Can the esteemed intellectuals of Yea Forums use their extensive philosophical knowledge to disprove my following conviction?
>The institution of marriage is outdated. It served a rudimentary function of simple preservation - women needed men for protection (both physical and social), men needed women as housekeepers and producers of offspring to plow the fields after them. The idea of romantic love appeared long after marriage was established as a custom, and, in it's turn, served a function of perpetuation. With countries growing more and more industrialized, men became less dependent on their immediate child-slaves, and soon, perhaps unwittingly, came to realisation that they don't 'truly' need women, who, by all rational accounts, are weak and intellectually inferior to bear any real functional value besides their biological role. Thus the idea of romantic love was born to preserve female status in the world, by imbuing it with near-mystical, transcendental quality of being 'objects of love'. But such fickle illusion can only sustain itself for so long, and has no place in modernity, making marriage a vestigal relic no longer necessary to mankind.
If you're an atheist, there is no reason to marry except that you might think it will make you less lonely to live life with someone.
Gavin White
>The idea of romantic love This reads as spergy
Blake Robinson
Love is similar to religion, it's a Stirner spook. That being said, that's a much more interesting take than the misogyny, though to be fair, I really can say you'd disprove yourself by falling in love, which I don't recommend.
Adam Peterson
The metaphysical aspect of the same caveman ideas you mention still exist.
>Women want men for protection This is still true. A good police force will still show up five minutes after you call about a suspected home intruder; a husband is ready to defend his house in two seconds.
For a working woman, having a man means she does not need to be mannish to survive; this is good for selfesteem. Also, there are some things that dont naturally occur to women because they dont think like that. Ditto for men.
Marriage is good for building a foundation of trust by which a woman can wholeheartedly rely on these benefits.
>Men still want women for housekeeping. Men want women they can trust not to cuck them. Again, the marriage contract is the institutional basis.
As for golddiggery and greencard whores, these are exploiters of the institution, same as everywhere else. Men just need not to be brainlets about the matter. Its no cooincidence that a lot of golddiggery occurs among professional jocks.
Kayden Foster
Women need protection from men. Men do not protect women, men are the danger. Most women who are raped or beaten will be raped or beaten by their partner
Ian Harris
Epictetus said if you get mad when your wife cucks you, it's because you value her too much.
Isaiah Clark
Don't help him do his homework
Leo Reed
Marriage is not outdated. Children raised by their two biological parents do better in many dimensions than others. Romantic love/infactuation is a "chemical" process in the brain
Mason James
Men get angry when cucked because it shames and humiliates them. They're weaklings that allow a woman to control their sense of self-worth, such that if that woman does not behave properly, then their own worth as a man is denigrated. Anyone who would get mad about being cucked is a cuck from the start. Getting mad about a mere women is the most pathetic thing you can do.
Christopher Jackson
Women have a bone in their brain that grows if they're not married by the age of 29. This bone presses against their brain and makes them go crazy. This is basic science.
Dylan Davis
Question answered and we can all fuck off. Do you want to raise children in some environment that doesn't involve them living with their actual mother? If we want to involve maternal love in childrearing then is there a more obvious person to help the single mother survive than the actual father of the child? I guess if that couple are going to stay together we might want some sort of institutional marker for their status. Oh shit, that might be why basically all advanced societies came up with their own variant on marriage! Fucks sake.
Kevin Lewis
>Marriage >Children raised by their two biological parents Funny how you seamlessly conflated the two. Heh, you're pretty good, kid, but don't make me use more than 10% of my power, or else I might remind you on Plato's Republic and communal methods of raising children which are devoid in the current system of public life.
William Green
>women, who, by all rational accounts, are weak and intellectually inferior Hello incel
Robert Cruz
Most of what you say is right op, and even slightly obvious. There is also a social function or marriage that appears for instance in a few works of anthropology (see Lévi-Strauss). However you didn't mention that usually marriage did NOT imply being faithful to your wife or husband. As a consequence I don't agree with your following statement: >the idea of romantic love was born to preserve female status in the world It rather seems to me that romantic love has always existed but did not match marriage. Romantic love develops in the field of adultery. There has been a short period of time in which people have believed that romantic love and marriage could come together, which is naive and now outdated. Also - one of the reasons why marriage does not fulfill any essential role nowadays is equality. Women work, and they have come to believe that not working would be remaining inferior. What destroyed marriage probably started in the 18th century when all men (and that started to slowly include women more and more clearly) were recognized to be equals. It would be very interesting to read and study the bits of Aristotle's Ethics where love of a man and a woman is said to be 'natural' because each of them nees each other to properly perform their function. In order to be a good father, I need my wife to be a good mother; and having children makes us a perfect couple. These ideas are not so usual nowadays.
Cameron Cook
>communal methods of raising children I have a four page long footnote for you to read.
>Plato's Republic In your view, a central authority should once a year select the best people in society to breed and then raise them without anyone knowing who are their parents?
Charles Mitchell
If losing half of your shit impacts your life you're already losing at life
Ian Wood
It's not a perfect system, but far superior to marriage
Christian Cooper
Source: your ass
Jaxson Jackson
That was highly interesting, thanks
Aaron Morgan
This is so flawed it hurts: >entire thesis hinged upon misogyny >entirely focused on human perspective and only using "biology" to add a falsely logical argument about protection and reproduction >you convolute every point with flowery, abstract language that does nothing to help to help strengthen your thesis, only your ego >you confuse the institution of marriage (social) and prolonged mating (biological) >you argue modernity and industrialization as being factors in "not needing women outside of a biological context" but fail to explain how one drives the other >your points are extremely opinionated and fail to show correlation to each other >your rhetoric is bad
Also in defense of marriage, I would argue that in most animal clades that are k-reproducers (such as greater apes) that biparental care shows a significant impact in offspring survival and success. Humans do not produce many children at once so it makes more sense to have both parents invest in taking care of offspring. But that is only prolonged mating. The institution of marriage is extremely important in our societal framework. Im not gonna write an entire explanation, there are books on the subject, but suffice it to say that: married couples with offspring are less of a percieved threat to communities (think about archetypes of creepy single men (as perverts or monsters) and woman (as witches), sets a constraint for biparental care which ensures sufficient upbringing of kids (ie: increased household funds, more attention for child (which is psychologically important to developmemt)), and decreased in conspecific rivalries as we accept that married individuals are for the most part off limits to bachelors.
I assume youre an incel, brainlet who read a few philosophical books and decided to write "muh feelings" without any research on the subject matter and it shows. Dont respond to this because I wont respond back :^)
William Wilson
Much misogyny, such homosexuality But I agree, for different reasons, that the institution of marriage is outdated
Jordan Jenkins
I liked it and think people should read it so have an attention grabbing photo
Can you prove your claim that women are intellectually inferior to men? The average IQ for men and women is the same. The only difference is that the female graph is much narrower than that of males, meaning men have more geniuses than women but also more idiots (e.g. OP)
Charles Cook
I wonder what the implications of this style of analysis would be if applied to a race of sentient birds. I wonder if a drake would try to slip his mistress's eggs into his wife's nest. Information would be more symmetrical between men and women, so maybe punishments for adultery would have more sexual parity. There would also be a natural birth control mechanism, so perhaps there would be different attitudes towards rape.
I think if you are to dispense with something that stands at the base of society you must have a self evidently correct alternative. None exists. What you said isn't false but it is not indicative that the alternative is better. Marriage is majorly beneficial to children and that is reason enough to engage in it. Also I am led to believe that a great deal of reluctance towards marriage stems from (1) weakness and/or (2) lack of desirableness. If you can logically find a self evident set of reasons to forgo marriage that are not weak and/or don't have to due with the fact that you're a detestable faggot that no one would want to spend their life with....then go for it. But you can't. so...
Michael Hill
>The only difference is that the female graph is much narrower than that of males, meaning men have more geniuses than women but also more idiots (e.g. OP) I dont really want to support OP's rambling but doesnt that really just prove that there are more "intelligent" men than women? In fact it also kind of explains the "selector" role women have in society, like we see in many species, were the females are prone to be "average" and centered in their qualities while the males are prone to be more "diversed" for better selection and to compete within themselves and to ensure the species has a large gene pool to ensure more choices of survival. Of course this doesnt mean anything or imply that we need to follow a certain rule.
Economically speaking there are many instances where marriage is necessary to raise a child correctly as many single parents have to choose between neglecting their child or not earning enough to sustain him. All though if the relationship is dysfunctional of course the parents should divorce.
Aaron Sullivan
I don't see how you can argue against this from an evolutionary standpoint. Since the number of women is the bottleneck on how quickly the population can be replaced it makes sense that nature would "roll the dice" with men. As long as you end up with a few genetically superior men they can more than make up for the ones who are genetically undesirable in terms of reproduction.
Lucas Bennett
this.
Alexander Peterson
Honestly dont know if you are agreeing with me or or telling me that im wrong. >As long as you end up with a few genetically superior men they can more than make up for the ones who are genetically undesirable in terms of reproduction. Not really sure we can come to a conclusion about that. There are so many variables and "characteristics" in play. For example height. One could argue that being a manlet can be better since they have more longevity and have less health problems on average. While the other argues that being tall is better since it gives a more dominant status amoung other men, has more physical strength and can also be more prone to higher intelligence (some studies suggest that, not sure) so they are overall better. This is all a complete shit show sometimes.
