What are some books that go into detail explaining why marriage is an archaic concept and should be abolished?

it's supra-homosexual, like how raping a guy in prison is not technically gay

Can we finally put the wage gap myth to rest now?

It's a very real thing.

How so?

Penetrating a man is technically homosexual by definition.

By keeping them confined to a single relationship and it goes against sexual liberation.

>Not sure if you're asking from a Scientific point of view or just in general in literature. Scientifically idk but
You would have a hard time getting science to do that, given that studies show that marriage is actually good for society.

I love how it's framed as a women's problem. Unbelievable how misandric society has become.

Obvious troll

At least you admit defeat.

Yeah, I thought you were not a troll and answered seriously.

Exactly. It needs to be abolished ASAP.

Attached: image.jpg (333x499, 31K)

Money should be abolished, not marriage

>le evil men
No, it’s not.

>pic
It’s capitalism! Fucking liberal press
W/e. It’s just a headline

Attached: 342651DD-3F3C-42C4-A9C8-472794AFC568.png (470x723, 167K)

What is the book about

the gender wage gap would be more accurately referred to as the "gender earnings gap," because the gap is due mostly to choices women make and not discrimination

It’s just an essay explaining marriage as a simple legal contract from a church or a state authority, and how humans ought to be able to fall in love and out freely, as they tend to do now despite the legal encumbrance

Oof, that movie depressed me. I don't think I'm cut out for marriage.

Marriage is good for your skin

>how humans ought to be able to fall in love and out freely, as they tend to do now
And how did that work out?

>(((Frishberg)))
Every single time.

>What are some books that confirm by biases?

(((Hannah Frishberg)))

Bring back the dowry.

Fuck your civilization. As if it is something wonderful. We saw the result. By the way it is the opposite, as usual. Civilization destroyed the primitive family, the Gens.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gens

>phoneposter thinks that Romans were before civilization
im not really surprised

Civilization didn't appear everywhere at the same time. The Germans were still barbarian around the 5-6 century CE. The point is, when civilization appears, it dissolves the ancient family structure were all people from a same family share resources and are a tight knit group, So stop saying that family is the foundation of civilization, when more civilization equals less family.

Just because you're ridden around town like a bike doesn't mean everybody else is

She's a virgin :3

always at it with the terrible takes. why cant we get a good tripfag like dinotendies?

Why should you voluntarily enter into an agreement which brings you a number of vague obligations and legal expectations, but no real advantages save for some small tax benefits and other minor things

Marriage should be a somewhat complex agreement, with compulsory representations and warranties prior to signing, plus information, financial, and other kinds covenants to be respected over the life the of the contract, the breach of which could constitute an event upon which the other party may freely terminate the contract at no cost. For example, one's spouse being discovered to be in a much worse financial situation than had been disclosed at the time the contract was signed could be grounds for termination, or being discovered to be infertile when a clause existed that stipulated that the couple would have at least one child. Periodical disclosure of expenses made during a quarter would be an example of a typical covenant.

Marriage in its current form is obsolete. Nobody pretends to believe it's some kind of holy sacrament to be respected out of religious faith anymore, so let's treat it with legal seriousness instead.

This is your brain on Economism. You reduce everything to an economic transaction and then end up wondering why you are a miserable fucker.

Marriage is outdated because it is an institution made for a different kind of society. Marriage exists to bind men and women together to create stable households which can produce well-socialized children with relatively little help from the outside. These children are inducted into the customs and traditions of the society and their craft. They help out on the farm. They eventually move out and start their own family. Society sustains itself.

A modern liberal society needs none of that. It doesn't need subjects or citizens. Merely consumers. They can be anything or anyone. New consumers can move in from elsewhere. Official institutions exist to teach children to respect property rights and get a job - which are the only values that really matter to a liberal society - and keep them busy while the parent or parents are at work.

No, this is making the obligations of marriage clear as opposed to ambiguous, so they can actually be enforced.

Guess how happy is the marriage from someone who thinks marriage has
>no real advantages save for some small tax benefits and other minor things
and that it should be
>complex agreement, with compulsory representations and warranties prior to signing, plus information, financial, and other kinds covenants to be respected over the life the of the contract, the breach of which could constitute an event upon which the other party may freely terminate the contract at no cost.

Because it is an economic transaction retard, it's called being pragmatic and reforming institutions to work in a contemporary environment. Your romantic and religious larp passed it's expiration date is what got us in this situation in the first place. Nobody gives a fuck about your idealistic delusions on something as gay as marriage

He's probably from /his/ where they really don't know anything about history.

>Because it is an economic transaction
Yeah, look at it that way. This will totally work well in real life.

Epub plox

If you want to be a sentimentalist surrounded by cutthroat self-interest, be my guest, but don't ask me to quite as keen on shooting my own foot.

I'm sure your romance novels and image board fueled idea on what constituted historical marriages will help you cope when you're divorced raped after raising Tyrone's son for a few years. I bet you'll be happy

I can't tell if this is satire or you're really this retarded. "Real life" deems it as an economic transaction the push to move it more in the domain of law is a reaction to this, not the other way around. Literally look at the picture that started this thread. Westerners are reverting back to the original intention of marriage after the failure of the romantics to fit into a new world

This is not really about sentimentalism or romance.
Monogamous marriages are good because they are a good environment for your family. It is not because of tax breaks or anything like that. Being raised in a stable environment by your two biological parents give you plenty of advantages.
Looking at marriage as some financial contract to be broken at will will lead to weaker families and unhappier people, including those that marry. Looking at everything in life as an economic transaction (including something as important as your family) is not something that will lead to a happy life.

The current form of marriage works so well in real life, you have astronomic divorce rates all over the developed world.

The original intention of marriage is "family", not autistically looking at tax breaks or treating it as a contract that should be broken at will.

The current form of marriage, where it is all about romantic love obviously does not work well. But your idea of making it into an economic transaction would work even worse.

You draft contracts so that obligations aren't "broken at will". One incentivises good marital behaviour by stipulating precisely what the penalty for bad behaviour will be.

And why do you constantly bring up the tax breaks that were initially mentioned as an example of something insignificant?

youtu.be/sfkmV-BqBNs?t=459
Spengler predicted all of this already. Yet, in your infinite hubris, many of continue to mock him and call him Spenglet. Never underestimate the power of pure German autism.

Attached: jhr-17-2-stimely1-l.jpg (1051x1600, 321K)

>This is not really about sentimentalism or romance.

Yes it is because you believe these vague ideas will be a strong glue in an era with heavier loads
>Monogamous marriages are good because they are a good environment for your family. It is not because of tax breaks or anything like that. Being raised in a stable environment by your two biological parents give you plenty of advantages.
>Looking at marriage as some financial contract to be broken at will will lead to weaker families and unhappier people, including those that marry.

Wrong, looking at marriage as a financial contract with severe penalties for breaking will insure stable monogamous relationships. You need to fit the motivator of hard work like this with the contemporary zeitgeist which is money and social status. People will not get into those relationships with the prize being fleeting feelings. That strategy only worked among the common people for a very short time period in Western history due to financial decadence.
>Looking at everything in life as an economic transaction (including something as important as your family) is not something that will lead to a happy life.

Thinking that seeing marriage as an economic transaction in order to forge the initial bonds will make you unhappy must mean you believe nearly all married humans in human history were unhappy

I took the Spengler pill years ago and I'm never going back.

In the post that originated this, you (or someone else said)
>no real advantages save for some small tax benefits

This is not the real advantage of marriage. The real advantage of marriage is that it is great for the well being of your sons and daughters compared to other arrangements. That's why it is important. If you look at your family in a "what do I gain from this" mood, you will be a lousy husband/wife and parent. And likely an unhappy one, as well.

Fuck off and di(lat)e, disgusting pig.

Attached: 7E54699B-9171-42E8-897D-1AD9C7842B03.jpg (641x480, 44K)

Why am I not surprised butterfly is a femcel

>no real advantages save for some small tax benefits and other minor things
Wow, if only you had read the rest of the sentence, you might have understood that "tax benefits" were never taken to be some great gain at all.

The purpose of this legalism is to make it so that no party can take advantage of the other without incurring in serious legal consequences. You see this from a solely financial perspective because you want to do so.

>Yes it is because you believe these vague ideas will be a strong glue in an era with heavier loads
Changing the way people look at marriage is how you will make them stronger. Looking at it like a romantic or like an economist will make them weaker. Economists are not exactly sages on how to live a good life.

>Wrong, looking at marriage as a financial contract with severe penalties for breaking will insure stable monogamous relationships. You need to fit the motivator of hard work like this with the contemporary zeitgeist which is money and social status. People will not get into those relationships with the prize being fleeting feelings. That strategy only worked among the common people for a very short time period in Western history due to financial decadence.
Your idea will only strengthen this zeitgeist that makes marriages weaker and people unhappy.

>Thinking that seeing marriage as an economic transaction in order to forge the initial bonds will make you unhappy must mean you believe nearly all married humans in human history were unhappy
Humans didn't think like 21st century economists who see everything in life as an economic contract.

This take is spot on the money unironically

You are looking at marriages from an individualistic point of view, which is not a good idea, given it is about family. And you didn't recognize any of the true benefits of marriage.

Tell me, in your view why people should marry? What makes for a happy marriage? What makes people happy?

The bloomer
The doomer

Alright, this video has convinced me to read Spengler
Where do I begin and who are his major influences

>and how humans ought to be able to fall in love and out freely
what the fuck are you talking about butters? you're telling me women "fall in love" with the 100 random chads that dick them every month? alright whatever you say

I lost my job right as I was getting serious with my wife. If you're not a piece of shit then she'll understand. The problem is women want you to be complete before they even go on the first fucking date. If you're an ambitious person and you're not about living average, sometimes you may fall. The best women understand this.

You really are completely incapable of addressing what people actually say, preferring to attack the strawmen you accuse of being overly materialistic, and repeat platitudes with the tone of a sanctimonious seminarist. Continue this discussion by yourself.

I don't really get this right now. I'm 22, broke, living with my mom, just right now about to start university and a business and I have no trouble with woman. Most of them are around my age but even then, I get with older accomplished woman too. Last girl I was fucking was a 32 year old doctor. She literally made 12x my income. The typical male female dynamics didn't change either. Maybe this would change with marriage

I'm 23, self-employed, no college, and make over six figures a year, but I'm a virgin. I wish I was a poor Chad instead.

yer lucky. all i can find are chicks with 3 kids and serious drug addictions who demand me to have an occupation, my own home, and a perfect body before they'll let me sniff their perfume from afar.

Handsome dudes who pretend they have no idea why other guys have trouble getting laid must be the funniest dudes on the planet

It was the same with me. My saving grace was not being a complete scumbag, having good values, and being relatively good-looking. You can do very well playing towards your strengths.
You're attracting that, so look in the mirror at some point and see what it is you can do to improve your standing.

He's most definitely good looking.

>You're attracting that, so look in the mirror at some point and see what it is you can do to improve your standing.
lol wut
>and being relatively good-looking
that's literally it, you could be a douche and you'd still get women fuck off dumb good looking sex haver

I was literally told the other day I would not get away with half the shit I do if not for my looks. Women do not like assholes unless you're a beefy male model looking type (rare). I most certainly am not.
Go to the gym and practice being a halfway decent person.

it's a fact that women prefer assholes over good men to fuck them but prefer to settle for domesticated betabuxxers once their ovaries start drying out
low inhibition is a positive trait and good looks drastically amplify your appeal to women when combined with it

>Go to the gym and practice being a halfway decent person.
lol cringe retard advice

Going to the gym won't made you anymore handsome.

But you are being materialistic in your posts. And individualistic.
But to give you an opportunity to prove me wrong, tell me the non-materialistic, non-individualistic view on why people should marry.

>Humans didn't think like 21st century economists who see everything in life as an economic contract.
Buddy I don't know how to break this to you, but you might want to look into the history of mairrage. It is, was, and has been an political and economic arrangement

It did have an economic side, but the telos of marriage was family. It was not an issue of two people who wished to have a childless marriage where they make an economic contract.

And the face isn't the end all be all. Any more excuses?

face is most important by far but can somewhat be made up for with lots of money, good frame, gym (if normie or above normie face to start with), plastic surgery, etc.

I don't think I've ever seen the word "Spenglet" before.

Capitalism and the residuals of Christianity put undue strain on the situation. But people generally need to learn the truth about love in all its facets.

To each their own. I recommend the Bergman comedy Smiles of a Summer Night. It shows four different kinds of couples love for each other. It’s delightful really. See it.

What is this even supposed to mean?

Stop watching porn

butters look I love you but you're retarded now let me get some pusy or fuck off

>get some pusy

But she's right: this mentality is part of the PROBLEM.

The goal of life is not money nor sex, it's love. :3

Its easy to criticize something when it is commonplace. It is easy to give accolades to something that is not.

love is sex

>love is sex
AAHHHHHHHHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH

cope

There are lots of different kinds of love. The kind that leads to sex, eros, is only one.

Though Smiles of a Summer Night shows four different types/reactions to it

see
boyo

You must be 15 years old to think love = sex.

Grow. Up.

I'm not sure if you're retarded or genuinely so much of a small-souled bugman that this is an accurate assessment of the world around you.

>MUH LOVE and FAMILY DUTY Tradition SSSSOULL GODD
all of these fantasies are a result of marriage, not the cause of marriage. Nobody gave a fuck about any of that when getting married for 99% of human history beyond cultural flair and traits of ritual, marriage was a result of necessity. The short anomaly of European and american history where survival did not depend on marriage those soulful motivations were left to stand on its own, and over the decades they have only proven themselves to be a failure as a reality tethering bind for monogamy. God, tradition, and duty were the fiction human beings needed in order to justify their actions, including marriage, in maintaining civilization and the disconnect of it from the eternal present. What is a viable alternative to those failures in a world where the need for survival is gradually increasing is the reversion of motivations for marriage back to economic necessity. Continuing your outdated LARP will only accelerate the degradation of monogamy. Why is this so difficult for you retards to understand? You think like a woman. Imagine being so pathetic you think marriage is a source of happiness and not a necessary sacrifice for the healthy survival of your community

Emotional bonding and sex go hand and hand. You can't really be friends or love someone in the right way unless you become one by being as physically intimate as you can. I.E. If you aren't fucking your bros, you aren't really friends.

Me and Butterfly were fighting against people who don't believe in love :33

What the fuck?
1/10

Hey, I’m down with having a bunch of filial friends who let slip into eros every once in a while, but it’s not a requirement

Attached: 84C4DACB-4FAF-44CA-8B3F-CB358ABE689D.jpg (1500x1175, 830K)

FWB is one of my least favorite tropes in society, butterfly.

I would appreciate it if you didn't do that, thank you. :3

I already told you about my coworker and I, dumb dumb

>fucking your coworkers
holy shit this is almost as bad an idea as marrying your high school crush

Marriage is a very useful institution. The primary function is to divide the wealth after the death of one spouse, to the other (and of course inheritance to the children)

The liberals response, ladies and gentlememes

there exists in human beings a bonding mechanism by which two people form a psychological bond of trust, willingness to sacrifice for each other, and fear of or discomfort when separating. This is evident when mothers hold their baby infants, since infants are entirely unpleasant and needy, the bond must be strong and fast acting, forming in the mother through the release of dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin primarily. this same mixture of hormones and neurotransmitters is released during sex. now, I'm not certain if there is much data in regards to what I'm about to say next, but it seems practically unavoidable that if this bonding mechanism is engaged, and then the bond is broken in repeated episodes with multiple people, the effectiveness of the bond in that person will become diminished. I believe our current western societies are experiencing the effects of large scale breakdowns of the ability of individuals (particularly women) to pair bond at all. the brunt of the effect of this is had on the children of such individuals, as not only will the parents bond with the child be weakened, there won't be a healthy role model type relationship between the mother and father. marriage was a cultural layer to solidify and maintain pair bonds for the mental health of the participants in addition to the myriad of other benefits associated with long term coupling. unfortunately, with the proliferation of promisuousness as well as the erosion of legal barriers to divorce, the current institution of marriage is a farce, a bad joke, a mockery of what it once was. it is as though someone took the corpse of this once great and respectable cultural phenomenon and is stringing up the skeleton to dance and jig, to the horror of all. god help us, for this is the fall of western civilization

>capitalism
anyone who thinks this is somehow at fault for a societies woes is redline retarded. Its not a system of government or religion that needs to be shilled or implemented. Its just what happens when people are allowed voluntary trade.

/lit has the highest ratio of psyop/AI training/data mining threads of any board (in the absence of pol). And its because you flambouyant bundles of sticks can't not-reply without forgetting to sage.

>implying voluntary trade ever exists
there is always a power imbalance, and the more wealth is concentrated, the more an imbalance exists. capitalism leads to a hyper concentration of wealth

marriage is necessary to uphold the reproduction and continued value of human generation. without construct, we will degenerate to animals.

>implying zoomers and other newfags know what a sage is or does
rip sage and noko

>But your idea of making it into an economic transaction would work even worse.
Divorce is already a massive econmic liability for men. Why shouldn't the contract itself be economic in nature if women can initiate a nightmarish punishment for the men on a whim as it currently stands?

Capitalism is more than just trade, dingbat.

Probably some 20th century feminism/secularism. Marriage actually is vital for a society and that people don't get married anymore is the biggest reason that 30% of young men are incels.

Attached: maleVirginity.png (1128x858, 198K)

Climate change and poisoned foods have a lot to do with this

Attached: DDCEFE38-3BCD-4B18-AAAD-9EA5A6C8DD05.jpg (313x475, 49K)

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (210x240, 11K)

Why would anyone with half a brain choose to marry woman of today ?

>everybody is as unhappy and rootless as I am and it's been that way forever
Bugman it is. History most be so very strange to you, with all these people willing to suffer and die for these things they're pretending to believe in.
Tell me, have you been married yourself? In a long-term relationship? Did your parents stay together? Did your mother go back to work?

Fuck civilization, culture is the future.

Voltairine is based but the "marriage is an oppressive institution" routine is really an outdated point. Anarchists should really think a little bit more about how their historical struggles wrt lifestyles and morals have been finally really congruent with postmodern, 21th century-Capital

>Capitalism and the residuals of Christianity put undue strain on the situation. But people generally need to learn the truth about love in all its facets.
Romantic infatuation, hooking up and serial monogamy do not constitute love. The Christian church unironically got love right, but you degenerates have never experienced love, never seen love play out in front of your eyes, and are incapable of giving love. That being said the West was built on monogamy, regardless of the influence of the church or the boogeyman capitalism that for some reason seems to be of importance here (but I know that with leftoids capitalism somehow ALWAYS plays a role, even when we are talking about 2500 years of history).

>That being said the West was built on monogamy
The last few thousand years of it, sure. Not before then. Before then, you had patriarchal war tribes mixing with other tribes by force for millennia, building the network of various Indo-European races we have today. Those genes still exist in us.

Because they're still kin
Because you have a drive for it
Because it's partly your responsibility as much as hers to build each other up
Because you know you want to find someone compatible to love and die with

Note that I'm not supporting institutionalized marriage, but marriage as in a condition of the heart, a spiritual covenant between two individuals.

So what? Its still voluntary trade. Its literally default human behaviour. There isnt a system of society or government that hasnt been fashioned around it.

The West was built the last few thousand years.

It's much older than just a few thousand years, genetically speaking.

but you get to fulfil zero of those wants with marriage

Not true. Monogamy grants the relationship and everything about it the highest significance possible.

Not as a Civilization.

based

marriage of today is nothing but just hedging your bets if you're a woman and playing russian roulette blindfolded while letting someone else handle the gun as a man.

Not exactly, and you're still ignoring an aspect of our genetic makeup that civilization doesn't override.

Well, that's why I said I wasn't talking about institutionalized marriage.

the real question is who cares if you're married or in some "alternative" arrangement that's the same thing

>before they let me
stop that dishusting sub mentality right fucking now

Major influences are Goethe and Nietzsche. Start with Decline, dont fall for the abridged meme

>Not exactly, and you're still ignoring an aspect of our genetic makeup that civilization doesn't override.
Yes, it is. Western Civilization as we know it is not older than a few thousand years.

Funny how they argued that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed if the faggots were allowed it.
And now here we are, but a few years later, arguing that marriage is no longer sanctimonious.

Not with a bang, but with a wimper.

>everybody is as unhappy
Did not once comment on general happiness of historical people only it's place as the sole expectation of contemporary marriage, try again and address the argument
>and rootless as I am and it's been that way forever
Did not once comment on anything to do with "rootless" individuals. But I can tell you're just critiquing the characteristics of internet bottomfeeder buzzword you so desperately want to pigeon hold me in order to discredit and not formulate an actual argument. Try again
>Bugman it is.
Pathetic
>History most be so very strange to you,
I'm finishing my final year masters in early modern history of the middle East. It's been a pretty consistent obsession throughout my life so I can confidently say that history isn't strange to me. Nice try though
>with all these people willing to suffer and die for these things they're pretending to believe in.
"Pretending to believe in" when did I say any of this? Those "things" on the local scale (relevant to the discussion of marriage) are narrative and language personifications for immediate and concrete means, only applied after the desire arises to maintain the legitimatcy of it's power in the single mind. Larger concepts discussed like governance and war, requiring the temporary destruction of the individual and it's needs for the vast majority of it's participants, are rituals of personification to expand and preserve civilization as a collective by achieving it's current needs on the material plane. All of this is ingrained in human behavior since the gradual increase of consciousness. Our cut off from the enternal present, the introductions of self aware ponderings, demanded a need for external concepts to narrate survival. The growth of cultures leads to the uses of the individual becoming more abstract and away from observable reality. Most collapse when overcomplexity makes it stray to far from immediate survival and people do merely "pretend". At this point in western history, we're past that already when it comes to traditional cultural collective norms, however economic necessity is not a concept that people pretend to care about, it is a genuine belief in a time characterized by the removal of spiritual personifications. The result of this removal shows itself in the symptom of marriage. You not liking it doesn't make a difference, we are discussing how to make monogomous marriages viable in the 21st century, not complain like a little bitch and wish for different circumstances. Your LARP will only make things worse
>Tell me, have you been married yourself? In a long-term relationship? Did your parents stay together? Did your mother go back to work?
Divorce is taboo in my culture still

Attached: 1280px-Interior_of_the_House_of_a_Christian_Family_in_Jerusalem.jpg (1280x987, 621K)

i bet you thought you said something there

>dub dubs
Checked and rp

Attached: Screenshot_20190711-150710_Internet.jpg (1067x1534, 699K)

You are living in the allegorical cave. You are outside a culture you have never touched and are certain doesn't exist.

>describe an extremely large, complex allegorical cave that has recently been abandoned
>"you are in an allegorical cave"
if you are currently alive and have an iq above 90 you are already out of the first allegorical cave by the existence of media, and if you're a faggot who thinks he figured out the dimensions of the planetary cave I'll say wrong weakling, stop creating shadow puppet shows for yourself outside
>Outside culture
If you're a westerner or from East Asia please kill yourself

>Certain doesn't exist
The whole comment is about WHY culture exists retard. You are equalizing the analysis of the literal dictation and output of a culture, using different interpretations to understand the reasoning and structure of it through historical evidence, as denying it's existence. That is like saying a chemists deny the existence of chemicals. And somebody treating culture and history as a static science to be analyzed through investigation is the result of a purely western european phenomenon, possibly the most blatant display of it's culture developed through centuries of Christianity, the commercial revolution, and the enlightenment. You're a big dummy

Go get checked for mental retardation or autism. How do you believe this is an appropriate response not befitting of humiliation? When I say that the West was built on civilization, 'the West' refers to Western CIVILIZATION, which is understood to start with the Greeks at the earliest and the Romans at the latest (the concept of 'the West' didn't exist before this).

Of course before humans settled and built civilization we did not exist in monogamous households, as households did not even exist.

That being said, even regardless of that your post is incorrect.

>Before then, you had patriarchal war tribes mixing with other tribes by force for millennia, building the network of various Indo-European races we have today. Those genes still exist in us.

Prehistoric life, before humans settled in agricultural communes, was incredibly peaceful. Only once we started competing for resources did the history of human warfare start and explode. Nomadic societies were in fact not patriarchal, this was a mere prevailing stereotype that anthropology has started to overcome many years ago. From all we know, tribal societies lived (and do live) in large family-like polyamorous arrangements (likely out of necessity).

Your rage reveals the truth of your fear. You know it's possible for there to be another experience beyond your own limited gaze.

There is. And you will never touch it without sacrificing in ways you're terrified to contemplate.

>Your rage reveals the truth of your fear
Lmao imagine typing this out and thinking people will not ridicule you for expecting that to stand as a statement
>You know it's possible for there to be another experience beyond your own limited gaze.
Literally not saying anything but you're retarded enough to believe that sounds intelligent and is actually making a point beyond "u wrong bcuz I say"
>There is. And you will never touch it without sacrificing in ways you're terrified to contemplate.
go contemplate your higher thoughts and come back to me an actual argument

>Your rage reveals the truth of your fear.

Attached: Reddit_Armie.jpg (600x600, 34K)

You're trying to convince a man standing in the sun that darkness is eternal. The shallowness of your existence is painfully obvious in everything you write. From the flat ignorance of the possibility of meaningful relationships to the instinctive recoiling from poetic language.

>You're trying to convince a man standing in the sun
On 4channel
>that darkness is eternal
No I'm not, we're all in the fucking sun now, now we're trying to figure out wtf it is. And GREAT! Nobody is stopping you. If you figured out a way to disapprove and move beyond the current parameters of human existence with an actual argument that isn't "I TRULY BELIEVE IN OLDER CULTURAL NODES therefore you're wrong" you might just be the most important human mind since Jesus Christ. Enlighten me oh wise one. I bet you still think finding the immediate human needs behind the larger cultural concepts of history somehow negates the genuinity of the historical person's belief in it, or even denying the possibility of it happening in yourself.
>The shallowness of your existence is painfully obvious in everything you write.
Likewise
>From the flat ignorance of the possibility of meaningful relationships to the instinctive recoiling from poetic language.
You're such a fucking retard it's astounding. Also
>Institution of marriage=all meaningful relationships

>gamer thinks he has an opinion worth posting on the internet for others to listen to

lol

Gravity's Rainbow

>Poetic
t..th...that's your poetry user? Am I supposed to find it insightful? Why should anybody give a fuck and accept it when the meaning is banal and says nothing relevant to the discussion other than jerking yourself off and the complete disregard for any aesthetics to at least make it bearable. You're not being obscure, we all know what that post is saying, that's exactly why it's obvious you're a dummy

In this moment, I feel euphoric

your understanding of pre-history is retarded.

Culture was the past. We won't live to see another culture blossom.