mirror reflections in the form of crooked politicians. It's already bad enough. Who knows how good or bad it will be 5-10 years from now.

EvolvingRedneck · 2016-10-07T19:16:45+00:00

You can create any terms you wish with a woman. But the government already has a set of terms and conditions set forth for couples considering marriage, which is non-negotiable and overwhelmingly favors the woman even if she brakes the terms.

BruceJennerTesticles · 2016-10-07T21:41:51+00:00

You are referring to historical "marriage" (often referred to as something akin to "marriage 1.0" or "marriage before feminism"). That no longer exists.

Modern marriage -- including the present "Marriage 2.0" is emphatically not a contract between families, nor is it a contract between two people as a "couple."

It is a contract with a THIRD PARTY included: that party being the government -- which arrogates to itself the ability to unilaterally and arbitrarily modify any and all provisions of the entire arrangement, at will (regardless of circumstances, meaning it can do so even if NEITHER of the other parties wants or desires the change {aka, not merely "divorce"}) and without ANY prior notice to the other parties; much less without offering them any ability to rescind their consent to the change in terms; i.e. once you're "in" the contract, you cannot "back out" just because the government decided to alter the provisions -- at least not without "divorcing" in which case you subject the entire arrangement (your life, family, assets, future income) to the "arbitrary whims" of the governments' appointed agents (judges, child protection services, etc).

Now if you REALLY want to "sign on the dotted line" of a contract like that -- because you think that's a "pretty SWELL deal" to offer to submit yourself to that potential; in exchange for (occasional, possibly rare/limited, and potentially even zero) access to a single piece of probably already well-used "pussy" (which you will neither have a "right" to demand, nor the ability to prevent being offered to others) -- well go right ahead.

T0000009 · 2016-10-07T21:43:36+00:00

The was the contract BEFORE the 1900's when it was an equitable trade of provision for offspring.

2045_revolution · 2016-10-07T23:57:57+00:00

It is a lopsided contract. That is the problem. If we had a system where assets were not divided, and where children were evenly split it wouldn't be so bad.

The only situation where it works is if the woman earns an equal or extra money than the husband. At least in that situation, some of the gender biases in the courts are counterbalanced.

I-am-the-lul · 2016-10-08T01:38:50+00:00

If marriage as it is written was treated like any other business contract, marriage would have stopped being a thing long ago.

Title	Is marriage fine if you treat it as you're supposed to - as a contract?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	4
Comments	24
Date	October 7, 2016 4:09 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/56c4uk/is_marriage_fine_if_you_treat_it_as_youre/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/is-marriage-fine-if-you-treat-it-as-youre-supposed.618836 https://theredarchive.com/post/618836

Comments

You are referring to historical "marriage" (often referred to as something akin to "marriage 1.0" or "marriage before feminism"). That no longer exists.