The Sugar Baby Culture - A Revelation

[hypermak]

But a word of caution, this is not for younger guys who should be in the wealth and status accumulation phase of life. I am in my early 50's and believe me when I tell you I date girls from age 18 to 25 ONLY. These are girls I would never have had a chance with when I was in my teens and twenties. Dating experience at that age involves a lot or rejection and seasoning that makes it a breeze when you are older and more successful. So younger guys should not waste money on sugar babies until they have "made it" in their upper 30s or beyond.

Now you have finally admitted that your approach to girls, aka Sugar Daddying on the cheap (courtesy of Ukraine, Belarus et similia), is not for the younger guys. If I was in my 50s and single or divorced, with a few established businesses on auto-pilot and not much in the way of moral obligations towards a family or a community, I would be doing exactly the same as you are doing now. I would be looking for cute women to extract sex from, in exchange from little gifts or cash, or both.

The roots of our earlier arguments, I understand, are that you were selling your lifestyle as a blanket statement, good for everyone at every stage of their lives, out of your belief that a man should never bond to a woman and only think of himself and his wealth and well-being. Failure to understand that men, like women, come in different ages, sizes and personalities and yes, they do need (sometimes want) to try stuff and make mistakes, before they understand what's good for them.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

The roots of our earlier arguments.... that a man should never bond to a woman and only think of himself and his wealth and well-being.

Not exactly. I am against MARRIAGE on a philosophical-level, but you are again conflating other things with marriage (ie. bonding to a female, love, companionship) when they are separate concepts. Marriage is simply a legal contract with the state which is no longer needed nor healthy for ANY modern man. Bonding with or loving a woman can be fine so long as a man retains the means to leave whenever he so chooses without state interference. Your issue is that you view marriage in largely romantic terms so you equate it with things like love, companionship, family, bonding, etc. Marriage is a legal status by contract, PERIOD. You don't need marriage to have any of those romantic concepts you bring up.

Failure to understand that men, like women, come in different ages, sizes and personalities and yes, they do need (sometimes want) to try stuff and make mistakes, before they understand what's good for them.

Mostly true, but if men can avoid CATASTROPHIC mistakes, life is far easier and more smooth. Marriage in the West often ends catastrophically for men (and sometimes for women too) and couples should be together by the force of mutual will alone, not state, religious, community, or family coercion.

[hypermak]

Not exactly. I am against MARRIAGE on a philosophical-level, but you are again conflating other things with marriage (ie. bonding to a female, love, companionship) when they are separate concepts. Marriage is simply a legal contract with the state which is no longer needed nor healthy for ANY modern man. Bonding with or loving a woman can be fine so long as a man retains the means to leave whenever he so chooses without state interference. Your issue is that you view marriage in largely romantic terms so you equate it with things like love, companionship, family, bonding, etc. Marriage is a legal status by contract, PERIOD. You don't need marriage to have any of those romantic concepts you bring up.

I agree with you on the (non-)"necessity" of marriage and I said on several of my replies. Bonding with a girl, affection, love, respect, companionship, even building a future together...all of this may exist without marriage.

Look at the reality, though: how many women who are not totally at the end of their sticks and desperate would want to give their best years (assuming we're dating 19-25 year olds here) to a man who can walk away at any time? One who would be left free to meet and f*ck other women?

Maybe we men do see marriage in the romantic sense but, beyond the gorgeous dress and the fancy eating gig, it's women who usually see marriage as something extremely more pragmatic. They want to marry so they can secure, at least to the eyes of the State (let's leave God alone!), the man's services for the years to come, in exchange for more sex and their contribution to raising a family.

You might have a point dating young women in their college years, who are naturally reluctant to commit or talk about marriage. I have been dating in the same age range so I don't see anything wrong with it. But as the couple grows a few years older, feelings become stronger and they are comfortable with spending time with each other, choice inevitably comes.

What do you do in that case? Deny that everything ever happened and walk away? Look for the next 20 years old and start all over?

Most men do what they believe is decent and "manly" for them. It might be unthinkable for a hardcore red piller like you, but many old school men still exist, who consider the ability to take care of a woman and build a family with her the peak of masculinity, of a mature and responsible life. Now, whether the woman they choose and marry is worth this kind of care and won't turn into an entitled tub of lard who threatens divorce a few years down the line, that's another story.

If you are on the side of men as you say you are, you have to entertain the notion that not all men are "dumb cucks". Many of them put their best efforts into a relationship, perhaps a marriage, and are often rewarded with a decent family menage, still with its ups and downs. The risk is always there but, unless they are really of the dumb pussified type (which is bad), they probably know what they are signing up for, and the odds they are up against.

Mostly true, but if men can avoid CATASTROPHIC mistakes, life is far easier and more smooth. Marriage in the West often ends catastrophically for men (and sometimes for women too) and couples should be together by the force of mutual will alone, not state, religious, community, or family coercion.

Again, I am not disagreeing with you. The part where "couples should be together by the force of mutual will alone" is something impossible to achieve in this society. Women are simply too accustomed with the comforts of securing a man's services by means of a government (or religious) contract. Women who are worth their salt might stay with a man for several years (especially if young) but - come her late twenties or early thirties - the question inevitably pops up and pressure start to mount.

The only way to avoid this is to actually never bond with a woman. So P2P, sugar daddying, and the likes.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Look at the reality, though: how many women who are not totally at the end of their sticks and desperate would want to give their best years (assuming we're dating 19-25 year olds here) to a man who can walk away at any time? One who would be left free to meet and f*ck other women?

I think when we speak of reality, you and I are from different cultural realities because I see things 100% differently than you describe. Young women in the United States, Japan, and other places I frequent are now inundated with choices so they are not thinking about settling down. They are riding the proverbial Cock Carousel or at least enjoying their unlimited dating choices and party years. I have never even met a Western girl between the ages of 18 and 29 wishing she were married. Most don't even want to be married. They would rather care for their pet dogs, and earn wages on their own than than build a traditional family. The young, traditional women you describe might exist in fundamentalist religious communities, but again, I have never met them. Perhaps Italy is different, but the Anglosphere is lost in terms of family oriented young women.

Maybe we men do see marriage in the romantic sense but, beyond the gorgeous dress and the fancy eating gig, it's women who usually see marriage as something extremely more pragmatic.

Yes and no. YOUNG men or men with less experience with a wide variety of women tend to see them in the romantic sense. Experienced men tend to pragmatically see women as the means thru which to have children, rear them, and to manage their households. The romanticism comes from mass media influence and younger men falling prey to the influence of the love fantasies of love-struck girls in their peer group.

"Love" is actually nothing more than a series of natural, chemical releases in the brain. As men age, they begin to have the ability to think more pragmatically about the women in their lives. Women are the ones that experience love as some otherworldly, dreamy, life altering force and they convince unsuspecting young men to believe the same.

As women get into their thirties, then they start thinking more opportunistically (not so much pragmatically) so as to find a provider with whom they can partner with to raise a family. Those magical "love" feelings begin to take on less importance than the reliability and resources of men.

You might have a point dating young women in their college years, who are naturally reluctant to commit or talk about marriage. I have been dating in the same age range so I don't see anything wrong with it. But as the couple grows a few years older, feelings become stronger and they are comfortable with spending time with each other, choice inevitably comes.

What do you do in that case? Deny that everything ever happened and walk away? Look for the next 20 years old and start all over?

I believe in being 100% honest with women from the start. From what I want from them, to my unwillingness to marry, are things girls should know early on. I have therefore never had a problem with girls not understanding that I am a content, world-traveling bon vivant. Yes, a few have tried to shame me into considering the long term, but my answer is always no. I have several girls around the world who are now married with children. A few of them expressed interest in marrying me years ago, but they understood that I was having none of it so they moved on as I moved on.

But the larger point is that women, even young ones, are adults. I take no special obligation for protecting them from heartbreak or disappointment, especially when I am honest with them. Neither should you. They need to learn how to manage that on their own.

It might be unthinkable for a hardcore red piller like you, but many old school men still exist, who consider the ability to take care of a woman and build a family with her the peak of masculinity, of a mature and responsible life.

Again, you are from a different culture so I cannot relate to such thinking. But I will say that taking care of a woman and building a family with her is nowhere near the peak of masculinity, maturity, and responsible life. Why? Because the record is replete with daily examples of married men who abuse their wives, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit adultery, gamble compulsively, and fail in their duties to provide financially for their families. Also, the record is replete women examples of men who are doing all the right things for their families, but they are overworked and utterly miserable.

Women and "cucked men" (especially religious men) try to market marriage as the be all and end all of masculinity, but that is a lie at its core. In fact, it is unmarried men who do most of the fighting for and protecting of all nations, and some of the most accomplished men in history were able to do so only because they forwent marriage and family. The married men myth is perpetuated by those who seek to control you thru shame and verbal reward when you comply. Men who look to themselves for reward see right thru that charade.

Now, whether the woman they choose and marry is worth this kind of care and won't turn into an entitled tub of lard who threatens divorce a few years down the line, that's another story.

Well, by not marrying ever, you remove that possibility 100%. Marriage is placing a loaded gun in the hands of a wife while just hoping she never gets upset with you enough to use it upon you. The only way to prevent that is to refuse to ever place that loaded piston in her emotional and fickle hands.

If you are on the side of men as you say you are, you have to entertain the notion that not all men are "dumb cucks". Many of them put their best efforts into a relationship, perhaps a marriage, and are often rewarded with a decent family menage, still with its ups and downs.

Oh no, I am not on the side of ALL men, not by a long shot. I am on the side of impressionable boys, confused younger men, and older men who are seeking a greater understanding of the anti-male forces in Western society who wish to dominate them. Men who are feminists, tradcucks, marriage-advocates, or white knights are enemies because they unwittingly do the work of men's larger enemies.

Many married men are indeed "dumb cucks" because they have agreed to allow themselves to be disposable utilities for women, yet they cannot at all see it. There are exceptions however. Both @Yohan and @MarcusZeitola (and possibly more on this site) are married and have a far more mature and balanced view towards women and marriage then the tradcucks who would sell out everyone and everything in their lives for the chance to be a voluntary slave for some woman with whom they are obsessed. Tradcucks are a case of misery loving company because they want to spread their filth to the younger men. They are failing however and the annual marriage statistics bear that out!

The part where "couples should be together by the force of mutual will alone" is something impossible to achieve in this society.

Why would a man want it any other way? If you no longer wish to be with a woman, or she no longer wishes to be with you, why should the state and attorneys come in and compound your misery by formalizing your breakup into a protracted, wealth-draining battle? Marriage does that to people who no longer want to be together and it is wrong.

Women are simply too accustomed with the comforts of securing a man's services by means of a government (or religious) contract. Women who are worth their salt might stay with a man for several years (especially if young) but - come her late twenties or early thirties - the question inevitably pops up and pressure start to mount.

I don't agree with that, but again, that might be something that is the case in Italy. In America and the rest of the Anglosphere, marriage is wanted less and less by women ALSO. Women don't really need men as they did in the past because they earn money in careers just as men do. If this were 50 years ago, I would agree with you, but now what you described is no longer the case in the Anglosphere.

The only way to avoid this is to actually never bond with a woman. So P2P, sugar daddying, and the likes.

I don't agree. The best way to avoid this is to never marry, nor have children in any society that forcefully transfers wealth from men to women. Bond all you want with women. Do P2P play all you wish if that works for you. I like sugar daddying myself and that works best for me and keeps my life exceedingly fun and interesting.

If you want to maximize your freedom from the tyranny of the female/state joint cooperative against men, just live as a domestic partner with a woman in a male-friendly country and never permit the legal hooks into your skin under the pretext of love, romance, or manipulation. This scam has worked to subjugate men for many generations and it is time for it to end.

[hypermak]

I think when we speak of reality, you and I are from different cultural realities because I see things 100% differently than you describe. Young women in the United States, Japan, and other places I frequent are now inundated with choices so they are not thinking about settling down. They are riding the proverbial Cock Carousel or at least enjoying their unlimited dating choices and party years. I have never even met a Western girl between the ages of 18 and 29 wishing she were married. Most don't even want to be married. They would rather care for their pet dogs, and earn wages on their own than than build a traditional family. The young, traditional women you describe might exist in fundamentalist religious communities, but again, I have never met them. Perhaps Italy is different, but the Anglosphere is lost in terms of family oriented young women.

The Anglosphere and northern European countries are more the exception than the rule. I left Italy a few years ago and didn't keep tab but if things haven't changed in the last 5 years, the only girls who are promiscuous to the point of not wanting to settle with a man until perhaps their late thirties, are those of low or very low socio-economic status, who grew in a dysfunctional family, one with an absentee or even abusive father, one without good role models.

The food industry has quite a few good professionals but is also littered with unsklilled, un-motivated kitchen and waiting staff who are not exactly the creme de la creme of society. When in the UK I met quite a few of these "gems", especially girls. They would turn up late for work and brag about the threesomes and orgies they had the night before after pub. One of them was reported to the manager for boasting drinking "about 3 pints of piss and cum" from 3 different guys and was fired the day after. None of them were much to look at, they basically looked how they talked...trash.

These are girls who, basically, end up marrying the most cuckish of men, those who just want or need to be with a woman, no matter what, no matter how. For normal men, there are the young women who have a genuine desire to commit, perhaps after a few missteps, and have no reason to sleep around just for the sake of it, or to prove a point.

In the US it might be a sign of emancipation, to ride the cock carousel past college. In Italy and most parts of the world, it's pathetic and girls know it. "Experimentation time" starts maybe at 17 and ends up towards the end of college. Italian students often take their sweet time to get their degrees, so this prolonged adolescence is pushed towards mid-20s.

More traditional women exist anywhere, but sometimes it's men who shun them because they are boring or not fun to be around. Sometimes they tend to be the shy and not so attractive types, they have insecurities too and they drag them into a relationship, making it ironically more complicated than being with a hot air-headed girl.

Yes and no. YOUNG men or men with less experience with a wide variety of women tend to see them in the romantic sense. Experienced men tend to pragmatically see women as the means thru which to have children, rear them, and to manage their households. The romanticism comes from mass media influence and younger men falling prey to the influence of the love fantasies of love-struck girls in their peer group.

That is true. By romance I mean that innate sense of chivalry that pushes many men to want to be of service to a family, perhaps because it's one of the most beautiful way to give meaning to a man's life. Good for you if you never felt this mission, yet many men do and it's silly to generalise, let alone mock them because they, too, are following biology and common sense.

"Love" is actually nothing more than a series of natural, chemical releases in the brain. As men age, they begin to have the ability to think more pragmatically about the women in their lives. Women are the ones that experience love as some otherworldly, dreamy, life altering force and they convince unsuspecting young men to believe the same.

Perhaps at your age you have written off the idea of raising a family and have become focused on what is good for you and what is the best way to achieve it. Again, not judging you for that. What I don't agree on, and can argue at length about, is when you want to elevate this lifestyle as the smartest and most fitting one for the modern, masculine man, and look down on whoever has chosen not to, or cannot, embrace it.

As women get into their thirties, then they start thinking more opportunistically (not so much pragmatically) so as to find a provider with whom they can partner with to raise a family. Those magical "love" feelings begin to take on less importance than the reliability and resources of men.

That is also true. What is the problem with this? It's life. Men are usually also interested in providing, too. Even in Italy most women have to work and provide. Cost of living is skyrocketing everywhere, no family with less than a combined 2000 EUR net/month is safe in Italy, unless maybe they have some help from their families or a small passive income. "Love" simply gets snowed under the burdens of life. What's so strange about that?

I don't know if you can appreciate what I am going to tell you now: one of the most loving moments I ever experienced in my life was when I saw my dad and mom at the bakery, at 4 AM of one winter morning. I was about 12 and woke up a bit earlier (I would start helping at 6:30) and decided to go downstairs at the bakery. Both my mom and dad were, as usual, in the workshop covered in sweat and flour and looking tired as hell. They probably hadn't slept a minute and worked through the whole night. My dad gave my mom a huge, long hug. I could tell he was holding her as tight as he could. My mom let one tear, ONE long tear come out of her eyes.

That single tear meant all the love in the universe for me: their love for each other, their love for the family, which was practically the only reason why they were working day and night, together, to make ends meet and build the small empire they have now. Their love for the ladies and the students who queue up at 8:00 to buy bread, croissants, focaccia and the occasional cake. Most importantly, it meant that the love that comes from sacrifice, pain and devotion is the only love that matters, once the fancy feelings and romance and chemistry all fade away. That single tear was all my mom would let go, which means she had a strength, in her late 30s, I will never even dream of having, ever in my life.

So well, maybe I am Italian and this is my mould. I will f*ck my brains out but at the meantime I will always, (not so) secretly, look for a woman as strong as my Mom. Almost impossible in this time and age...but who knows, the Philippines still have pockets of these kinds of women...

I believe in being 100% honest with women from the start. From what I want from them, to my unwillingness to marry, are things girls should know early on. I have therefore never had a problem with girls not understanding that I am a content, world-traveling bon vivant. Yes, a few have tried to shame me into considering the long term, but my answer is always no. I have several girls around the world who are now married with children. A few of them expressed interest in marrying me years ago, but they understood that I was having none of it so they moved on as I moved on.

But the larger point is that women, even young ones, are adults. I take no special obligation for protecting them from heartbreak or disappointment, especially when I am honest with them. Neither should you. They need to learn how to manage that on their own.

Kudos for your honesty, but I will continue to believe that the better of the women who expressed an interest in you, you will have lost them when you showed yourself as the non-committal type. This obviously wasn't a problem for you as you were not interested in anything more. It is, though, for men who do want to commit and are, therefore, looking for the commital, serious kind of woman. Who, I agree with you, is harder and harder to find in the liberal West.

Again, you are from a different culture so I cannot relate to such thinking. But I will say that taking care of a woman and building a family with her is nowhere near the peak of masculinity, maturity, and responsible life. Why? Because the record is replete with daily examples of married men who abuse their wives, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit adultery, gamble compulsively, and fail in their duties to provide financially for their families. Also, the record is replete women examples of men who are doing all the right things for their families, but they are overworked and utterly miserable.

We are all human and we all make mistakes. Of course there will also be a-holes both sides of the couple. Abusive men and ungrateful, unfaithful women, and even abusive women. There are also a lot of examples of couples who follow through their promise to provide for their kids while giving themselves the occasional treat, time and money permitting.

I do agree with you that the modern family is under an immense, IMMENSE kind of pressure. It's so hard to be a good dad or mom nowadays because it's so hard to be a good person, full stop. There is temptation everywhere, society encourages narcissism and forgives all kinds of domestic disasters as long as the man or woman are good producers and good consumer for the corporate powers.

It's hard, but not impossible. I have nothing but respect for those who at least try. Maturity and responsibility is more to do with giving it their best shot, than actually succeeding in being a "biscuit ad" family.

Women and "cucked men" (especially religious men) try to market marriage as the be all and end all of masculinity, but that is a lie at its core. In fact, it is unmarried men who do most of the fighting for and protecting of all nations, and some of the most accomplished men in history were able to do so only because they forwent marriage and family. The married men myth is perpetuated by those who seek to control you thru shame and verbal reward when you comply. Men who look to themselves for reward see right thru that charade.

Maybe I have a limited knowledge of history but I don't recall any great fighter in history who fought for a nation or a higher cause "having forgone family and marriage". Up until maybe the 60s, being married for a man was the norm. If anything, common sense says there is no fiercer fighter than a man who wants to kill without being killed, because he has a wife and children waiting for him.

Well, by not marrying ever, you remove that possibility 100%. Marriage is placing a loaded gun in the hands of a wife while just hoping she never gets upset with you enough to use it upon you. The only way to prevent that is to refuse to ever place that loaded piston in her emotional and fickle hands.

Yes, but I am talking about men who do want a family and do want to commit. A few paragraphs earlier you mention men can also be abusive, lazy, unfaithful and evil. Marrying one such a-hole is a risk, a loaded gun, pointed to the woman, too. Maybe you can't see it, but marriage is an investment for both parties, especially if the endgame is raising a family and working hard to provide for it.

For me that is only type of marriage that makes any sense.

Marriage for the sake of getting a trophy wife doesn't make sense. Marriage with a girl who show her gold digging colours very early on and the man is too blinded (or stupid) to see it, doesn't make sense. Marriage with a girl who slept with way too many men in the name of sexual emancipation doesn't make sense, as she won't be able to bond with you, or any other man for that matter. Marriage with a girl who is cute but uneducated and unable to step up to the game of getting a decent job and contributing to the home income, doesn't make sense.

Many married men are indeed "dumb cucks" because they have agreed to allow themselves to be disposable utilities for women, yet they cannot at all see it. There are exceptions however. Both @Yohan and @MarcusZeitola (and possibly more on this site) are married and have a far more mature and balanced view towards women and marriage then the tradcucks who would sell out everyone and everything in their lives for the chance to be a voluntary slave for some woman with whom they are obsessed. Tradcucks are a case of misery loving company because they want to spread their filth to the younger men. They are failing however and the annual marriage statistics bear that out!

If you can find a few examples of men whose conduct you like among the active posters on a forum like this (I suppose there are even more among the inactive posters), can you entertain the notion that there are quite a few more like those out there in normal life? Even if, say, 50% of the men were still of that kind of responsible and loving type, wouldn't you conclude that your lifestyle choice is not the only way to a happy or decent life?

Why would a man want it any other way? If you no longer wish to be with a woman, or she no longer wishes to be with you, why should the state and attorneys come in and compound your misery by formalizing your breakup into a protracted, wealth-draining battle? Marriage does that to people who no longer want to be together and it is wrong.

Well, I am talking about couple who do want to be together in marriage, perhaps after a test drive lasted a few years. If either or both parties no longer want to be together, there is divorce. There is also biased family courts but that's another matter.

I don't agree with that, but again, that might be something that is the case in Italy. In America and the rest of the Anglosphere, marriage is wanted less and less by women ALSO. Women don't really need men as they did in the past because they earn money in careers just as men do. If this were 50 years ago, I would agree with you, but now what you described is no longer the case in the Anglosphere.

That's probably true. I still see most couple in the UK getting married at some point in their lives but I can imagine that that trend is on the way down. If that is the case, what would we be left with in 10, 20 years? A bunch of "independent" soulless women and men who try to get the best sex and financial benefits for themselves, and themselves alone, for as long as they can afford it. If the occasional pregnancy happens there is always abortion, if the occasional feeling happens, it can always be swept away by the next swipe on Tinder, or whatever app will be available then.

That is my definition of HELL, of a meaningless life...WTF...I'd rather be dead than live like this, or see a majority of people acting like this. Perhaps these what our overlords have in mind, as a means to induce us to the brink of mass extinction and mass-control the few who are left.

If you want to maximize your freedom from the tyranny of the female/state joint cooperative against men, just live as a domestic partner with a woman in a male-friendly country and never permit the legal hooks into your skin under the pretext of love, romance, or manipulation. This scam has worked to subjugate men for many generations and it is time for it to end.

This would be entirely possible in the Philippines. And yet, I am not too sure I will want it...

[Contrarian Expatriate]

The Anglosphere and northern European countries are more the exception than the rule. I left Italy a few years ago and didn't keep tab but if things haven't changed in the last 5 years, the only girls who are promiscuous to the point of not wanting to settle with a man until perhaps their late thirties, are those of low or very low socio-economic status, who grew in a dysfunctional family, one with an absentee or even abusive father, one without good role models.

You bring up a good point, but the rest of the world is catching up, and fast. Although Italy has its Catholic-influenced mores and folkways, its women too are steeped in the social media culture of Tinder, feminism, and sexual promiscuity. When I see a woman born and raised in Italy, I see a Western woman with all her thorns, just perhaps in a more polished and fashionable form. I would say women in the small towns and villages of Italy might be traditional out of necessity and poverty, but their sisters in the big cities are just as depraved as their American ones.

By romance I mean that innate sense of chivalry that pushes many men to want to be of service to a family, perhaps because it's one of the most beautiful way to give meaning to a man's life. Good for you if you never felt this mission, yet many men do and it's silly to generalise, let alone mock them because they, too, are following biology and common sense.

In the modern day and age, chivalry is the highest form of male devaluation and interpersonal manipulation. It is men's willingly serving himself up on a platter to be used, abused, and discarded by undeserving overlords of the female variety. If a woman is carrying your child, I think that she has earned the right to be treated with special attention and care by a man, but short of that, have her pull out her own damn chair.

Men subordinating themselves to women is not biological. It is merely SOME men's strategy to achieve sexual success. Among red pill thinkers, this is the beta male provider's only strategy, but common sense it is not.

What I don't agree on, and can argue at length about, is when you want to elevate this lifestyle as the smartest and most fitting one for the modern, masculine man, and look down on whoever has chosen not to, or cannot, embrace it.

I think that a man doing what he really wants, and not what he has been socially inculcated and manipulated to do, is the smartest and most fitting lifestyle for him.

I don't know if you can appreciate what I am going to tell you now: one of the most loving moments I ever experienced in my life was when I saw my dad and mom at the bakery, at 4 AM of one winter morning. I was about 12 and woke up a bit earlier (I would start helping at 6:30) and decided to go downstairs at the bakery. Both my mom and dad were, as usual, in the workshop covered in sweat and flour and looking tired as hell. They probably hadn't slept a minute and worked through the whole night. My dad gave my mom a huge, long hug. I could tell he was holding her as tight as he could. My mom let one tear, ONE long tear come out of her eyes.

That single tear meant all the love in the universe for me: their love for each other, their love for the family, which was practically the only reason why they were working day and night, together, to make ends meet and build the small empire they have now. Their love for the ladies and the students who queue up at 8:00 to buy bread, croissants, focaccia and the occasional cake. Most importantly, it meant that the love that comes from sacrifice, pain and devotion is the only love that matters, once the fancy feelings and romance and chemistry all fade away. That single tear was all my mom would let go, which means she had a strength, in her late 30s, I will never even dream of having, ever in my life.

While that is a very nice story, the problem I see there is that you are trying to emulate your parents relationship when they are from another generation with a culture and value system that no longer exists in great measure. Women were different when your mother and father married, especially in a country like Italy. So if you are looking for a woman to even approximate your mother, you will need to move heaven and earth and still be the luckiest man in the world to find one.

Maybe I have a limited knowledge of history but I don't recall any great fighter in history who fought for a nation or a higher cause "having forgone family and marriage". Up until maybe the 60s, being married for a man was the norm. If anything, common sense says there is no fiercer fighter than a man who wants to kill without being killed, because he has a wife and children waiting for him.

General James Mattis, who was a highly respected military leader and Trump's first Secretary of Defense. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_monk
Not to mention that most of the actual fighting men around the world have been young, unmarried men. Their older, leaders were often married, but the actual fighting men of most nations have been unmarried over the years.

Marriage for the sake of getting a trophy wife doesn't make sense. Marriage with a girl who show her gold digging colours very early on and the man is too blinded (or stupid) to see it, doesn't make sense. Marriage with a girl who slept with way too many men in the name of sexual emancipation doesn't make sense, as she won't be able to bond with you, or any other man for that matter. Marriage with a girl who is cute but uneducated and unable to step up to the game of getting a decent job and contributing to the home income, doesn't make sense.

All true, but to take it a step further, marriage under any circumstances in this day and age makes no sense for a man.

Wouldn't you conclude that your lifestyle choice is not the only way to a happy or decent life?

It depends on what ASPECT of my lifestyle to which you are referring. My lifestyle is that of a minimalist, international bon vivant and most men would be fools to undertake what took me decades to perfect. But I do think that remaining UNMARRIED is one of the smartest things a modern man can do even if they want to have a female life partner and children.

I still see most couples in the UK getting married at some point in their lives but I can imagine that that trend is on the way down. If that is the case, what would we be left with in 10, 20 years? A bunch of "independent" soulless women and men who try to get the best sex and financial benefits for themselves, and themselves alone, for as long as they can afford it. If the occasional pregnancy happens there is always abortion, if the occasional feeling happens, it can always be swept away by the next swipe on Tinder, or whatever app will be available then.

What happens to society in the next few decades is not my job to change or fix. What will be will be. Perhaps it will get better, perhaps it will not.

That is my definition of HELL, of a meaningless life...WTF...I'd rather be dead than live like this, or see a majority of people acting like this.

That is troubling to read. I would ask you why does your personal contentment depend so much on what OTHER people are doing? Moreover, why does your personal contentment depend so much on your meeting and marrying some woman you don't even know yet? You have ceded so much control to forces outside yourself that it is alarming. I would hope that before you even THINK about marrying, you should develop the means to find your life happy and meaningful alone first. Marriage should theoretically be but the icing on the cake of your life, not the cake itself!

This would be entirely possible in the Philippines. And yet, I am not too sure I will want it...

We are in this life to learn and experience. And I am pleased to see that you are just even THINKING about these issues unlike most men who just jump off of the cliff into the valley of marriage just like lemmings jumping to their collective deaths.

I could tell from your reactions that the topic was thought provoking, as unpleasant as it was. But my mission is accomplished because you (and hopefully others) are merely thinking about it from more than one perspective now.

[hypermak]

You bring up a good point, but the rest of the world is catching up, and fast. Although Italy has its Catholic-influenced mores and folkways, its women too are steeped in the social media culture of Tinder, feminism, and sexual promiscuity. When I see a woman born and raised in Italy, I see a Western woman with all her thorns, just perhaps in a more polished and fashionable form. I would say women in the small towns and villages of Italy might be traditional out of necessity and poverty, but their sisters in the big cities are just as depraved as their American ones.

Well, that's why I am in the Philippines. And I believe you might be able to find a traditional woman ready to commit in Ukraine, if you were so inclined.

In the modern day and age, chivalry is the highest form of male devaluation and interpersonal manipulation. It is men's willingly serving himself up on a platter to be used, abused, and discarded by undeserving overlords of the female variety. If a woman is carrying your child, I think that she has earned the right to be treated with special attention and care by a man, but short of that, have her pull out her own damn chair.

Men subordinating themselves to women is not biological. It is merely SOME men's strategy to achieve sexual success. Among red pill thinkers, this is the beta male provider's only strategy, but common sense it is not.

That's not what I meant by chivalry. Chivalry means a man understands that he has a higher purpose in life than slashing enemies and raping their women and children. He has a higher purpose than just exercising his manly rights, he also has duties towards society and that initial cell of society that is family.

Of course a man's chivalry is best exercised towards the woman who is carrying or carried his children. But the notion is a bit more generic, and certainly miles away from the kind of pussification and pandering some men have towards women, hoping to ingratiate them.

I know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't say all men are like that. Not all, at least...not yet

I think that a man doing what he really wants, and not what he has been socially inculcated and manipulated to do, is the smartest and most fitting lifestyle for him.

Exactly my point. I am not saying your lifestyle is not worth respect, but so is that of men who decided to commit to a woman, even if that woman were to prove unworthy the man's commitment at some point in time. What is commendable is the man trying their best, not necessarily the full success of their actions. As you yourself said, not everything can be under a man's control and it's not your job, nor mine, to change the world. All we can do is "vote with our feet" and try to find pockets of humanity where the risk of finding the wrong woman is more modest.

While that is a very nice story, the problem I see there is that you are trying to emulate your parents relationship when they are from another generation with a culture and value system that no longer exists in great measure. Women were different when your mother and father married, especially in a country like Italy. So if you are looking for a woman to even approximate your mother, you will need to move heaven and earth and still be the luckiest man in the world to find one.

I know and in fact I said it: I will never have the inner strength of my Mom (or Dad), and I will never find a woman like her. I think I can still find a girl over here in the Philippines, perhaps a relatively rural area, who still knows the meaning of sacrifice. Of course I don't have much time. That window of opportunity is closing fast.

Not to mention that most of the actual fighting men around the world have been young, unmarried men. Their older, leaders were often married, but the actual fighting men of most nations have been unmarried over the years.

Well, that is probably because the younger men were (and still largely are) used for the field battles. I don't think having a family would diminish the sense of duty towards a country or a cause.

All true, but to take it a step further, marriage under any circumstances in this day and age makes no sense for a man.

We could say marriage with the right woman and with the purpose of starting a family (or a tribe, like for Marcos Z), makes sense. Perhaps the problem is not comitment or marriage, it's to find that special woman worth that commitment and marriage.

That is troubling to read. I would ask you why does your personal contentment depend so much on what OTHER people are doing? Moreover, why does your personal contentment depend so much on your meeting and marrying some woman you don't even know yet? You have ceded so much control to forces outside yourself that it is alarming. I would hope that before you even THINK about marrying, you should develop the means to find your life happy and meaningful alone first. Marriage should theoretically be but the icing on the cake of your life, not the cake itself!

I think you didn't get me. If a man's happiness doesn't depend on making the people he loves and cares about happy, then what would it depend on? Even the most self-centered man can't just go on forever pleasing himself with transient sexual encounters and solitary hobbies. At some point they are bound to ask themselves how they can be or service to a higher purpose. That higher purpose is often family.

What we both criticise is the fact that so often a man's best intentions and best efforts are all but wasted on the wrong kind of woman. Or that the brainwashing power of modern capitalism is so strong that very few people can keep a good heart intact for most part of their lives. That doesn't mean a man shouldn't try, though.

Personally I'd rather fail having tried than succeed in having a solitary life. It's my opinion.

We are in this life to learn and experience. And I am pleased to see that you are just even THINKING about these issues unlike most men who just jump off of the cliff into the valley of marriage just like lemmings jumping to their collective deaths.

I could tell from your reactions that the topic was thought provoking, as unpleasant as it was. But my mission is accomplished because you (and hopefully others) are merely thinking about it from more than one perspective now.

Well, it's always a good thing to be able to debate. I hope not to disappoint you, but I have been thinking about this long before I joined this forum and long before this thread (or the previous ones, where our discussion used far more toxic language). I am just as skeptical as you and most people with a hint of a critical mind, when it comes to what relationships between men and women are becoming. I am just not as cynical, yet. As people say, succeed or die trying.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

If a man's happiness doesn't depend on making the people he loves and cares about happy, then what would it depend on? Even the most self-centered man can't just go on forever pleasing himself with transient sexual encounters and solitary hobbies. At some point they are bound to ask themselves how they can be or service to a higher purpose. That higher purpose is often family.

If you think a man's higher purpose is family, you have set your sights far too low. Maybe if I was a villager 500 years ago, perhaps that would be a worthy life purpose. Some of us want to purchase shares of certain sports teams. Some of us want to purchase fractional ownership of airplanes to travel more easily. Some of us want to fund causes that appeal to us. Some of us want to assist talented young men to reach similar heights. Some of us want to accumulate positions in hedge funds and private equity. Don't be so narrow-minded to think that your family life ambition is somehow more better or more moral than other men's choices because I can tell you it is not. Again, married men can be toxic, abusive, lazy wastes of time
and and unmarried can be ubermenscher like myself.

If a marriage-free lifestyle represents "transient sexual encounters and solitary hobbies," think again. Siring babies with a woman is something any untalented villager can do. Doing what you want, how you want, when you want is the stuff of worldy-wise, sigma (or alpha) men who control their international environments and circumstances. To be living in a home with a wife and child is akin to living death for men who acquire, control, and expand their wealth domain.

From my standpoint, each dollar I own is like a little worker. Each of them has a duty to pay me 10 to 20 cents every year just for the privilege of being owned by me. I manage them, choose which jobs they take, negotiate their terms, and protect them from exploitation or theft by fraud.

The fact that the expansion of these workers enables me to do and control more and more is the realization of my wildest dreams as a child. The world is my literally my neighborhood, and I can calls the shots anywhere by summoning a few of my workers to put my will into action.

Ceding such awesome power and influence in favor of a government-empowered female supervisor (third worlder or not) is a non-starter. If you want women to respect you deeply in this day and age of feminism, you MUST retain the ultimate power to shoo them away, or leave them. Marriage deprives you of that ability under penalty of law and financial ruin.

Italy's own Gianluca Vacchi is my age and also lives part time in Miami just like I do. While he inherited his wealth and I had to create my own, he and I are of very similar mindset.

I understand he is hated in Italy by people who would kill be able to live his lifestyle. Perhaps the biggest mistakes he talks about making was being married in 2014, but he realized his error and fired his wife in 2017. He is now the happiest he has ever been in his life.

I encourage you to ask him, in Italian, if he prefers his former married life or his current lifestyle.



Calling that man "missing out on his higher purpose" is just envy, pure and simple.

[Cornfed]

If you think a man's higher purpose is family, you have set your sights far too low.

I agree that raising niglets would be incredibly low and basically anything would be a better use of your time. This is not necessarily the case with human children though. BTW, you realise the only reason some people are able to live the hedonistic lifestyle you advocate is that they are sponging off other high-functioning people living the lifestyle you oppose, right? If every intelligent man woke up tomorrow morning agreeing with you then civilisation would collapse immediately and we would have to go back to adaptive behaviour, i.e. what you oppose.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

If you think a man's higher purpose is family, you have set your sights far too low.

I agree that raising niglets would be incredibly low and basically anything would be a better use of your time. This is not necessarily the case with human children though. BTW, you realise the only reason some people are able to live the hedonistic lifestyle you advocate is that they are sponging off other high-functioning people living the lifestyle you oppose, right? If every intelligent man woke up tomorrow morning agreeing with you then civilisation would collapse immediately and we would have to go back to adaptive behaviour, i.e. what you oppose.

I have had more than my share of opportunities to raise the white offspring of single mothers. If you personally want to do that, that actually might make some sense for you since impregnating a white woman is not in the cards for you. But I would hardly think that would be any kind of  ”upgrade”  to raising my own biological offspring given the success that runs in my family history.

[Cornfed]

But I would hardly think that would be any kind of  ”upgrade”  to raising my own biological offspring given the success that runs in my family history.

Whitey keeps on handing you those bananas.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

But I would hardly think that would be any kind of  ”upgrade”  to raising my own biological offspring given the success that runs in my family history.

Whitey keeps on handing you those bananas.

You’re right. One of my 4 great grandfathers was born a slave, and freed at age 6. He died owning vast acres of lucrative tobacco farmland granted to the family that owned him by the then King of England.

When my father died last year, that land now belongs to me and my siblings so you are 100% correct. Those are bananas forcefully yanked from the hands of King George during the American Revolution, then yanked from the hands of white Confederates during the American Civil War, and now they belong to me. I have to tell you they are quite tasty those bananas!

[Cornfed]

But I would hardly think that would be any kind of  ”upgrade”  to raising my own biological offspring given the success that runs in my family history.

Whitey keeps on handing you those bananas.

You’re right. One of my 4 great grandfathers was born a slave, and freed at age 6. He died owning acres of lucrative tobacco farmland granted to the family that owned him by the then King of England.

When my father died last year, that land now belongs to me and my siblings so you are 100% correct. Those are bananas yanked from the hands of King George, then from the hands of white slave owners after the American Civil War which now belong to me.

One of the dysfunctions of Anglo types is that we care more about our pets than our fellow Anglo types. I am guilty of this myself. It is a major weak point and I will try to overcome it.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

But I would hardly think that would be any kind of  ”upgrade”  to raising my own biological offspring given the success that runs in my family history.

Whitey keeps on handing you those bananas.

You’re right. One of my 4 great grandfathers was born a slave, and freed at age 6. He died owning acres of lucrative tobacco farmland granted to the family that owned him by the then King of England.

When my father died last year, that land now belongs to me and my siblings so you are 100% correct. Those are bananas yanked from the hands of King George, then from the hands of white slave owners after the American Civil War which now belong to me.

One of the dysfunctions of Anglo types is that we care more about our pets than our fellow Anglo types. I am guilty of this myself. It is a major weak point and I will try to overcome it.

But sugar babies still remain viable options as much as you like to derail useful threads.

[Cornfed]

But sugar babies still remain viable options as much as you like to derail useful threads.

I agree. Sugar babies are viable options in the current asylum and I am not trying to derail the thread.