It might just be the media and social circles I’ve been around, but there is a common refrain amongst them along the lines of “girls, you are dumb if you get married young. Live your life, build a career, explore your sexual horizons, and learn things about yourself before you even consider letting a man be a part of your future.”
Some say the same to men, but through women an entire future is destroyed if they follow that advice. Not so much for men.
Sex and the City was considered an aspiration to many young women around the 2000s. The show Girls was about the same. It’s so common now that it’s a trope in most modern media.
It’s not far removed from the portrayal of mothers, and motherhood, as a burdensome or an outright prison sentence (e.g. Tully).
I file that under “direct assault,” since women are especially susceptible to media manipulation, but they won’t know the error of it until the damage is permanent. Since “young marriage” is dependent on both men and women being young, spoiling one group spoils the whole aspiration.
And from this radical change we now have the viral “I’m ready to settle down” memes — typically showing a fruit having rotted on the vine, but it it self-assured in its “being ready” to be treated as though its value is peaking, now that it has thoroughly debased itself.
All good points. Redpill types all understand that being unmarried by age 30 is strongly undesirable for women, yet have absurd excuses for why it is good for men, and have delusions that single men over 30 are more desirable.
That's a bad reply man. Jesus was at best neutral on marriage and at worst, against it. Which is why Paul had to rewrite everything to make it palatable, it's also why Christians love their apocrypha and is vastly more read and quite than the gospel . Telling a person to read the Bible does nothing here because it actually supports his view, not yours. See you have to go to church to learn you are supposed to ignore all the parts of the Bible that bothers you and that everyone in the Bible takes precedent over Jesus himself.
Spanish Civil War anarchists in Barcelona thought formal marriage was irrational and replaced it with "free unions" to promote equality. The result: babies
born to absentee fathers with no obligations to them. They reversed course and instituted "revolutionary marriage," finally understanding why a formal measure found in every civilization up to then wasn't irrational at all.
Plenty of men want to get married because they want to have children and don't want to be the first in their extended family for ages to say "My [sexual partner] and I are expecting a child" rather than "My wife and I."
Would you tell your little niece that if she wants to get married someday, she just wants to enslave a man? Would you tell her it's a good idea to have a child out of wedlock with a man who says marriage is shackles?
No need for the slurs, sheesh; I'm just surprised to hear this. If she has your grandchild out of wedlock, what obligation does the father have to stay in the picture? And if a man proposes to her, must she tell him, "No, don't marry me"?
I wouldn't say men have any obligations toward women when there are no children in the picture nor any intention of there being any. But children deserve to be born into stability. Without marriage, the concern is not that women will abandon the children, but that men will (as we've seen), so of course the restraint looks asymmetrical.
Crazy work to lump your daughter in with the term "fefails."
Of course there are downsides! Options have value: once you marry one person, you cannot marry the better choice you meet (and fall madly in love with) later - or at least not without wreaking havoc in your own, your spouse's and your children's lives. People learn what's important to them and are less likely to be drawn into marriage by youthful infatuation (especially one based purely on sexual attraction).
There are also downsides to marrying at all - not for everyone, but for some people. Given the huge cultural bias in favor of marriage, discovering that you are "not the marrying kind" takes considerable time. Once again, if you discover this only after being married for some years, there is no way to fix the problem.
And, if you are in the traditionally male role (and doubly so if you are a man), the legal implications of marriage are truly breathtaking. If your spouse chooses they can make you pay for a lifestyle you can just about support - or go to jail, no less! - but not let you share in it. You are in a relationship in which you have onerous and binding obligations to your spouse, who in turn has... absolutely no obligations whatsoever to you (if it were any other kind of contract it would be called "unconscionable"). That creates a profound imbalance in negotiating power in the relationship, even if your spouse does keep you around. Of course, if having children is the most important thing in your life, this may well be a price worth paying; but it's worth taking some time to decide if that's really the case for you.
Since about 1965, the left has done everything they can to upend the traditional early pairing of men and women.
Now we live in dystopia.
I see decline of early marriage as more of a lateral/upstream thing to leftism, they don't really attack it directly.
It might just be the media and social circles I’ve been around, but there is a common refrain amongst them along the lines of “girls, you are dumb if you get married young. Live your life, build a career, explore your sexual horizons, and learn things about yourself before you even consider letting a man be a part of your future.”
Some say the same to men, but through women an entire future is destroyed if they follow that advice. Not so much for men.
Sex and the City was considered an aspiration to many young women around the 2000s. The show Girls was about the same. It’s so common now that it’s a trope in most modern media.
It’s not far removed from the portrayal of mothers, and motherhood, as a burdensome or an outright prison sentence (e.g. Tully).
I file that under “direct assault,” since women are especially susceptible to media manipulation, but they won’t know the error of it until the damage is permanent. Since “young marriage” is dependent on both men and women being young, spoiling one group spoils the whole aspiration.
And from this radical change we now have the viral “I’m ready to settle down” memes — typically showing a fruit having rotted on the vine, but it it self-assured in its “being ready” to be treated as though its value is peaking, now that it has thoroughly debased itself.
All good points. Redpill types all understand that being unmarried by age 30 is strongly undesirable for women, yet have absurd excuses for why it is good for men, and have delusions that single men over 30 are more desirable.
You have such good taste in anime, Rikka from Chunibyo is indeed very cute.
Don't get married at all, it's male slavery.
This is retarded. Read the Bible.
That's a bad reply man. Jesus was at best neutral on marriage and at worst, against it. Which is why Paul had to rewrite everything to make it palatable, it's also why Christians love their apocrypha and is vastly more read and quite than the gospel . Telling a person to read the Bible does nothing here because it actually supports his view, not yours. See you have to go to church to learn you are supposed to ignore all the parts of the Bible that bothers you and that everyone in the Bible takes precedent over Jesus himself.
The bible id a pack of lies demon worshipper
Consult a priest, you might need an exorcism. You seem to be spewing blatantly sinful lies about marriage.
Consult a psychologist demon worshoppet, I'll never support your child rape cult!
You're lying again
Seek a psychologist you child raping demon worshipper
Spanish Civil War anarchists in Barcelona thought formal marriage was irrational and replaced it with "free unions" to promote equality. The result: babies born to absentee fathers with no obligations to them. They reversed course and instituted "revolutionary marriage," finally understanding why a formal measure found in every civilization up to then wasn't irrational at all.
Plenty of men want to get married because they want to have children and don't want to be the first in their extended family for ages to say "My [sexual partner] and I are expecting a child" rather than "My wife and I."
Would you tell your little niece that if she wants to get married someday, she just wants to enslave a man? Would you tell her it's a good idea to have a child out of wedlock with a man who says marriage is shackles?
I told my daughter marrying a man is enslaving him you retarded twat.
No need for the slurs, sheesh; I'm just surprised to hear this. If she has your grandchild out of wedlock, what obligation does the father have to stay in the picture? And if a man proposes to her, must she tell him, "No, don't marry me"?
Only a retarded twat demands men take care of fefails!
I wouldn't say men have any obligations toward women when there are no children in the picture nor any intention of there being any. But children deserve to be born into stability. Without marriage, the concern is not that women will abandon the children, but that men will (as we've seen), so of course the restraint looks asymmetrical.
Crazy work to lump your daughter in with the term "fefails."
Even with children men have no obligation to youe kind, we're replacing you creatures with robo waifus so my son never has to put up with one of you!
Great article
Of course there are downsides! Options have value: once you marry one person, you cannot marry the better choice you meet (and fall madly in love with) later - or at least not without wreaking havoc in your own, your spouse's and your children's lives. People learn what's important to them and are less likely to be drawn into marriage by youthful infatuation (especially one based purely on sexual attraction).
There are also downsides to marrying at all - not for everyone, but for some people. Given the huge cultural bias in favor of marriage, discovering that you are "not the marrying kind" takes considerable time. Once again, if you discover this only after being married for some years, there is no way to fix the problem.
And, if you are in the traditionally male role (and doubly so if you are a man), the legal implications of marriage are truly breathtaking. If your spouse chooses they can make you pay for a lifestyle you can just about support - or go to jail, no less! - but not let you share in it. You are in a relationship in which you have onerous and binding obligations to your spouse, who in turn has... absolutely no obligations whatsoever to you (if it were any other kind of contract it would be called "unconscionable"). That creates a profound imbalance in negotiating power in the relationship, even if your spouse does keep you around. Of course, if having children is the most important thing in your life, this may well be a price worth paying; but it's worth taking some time to decide if that's really the case for you.
What is your definition of early marriage? As soon as legal or something else?
Under 25 for men, maybe under 22 for women. But also just below the current average which is 30 in a lot of places
Thank you - what would be too young? In Scotland it is 16 although that is not common.