I wanted to post a reply to a thread where a guy shared his not-too-shabby opinion about what a marriage is, but the comment became too long, so I'll post it in a separate thread.

Here is a link to the original thread, with his description of the true purpose of marriage:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/g0dfo6/the_true_purpose_of_marriage/

Here is my reply:

​

You're wrong. A good attempt, but you're missing many things. I'll quote some of your claims and then tell you my views. It will be long, but a broad perspective is necessary for seeing this clearly:

​

the tribespeople were quite promiscuous. This was their true nature, as it is yours

An overly simplistic and inaccurate statement. Humans have three natures: human nature, male/female nature, and individual nature. The older part of our brain likes simple patterns, as ignorance is one of the two ancient sources of stress. The human brain looks for simple patterns; simple and predictable patterns of behaviour because that has a positive, soothing affect on our brain. Without this, anxiety is often produced. So people are (still, of course) looking for simple explanations about human behaviours. The idea that some men/women are like this, some men/women are like that is too complicated and anxiety-inducing.

The 2nd problem is that there's no permanent "true nature". To use two analogies: we started cooking our meat 2 million years ago. Back then, we had 32 teeth. Since then, we have been using our jaw muscles a lot less, and the part of our skull which contains the brain has also gotten bigger, consequently, our jaws have gotten smaller, and 32 teeth don't fit anymore, out of which the last 4 we call "wisdom teeth". Which one is the natural, real, true number of teeth for humans, 32 or 28? Because allegedly approximately 33% of the people don't even grow wisdom teeth any longer.
The other analogy: There were two populations of hamsters, or an animal of some kind that's similar, one living up in the mountains, the other population living down in a valley. One had scarce food and sunlight, life was difficult, the other was easy. In the 1st population the hamsters pair bonded, in the 2nd they behaved like a tournament species. Biologically they were fully the same, their circumstances were different.

​

At some point however it became apparent that it was difficult for the average man to find a woman who would be faithful to him.

Better way of phrasing this would be that, at some point, human beings became conscious enough to realise their true nature, including, but not limited to, female promiscuity.

​

The farmers put their heads together to try and find a solution, the solution was a marriage contract.

No. You got it all wrong.

Women are more sexual than men. Men find it difficult to accept the true nature of women. But men are more violent then women, and women find it difficult to accept the true nature of men.

We used to be fully barbaric and cruel. Then, about 200.000 years ago, we began to talk. According to Freud, civilisation began when a man hurled an insult instead of a stone. Up until that point, we were killing each other all the time. Since then, we've been killing each other some of the time, but also talking things through and solving debates with talks. War was ever present, but it became more controlled and sophisticated.
We started to develop bigger and bigger tribes, which were promiscuous, yes, but not fully. You see, marriage might be a social convention, but monogamy isn't. A human baby is not fully developed. If a baby is born later, it wouldn't fit out of its mother. So babies are born "incomplete". A giraffe is born, it can go and eat leaves after a short while. Human babies need a lot of attention and care, for several years. This renders the mother helpless. She needed men to feed and protect her. So this is what Nature did: human females are always sexually desirable, we do not have a mating season, humans wanna fuck all day. Human females have a hidden ovulation, and their tits and ass are always desirable for males, unlike some other animals where they do the sex dance and then chill. Nature made women rely on men for food and protection. (By the way, when feminists proudly proclaim that "they don't need no men" they are acting out of this old, ancient, archaic female struggle, which wasn't produced by Society, but by Nature.) But men weren't spared either. Men wanna fuck all day long. We long for sexuality, we long for women, you can pretend on this site that you're fine without a woman, but you're craving one all the time. You can abuse porn, sure, but that's not what these men did. Biologically, we starve for women. Not a coincidence that both Jesus and the Buddha were tempted by women. So in order for a woman to have a secure supply of food and protection, Nature invented monogamy, which makes sense more from the perspective of the man: A man becomes monogamous for a woman, so that she has food to feed her baby. If the man died while hunting / tribal warfare, no problem, she gets an other one. Men hate this, the hindus forced women to kill themselves when their husbands died, but without this we wouldn't be here today.

So we began having larger and larger tribes, villages, ancient-greek city states, where internal violence was banned (suppression of genuine male nature, male violence) and open whoring was also banned (suppression of genuine female nature, female sexuality).

​

The overarching goal was to create a productive civilisation

No, no one gave a shit about society. Women opened their eyes (Adam and Eve - apple, Fire of Prometheus, etc) and couldn't accept how violent men are. Men opened their eyes and couldn't accept how sexual women are. The idea of the Virgin Mary is a psychotic lie about what a woman is and ought to be. Women, in reality, contain two main archetypes: The Mother and the whore. Men have issues accepting the latter, so society (men) forced the image of mothers (virgin mary) who are sexually pure (don't have sex outside of marriage). The reason for no sex outside of marriage wasn't a rational attempt to secure your genes surviving, it was a psychological defense mechanism in order to shield the male ego from having to accept women for what they are, because you couldn't project the female sexual archetype onto a virgin bride, as she wasn't sexual yet. If you want to know how deep this rabbithole goes, most men throughout history never had animalistic sex with their wives, but went to prostitues for it, because in their minds, prostitutes don't represent The Woman. Even if they knew they'd get syphilis from the whore.

Women aren't better either, they fail to accept men for what they are: violent. The idea of a protective, faithful, loyal, supportive Father and Family man, an intelligent, brave, strong Hero, but without the animalistic violence and cruelty. The modern day hysteria around domestic violence and all the whining about how "you must never hit a woman" is not a rational, objective effort to help women and families, but an unconscious projection of their inability to digest and accept the real image of men: violent.

Ironically, men are drawn sexually to whores. You think you want a kind, shy girl, until you see that slut with her thighs at campus and you can't help but want to fuck the shit out of her, even if she's a disgusting fuckmeat. It's just difficult to reconsile it with the archetype of the Mother.

Similarly, women are drawn sexually to monsters. They think they want a kind, emotional, loyal, supportive man, but they can't help but feel attracted to a rude asshole. (This is their problem at FDS, even they admit that they don't feel attracted to their so called High Value Males).

To further complicate the issue, there are no group of men and group of women. There is a hierarchy of men, and a hierarchy of women. Nature, not society, assigned certain advantages to being a man, and also certain disadvantages. Nature also assigned certain advantages to being a woman, and also certain disadvantages. Problem is, these advantages aren't distributed equally amongst all men and women, they are usually reserved for those at the top. However, when you're looking at the other sex, you're usually looking at the more attractive ones, and you assume that since those ones have it easy in certain regards, all of them must have it easy. Remember what I said about human brains seeking simple patterns, the ability to tolerate ambiguity and ambivalence is rare.

The purpose of marriage was never to avoid cuckoldry. Cuckoldry is a perfectly logical evolutionary adaptation. Look at it this way: throughout the millions of years, how many of my female ancestors you think commited cuckoldry? What percentage of my better genetics do I owe to my whorish female ancestors? I'm 6.15, my great-grandmother lived up to be a hundred, I have very strong teeth and a good immune system, I'm healthy and strong. I'm thankful my female ancestors cucked their husbands of low genetic quality, because me being healthy and strong in the present is more important, then their feelings back then. Of course it didn't hurt as long as they didn't know.

The purpose of monogamy is for two individuals to pair-bond with the intention of being more competent at survival, the purpose of marriage is different, but similar.

We didn't just evolve biologically, we also evolved spiritually and intellectually. This is a different world now, although most people have a hard time getting accustomed to it. A lot of men look down upon women ecause they are still selecting their mates according to presumably old standards (height, muscle mass, etc) instead of presumingly more sophisticated ones (intellect, whatever), yet men still try to fuck as many girls as possible, as if they weren't on birth control, as if they were fathering children, as if they weren't risking or ruining their health with STDs, as if there were no child support. Humans are unconscious animals.

The purpose of marriage is different. It's a covenant between God (Logos, or Truth) and a man and a woman. It's not for everyone, even the Bible says that it's not for everyone. Of course most people want it, but it was never meant for everyone. It's an oath where two people decide to struggle together, and they make a covenant where they give their words that they'll always tell the truth. Spiritually, a reaction will take place. If you cut it open (divorce) it fails.
Historically, the problem was that people couldn't choose for themselves, they were forced to choose for financial and strategic reasons. If two people listen to their hearts, marriage is possible, and the most viable way of living life. The best possible life is if you're healthy, young, and get together with an other healthy and young person. But Nature is cruel, life is cruel, most people never have a shot at this.

And nothing changes the fact that you can't have intimacy and independence at the same time, and if you render yourself vulnerable for an other person, you open yourself up for betrayal, like that guy the other day who waited years for his girls he met at church while she fucked some guy at camp. But you can't have everything.

There are very few marriages, most marriages are lies people enter into out of a fear of solitude, or a fear of financial issues, etc. Some people are happier living alone, and it's fine, some people are utterly destroyed in relationships, but there are good relationships. The ultimate spiritual goal is for you to develop, not for you to produce a clean and outwardly perfect relationship. And you develop in marriage, and children can also develop in marriage, as long as it's not a toxic, dysfunctional hell.