Could society ever abondon marriage? The marriage system does not benifit men imo and i wonder if there are other societies that had no marriage system, i think it works only in female favour, thats why most marriage law are female focused
>>18577813It originally did benefit men when it was plainly about controlling women. But since feminism became a thing, it doesn't seem to have use for either gender
>>18577821How did marriage benefit men? It is just a contract to become a "provider" to someone, its just slavery
I originally thought this was a comic mocking trannies on disability (such as our discord leftist spammers). Anyway this is not even incidentally /his/ related, so kill yourself, Pedro
>>18577823>how did getting a free human fucktoy benefit men
>>18577828Marriage literally stops you from fucking other women, now you can onky fuck one fuck toy
>>18577830Depends on the time and place. Many societies allowed married men to hoard women aka polygamy
>>18577833Whats the point of marriage nowadays then? You become a financial slave to some sub 5 vagina..
>>18577823Women can do/help with domestic work that men may be too busy with other stuff to focus on>>18577828>his lust-filled brain defaults to sex when marriage has other material benefits
>>18577823>How did marriage benefit men?In nothing at all>>18577813People, and especially men, are abandoning this failed institution. "Traditional" marriage isn't inherently good, but for millennia it was a form of survival and social integration within society/tribe/clan, and men held absolute power over it. Don't get me wrong, it was still considered worthless and the effort wasn't really worth it. But today, marriage doesn't exist, only a caricature of it fostered by the feminist state. But it encourages me to know that soon this disgusting system will be destroyed and nothing will remain, then we can laugh in the faces of the idiots who say that marriage is the basis of everything, hahaha.
>>18577838I fail to see how marriage benefits me as a man, she can divorce me and take half my money any day
>>18577847Trvke
>>18577813It's kind of already dead.40% of marriages end in divorce. Those odds aren't great.In it's default form it's a scam that simply extracts wealth from a man and gives it to a woman. A relic from a time where women could not take care of themselves financially without a man providing for them.So any man with any sense gets a prenup, which kind of renders the thing moot and makes it symbolic at best. You could probably come up with a better system that is specifically designed for child raising. With tax benefits and incentives to make babies. Also make it time limited with a built-in prenup, so you can just split without much bureaucracy after a certain number of years.
>>18577862Thats what i am talking about, we should seek other forms of "baby-making" that doesnt harm men in the process
>>18577813I'm certain you existing is the fault of christkeks normalizing hetero monogamy relationships and requiring new slaves.
>>18577862>>18577847Tradbros? Our answer?
>>18577894There is no answer. Marriage has failed miserably, and now we are not sure if the same thing will not happen in the future, even if it is corrected or a global reform occurs. (I said if)marriage is, or better, was considered by many traditionalists and Christians to be an immutable and timeless institution that would prevail in the modern world because it is supposedly the foundation of society, but marriage has failed.
It already has. There are kids today who don't know what churches are, let alone marriage. The last gaps are little girls being raised on fairy tale princess stories and mummy and daddy loving each other forever. They're about ten years behind the curve. It's why defacto stuff exists, and is being made stricter. I think you'll see the defacto stuff being memorised by men and used to avoid partnership beyond certain thresholds in the future.
Christianity betted its existence on patriarchal marriage lmao
>>18577910>and now we are not sure if the same thing will not happen in the future,Literally only if patriarchy resurfaces. Otherwise it'll just be some African warlord tier polygamous society
>>18577958>patriarchal Not since OT
>>18577823It was a legal bond between bloodlines and a permanent exchange of property between them, creating a durable alliance.
>>18577954>The last gaps are little girls being raised on fairy tale princess stories and mummy and daddy loving each other forever.Girls grew up with Mulan, and today anything about princesses is subversive. The average girl today is educated according to feminist parameters.
>>18577830Your mindset didn't exist 100 years ago because most young people didn't "date" or hope to have sex with more than two or three people in their lifetime. Most men didn't even get any pussy at all and died alone. In that sort of world, getting one decent piece of ass guaranteed for the rest of your dick's working days was a good deal.
>>18578016>Most men didn't even get any pussy at all and died alone.This literally wasn't the case 100 years ago. Talk to old people and they'll all tell you bachelors were extremely rare compared to now.
Let me tell you a story: my brother married young and, at first, everything was perfect, but then she started not making lunch because of the child. He let it go, but even after his daughter grew up, he still complains that she doesn't cook. They argue about it sometimes, and once my father and her mother intervened. And guess whose side they took? By the way, my family is very we wuz tradcath n sheit saarThey're so fat now because they order fast food every week.
>>18578021>Most common Christian family in 2026
>>18578021And why does she have to cook all the time? Doesn't he have the capacity? Raising children is tiring, and nowadays everyone works, in case you didn't know, so leaving everything on the wife's shoulders is bad character and laziness. You have hands and feet; it's not like making dinner makes you effeminate or anything. My ex-boyfriend and I shared the chores and were together for four years, so it worked well.
>>18578028>Behold, the woman has arrived.>And why does she have to cook all the time? Because she's a woman and it's within her natural role. If men en masse used the same argument, "And why should we provide for the family?" you would cry about le weak men.>Raising children is tiringMen's work is tiring too. If not, even more so. It's very different from office jobs granted through gender quotas and affirmative action, you know?>so leaving everything on the wife's shoulders is bad character and lazinessThere are natural roles for men and women.>so it worked well.Kek apparently not lol look at your attitude? lol
>>18577828>free
Still no one gave an example of a society with no marriage system, you failed me /his/
>>18578190Africa
>>18578314There are marriages in wakanda
>>18578033>there are natural roles for men and womenSo natural that they need society to enforce them
>>18577823it prevented women from being in their natural state they want to be in as can be seen today: community holes>>18577813>Could society ever abondon marriage? it already did in spirit. now it only exists as a trap for men that implodes after 5-10 years where the woman, divorce lawyers and the rest of the system take everything from them.
>>18578021>my brother marriedfound the problem.
>>18578347there are multiple resting states that a being can be within, its just that for women, before being a nurturing wife and mother if she is dicked down hard, her natural state is that of chaotic retarded hole.
>>18578016>Whorehouses didn't exist
>>18578033>Men's work is tiring tooI wonder, was it single income or doble income family anon brother had.If its single income then sure the non working party should be responsible for house work.If its double income then they ahouldve divided between housework and children and other stuff.
>>18577813Some of the Orthodox Old Believers abandoned marriage after the Nikonian reforms, considering the church to be corrupted by the Antichrist and its sacraments void. Basically they just lived in the backwoods of Latgale, Udora and so on and had some kind of common law cohabitation practise instead.
>>18577813idc about op's topic, but yuriniggers are legit mentally ill agp trannies and the foid is based for that
>>18578656Men can not be community rods in marriage too, its not like you get a pass to cheat on your wife
>>18578669>double income then they ahouldve divided between housework and children and otherNo. Its always women's work
>>18579160?
>>18578672How did that work out
Lots of compelling arguments here this thread. Guess you guys shouldn’t marry your girlfriends.
>>18579329They got demographically swamped eventually, the diasporas are doing somewhat better. Especially the brazilian one has wealthy landowners.
>>18577813And remain anything resembling a society? No.
>>18579330The marriage in question>>18578021
>>18577830yeah but in a free sex economy the average man gets no fuck toys, so men created marriage so the average man could at least get one. Women and higher value men are inherently disadvantaged by marriage, women only did it because they didn't have the physical strength to fight back and high value males didn't because they were outnumbered. Marriage was never a requirement for society but rather a requirement to keep the majority of low quality males from lashing out at having no pussy, if that group don't want to get married literally nothing would happen to society at all because it was never something required anyway.
>>18578033natural role kek. this is why women have completely removed themselves from the family unit and have decided to slave away to corporations instead. They are always going to do whats logically beneficial for them and the easiest option. Letting having children become the non easy option and the non beneficial option is what has fucked over our birth rates. Even if you try to take away their rights now your just gonna end up living in a low trust low IQ pvp shit hole like all the other countries that do that because the second a population becomes educated or intelligent they will instantly give the rights back to further their own agenda. The only thing that can be done now is start a war that hopefully kills all the retards so that the gender ratio skews female and we get the benefits of that
>>18579275and thats why u get divorced and lose all ur money kek
Bump cuz good thread
>>18577813What is this image about?
>>18579913It was probably mocking someone on xitter
are there any genuine advantages to getting married in current year?
>>18577823Here's a traditional marriage:Man gets:>guaranteed exclusive sex partner>children>someone to take care of his children>someone to take care of his home>emotional supportWoman gets:>guaranteed exclusive sex partner>children>a man who legally cannot run away from her or her children>someone to provide for her and the children financially while she does domestic duties>emotional supportIt used to be a good deal for both parties. But in this jewish society, the entire thing is all fucked up and retarded. The institution of marriage is almost worthless today. Just the fact that two faggots that butt-fuck each other and can't produce offspring can legally be "married" should tell you how much of a joke it is. There is no point to that except to make a mockery of the institution. It was already beyond raped anyway for a multitude of reasons, I'm just saying.>>18577837Today, there is almost no point to marriage. There are a few financial and social incentives, but when you weigh those against how you can just be bent over and brutally assfucked, completely socially, emotionally and financially ruined, on the whims of a woman/lawyer/judge, it's really not worth it. It's like being given some cookie crumbs to play russian roulette.
>>18580314>>guaranteed exclusive sex partnerif infertile, epic fail>>someone to take care of his childrenas opposed to the entire network of extended family relatives/tribesmen/clanmembers?You sent off your spawn to some other people to slave forhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosterage#Fosterage_in_Scotlandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosterage#Fosterage_in_medieval_Icelandhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fosterage#Fosterage_in_medieval_Ireland>>someone to take care of his homehousehold members traditionally do that.Roman 'familia' originally meant slaves. 'famulus' - a household slave....Where's your housenigger?>Woman gets:>>childrenWoman *births* the abominable spawn each year in great pain, risking to die each time. And with expectation that the bulk majoritiy of those will die from diseases.Not to mention, gender-specific infanticide via exposure, because girls were less valuable than men.>Man gets:>>childrencheap slave labor force, if lower classmale property inheritors or female bargaining chips, if high class (but the male spawn will start bloody infighting, if spawned too numerously)>>a man who legally cannot run away from her or her childrenhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Middle_Ages"Whereas theologians and clerics preached sparing their lives, newborn abandonment continued as registered in both the literature record and in legal documents.[14]:16 According to William Lecky, exposure in the early Middle Ages, as distinct from other forms of infanticide, "was practiced on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered a very venial offence".[55]:355–56""very high sex ratios were common in even late medieval Europe, which may indicate sex-selective infanticide.[58]">>someone to provide for her and the children financiallyif the bitch has no dowry, then no husbando
>>18580361>You sent off your spawn to some other peopleAlso'Possibilities. Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire' (2007):"Though “the Italian considers this custom cruel, insinuating that the English took in each other’s children because they thought that in that way they would obtain better service than they would from their own offspring,” Aries suggests, realistically enough, that “the explanation which the English themselves gave to the Italian observer was probably the real one: “In order that their children might learn better manners” (op cit.).<...> not only in England but across much of Northern Europe, from the High Middle Ages onwards. Young men and women were expected to leave home at a fairly early age—if not by nine, then certainly by their early teens— and spend the next ten or fifteen years in “service”—which basically meant, as wage-laborers living under the roof of their employers. Rural youths, for instance, were usually hired at local fairs and worked for a year’s term before receiving their wages. Others were placed by their parents, though most often with masters whose social position was somewhat higher than their own: a husbandman’s son in the family of a yeoman, a yeoman’s daughter as a maid for a minor member of the local gentry, and so on (Laslett 1972, 1977, 1983; Wall 1983; Kussmaul 1981).This condition was expected to last until the age of twenty-five or even thirty: in part, because no one was expected to marry until they had accumulated enough resources to set up an independent household of their own. Wage-labor, in other words, was basically a life-cycle phenomena"
>>18580314>Just the fact that two faggots that butt-fuck each other and can't produce offspring can legally be "married" should tell you how much of a joke it is.>and can't produce offspringJust a reminder: Roman emperors adopted their (quite adult) generals as their 'sons'.An eupatrid/paterfamilias also could literally bring a 30+ y.o. hobbo from the street and proclaim him his heir, if his own blood-related male heirs were absent or unworthy. Because a 'traditional' family was first and foremost a religious cult (of a 'genius'/'daimon') (cf. Fustel de Coulanges - 'The Ancient City')
