Discuss dating, relationships and foreign women.
Here is a video by Tommy Sotomayor explaining how marriage is not a good idea for men who are wealthy.
"When I think about the idea of getting involved with an American woman, I don't know if I should laugh .............. or vomit!"
"Trying to meet women in America is like trying to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphics."
Kids need a strong male role model. When that doesn't happen things get f***ed up fast.
Keep that in mind while evaluation his opinions.
If I remember right, the English government didn't legally register marriages with licenses until the 1700's. I suppose they accepted church weddings, but I don't think it was a case of having a legal certificate on a particular form. (There may have been some church documents. I don't know.) And if you go back, and probably still in some societies, marriage is an agreement between families. For example, a man makes an agreement with the father of a young woman, or two fathers make an agreement for their children to wed. Some cultures exchange dowries. The man might pay some cows for the wife, for example. Some cultures have a dowry from the female side as well.
The legal documentation side of it is a lot newer than the actual institution and covenant of marriage.
As a Christian, I believe God instituted marriage, but not the legal system with a state-registered certificate. I think people should do so if they live in a government that registers marriage, as long as something immoral is not required to register the marriage.
Again, that is a very late version of marriage. For much of history, the two wed and the man has authority over the wife and he's also responsible for her, to some extent for her actions, but also to provide for her and take care of her.
And the man does get a lot out of that scenario. He gets a sex partner right there in his house all the time. That's a good thing. She bears his children. If she's faithful and honest, he can know for sure that these are his children. They help him work his farm, milk his cows, and churn his butter.
If you think about history a long time ago before civilization built up as it has, you really needed other people and family bonds are really good bonds for that sort of thing. Its hard to harvest the field by yourself. If you break your legs, your sons can harvest your field or hunt a deer and get some meet for you.
The modern legal system evolved to make it where women can divorce their husbands (and quite easily) and take half his stuff, the kids and child support. But that's not true in all countries even today. Back around 1900, I hear kids typically went with the father in the case of divorce, which was much rarer.
I see lots of benefits. I enjoy my wife in so many ways. As a Christian, I don't believe in fornication. But I can have plenty of guilt-free sex with my wife. That's good. I don't have to go out to some bar and pick up a woman who might have a disease. I get to know all my own children.
My wife also keeps the house clean, takes care of the children, and cooks amazing food. I live better than I did as a single man in so many ways.
I suspect most women aren't so philosophical against marriage. Most who talk like that are men if you'll notice. There are women who believe in marriage strongly, and others less so. If a woman believes in marriage and believes in not cheating and not getting a divorce, that's a good start. If she really believes in it, has conviction, and lives up to her convictions, then she doesn't go sleep around and bring home a disease or get pregnant with some other man's baby. And she doesn't leave you either and take your stuff.
Compare marriage to shacking up with a woman. She might not be able to get half your assets. I don't know the laws, but I wouldn't be surprised if feminists including those in family court judge positions, weren't pushing to apply divorce laws to living together. Even if you don't give up your assets, you can still end up paying a woman you lived with a child support check. The thing is, though, if you didn't marry her, she doesn't really have much moral reason not to go sleep around or leave you. It's just breaking an understanding you have if she does so. But if she divorces you because she's bored or frustrated, then she's violating a covenant that she made (in most cases) before her family and before God. So if she's got a sense of ethics and honor, that's a big deal. Unfortunately, many women (and men) in society don't have a high sense of honor these days like our culture used to a hundred and fifty years ago. But you can find individuals who do.
Chemistry is a flimsy basis. Too many women idealize feelings like this and leave, divorcing their husbands, when its not there. A man needs a wife who knows that she has to keep covenant even if she's going through some emotional funk and she doesn't have her old feelings for her husband. So she knows to work on the relationship and the feelings instead of leave.
Basing a relationship on a woman's feelings is a foolish thing to do.
Married men live longer than single men. It is a better life style and more relaxed. I suppose it's exciting to have a new girlfriend. But that wears off. Just from a point of view of a man who values sex, it's better to be able to go home and just have sex with your wife than to have to game some girl in a bar and roll the dice on it.
Also, over time, men get uglier, usually, not better looking. It's easier to be good-looking at 28 than 58. You can get locked in on a sex partner while you are still reasonably good looking. Sure, she ages too, but it's got to be easier to have sex with a 65-year-old woman that you've been sleeping with for 40 years than to sleep with a 65 year-old when you get older without easing into it. Some 75 year old fornicators might be able to talk a young woman into bed. But it would have to be an uphill battle. Let's say he gamed girls for three months and got one to come home with him. Then his equipment doesn't work. He might have to go through another three months of gaming younger women hoping for an opportunity before he'd find one willing to go -home with a 75 year-old. But if he had a 65-year-old wife at home, he could have sex several times maybe without even having to buy her a drink. And she can also clean the floors, cook the food, and make his doctor's appointments. One-night-stands don't do that. Marriage has benefits for old men.
You should have asked him if he were an animal. I remember hearing about male species who take care of young animals. You know that some animals only stay around their mothers until they are weened. Humans are unusual in the amount of care we give to offspring. You could have mentioned penguin males taking care of the eggs on their feet, btw.
I knew this guy who'd been diagnosed as a sociopath who said he didn't care about the kids he'd fathered. He considered them to be just spawn.
But what kind of person thinks like this? Is this someone you want to be like? Fatherlessness is bad for society. Would you have wanted your dad to be like that? Talk to some men whose dads weren't in their lives at all and ask what they think about this.
Anthropologically that doesn't make sense. I'd venture to assert that most societies have father-son relationships as an important aspect of the culture. And historically most societies have been male-dominated (fortunately.) Feminism is a recent phenomenon.
Pragmatically, it makes sense for human beings on a savannah, in a jungle, or farming some plain to live in family groups and share work and resources.
I've read that research indicates that children in two parent homes fair better on a a number of metrics.
Men aren't brainwashed. Most men want to reproduce and carry on their blood line. And marriage is the only way to do that. However, getting married and having kids in feminist countries is a ticking time bomb that can can off at any time.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests