Contrarian Expatriate wrote:MrMan wrote:
Back up a minute there and re-think the conversation. You started with the 'cuck' name-calling, so you must have lost the debate from the get-go. Name-calling is a substitute for reasoned argument for those incapable of it, or those with few reasoned points. I have found the MGTOW's I've interacted with to rely quite heavily on name-calling and to be really light on reasoned argument.
If English is not your first language, my apologies in advance. But you seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge of basic terminology. Socrates quote, "When the debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser," hinges upon the term slander which means an untrue smear. If it is true, it cannot be slander. So when people on this site brand you a Cuck, and you retort with the same, you've lost the debate in trying to slander those who are not Cucks. This is the point you are missing. You would be better off finding some other term to sling to avoid being the loser of the debate according to Socrates.
I'm not a cuckold, so you calling me a 'cuck' is slander. You could redefine 'cuck' to mean something that has nothing to do with what the word really means, and say you aren't slandering me. So I could redefine 'Cucktrarian Expat' to refer to the poster who uses the word 'cuck' to mean something other than what it really means.
It does seem to be a common tactic for those who don't have a solid, reasonable, logical arguments to resort to name-calling. It also seems to be the culture of MGTOWs to try to shame their opponents into agreeing with them by calling them names. I wonder why that is?
MrMan wrote:
Do you realize that the MGTOW arguments do not even make much sense in societies where the laws are not biased against men and the divorce rates are relatively low? They don't usually face the same social problems as the US either.
Ah yes, the old ignore the refutation and restate the refuted argument tactic. This is a common tactic that married men borrow from their wives. I have addressed that weak point in my previous post. Covering your ears and jumping up and down, and repeating your previously defeated point does not revive its debate value. Please go back and read how I smacked down that argument previously.
Closing your ears and jumping up and down? That sounds like your attitude toward venereal diseases. Insisting that you have little risk doesn't make it so.
As far as your 'refutation', I found a little one or two line comment of yours that wasn't much of a refutation. You can assert that men in other countries lose wealth, etc. over marriage. In some cultures, getting a wife adds to your wealth (the wife as an asset, seen as property, a productive asset if she produces children.) Be that as it may, claiming you refuted an argument doesn't mean you have.
Also, you asked who wanted to have sex with the same woman? What is the real advantage of different women? I suppose you might feel some excitement due to variety. But I'd also imagine if you tried to get with a different woman every night, you'd strike out or just not have any fish bite a lot of nights and go home for a lot of sexless nights, and be less likely to have sex than a man in a sexually active marriage. I'd imagine the typical MGTOW sex life is basically celibacy or a sex life of masturbation and the sad practice of going to prostitutes to pay them to pretend to like him. As far as physical sensations go, sex with the same woman without a condom has to beat having sex with a variety of different women using a condom. And that's just the hedonistic, sensation aspect of it without the relationship aspects.
I wonder if you really understand the 'sunk cost' concept. When you consider sunk costs in business, you are supposed to consider, from this point going forward, what is the most profitable decision you can make. Like finance calculations in finance, the sunk cost philosophy can fall short on legal and ethical considerations. Profit is not the only consideration. Ethics, what the owner wants the business to be about, etc. are important considerations. If businesses made decisions based solely on what is profitable, they might all go into business selling illegal drugs.
And from an economics perspective, people seek to gain 'utility.' You fail to consider that what you get 'utility' from may not be the same as what other people get. You may think that being married and having kids is a bad thing from your perspective. For me, I certainly would not get utility from abandoning my wife and kids. I suppose having an affair would be physically enjoyable on one level just because sex feels good, but it would also be awful, like abandoning my wife and kids, because these things violate my sense of morals and ethics. A serial killer might gain 'utility' in terms of enjoyment from killing someone for sport. I wouldn't gain 'utility' from that.
That's a problem with your MGTOW arguments. You assume that other people gain utility from the same things you do. You even argue that a man may be happy in marriage, which you called servitude to wife, but you are still against it. That doesn't make sense if your religion is called 'Men Going Their Own Way'. If it is about each man being happy, and you admit that marriage makes some men happy, then you don't have much of an argument against all marriage. It makes sense for me to argue for certain principles of marriage for everyone. But your position doesn't make much sense. "Marriage is just bad' isn't a very compelling or sensible argument. It is not bad for society, especially what marriages where both husband and wife hold to more traditional views of marriage. And many individuals do find happiness in marriage.
As far as my own enjoyment goes, a 'sunk cost' analysis would lead me to stay in my own marriage and not have an affair. Having an affair would hurt my conscience and I'd enjoy life a lot less. Leaving my wife would probably result in a lot less sex. If I were to go to bars to pick up women, I probably wouldn't pull one as often as I'd have sex with my wife as a married man. I probably couldn't get some chick from a bar to come over and cook me a gourmet meal and do my laundry. Also, sluts from bars or even prostitutes haven't been trained for years through interaction with me in what I like. As far as going to bars go, I'd probably be able to get some interest from girls in parts of Asia without paying. But I'm not as young and good-looking as I used to be, and in 20 years, I'll probably look like some old geezer. My wife still looks a lot younger than her age, both face and body. I'd imagine if I went into bars looking for women, very few would be as attractive as she is physically, and then the odds that one I picked would be interested in me back, and that I'd have success in persuading her would be slim. I'd be facing a lot of sexless nights, combined with guilt over my wicked choices.
MrMan wrote:
You assume married men are unhappy and in 'defense mode' based on denial, instead of actually considering the evidence careful. In this case, the testimony of witnesses is evidence. I am sure there are plenty of married men who have chosen abominably bad women to marry who aren't willing to admit their suffering. Again, I could say the same sort of thing about single MGTOWs, that they are lonely miserable wretches, who create or find a philosophy to make them feel better about not being able to form a meaningful relationship with a woman. That would apply to men like yourself and also men who can't get a date with a woman who are in the MGTOW camp.
Oh, yes. The Straw Man fallacy! I knew to expect this eventually from you. I have never said married men are unhappy, in fact, most married men are blissfully content in their servitude to wife, especially in the early stages of the marriage.
If that's what you mean, then you don't really have much of an argument against marriage, especially in the early stages of marriage. As to whether marriage resembles 'servitude to wife', that depends on how the man handles himself in the marriage. You probably apply all kinds of 'game' tactics to put yourself in a more dominant position. Married men have to know how to handle their wives in order to have a peaceful relationship where she respects him. He's got to pick a woman he knows he can handle before marrying.
As Esther Vilar wrote, the intelligent wives relate to their husbands in ways that make him happy to be a slave. Only the foolish wife drives away her slave. What you were likely referring to is my assertion that most marriages are unsuccessful in that they result in either divorce or people staying together while miserable due to finances, children, obligation to religion, etc. My position is that only 10% to 30% of marriages remain happy for the duration.
MGTOWs are like radical feminists except they are men and reverse the genders. Radical feminists back in the 1960's were teaching women that marriage was like slavery and prostitution, souring impressionable women toward men. MGTOWs do something similar, souring some gullible young men toward marriage. Feminists teaching this stuff is partly what lead to the raw deal for men in US culture we see today.
If you think up to 30% of marriages remain happy for the duration, you shouldn't be against all marriage. You shouldn't have MGTOW as your religion.
I doubt you'd find 1% of men or women who are happy for the entire duration of their marriage. People get unhappy at times. Single people get unhappy at times. Marriage doesn't guarantee happiness, certainly not consistent happiness 100% of the time. If you spend enough time around someone else, that person is going to get on your nerves at least at some point. But people who are alone can be unhappy and feel lonely at times, too.
I'd estimate close to 100% of single people are unhappy at some point in time at something that relates to their singleness.
A man going his own way is not following a philosophy. He is living his life, on his terms, with his enhanced wealth, in the freest manner of self-interest. Your charaterization of MGTOW is an example of Aesop's fox who could not reach the juicy, refreshing grapes so he walked away bitter telling himself that those luscious, refreshing grapes were likely just sour anyhow! Ok, if that makes you feel better, MGTOW like myself are bitter and lonely and miserable and poor and we don't travel have no variety of new women in our lives and we are simply sour anyhow!
I said I could do like you do, and argue that you are just lying about how you feel. That's no way to persuade people. You might be able to persuade some gullible, impressionable person he is not happy with some of his life decisions, even if he was before you talked to him. But that's not going to persuade me.
MrMan wrote:
You also operate from a different world view. I do not think a man's value consist of how many possessions he has. A man can be happy with relatively few possessions. I don't consider emotional happiness to be the purpose of a man's life. (Aristotle's 'happiness' as the goal of life isn't about emotional happiness as we normally use the term.)
You really do like the Straw Man tactic I see. I am a minimalist who gave away thousands of dollars of belongings. I have two suitcases, a laptop bag, and a car in long term storage while I travel the world. I am in Japan now and I move to another country about every month or so. So I have less possessions than most, but I have more WEALTH than most which grants me freedom to travel and meet new young, nubile women regularly.
If you mean wealth as in cash or assets, then those are still possessions.
Consider this: Any village idiot can marry, have kids and live his pathetic life out living the traditional cuck life. But scant few have the intelligence, freedom, and means to live the lifestyle of a wealthy, international, bon vivant. MGTOW are most able to do that however! If I had the chance to snap my finger and magically choose again, I would again reject the lifestyle of the married, traditional cuck in favor of the HNWI MGTOW without a second thought. What would most men who have been married more than 10 years choose? Most would look over at the fat, nagging wife and strongly consider MGTOW!
I'm married and I've been to several different countries. I'd venture to guess most guys talking about MGTOW aren't high net worth individuals. (It's hard to communicate if you use abbreviations people need to look up.) I wouldn't call myself 'HNWI' but I do all right. But if I lost my savings tomorrow, I wouldn't be devastated or think my life was worthless. When I had no income I was just as a valuable as I am now.
MrMan wrote:
Please tell me you did not use that bitter shaming tactic about having meaningless and unfulfilling sexual relationships! Your wife has literally invaded your brain.
You really have a strange prejudice toward married men. I don't think I've every heard my wife use that kind of terminology 'meaningless and unfulfilling sexual relationships!' Those are my words. Not every man thinks like you do.
I am 50 years old, but most people assume I am in my 30s. I am physically fit because I have time for ample sleep and regular workouts. I therefore only date women half of my age and below. I have a 19 year old who loves me very much and I have a bevy of lesser important twentysomethings who find it fun to hang out and enjoy my company. I can assure you these personal relationships are extremely fulfilling!
If you are that old, it's likely that it will start to show soon. Do you think you can keep the new girls interested if you look like an old man?
MrMan wrote:
You basically have a very selfish world-view. You also forget that we are actually social beings. There is enjoyment in relationships, having a wife, children, etc. that is more than just entertainment. There are also good things to do that are good whether I receive temporary pleasure or not. You should consider what society would be like if everyone did what you described. Either it would be full of bastards or there would be no kids and society would die out. If women were as selfish as you want men to be.. well that's the problem you are reacting against. if all of them were that way, society would be worse. All women would use men and discard them. It's a huge problem already.
Now you are basically lashing out with cognitive dissonance and reaching for some altruistic argument which would serve to justify your decision to cuck yourself into marital servitude.
Maybe you are the selfish one because you certainly did not marry to save the world and society. You married out of self-interest and a desire to lockdown your wife so you could have her for yourself.
Talk about a straw man. I did not say married people are more moral. I was responding to your comments about life decisions which seem to come from a very selfish philosophy, and particularly raising children. But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions. If you got a woman pregnant, would you be comfortable having nothing to do with your own son or daughter?
There were a number of factors involved in deciding to marry my wife. A lot of it had to do with following God's will for my life. This was something I prayed about and had gotten some direction on before I took action. But I did want to marry, and I wanted her to be my wife.
Newsflash: Most married women eventually have an extra marital affair as respite from their slave who no longer can please her as well as before.
I don't know if it is true that 'most' women do that. I give my wife what she needs, physically, and then some, anyway. But my wife also has good morals in this area.
MrMan wrote:
How are your personal morals? If you see a friend left his wallet in his car when he got out. You figure you could take $100 out without him knowing it was you, would you do it? If you really didn't like someone, and you just knew you could kill him without anyone knowing, would you do it? Does what's good for other people enter into your decision-making at some point?
So married people are more "moral" than unmarried people? Does this apply to unmarried priests, nuns, and other clergy too?
No, and that is a good example of a straw man argument. it's not about married people having better morals. I am commenting on the way you have portrayed your own moral philosophy. You ask why a man should raise children? Were you asking why a man should raise his own children if they exist? If a man has children out there, and he refuses to raise or support them, that's something I would consider very selfish and immoral.
Let me burst your moralistic bubble here. In any case of murder or homicide of a married person, the presumptive, prime suspect is the living spouse absent evidence to the contrary. How is that for married people being more "moral?"
Again, you are arguing against a straw man. But since a very tiny percent of married people murder their spouses, it's not really that strong an argument for your case.
MrMan wrote:
I'm very glad your wife let's you have those things because she does not have to you know!
If you use another shaming tactic like calling MGTOW sociopathic, I am going to think you are a female posing as a male on this forum. If you are not female, you give huge indications of just how affected your thinking is by your wife.
Look in the mirror, man. You are the one using the shaming tactics. My wife doesn't control whether I have a TV. The sociopath comment was triggered by your asking why men should raise children and the very selfish philosophy you presented in the last post about making life choices, as if it is right for man only to care about himself and his own pleasure, and not other people.
Other people can be important to a man. It is as if you do not want men to care about other people, particularly a woman, not enough to marry her.
Be a man, not a slave.
I am a man. I am not going to become a slave to these name-calling, insulting, shaming tactics, and become a MGTOW. Is that how you were persuaded to become one? Through the insults?