Marriage 3.0

by Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech on October 28, 2010

What is marriage 2.0?  It has been described in many different ways but this picture from Roissy captures an important aspect of it.
Marriage In One Picture

Who is the guy in the picture?  We have no way of knowing. That’s because men do not matter in marriage 2.0.  At the wedding, the beginning of the marriage, the man is just a guy in a tux.  Everything else in the wedding is about the woman.  He could almost be replaced by a mannequin if it weren’t for the final act of marriage under marriage 2.0 — divorce.  At that point the man is nothing more than a wallet to be pillaged by the woman (and lawyers).  Again it doesn’t matter who the man is.  Any man will do.  In between the wedding and the divorce the man will similarly have no identity either because marriage 2.0 elevates the woman and dehumanizes the man.  In marriage 2.0 the man might as well be a piece of furniture, and if he starts causing problems like trying to assert himself, he may get thrown away (aka divorced).

Knowing this what will marriage 3.0 look like?  The man will be there less and less until he isn’t anymore.  The “marriage strike” is misnamed because more and more men have decided and will decide to completely stop looking for a wife knowing they won’t find one.  How will marriage continue after that?  The only possible way will be if women start marrying themselves, such as this woman from Taiwan.  Chen Wei-yih, the woman who is marrying herself, could be the first woman to engage in marriage 3.0.

The wedding industry will heavily promote marriage 3.0 to deal with falling revenues due to men’s loss of interest in marriage.  Commercials will say, “Why wait for a man for your special day.  Marry yourself like an independent woman and have your special day on your schedule.”  Such an advertising campaign would save almost all of the wedding industry, except for the tux rental portion, because everything in a wedding is about the bride.  To save the tux rental industry the marriage 3.0 advertising campaign will include promotion of the use of mannequins wearing tuxes to replace the men who are no longer getting married.

Where will the men be in all of this?  Since divorcing themselves isn’t going to do anything for the “married” women, expect women to petition the state for increased taxes in some form to be transferred to them.  Whether this will happen or not or how long this will be in effect will depend on several factors, not the least of which is how long the misandry bubble will last.  Otherwise, men will completely ignore these “marriages” and get on with their lives as they see fit.

{ 52 comments… read them below or add one }

IurnMan83 October 28, 2010 at 09:47

Very prophetic, it seems. Heck, with modern laws it wouldn’t surprise me if women married themselves. After all, they can’t seem to find anyone else to live at their levels, eh?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 51 Thumb down 1
mgtow October 28, 2010 at 10:01

Broads like Chen Wei-Yih (btw, a very homely and chubby specimen, definitely low tier meat in the Taiwanese market) don’t want a marriage; they want the wedding ceremony, the gown, the attention whoring (nice pics on Facebook, eh), the ‘princess-for-a-day’ treatment.

It’s all fine. Let them indulge themselves. They can marry their pet, their pretty little self or a vibrating dildo. So long as they use their own money without leeching off a man, it’s perfectly okay.

For men who have wisened up, they avoid marriage in all forms, including cohabitation. Remember, marriage has nothing to do with holiness or love, it’s just a business transaction that just isn’t profitable to a man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 77 Thumb down 3
SingleDad October 28, 2010 at 10:14

It’s actually better than fine, some poor schmuck is not on the hook, it’s a good day for men.

But we must develope political might to stop the taxation redistribution which will most certainly come.

I have said for a while that there is some reason why women no longer trust their proxy voters, white knight mangina’s in Washinton, and are vehemently advising women to go into politics and are working hard to get laws passed to put women on corperation boards.

Possibly it is this sort of, now illegal, but perhaps in the future legal, fleecing of men to pay for women they never met.

I understand in the UK women pretty much don’t have to work at all and are given housing and an income for breathing.

We must start thinking ahead and stop these initialtives before they start. We must start getting politicians on our side. I don’t know how to do this, other than the way Fathers and Families is with hiring lobbiests but we must support this and come up with creative ways to block laws that transfer money from men to women through taxes, IMO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 46 Thumb down 6
zed October 28, 2010 at 10:21

We must start getting politicians on our side. I don’t know how to do this, other than the way Fathers and Families is with hiring lobbiests

I keep suggesting that men start voting en masse against any incumbent. Nothing is more carefully parsed these days than voting trends and demographic hairs are split a hundred ways to try to figure out how to appeal to every segment, no matter how small – “soccer moms”, “NASCAR dads.” It would take no more than 2-3 election cycles with a significant number of men saying “You are ALL crooks – go find a real job” before someone would figure out that the best way to get re-elected would be to listen to men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 58 Thumb down 1
SingleDad October 28, 2010 at 10:28

@ Zed agreed. And term limits are mens friends, term limits should be supported by folks in the MRM.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 6
Paradoxotaur October 28, 2010 at 10:35

Perhaps a demand for stunt grooms will arise?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
sestamibi October 28, 2010 at 10:39

I wonder if anyone considered the possibility that the guy in the picture is so embarrassed that he didn’t want his face seen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
CajunQM October 28, 2010 at 10:41

” Paradoxotaur
Perhaps a demand for stunt grooms will arise?”

I remember a TV Commercial not to long ago for a Cell Phone Company; “If your wedding was done by a Film Company”. In the commercial at the end, as the bride was getting ready to walk down the aisle, the groom was a unsure in the driveway. A “Stunt Groom” was put in his place and the bride’s mother says “Jackpot”, with the bride having a big smile on her face.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Angelo October 28, 2010 at 10:43

Maybe we look at throwing more elaborate “Sweet 16″ parties for girls along with a corresponding initation to Manhood for boys. Everybody could use a welcome to adulthood party as far as I am concerned. Then weddings could be a more low key affair.

If a groom suggested a simple wedding in a church with a few guests and a reception lunch afterward and the bride walked because of it, I would say that she was not marriage materail to be sure.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Samvel Arshavir October 28, 2010 at 11:13

Or it could just be a woman being silly. Just sayin’. :)

Good article.

The faster a dysfunctional system starts causing problems, that faster people will wake up and work toward a solution. We are just starting to see what feminism has done, and already thousands of men are aware of the problem. The feminist empire, build on foundations of nonsense, is not going to stand the critique of thinking men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Richard October 28, 2010 at 11:25

Let em go bankrupt marrying and divorcing themselves.

I’ll be watching and laughing my arse off.

It’d be really funny to see a woman arguing with herself in a divorce court over who gets what…

Off the deep end – all of em!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2
Malestrom October 28, 2010 at 11:27

”But we must develope political might to stop the taxation redistribution which will most certainly come.”

What do you mean ”to stop the taxation redistribution which will most certainly come”? Havent you realized, almost all government activity is wealth transfer from men to women in some form or another? Men pay the vast majority of taxes and women consume the vast majority of public services. Stop it? It’s already here and has been for about as long as anyone can remember.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 28, 2010 at 11:29

`

Before the 12th century, marriage was a business contract between nobles and/or merchants.

Then the Church/State duo invented marriage as a sacrament in order to get full control of the populace. (read: men)

Marriage is slavery because it has been designed to be so.
It is time now for this old institition, whose only goal is to enslave men, to go away.

My thoughts are that marriage 3.0 will never see the light. Rather, marriage will die slowly as it should.

It doesn`t matter from which angle you look at it, marriage is unnatural.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 10
gdgm+ October 28, 2010 at 11:35

Interesting timing on this PM/AFT article. I’ve just seen a recent YouTube video, “Black Marriage Negotiations”, that I learned about via a link from the Washington _Post_ newspaper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgyg8vEHraE

Alas, American men of *all* races have likely heard some of the things the female in the video says. Sheesh!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 28, 2010 at 12:09

Feminism is about women’s rights and men’s obligations, so I guess the next logical step would be laws obliging men to marry and to be husbands and fathers with no obligation for the women to be wives and mothers.

Maybe a bachelor tax for men but not for women, and a tax deduction for married women, but not for married men. Just as a start. Later a high lump sum bachelor tax for men, and prison and/or slave work for men who are not able to pay the bachelor tax.

Why should men have the choice to say no to bad deals?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 3
Herbal Essence October 28, 2010 at 12:10

Marriage 2.0 will be replaced by polyamorous relationships. It’s already happening with Generation Y and Millenials.
Polyamory allows women t0 get banged by Alphas and then come home to a supportive Beta. Not to mention frequent lesbian daliances.

Lower-income groups will become more and more Matriarchal with a rotating cock carousel of Alphas to pleasure and perhaps fertilize the “Queen” and her daughters.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
Lavazza October 28, 2010 at 12:12

No a tax deduction for married women is not enough. Married women will get a monthly allowance for being married, that she is prohibited from using for the husband’s or the children’s needs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 28, 2010 at 12:14

And of course the married woman will have the choice who to have babies with whereas the husband will have to pay for all children born in wedlock.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Wulf October 28, 2010 at 12:16

What’s she going to say?

I take myself to be my wedded self, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; and I promise to be faithful to me until death do I part.

Yeah, that sounds about right and she’s not even American!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Lavazza October 28, 2010 at 12:19

Alphas might be excluded from the bachelor tax as long as they never say no to having enthusiastic sex with a woman wanting his services. If enough women are unhappy with his services he will be subject to the bachelor tax and subject to prison and/or slave work, if he is not able to pay the tax.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Zoard October 28, 2010 at 12:20

What would happen if she wanted to divorce herself?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
SingleDad October 28, 2010 at 12:22

Didn’t Rome, in it’s decline have a bachelor tax? It’s a precident. Of course it will be justified as neccessary to keep the population up (in desireable groups, as defined by our overlords, hispanics and moslems do not count) in other words keep, white women reproducing.

You need a steady flow of human labor for rich people to stay rich.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6
Curiepoint October 28, 2010 at 12:30

quote:
The faster a dysfunctional system starts causing problems, that faster people will wake up and work toward a solution.
unquote

The problem with this, like all crisis-based solutions, is that the divised solution will likely be of minimal effort, and only intended as a stop-gap measure until some sort of stability is reached. In terms of marriage, it will likely be of a form of:

1). For all intents and purposes, the marriage is in name only. There will be no shared property or emotions, only shared resources.

2). Openly and in public, the man will play the part of a husband and be outwardly social towards her family and friends. Behind closed doors the facade may be dropped at his discretion, and he may resume his own personal satisfaction.

3). Openly and in public, the woman will be equally responsible for putting forth appearances to his family and friends. Behind closed doors, she can do whatever she chooses.

4). Neither party will encroach upon each other’s private space. All conversations will be held strictly to immediate matters at hand i.e. household maintenance, fiscal contribution, and any occasions where they must appear in public together.

5). Sexual contact between the contractees is discouraged, but at the discretion of both parties who are each un-impaired and fully cognizant of all perceivable repercussions. A written statement as to the intent, duration, and type of contact, signed by both parties, is strongly encouraged. Resultant children are the equal responsibility of both parties. Again, written statement of intent is highly encouraged.

6). Neither contractee can demand any personal resource of the other. Conflicts to resolved by an impartial third-party.

7). Upon eventual dissolution of the partnership, each shall negotiate fairly for the equal division of marital property. Each may claim solely for themselves whatever personal items in possession prior to the marriage, as shown in a list drawn up prior to the marrage. Children shall be given free and equal access to either parent.

8). Attempts by one party to alienate any children from the other shall be subject to the laws applicable to libel and slander.

9). Spousal support shall not be claimed by either party, unless due to reckless acts by one party results in demonstrable and permanent debilitation of the other.

10). All prior personal agreements between each party made during the period of marriage is rendered null and void upon dissolution.

On second thought, maybe this would be a workable solution after all; maybe this is what marriage should become; ample protections of both parties, and legal resource available to both in case of conflict. I think it would be better if we started to look at heterosexual contact and marriage as matters of defense and self-protection, rather than partnerships based upon rampant and volatile emotionalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
Zammo October 28, 2010 at 12:32

Marriage 2.0 will be replaced by polyamorous relationships.

The entire “swinging” lifestyle is a good example of the future of “marriage”. A couple might enter a mutually beneficial arrangement for resources and children but sex and physical affection is a fluid situation involving outside men and women.

Swingers frequently say that the woman is brought into the “Lifestyle” kicking and screaming but once she gets into it, she won’t leave (because all the alpha cock that is available).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
DirkJohanson October 28, 2010 at 12:56

@ Zammo

Not sure about your last clause.

IMO, its often the strange cock (not necessarily alpha), sometimes the strange pussy, and the overall sexual freedom of it.
In my experience, there aren’t that many alphas swinging because alphas can get so much pussy without sharing, but a beta in a swingers club or party comes off looking like an alpha because he’s not only got a chick on his arm, but he’s got enough hand that she agreed to be there.

As for the sexual freedom, women who swing already have their hubby or boyfriend, and swinging affords them the opportunity to have hot sex without – like a single girl so often does- feeling lousy about it afterward when the guy doesn’t call.

Also, they like the fact that their guy (at least ostensibly) isn’t going to be cheating behind their back, because he’s getting strange when he swings with her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
NWOslave October 28, 2010 at 13:05

Feminism, being nothing more then communism in woman’s clothing has essetially achieved it’s goal of destroying the family unit. Men are officially named as the oppressor class in the media and women are the victim class.

If a man dies the media describes him as a miner or a worker or military personel, he is an androgenous being of no consequence, he simply doesn’t matter. If a woman dies the media rolls out the red carpet straight to the wailing wall so we can all shed bitter tear’s at the injustice in america.

Since feminism couldn’t change men they simply made women more or less completely unattractive in the spiritual sense. Women can scream to high heaven that they shouldn’t be judged on their promiscuity, but every man either consciously or subconsciously knows that chastity equals loyalty.

Women claim some fierce independence, yet they’re totally dependent on all the luxuries men invent, create, maintain and provide. Men want compassion but that’s reserved for the sisterhood. Men want tenderness but that’s reserved for flirting with any man but the one she’s bound to.

Women please listen to what men are saying about your treatment of men. If you dress seductively for everyone else but him. If you kill his children with abortion. If you steal the children you allow to live and take his money through divorce. These are all assets. Now imagine you’re applying for a job, who in their right mind would hire you?

Women, you submit to your sista’s when you belittle a man in public. You submit to the Guv when you pay your taxes and reap privilege and entitlement’s. You submit to the education system for a gold star and a generic compliment. You submit to your job for a few pennies more. You submit to everyone but the only one who matter’s, a man who would love you until death do you part if you would only be loyal.

By placing women on the highest pedestal with the lowest of moral’s feminism has indeed achieved it’s goal.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 56 Thumb down 6
Rebel October 28, 2010 at 14:28

Reading these posts is most interesting indeed. I can see the different point of views clearly spelled out.

Rather than living through some of the scenarios presented here, I think I would rather see the “Brave New World” utopia.

Or wouldn’t Zerzan’s view be closer: the primitive future.

I would tend to lean toward the therory that Zerzan has spelled out, that is to say that we shall “recede” (so to speak) into a more primitive style of living, with fewer humans and devoid of technology.

Maybe going back is the way to go?

Progress does not necessarily mean “technical” progress.

Someone say that the 21st century would be spiritual. It’s a definite possibility, once our number has been reduced somewhat. (through low birth rate mostly)

During the so-called Dark Ages, after the Plague, many monasteries were built: the minds of men were going through a spiritual transformation. The fire they had gone through from the Plague had a positive effect on men’s consciousness.

There may be a return to that lifestyle.

But I don’t believe that men will ever be put into slavery.

And it they do, then it will be time to pull the plug…

The longest lived species are the most primitive ones (crocodiles, turtles,..etc..).
Mammals have a shorter time span among the species.

Man, being the most advanced living organism, may be short lived.
It may be a charasteristic assigned to the most evolved species.
Maybe sexual reproduction is no longer suited for our species? Maybe we need to have reproductive independance? Maybe the future human is Androgyne? Maybe our children will be half machines?
I don’t know at all. One thing I know is that tomorrow will not be like today.

We are lucky to be living in these interesting times.

I sometimes wonder what the next intelligent species will be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
rob October 28, 2010 at 14:28

I only have relationships with bi-sexual women encumbered with a same-sex marriage. This is marriage 3.0 – protecting your sorry ass by letting some bull-dyke pinch-hit for you so you can stay out of the court’s penatly box.

Think of the advantages that Gay Marriage brings to us Marriage Dis-Believers! We can dialectically screw these monkeys back to the jungle! If you knock up a same-sex married woman, does her “husband” get forced to pay?

If my girlfriend wants to live with me, how would it change circumstances if I told her the only way I would let her co-habitate is if she marries her BFF and they move in with me together?

If “all families” are equal, including same-sex marriage couples and single mothers, then am I not institutionally discrimated against as a man? After all, if single mother “families” are equal to gay “families”, which are in turn equal to “Traditional Families”, then wtf is going on here? Where is my equal single-father family, and where the fuck is the government organization giving it to me on a silver platter?

I have never seen such an opportunity to wreak dish-served-cold revenge in my life!

Hmmm… and what happens if you remove this pin over here? Will that cause the whole machine to unbalance itself and explode?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
zed October 28, 2010 at 16:14

Feminism is about women’s rights and men’s obligations, so I guess the next logical step would be laws obliging men to marry

I figure they are working on getting whoever replaced Joe Biden as the feminitwits’ favorite lapdog to introduce the Mandatory Matrimony On Demand Of a Woman Act – MMODOWA. ;)

I sometimes wonder what the next intelligent species will be.

Which one do you consider the last one? It can’t be humans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
SingleDad October 28, 2010 at 16:37

Maybe evolution will come out of India, their supreme court seems to be questioning their version of the VAWA:

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/2010102820101028051852408b281ef08/%E2%80%98Men-are-not-free-ATM-machines%E2%80%99.html

Quote:

“The Act deals with jargon like concubine and is more worried about such women than the wife. It is not pro-family. The act has become a magic wand in the hands of dominatrix wives who misuse it to break their families because of their own intolerance and manipulations leading to alternative character roles like live-ins, keeps, concubines and spouse thieves.
Though the supreme court has said it is not for them to legislate or amend the law, the government should revamp the act as soon as possible.”

Maybe India is a good place to live. I never had an urge to travel there but I think now I will check it out. They even speak English.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Dalrock October 28, 2010 at 16:45

See also Right Hand Rings. But all of this rings hollow for women. No matter how hard they try to convince themselves otherwise, having a man invested in them matters. They can’t synthesize it. They need a real man at the alter. They need a real man to buy them the gifts they want to show off to their friends. And they need a man by their side to show they still can attract real investment from a man. All of their kicking and screaming to the contrary is just a temper tantrum because deep down they know it is true. Men shouldn’t loose sight of this simple fact.

However, it still remains that there is no marriage strike. What we are seeing instead is a remarriage strike, or the age of post marital spinsterhood.

This will all prove quite bitter for the women who experience it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
rob October 28, 2010 at 18:18

Why make women experience “retribution?”

I would rather they experience my “indifference.”

Period.

Lesson learned.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
greyghost October 28, 2010 at 18:36

Yeah Dalrock I checked out your post on the marriage strike. It looks like a remarriage strike now for the old bags but how does it look for the new young chicks coming up now.
I truely see the times as a gender war to destroy men. Starting with little boys. I would love to see todays young men rather than marry learning to game the pussy off of the courasel riders as you say rather than give the bitches their first marriage and slave. hopefully with the men jaded from such easy pussy pumping of the 20 something liberated femminist. Check out the Moreen Dowd article. 25% or more of old childless women talking shit about men.Think of all of the child support enforcement agencies closing down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Keyster October 28, 2010 at 18:38

Pro-family conservatives are already talking about initiating government tax incentives for marriage. They see the family failing. Whatever the government tries to do to save the institution, it’s already too late.

As mentioned above, it’ll be a stop gap measure of say “Married couples filing jointly receive a $3500 deduction per year”, or some other meaningless attempt to try and shore up the nuclear family. The caucasian birthrate drops, while immigration of patriarchal societies grows.

It’s the multi-cultural utopia liberals dream of, where white male supremacy is vanquished to history and we all live in equality, happy and free from oppression of any kind; a harmonious land where there are no rich and no poor, no blacks, no whites, no wives or husbands. Just single moms, compliant beta males and a vastly expanded penal system.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
rob October 28, 2010 at 18:58

Pro-family conservatives are already talking about initiating government tax incentives for marriage.

Make it clear that you know how to LEAVE. And we MGTOW certainly know how to do that, don’t we?

Then watch the squirming begin!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Dalrock October 28, 2010 at 19:48

@greyghost
Yeah Dalrock I checked out your post on the marriage strike. It looks like a remarriage strike now for the old bags but how does it look for the new young chicks coming up now.

I think the women now in their 20s putting off marriage in such increased numbers are taking a big risk that men will still want to marry them in their 30s.

The whole delayed marriage phenomenon is like a female generational ponzi scheme. Each generation of women who delays marriage needs the generation of women who follow to make the same choice. The whole thing could suddenly end badly for today’s marriage delaying 20 somethings if men decide they don’t want to play marry a high mileage ho/career woman anymore, and/or if the next generation of 20 somethings decide to marry the successful and single 30 something men snubbed by their older sisters.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
sestamibi October 28, 2010 at 21:39

Keyster, you are so right. Time and time again societies engaged in a population death spiral have shown that the carrot (tax incentives, paid family leave policies, job sharing, etc.) cannot achieve anywhere near what the stick of patriarchal societies can accomplish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Lavazza October 29, 2010 at 06:04

Dalrock: I am not sure there will be that kind of reaction. A large portion of the latest century´s growth, including population growth, has been driven by cheap fossil fuels. Global oil “production” has hit a plateu. Combine that with the trend of oil producing countries using a larger and larger portion of their production nationally and exporting less means that we are likely to see population plateauing and diminishing (maybe even quickly, due to famines and lack of fresh water) in a couple of decades.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Lavazza October 29, 2010 at 06:07

But yeah, when things will stabilize, we are likely to see a return of child rearing earlier in life for women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) October 29, 2010 at 07:03

zed October 28, 2010 at 10:21
“I keep suggesting that men start voting en masse against any incumbent.”

Zed,
I am not inclined to post much here since I was banned. But this is worthy of a comment.

ALL politicians are servants of their masters and are NOT acting as the public servants they claim to be. NO politician of ANY significance is operating in the interests of the people of the land, they are operating solely for their masters. They are either doing this willingly or they have been compromised into doing this. Any man in the west who thinks ANY politician is ‘honest’ is stupid and ignorant and deserves his slavery.

Given this situation? The ONLY approach that is going to work is the one I took. Rescind your consent to be ‘guverned’ and tell your politicians that you refuse to be subject to THEIR legislation for THEIR UCC company. By ‘voting’, or even, indeed, by talking to politicians, you are lending credibility to their assumption you wish to be ‘guverned’ by them. My rescinding of my consent to be guverned has been in force for over a year now and the PTB have NOT thrown me in jail yet, though ASIO is running a slander campaign against me. I recommend men rescind their consent to be guverned, stop paying income taxes, alimony, child support and other la-la-land taxes…claim, exercise and defend your rights. For if you do not do this? You are consenting to be a slave. Period.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5
Anonymous October 29, 2010 at 09:03

“..and/or if the next generation of 20 somethings decide to marry the successful and single 30 something men snubbed by their older sisters.”

Dream on.

It’s really interesting what will happen to the generation of the 20 year olds. Even if they live in the present, they must be seeing everything that transpires now. One guy in his early 20s once said that he doesn’t see a way how the girls his age could even marry, as they seemed totally unfit for marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Herbal Essence October 29, 2010 at 09:23

Dalrock-
“The whole thing could suddenly end badly for today’s marriage delaying 20 somethings if men decide they don’t want to play marry a high mileage ho/career woman anymore”

This is happening, and the older women are not happy about it. I am wondering if they will ever “settle” or will just try to get knocked up, raise a child without a father, and be lonely. Of course, it’s all the fault of men in their minds.

As I pointed out above, there are all kinds of women under 30 who are polyamorous. To me, this is quite different from the Sex and the City lifestyle of older women. It may even be evidence of “female Game” evolving in response to man’s justified reluctance to get married.

I can see the advantages of polyamory for women and alpha males. The woman gets the thrill of attractive men, the utility of Betas, and possible lesbianism all at the same time. The Alpha male gets more holes to penetrate and a great way to avoid commitment. The only one who loses in that situation are Betas who agree to a polyamorous relationship but can’t get anyone else to sleep with them beyond their primary partner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Paradoxotaur October 29, 2010 at 11:21

@Herbal Essence: “The only one who loses in that situation are Betas who agree to a polyamorous relationship but can’t get anyone else to sleep with them beyond their primary partner.”

So,
1) Don’t agree to a polyamorous relationship (or, preferably, any maritial or quasi-maritial relationship with an unsuitable woman); and
2) Learn Game

Or not. Your choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Bizzman662 October 29, 2010 at 12:55

Paradoxotaur:

Wiser words were never written.

Learn Game and this is a non-issue.

You don’t see the Alpha’s Wife pulling this shit.

Too many betas getting steamrolled these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
zed October 29, 2010 at 15:20

ALL politicians are servants of their masters and are NOT acting as the public servants they claim to be. NO politician of ANY significance is operating in the interests of the people of the land, they are operating solely for their masters.

Absolutely true, Globalman. Given that fact, however, there are ways to co-opt their interests to serve yours. Your approach seems to be a great way to escape from the machine. There are also approaches to keep from getting caught in the machine in the first place.

Politics is a game of favors done and favors owed. It takes some time to build up political capital of chits for having voted for someone else’s pork which you can then cash to get them to vote for yours. Freshman legislators are at the bottom of the pecking order in political influence, and do little more than serve as bitches for the career politicians during their first term or several. The only thing politicians enjoy more than sticking it to “the peepuhl” is sticking it to each other.

While we still have the nominal right to vote we can throw sand in the gears of their machine by making a career in politics at most a tenure of a few years.

It’s a lot like seeing a guy with a gun aimed at his foot and saying “bad idea.” I know that no one will pay any attention to what I say, but I still have to make the suggestion in case anyone listens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Dalrock October 29, 2010 at 15:20

@Herbal Essence
This is happening, and the older women are not happy about it. I am wondering if they will ever “settle” or will just try to get knocked up, raise a child without a father, and be lonely. Of course, it’s all the fault of men in their minds.

It isn’t happening yet, not in any significant numbers at least. It is just that the few who aren’t married are very visible and very vocal (and many of course are very bitchy…). Only roughly 20% of all US women currently 35 haven’t married yet (roughly 15% for white US women age 35). For current 40 year old women the figures are about 15% and 11% respectively. Of course not all of the women who married stayed married, but that really is a different issue.

Today’s 20 something women are marrying at significantly lower rates than just 10 years ago. These are the ones who I’m talking about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lord Viktor October 29, 2010 at 15:42

Marriage 2.0 will be replaced by polyamorous relationships. It’s already happening with Generation Y and Millenials.
Polyamory allows women t0 get banged by Alphas and then come home to a supportive Beta. Not to mention frequent lesbian daliances.

Lower-income groups will become more and more Matriarchal with a rotating cock carousel of Alphas to pleasure and perhaps fertilize the “Queen” and her daughters.

This is why we need to reach as many Betas as possible. Without the Betas, this horrendous machine would be destroyed overnight. The women and the Alphas and the Playas may be navigating the boat, but it is the Betas in Steerage that are keeping it running. If we can get THEM to rebel, the ship will be overtaken and destroyed from the inside.

I should know, I used to be a Beta.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Red0660 October 29, 2010 at 21:53

In 2009 the birthrate fell to 13.5 births for every 1,000 people—down from 14.3 in 2007—which set a record for the lowest rate in a century.-Newsweek Magazine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Anonymous October 30, 2010 at 05:55

Cuz men don’t want kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Cranky October 30, 2010 at 12:01

So true Anonymous @ 5:55! Would most men have kids of their own free will? Hell to the no! It’s usually the female’s idea/directive/”accident” and the father stumbles along with it (if he stays in the picture at all). And did most men EVER really want to marry? More hell…more no! The endless jokes about the old “ball and chain,” the desperate bridezillas dragging the poor men down the church aisle, all the “she tricked me into it” stories. You guys are getting your wish now…marriage is dying out…be joyful!

Just admit it fellas, you always hated the whole marriage & family business. Some men may like the idea of fathering a child (proves their equipment works), but actually having to raise that kid? Granted, there are a few exceptions.

The govt. should offer free vasectomies for all men; I’d support that!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Anonymous October 31, 2010 at 08:57

It simply means that white men no longer want to procreate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Mr Bleedin Obvious January 14, 2011 at 20:05

There will be no white people in 100 years. The Muslims with there reverance of the patriarchy will dominatethe world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: